The Marxist-Leninist Theory of History

The cycle continues, folks.

one last bump in the night

I'm not sure what we can do man, I mean that stuff is difficult to measure up to. Maybe we should turn to great minds of Holla Forums, who are on the same frequency as he?

H

Fucc better get a leftcom in here

Amateurs.

Our leftcoms are fucking shit these days.

He doesn't go into what capital is then, other than it requires skills and knowledge. Someone illuminate what he meant?

bump

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is a necessary step of history for the development of the production mode.
I'm not going to bother reading the rest if you start on wrong bases. Seriously, make it more concise.

This was not written by OP, but by a lolbert

Even worse, I have no reason to go through these ramblings that can't even get their Marxism 101 right.

I responded last time btfoing this out but I'm not re-typing everything I wrote because you can't be bothered to keep track of the posts you make.

The basic gist of it is the lolberg doesn't understand the concept of socially necessary labour time which is how Marxist economics account for the development of productive forces. As technology/production efficiency improves the amount of SNLT necessary to reduce a commodity is reduced.

The stuff criticizing Marx's predictions is largely accurate as he genuinely did get quite a lot of things wrong. The idea that the working class would continually expand and become more homogeneous and destitute in particular really didn't play out. Still Marx's predictions about the expansion and centralization of capital and his recognition of Capitalism's destiny to become a world encompassing system deserve credit.

Almost forgot to add another huge mistake the lolberg makes is misunderstanding the way Marx used the term capital.

For Marx capital is money expanding itself through circulation ie the M-C-M' relationship. In mainstream economics capital is a term for non-labour inputs necessary for production.

This confuses the lolberg, he thinks Marx designation of capital as a parasite means that he didn't believe tools or industry played a role in production (which is obviously ridiculous). When Marx calls capital a social fiction he is denying that value can be created through capital circulation (think of a stock you own increasing in value year after year). The idea that value is created through the process of circulation is a mirage meant to obfuscate the exploitation of workers.

Also I'm disappointed that both times this has been posted its fallen to me to point out these basic mistakes. I used to be a brainlet compared to many on this board (what happened to the ancom who read Marx, or lenin hat, or Albanian crest poster?)

Watch this series of videos youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM and then read Marx you faggots.