The whole idea of Marxism is based upon the Surplus value theory - the idea that workers not being paid the full amount...

Capital investment is the surplus production that was stolen previously from another worker, hence why its called dead labour

Just gonna throw it out there, this is one of the better anti-left threads. It's not race baiting faggotry.

Only an idiot wouldn't concede that the Labor Theory of Value isn't true at least some of the time.

Value is not a single thing as in the reductionist neoclassical economics.

There's exchange value and use value and more.

There value as described in Marxian economics and value as described in neoclassical economics is in-commensurable.

Ask yourself OP, where did that capital to be invested come from in the first place?

Inheritence?
Smaller scale surplus extraction?

There is exploitation down every route, even if it is not immidiately apparent.

like when?

No. Surplus value theory is the idea that workers are not being paid the full amount they produce.

Stopped reading there tbh.

How is Uber a multibillion dollar company? What does it even do besides connect labor to buyer and then skim off the top?

That's naked LTV in action.

LTV still applies, they don't create value at any stage. uber is just acting as a broker, the business model is just the shuffling around of capital.

That's what I meant. I don't think LTV is always the case, but it is sometimes the case.

Worker's created the Capitol too dumbass

in my country a worker on average produces ~ 60.000 €

but the average salary for workers is ~ 13.000 €

See this guy? He, and David Ricardo came up with the LTV.

Know what Marx did? Used it to show the logical conclusion of exploitation.

Want to know why neoclassical economics took a detour about wages and ignore commodities while coming up with utilities?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Böhm_von_Bawerk

Eugen basically decided to take neoclassical economics into a utopian fantasy to ignore the reality of the criticisms of economy that came out of both Smith and Ricardo.

Nevermind that Marx didn't live after the first book of Das Kapital.

Nevermind that he's arguing against Engels and one other.

No, it's all Marx's fault.

Study up, OP.

It's not only about workers being exploited for the labour they produce, tho that's indeed a big part of the problem.

On the other hand we have those same workers as consumers, paying way too much for the products they produced themselves for the capitalists under exploiting conditions.
Because in the capitalist system, and I'm quoting my economics professor here:

That's not real value and I despise our current economic system since the day I heard that quote.

You have to be a retard to not see how this pyrapid scheme of a system is fucking us all over, and is making the ruling class live like gods on earth for no reason. They decide for all of us, real democracy is dead at this point. Money talks.
Fuck liberal scum.

Op here
back from work sec

This isnt necessarily true.
A worker can be paid above surplus to create a machine - hes being gifted free value and later this machine be used in the production with another worker, thus there was no theft involved

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
"Theft" in this context is not to be taken literally, and is in fact ignoring the fact that in the whole process, the relation between capitalist/firm is indeed, as libertarians and other tripe would reduce it to, entirely voluntary. The point is that this "theft" means something very specific, if we choose to use these words, which is the creation of a labor contract or mechanism through which labor's value produced is invariably made to be allocated towards exchange as much as possible, and as minimally as possible to labor's ability to sustain itself to repeat the process.

Use value isnt really relevent as the social necessity of a good or service is irrelevent in determining its market based price.
A designer made gucci shoe can sell for $3,000 yet a more practical and useful pair of sandles can sell for $20

Not all forms of capital accumulation come from exploitation. The business owner/entrepenaur offers some skillsets and thus should be paid a wage for his work in increasing the profits of a business.

They're creating value by making an app or service which directly connects buyers to sellers. How many buyers would an Uber driver get if Uber stopped offering there services?
Thus uber created some value by increasing the transacations/per hour.

Firstly I'm not promoting liberal economics - I'm promoting left leaning keynisieanism.
Value does come from demand and not societal use which people in this thread have been arguing.
Thus the value of a good can be inflated because a particular consumer values it above the cost of the resources to produce it, so a worker can be paid 100% of the 'surplus' but a consumers particular tastes and pref, raise the price.

When will nigga learn to read Marx before they come here effectively getting spoonfed every step of the way?

It's really fucking easy introductionary lit which you can skip Capital for if you want a basic, functional understanding of Marxist political economy and theory of value:
>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm
Chapter one only for its commentary on the subject of Marx's political economy. Marx goes off to roast German idealism in the rest of the book, but this is only relevant if you care about more than polecon, which is here not the case.
>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm
All you need for a political economic framework of capitalism from Marx.
>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
Specifically on the subject of wage labor and its contradictory relation with private property.

...

The entrepenaur through marketing, economies of scale is able to increase the price of the good way above the normal value any worker would sell on the open market and thus the worker can be paid the full amount they would be without the entrepenaur.

Linking to your marxist articles that I've read and debunked on here before isnt actually an argument

And holy shit I just realized how hard you failed to characterize the core of Marxist political economy and his critique of capitalism, which doesn't start with the theory of surplus value, but starts with the commodity, which Marx later on develops to include the concept of surplus value through the philosophical method of dialectical materialism (matter in discourse with itself).

I'm not denying this, but this ignores the question of where this invested capital comes from.

You're also assuming that the compensation for these 'skills', when really it is work that could be carried out by the workers themselves most of the time anyway (most of the complicated stuff is in relation to markets which we want to abolish anyway), is equal to the surplus value extracted.

Sure

Effectively, all you're saying here is that a portion of surplus value can at a point be allocated towards not market exchange and a profit, but towards oneself if one is rich enough. Not in conflict with Marx if you read chapter 1 of TGI.
You haven't debunked shit because instead of arguing on political economic terms, you argue on terms relative to the mode of production you are talking about and the reductionist neoclassical terms you're familiar with (the only ones).

Even Adam Smith, idealist as his analysis was in his time, could not help but conclude that capitalism is a complete mess unless it's so heavily regulated that its excess immiserating functions are neutered or softened. Because Smith wrote works on political economy, not the simple obvservable mechanisms of a particular process in a particular system free from universal principles.

Abolishing markets or forms of transactions is not only impossible but economically unsound.
Trade, particularly international trade allows for higher standards of living due to production advantages in certain goods/services found in different parts of the world.
Workers are able to lead a firm when they create the capital investment required to start one, thats why we have great movement between economic classes in mixed liberal democracies

Sage

It was more or less done in the USSR, and has been done several times on smaller scales - suggesting it's impossible shows ignorance of history.

Central planning, non-accumulative currency - these are the socialist alternatives.

An open-source equivalent to Uber could be created that gave drivers 100% of their labor, and Uber would do everything in their power to destroy it using dirty tactics.
Happens all the time.

Liberalism is a right wing free market orientated style small government.
Keynisieanism is a big government interventionist policy of large public spending in times of recession.
Read a fucking political science book

A full command economic is inefficient as it doesnt allow resources to be allocated efficiently - which in some industries requires capitalist market forces. A private business is more efficient per say in the production of fish and chips but a government universal healthcare program is more efficient then a market orientated health program

No because no business has an incentive to create a service that receives not only no profit but a loss due to operating costs.

Why?

What are you even talking about?
I'm to the left of Adam Smith,
Pick 1 ffs

Because a business in the production of fish and chips has a profit incentive to produce bulk and cheaper and to sell at a market orientated equilibarium price.
However a business which provides healthcare is inefficient because it isnt good at allocating resources efficiently. Basically instead of operating at maximum efficiency to increase the number of patients per hour treated it simply focuses on luxurious healthcare which doesnt treat many patients. For example a private healthcare surgery might have 1 patient in a big room yet a government run universal system will have 10 in that room, for the same/similar cost.
Thus the private market should be in the production of some goods and government/government subsidized programs should run others

The fuck are you talking about?

Central planning happens within capitalism. It's called the board of directors.

And the USSR didn't get rid of or abolish markets. It merely used far less than what capitalist markets do.

Community control is the issue, not who's planning.

Just like the workers eating the fish and chips have an incentive for them to taste good and for there to be enough of them. Central planning helps determine the amount of raw material needed, the workers then democratically produce them for their own consumption.

Which results in less production of certain goods or services which results in massive shortages.
Not only does this destroy incentives for production, it leads to other issues such as mis allocation of resources

Central planning happens within corporations and this is actually a very strong argument for it - corporations use it within their own structures - albeit in an undemocratic way - in order to be as efficient as possible, so why are we not using it for our economy?

The USSR was not 100% planned economy, for that to happen you would need Socialism on a much larger scale with more countries involved, but it's still relevant to the topic of central planning in history.

Can you elaborate on community control?

Yeah man people do things only for money.

That's quite a leap. Can you explain the mechanism here?

The incentive for production is the product its self. Why do you think people ever made anything before capitalism?

Workers producing only the amount they presume to be required results in less productive output or efficiency then a capitalist system which focuses on bulk production. Thus there is less of Good X in the economy so the value of it will rise until there is either no surplus of it - which means no trading of good X internationally.
So a worker who installs sewage systems is doing it for the incentive of the sewage system? Or is there a motive for other goods and services which are being bulk produced under 'capitalist' production?
People did produce things under capitalism, which they traded or used only for themselves/their familes, which meant alot less production in the economy and thus inefficiencies

The whole internet runs on people's uncompensated labor that many provide as incidental to their enjoyment of what they're doing (flash videos on newgrounds for example) but somehow if people aren't forced to either be paid or starve society will fall apart

No one starves under keynisieanism
Sure under neoclassical free market orientated economic management they dont care if workers die in a gutter

Three things here - firstly, by the orthodox Marxist standard - it is the central planning that determines how much is required, but that's a nit pick in regards to this argument, just wanna make sure we're on the same page.

Secondly, what is efficiency? Under Capitalism, it is how well capital can be generated and continue to be generated. Capitalism is not concerned with anything else, and so the typical idea of 'efficiency' is usually not even applicable to Capitalism. This idea of efficiency would of course not apply a Socialist economy.

Lastly, and most importantly

Good! We are literally producing too much under Capitalism right now - the crisis of over production leads to economic crash as workers can simply not buy back everything that they produce. You need to get out of this idea that more expansion for the sake of expansion is a good thing - that is the philosophy of a cancer cell.

...

Efficiency refers to the ability of firms/workers to produce the most goods at the cheapest market price with an equal matching amount of Aggregate demand.
No, in terms of equilibarium which is largely achieved in a mixed market economy AS shifts to AD through the selling/holding of inventory by firms which means that a fall in production will mean AD>AS and thus shortages mentioned

Yes you've essentially reworded what I said.

I'm afraid I don't really follow you here. Can you elaborate, and explain what AS and AD mean?

Yeah, there's arguably never been a time where safety, economic well-being, social security, et cetera were as good as under Keynesian economic policy of deficit spending: any commie will tell you this, and we've always been proponents of developing capitalism through Keynesian policy ideally.

But we've moved past it towards neoliberal economic policy and not because we want to or not, but because, in spite of all porkies being really happy to push for neoliberalism, Keynesianism's viability has been rendered unsustainable under material advances and such a highly performative law of value that constantly requires the same 3% compound growth it always needed to stay healthy, but now requires it from quantities of capital so insanely high that labor can no longer be entrenched in the equation. There is also no post-war boom to power this from, and the contradictions of capitalism are becoming beyond insufferable. Socialism or barbarism, my dude.

youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Actually read Marx you stupid faggot. Post-Keynesians at least do so, and they actually have something more interesting to say than your a priori, non-political economic axioms that are out of viability.

Aggregate demand is a macroeconomic term for total demand or spending in an economy
Aggregate supply is another macroeconomic term for total supply or total production in an economy
Thus under economic equilibarium Total demand = total supply and total spending = total production, so under your system of lowering production, spending > production so the cost of goods rise and inflation ensures

a 3% compounding economic growth rate is actually not hard to achieve under keynisiean economics.
Under democrat presidents - which are ideologically closest to keynesian average a growth rate of 3.9% which is in between the desired sustainable rate of 3-4% source: jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/aa8a57a8-ac12-45c8-8f72-b3261c4c798a/jec-fact-sheet---the-economy-under-democratic-vs.-republican-presidents.pdf

Also booms and troughs are cyclical based, this is the whole basis for keynisiean based economic theory
Thus there should be large fiscal spending during a trough or downturn/recession followed by a boom then through taxation you achieve a surplus and remove the debt used to stimulate economic growth

Then why did this happen: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_banking_crisis_of_1973–75.

Same as Republican presidents. You've memetically interpreted the history of the two parties as that in which the Republicans were always the classical liberal Southern Strat idiots, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Repub who wasn't a Keynesian pre-'80s.

Extra sauce: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble.

Do you legitimately have autism or are you just functionally incapable of thinking before making a post and fully addressing its content coherently?

Oh, I see your problem. You're applying market mechanisms to an economy that doesn't use markets or capital.

Under Socialism the value of commodities is determined by the labour power that has gone into them, not by market forces.

Every economy requires market transacations or its not an economy.

Because of cyclical troughs and new found stagflation which went against classical thinking of the time.
Most of the downturn of the 70's was also due to supply shocks rather then normal market forces.
Republicans were classical liberal slightly keynisiean-neoclassical hybrids but were still more right wing then their democrat alternatives pre 80s
Ad hominem is not a valid argument for your lack of economic understandingg

Ok, then we won't call it an economy, that's still what we're doing.

Going to bed, I'll check the thread in another 6 hours when I wake up

lmao WHY HAVENT YOU READ THE SAME COURSEWORK AS ME?

I doubt you read your own coursework yourself and are skimming 4th hand information from your professors powerpoint slides

kill yourself

It's still liberalism, my man.

Jesus Christ do you think before you post?

HOLY SHIT HE DID IT AGAIN
Tautologies cannot lead to conclusions beyond themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression
I seriously don't see a single thing wrong with it tbh. Debt-to-GDP plunges while you can still spend a ton, and people don't have such a pressing need to save when uncertainty risks are mitigated by social programs.

The postwar consensus could have been maintained if people actually listened to Keynes and used the Bancor instead of the USD. International capital flows should be controlled by the state, international trade balanced, and debt denominated in the national currency.

The energy crisis happened because of the US passing peak oil and the arabs getting uppity. The banking crisis happened because of the energy crisis.

Both of these came after the collapse of Breton Woods in 1971.

Even then, growth averaged 3% in the OECD during the 1970s IIRC.

You need to re-read Marx yourself lad. Unless you're talking about done kind of market socialism there shouldn't be any commodities. And SNLT determines value under capitalism

well Uber showed drivers that there indeed exist interesting market segment who is dissatisfied with current transportation business.

What exactly prevents Uber drivers to create separate open source alternative to keep profit to themselves? Added transparency will be feature great enough to persuade former Uber users.

Not him but I somehow always manage to bump into ancap or libertarian user who claims 'capital capturing (or attracting) future capital' is the greatest invention of all time that incentivize 'smart' venture capitalist to maximize the productivity of the entire system.

As ancom who fell for marxist egoism meme I do not think such 'incentive' has to be coupled with monetary compensation but would rather refute them with the words of Marxists. Who should I quote/read in this situation?

But that's the whole point, isn't it? When Marx says that morals are not the basis upon which we should ultimately guide our revolutionary principle, he means that the inverse of this lies in the fact that any mode of production breeds its own laws, and that capitalist ethics must best accompany these laws should they want to thrive in the system.

There is thus no need, as pic related will elaborate, to raise up notions of morality against this or that. Porky may be deluded by it, but the bottom line for him is to either properly slave himself to the market's sytemicities or perish.
wat. I hope you're referring to Holla Forums illiteracy and its attempts to gel one meme (Stirnerite egoism) with another (Marxist communism) and the catastrophic moralizing short-circuits this creates. Note that I call them "memes" here because they're memes when you just follow vulgar reductions of them – reductions born from a complete misreading of both of them and their theories.