- Zuhzuhzombie!!
- Apr 17, 2008
-
FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR
|
Oh hey, I missed out on the new Marxism thread. Hope I haven't missed any of Ronya's posts or the inevitable "Yeah, sure, Socialism is a complete failure but let's assume..." posts.
"Is Marxism dead?"
China, in spite of its problems, is still Marxist as gently caress in their political organizations and planning.
Marxism still heavily influences modern economics.
Marxism Leninism/Maoism is still alive and well in Nepal and India.
Seems to be coming back into vogue in some aspects in the West as well.
Not dead, just haunting.
Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Feb 16, 2015
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 20:17
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2024 19:18
|
|
- Zuhzuhzombie!!
- Apr 17, 2008
-
FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR
|
If you read every post in this thread you will likely wish you were dead
Hit a bunch of random pages and so far it looks to be the same handful of people meat spinning, same arguments that devolve Marxism down to vulgar economics, and BUT STALIN!111.1!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 21:30
|
|
- Zuhzuhzombie!!
- Apr 17, 2008
-
FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR
|
no it isn't
Under efficient, free markets, the price of any commodity will be at equilibrium at the aggregate cost of labour put into procuring said commodity. Obviously the real world isn't efficient, free markets, but that's not really relevant to a lot of what Marx is doing with his theory of value. Marginal utility is essentially an inefficiency, something distorting the desirability of a commodity.
The LTV and marginalism are different ways of looking at the same problem, but they're not essentially incompatible. It's entirely possible to accept a labour theory of value while talking about marginal utility as an empirical influence on prices (Marx does something of the sort when he talks about use-values and so on, though that's more direct utility), and I'm sure marginalism is a more useful definition in contemporary research, but this doesn't mean that either theory inherently rejects the other as such, though many proponents of both will reject the other.
It's important to realise that the LTV implicitly encompasses supply problems in that the raw materials for any given commodity must be located and extracted, etc., and demand in the concept of use-value, like marginalism implicitly encompasses labour time as a component of supply. It's looking at the same system through different lenses, trying to do different things with it - Marx builds a theoretical case for exploitation as well as for the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, most marginalists look at the specific mechanisms of price-setting in empirical situations.
e. reading my post, I'm not super lucid right now. I'm going to bed, and if this is completely incomprehensible give me a howl
Nah, makes enough sense. And you're not wrong, but the LTV isn't easily applicable in most actually currently existing situations.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 02:30
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 20:17
