Ici Londres: Karl Marx didn't get a single thing right

top lel

How does that disprove his division of society again?

correct
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

also correct
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/the-us-rate-of-profit-revisited/

the fact that people who usually run businesses are workers themselves, at least in some capacity; in small businesses, they can even be involved in the production itself, not just management. In large businesses, they work in management roles

Again, not perfect and many businesses do not go by this kind of model, but a lot of capitalists are also workers in some respect

When will this meme stop? I'm not saying that it's definitely right, I'm just saying that there are only meme attempts at debunking it in regards to it being a good theory (e.g. Böhm-Bawerk). The only real criticisms are that certain terms are not entirely clear. As for the empirical aspect there are recent findings that suggest the ltv is correct when it comes to its core assumption (e.g. Nils Fröhlich, 2009. The topicality of the labor theory of value: Empirical and theoretical aspects)

a lot of people still work for big corporations, and that number is only growing.

sure, you can start a business with very little capital, but odds are you won't survive competition with the economies of scale that concentration of capital brings

there's a reason cappies who found great companies are famous, they're exceptions who managed to find a gap in their competitors' market power

That, I know, but I would like to see how exactly it contradicts Marx, as in, what did Marx understand by Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, and how the fact that people can start their own businesses makes the distinction wrong.

You mean the petit bourgeoisie.

They've always existed, even in Marx's time. If anything, their role in society has greatly diminished. These days, cottage industry is basically non-existent and the petit bourgeoisie mostly make their living flipping Porky's burgers and ironing his clothes.

I always thought the LTV was just part of classical economics that was replaced by marginalism way before the austrian autists got their hands on it

He also taught at Oxford.

The overwhelming majority of industry is carried out by major corporations, not mom and pop businesses. Read the first five pages of Lenin's Imperialism, he breaks it down to raw numbers pretty concisely.

youtu.be/fFXNnA3KqzA

it implies that the division is not nearly as clear cut as Marx made it out to be, especially further considering self-employed workers, who would appear to be both not exploited and exploiting themselves (?)

The division into bourgeois and proletariat simply isn't that useful when one can, with little effort, transfer between the classes or even belong to both simultaneously

it's about as meaningful as dividing humans into races

although it's unlikely, it does happen, and a lot of small businesses are made this way, but less commonly tech startups

even within major corporations capitalists take up some degree of management roles or organising the company; the degree to which this happens I don't know, but it does happen

self-employment is quite big, and so are small businesses

Thanks, I'll look into it

Literally the most ahistorical analysis I've ever heard. Tbh the only thing Marx was genuinely wrong about was social democracy, which is literally the only reason why capitalism didn't collapse in the 30s.

Small business is on the decline, doesn't control much capital, and it doesn't do anything particularly socially useful.

Actually only about 27% of shareholders even bother to vote.

buzz.money.cnn.com/2014/06/12/shareholders-dont-vote/

1. You cannot belong to the two classes simultaneously, even if the Bourgeoisie can work, that does not make them Proles, since proles are, by definition, not Bourgeoisie, as the Bourgeois own the means of production and the proles don't
2. about 80% of the working people in developed countries are proles, meaning they do not own the means of production. Surely it must not be that easy to transfer between classes.

Nah, check the statistics posted by user there
Very few people work in businesses with fewer than 20 employees, I think you can imagine how many of them are really self-employed.

It doesn't matter whether Capitalists are workers in some respect. While they work they simultaneously fulfill their role as a capitalist by realizing Kapital through private property. Also, as opposed to the average worker they get the full benefits of their work. The worker and capitalist dichotomy is sensible as long as you realize that you aren't a worker in the Marxist sense just by working but instead by working for someone. Of course especially these days there are a few not really noteworthy scenarios where the two actually overlap but it doesn't really matter because even then you can use the terms to describe a ratio of exploitation which is the entire point in the first place.

This. Even in the case of capitalists that do work at their own companies (which are a minority) they amount of labour they contribute is completely disproportionate to the rewards they reap. Do you really think that CEOs work 300 times harder than the average worker?

I understand and acknowledge that many people work for "corporations" but small family businesses that are 2-3 generations old will have 150-300 and still be filled with people of similar class

They're only similar when you define class by arbitrary surface level characteristics like the actual amount of wealth a person owns for example. Class in the Marxist sense is meant to describe a relationship of exploitation, it's a qualitative assessment, not a quantitative one.

Nigga what

Fucking Valve Corporation employs ~360 people.

Do you think Valve is a "small business"?