|
Rated PG-34 posted:Who needs Capital, when you can just read Bloomberg: quote:For decades, macroeconomic models assumed that labor and capital took home roughly constant portions of output -- labor got just a bit less than two-thirds of the pie, capital slightly more than one-third. 
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Also, it seems unlikely at best that one could ever obtain that power without worldwide revolution, and that revolution would require the collective political will to implement something far more drastic than moderate reforms.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'll assume this reflects your objection to anyone trying to interpret Marx from anything other than a Marxist perspective. even if this assumption happens to be true, in your case adopting it only feeds your delusion of adequacy in that regard
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A dividing line between value producers and everyone else is necessary for the basic concept of exploitation and capitalists placement on the unproductive side of the line is what enables the entire concept capitalist exploitation. If we decided that their role was productive (or ceased to draw categorical lines and took things on a case by case basis) that wouldn't be possible. i'm pretty sure you aren't reading the thread outside of your own posts, because recent posts discuss the fact that teachers are not considered 'productive.' either. your critique if of 'marxism as you understand it' not marx' argument in capital like at best it's earnest but lovely posting that would still be at home in a let's marxism thread or whatever but this thread is more specific; it's cool to start a general marxism thread by making GBS threads on it though, at least that will draw replies and maybe the thread will survive the resulting slapfight
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 18:42
|
|