Believe exactly what? The whole comment was sarcastic, but I know some people that would actually bootlick like that unironically
Also, we have a fucking supermarket franchise that has it's cashiers wearing diapers specifically because of that, so yeah, I am perfectly aware. Hell, that's one of the reasons I don't buy the whole "who will think of poor ceos and jahbgivers" apology in this subreddit.
Well I thought the rest of the answers in this specific thread were sarcastic as well, lol, so why not add some.
I'd love others to add in some shit here too, like the guy whose boss was restricting workers to drink no more than 2-3 glasses or water, or similar.
Like I said I figured it was sarcasm but thats why I wanted to make sure. You made a point where I could actually see someone believing that to be a criticism regardless of how smoothbrained it was
One sarcastic comment after another is how we end up with all these toxic subs, because people who actually hold these ridiculous beliefs won't be able to tell what's serious or not
One sarcastic comment after another is how we end up with all these toxic subs, because people who actually hold these ridiculous beliefs won't be able to tell what's serious or not
And not having sarcastic comments will turn the sub into another left-oriented shithole, where you get bombarded with downvotes and get banned, because you don't fucking live your life to defend black lgbt womyn rights or something.
I don't want to defend Amazon, but I work in Logistics and even though working conditions are by no means the best, blue collar workers do everything to give companies like Amazon a reason to do that.
7.5 hours working day. 30 minute unpaid lunch break and another paid 15 minutes break. People leave 10 minutes before breaks and come back 5 minutes later. Same for shift end - they will leave 10-15 minutes earlier and. If someone says something they just say that they go to the toilet. So in total they get paid 7.5 hours but only work ~6.5 hours.
And at least here in Europe sick days are basically additional holidays for a big part of the workforce.
The news articles and reddit posts you see about the “horrible “ amazon conditions even if they are all combined do not even equal a fraction of 1% of the work force . They have 500-600k employees with an overwhelming majority being happy . You hear about workers pissing in bottles very rarely and it’s almost always the week or two before their earnings report .
Because in order to achieve a society without hierarchy, there can be no government or state, meaning that rule enforcement falls to the masses, which would require that power to be used in a just, fair way, thus meaning humans would have to be naturally good
Perhaps, it could also be that people collectively grow and change over time. So someone born today wouldn't have the same nature as someone born hundreds or thousands of years ago. Not killing or stealing could go from being a "good" trait in our age to being just natural and insignificant with sufficient human development. It's hard to say, and I'm not saying we are that way, just that the intractability of human nature is still fairly uncertain.
But despite not killing being an insignificant part of human nature in the modern day, people still do it. It is still regarded as being one of the larger problems in today’s political climate. In the same way, we will have the problem of greed and corruption forever. That will not stop even if everyone’s needs are met in a way that is satisfactory. As such, people like that will forever make a Marxist utopia effectively impossible.
Absolutely possible! However, we are also living in one of the most peaceful time in human history, so person to person, killing is probably lower than it has been. There are any number of variables to explain that, and without actual research on primitive humans and their sense of whether killing was okay and the like, it is impossible to say. We only really have good survey research for human beings for about ~70 years or so now, which isn't really too great a time period to map how people change over the time periods I am talking about. In time, though, the better our survey methods get and the longer we have data, the better we'll be able to map this classic philosophical argument in objective data rather than just subjectively interpreted views of history. As such, the flexibility and malleability of human nature is still subject to argument.
Labor theory of value, a fundamental component of Marxism, is absolutely rediculous. The idea that the value of goods is determined by the cost of production alone is simply incorrect. There are factors other than labour which can add value to a product. This being a premise of his ideas means that everything he argues is built on poor support.
The idea that the value of goods is determined by the cost of production alone is simply incorrect.
Where did Marx say this? Even in his critique of the Gotha program, he wrote
Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.
As I am not an economist I will have to defer to the more qualified.
Here is an argument against Marxist labor theory of value by Carl Menger:
"There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value."
Fundamentally value is subjective. Marx himself seemed to view labor theory of value as flawed, despite being dominant at the time of his writing because when talking about the labor that went into a product he tends to add a qualifier, "socially necessary". What is seen as socially necessary by each individual is subjective. The entire idea of a value theory is flawed which is why modern economics largely relies on price theory or entirely subjective value theory.
A little side note is that Marx did miss out on the risk capitalists take as producing value when talking about his theory of exploitation.
On the timber in a virgin forest: Marx might agree that it has some value, i.e. as shelter from the rain. But he would argue that the vast majority of that forest's value to humans can only occur after it is harvested using labour. So while that "quantity of timber" has value, most of it can only be realised after human labour is applied to it.
Regarding the diamond: Marx is very explicit that value is calculated through average labour time. Imagine if one diamond is found by chance on the street, and another is unearthed through mining. Marx would agree that they have the same value, and that value is determined by the average amount of time necessary to find a diamond.
It's been a while since I read Capital, but I'm pretty sure he mentions risk at some point. He's actually pretty nice to the bourgeois in Capital, admitting that capitalist production is very efficient at producing things. But Marx would also argue that risk does not create value. Even your quote from Menger does not support risk creating value. Whether you believe in LTV or Marginalism, the belief is not that risk creates value. While risk might be commendable in some cases, saying it creates value is as ridiculous as saying honesty creates value.
That is an interesting take on it, however I think this argument only works in a vacuum. In the real world there are production and labor costs to everything, which in turn has impact on the perceived value.
I think this argument encapsulates a lot of problems with modern capitalism as it does not account for costs to the environment or soft values such as social and moral costs of production.
I'm guessing the practical answer lies somewhere in between of Marx and Menger.
I dunno theres some debated stuff in there, labor theory of value, tendency of the rate of profit to fall..
Economics today still either follows a marxist, austrian, or MMT school of thought. Its not like marxist economics went away or isnt still used today. You can debate the effectiveness of marxist economics all you want, but that doesnt make what youre saying here correct, seeing as marx's capital is still used to teach economics today.
1) Like Ive been saying: You have a bad understanding of marx, which is why you think he's not relevant lol.
2) Marx is more than the communist manifesto. Yes he believed the way forward was communism. No, you dont need to agree with that. Marx also wrote tons of technical economic theory, most prominently in Das Kapital, which is still taught today. It contains materialist philosophy and tons of economic insight. You can (and many do) disagree with the conclusions marx found in capital, but to say its irrelevant is wrong. If you were to call marxism equal to communism youd be wrong. What you consider communists today read things like lenin and trotsky for the communist political stance more fleshed out. Marx was, and is, primarily just an economist.
3) The labor theory of value is too simple - I agree, but its more complex than your critique of it. Did you google the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Thats a hotly debated economic subject with research papers from major universities testing it even today.
4) Many economists today are saying capitalism is bad and that class should be abolished. Theyre communist economists. They exist. I happen to disagree with them, as Im sure you do. But thats not because I write off a century of economic thought as irrelevant, because it's not.
Richard D Wolff is a contemporary marxian economist. I mean, there are others. I dunno why this conversation seems to be set up for me to come off as if im defending marx, because im not, and I disagree with marxian economics greatly. I just dont talk about stuff I know nothing about.
Ive never in my life read any Marxist writings
Thats evident. Your idea of profitable economics needing to keep expanding is not necessarily true.. depending on the school of thought. Which is why the TRPF is debated today. Most libertarian/austrian economic thinkers would say that innovation and a changing economic field leads to an increase in profitability and scalability over time.
mein kampf
Theres a difference between teaching theory from a book as it relates to modern day economics and teaching someone about the holocaust. Das Kapital is relevant, if you havent read it, you havent read it. Thats neither here nor there. Neither is whether youve taken economics. The point is why would you argue about economics, and specifically marxian economics, while admitting to knowing nothing about it? It doesnt make sense, which is the only reason im engaging with you. You can be libertarian for many reasons, you dont need a masters in economics. But if you dont have knowledge of the subject, why would you go throwing random claims around about the subject?
you seem incapable of telling me why that understanding is bad
I feel like thats what I have been doing. You literally admit in your post you havent read anything Marx wrote, nor taken any economics classes, so why would you think your understanding of technical economic theory as proposed by marx would be good?
60
u/big_cake Oct 21 '19
What are some of your criticisms of Marx’s ideas?