Message from @Brickiest Brick
Discord ID: 418203997946642433
you know what they say, what you pay for is what you get
communist countries are famous for lying to their citizens, they lied about the gulags and they lied about the west
cuba is fudging their stats
so i watched a bunch of richard wolff and his socialism explanations
interesting guy and he articulates it very well
lol hes a massive loon
he believes in surplus labour
hes an actor saying his lines
youd have to be retarded to take him seriously
Those articles you posted were highly unreliable, and I could easily counter them with articles of my own. As for Professor Wolff, he's a good economist and I enjoy his lectures. Also, not accepting the LTV is pretty primitive.
Woah💦 Woah💦 Woah💦 Hold on💦 Stick em UP🙆🙆🙆🙆 THAT'S RIGHT🔫 THIS IS A ROBBERY🔫 Hand over the CUMMIES🔫💦💦 and no DADDY😫👨😨 gets hurt 📨Send this to your naughtiest👄 little 👄partners in crime 😏🔫😏🔫 and you'll get 💰💰💰SACKS💰💰💰 OF CUMMIES🍆💦💦💦 Get 5🔳 back, you're a 💓squishy💓 little rebel without a cause💋💋💋💋💋 Get 10🔳 back, you're a 😎😎😎career cummie💦 criminal 🙆🔫🔫 bustin all the daddies👨🌽🍆 banks💰💴 Get 15🔳 back, you're a little 😼😼FAT CAT😻😻 with mad stacks💰💦 of CUMMIES💰💦 Get 20🔳 back, you're the 👑👑CUMMIE 💦💦💦 QUEEN👑👑
here's the thing about wolff
he is very good at articulating what he believes
except that was he believes is shit
You must not like mathematics and common sense, Queef.
lol WHAT
its common sense that labour has no bearing on what a buyer values
i have listened to wolff and from what i know about the free market, much of what he says makes no sense with all things considered
look even marx contridicted himself in volume 3
for example the idea of surplus value and the whole labor theory of value is, on a logical basis in the modern world, pretty nonsensical
value is subjective
perhaps it would have been better suited for back then, before the industrial revolution
before mass-production was a thing
it wasnt coined by marx, smith and ricardo used before the neoclassicals stopped using it
this was 100 years before
well it's true
even mainstream economists at the time didnt use it
Actually, it isn't. The Neo-Marxians made it pretty clear that the LTV is, in fact, a thing. And much of the criticism directed at it is based on misreadings and assumptions.
lol what
the neo marxists like in uni dont even claim it
The LTV has been elaborated on and tweaked by numerous economists since it's formulation.
Not accepting it is pretty stupid tbh.
It's supported by the math.
the only arguments for it are on a morality basis and not a logical basis
which in essence really isn't an argument now is it
According to Marx’s argument, we must totally abstract from a commodity’s “use value” to determine the ultimate thing that underlies the equality of exchange and what ultimately determines exchange value.
However, that is blatantly and disastrously contradicted later in the same Chapter when Marx makes this admission:
“Lastly, nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.” (Marx 1906: 48).
This is exactly like having your cake and eating it too.
On the one hand, we can totally ignore use value in ultimately explaining exchange values, but on the other hand – only a few pages later – nothing without utility (by which Marx no doubt means “use value”) can create value and by implication price. This is a bad contradiction, and requires that being an object of utility is a necessary condition not only for having labour value but also an exchange value.
Morality has nothing to do with it. It's mathematics.