Analytical flaws

What do you say?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hy8y2CCGcwo&index=3&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

where are the proofs?

saging for shit thread

Needs significantly more explanation, this looks like a summary slide.

Laughable.
1. Land cannot be profitable without labor, and assumes it to be privately owned in the first place.
2. Has zero consistency with real life. Unemployment is by no means sparse, and competitions does little to nothing to prevent low wages.
3. Technological advances only changes the form of productivity, not its nature. Increase in profit comes directly at the expense of the working class, and is a temporary, artificial spike in what is a much larger, more pronounced dip.
4. There is no "middle class".

Surely it's up to y'all to refute said claims?

I mean the claim 'land and capital are also productive' cannot really be disputed can it?

Not how arguments work.

Triggered.
Marxian classes and classes in the popular sense are divided in a different way.

The claim has barely more content than "you are wrong". I need to know their argument to refute it, not just some questionable statement with no reason or backing.

Well let's take this a sentence at a time.


Yay or Nay?

What do you mean by 'productive'? Define it.

You're not getting the critique of your powerpoint slide, that it's pointless to argue against something that's so general and vague.

Yes, in virtue of labour.
Land is productive when worked on, laboured on in some way, or has value in virtue of prospective labour.
Capital is dead labour; it is past labour, the labour that made the machines or built the factory.

youtube.com/watch?v=hy8y2CCGcwo&index=3&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

Dictionary do you or are you looking for a specific marxist definition?

Dictionary says


Without land to work, production will be zero.

The reserve army of labor was just an observation that capitalism has not tendency towards full employment and that unemployment was just a natural part of the system. The word "army" is a charged word, but the point he was making was valid. Unemployment isn't an exception to capitalism; it is a necessary part.

LOVE
THIS
MEME

This is commodity fetishism, land and capital are not productive. They only modify the productivity of labour, without labour they are useless.


Without labour to actually produce, production will be zero.

The idea that technology improves productivity and therefore is a counter-tendency to the falling rate of profit was one of Marx's. It's not a refutation of him if you're going to firstly agree with him on one point and then parrot him in point two.

Also class conflict is an on-going thing. It's not something that arises like an actual civil war. It happens whether or not people are aware of it. The response to it in the last point is incoherent. Class conflict happens in every class based society, including rich capitalist ones.

Without land labour would have no where to work. Nut I can see we're going to go in circles here as you reject private property as a starting premise.

Land and capital does not produce anything. They are needed for production, but they can't produce. Is this really that hard to understand?

Claiming land and capital are capable of production is saying that they are capable of producing commodities and delivering them to the consumer without any human interaction.

I don't believe in the ltv. But it seems like you're missing the point entirely. Land by itself produces nothing. A office place by itself produces nothing. You need to hire workers.

Also this once again seems to start confusing price with value.

dis nigga's obviously not even read Wage Labour and Capital

That entire class conflict section in wrong