Early Marx

mattabesta wrote:

mononokifool wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Marx's philosophy is often split into 2 phases: young Marx and mature Marx. Young Marx was a Hegelian idealist but when he matured is when he developed his scientific socialist theories such as historical materialism and everything in Das Kapital.

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

since when has capitalism worked? it only works for the top 1%. thats a failing grade

sorry we have 193 capitalist cuntryes and 191 working, the vatican and zimbawmbe excluded and that gives me 99%

It only works for the top 1% of the population is what i meant. The rest of the people are just shat upon

mononokifool wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

mononokifool wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Marx's philosophy is often split into 2 phases: young Marx and mature Marx. Young Marx was a Hegelian idealist but when he matured is when he developed his scientific socialist theories such as historical materialism and everything in Das Kapital.

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

since when has capitalism worked? it only works for the top 1%. thats a failing grade

sorry we have 193 capitalist cuntryes and 191 working, the vatican and zimbawmbe excluded and that gives me 99%

It only works for the top 1% of the population is what i meant. The rest of the people are just shat upon

oh lol if I have my numbers right it works very well for 25% and ok for 70%

mattabesta wrote:

oh lol if I have my numbers right it works very well for 25% and ok for 70%

then you have your numbers wrong

mononokifool wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oh lol if I have my numbers right it works very well for 25% and ok for 70%

then you have your numbers wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index#The_human_poverty_index_for_selected_OECD_countries_.28HPI-2.29

mattabesta wrote:

mononokifool wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oh lol if I have my numbers right it works very well for 25% and ok for 70%

then you have your numbers wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index#The_human_poverty_index_for_selected_OECD_countries_.28HPI-2.29

I dont think you understand what i mean. The top 1% make up the High Class. They run all of the capitalist countries. Capitalism required exploitation of workers. So everyone not in the High Class is being pissed on.

Quote :

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

There does not need to be proof that it works, it is inevitable.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

There does not need to be proof that it works, it is inevitable.

if it is proven then you need a test or else you have no proof I mean I can say anything without proof but it dosen't make it true I need proof to PROVE my case.

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

There does not need to be proof that it works, it is inevitable.

if it is proven then you need a test or else you have no proof I mean I can say anything without proof but it dosen't make it true I need proof to PROVE my case.

We can scientifically prove that capitalism does not work. For example, sustainable development is impossible under capitalism, this is scientificly proven.

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

There does not need to be proof that it works, it is inevitable.

if it is proven then you need a test or else you have no proof I mean I can say anything without proof but it dosen't make it true I need proof to PROVE my case.

We can scientifically prove that capitalism does not work. For example, sustainable development is impossible under capitalism, this is scientificly proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_GDP_Capita_1-2003_A.D.png

You are completely ignorant of Marxist theory and its time to admit it. In Das Kapital, Marx proved that when the capitalists start using more and more technology to make production more efficient, the profit of the capitalists will decrease. When the capitalists get poorer they will have to pay the workers less to survive. The workers will get poorer and poorer, and eventually they will be forced to revolt against capitalism. They will establish socialism (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat) where instead of the capitalits ruling them they rule the capitalists. In the socialist economy everyone will be paid according to how much they work. The purpose of this economy is to force the capitalists to work, because if communism is immediatley established, they would not work. Since they have to work, they are transformed into workers. This eliminates all classes. Since there are no classes and the state is an instrument of class domination, the state will cease to exist. Since everyone is a worker they don't have to be forced to work so communism is established. Inevitably.

Pannekoek wrote:

You are completely ignorant of Marxist theory and its time to admit it. In Das Kapital, Marx proved that when the capitalists start using more and more technology to make production more efficient, the profit of the capitalists will decrease. When the capitalists get poorer they will have to pay the workers less to survive. The workers will get poorer and poorer, and eventually they will be forced to revolt against capitalism. They will establish socialism (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat) where instead of the capitalits ruling them they rule the capitalists. In the socialist economy everyone will be paid according to how much they work. The purpose of this economy is to force the capitalists to work, because if communism is immediatley established, they would not work. Since they have to work, they are transformed into workers. This eliminates all classes. Since there are no classes and the state is an instrument of class domination, the state will cease to exist. Since everyone is a worker they don't have to be forced to work so communism is established. Inevitably.

dude technolagy makes companyes more efficent aka more money not less.

if a factory produces 100# a day with 100 workers the product costs more than the daily pay of the worker.
now if you would make a robot wich doen't take pay only maintanance
your costs will decreas and then profit incereases.

Quote :

dude technolagy makes companyes more efficent aka more money not less.

if a factory produces 100# a day with 100 workers the product costs more than the daily pay of the worker.
now if you would make a robot wich doen't take pay only maintanance
your costs will decreas and then profit incereases.

That's what it seems like but even though technology makes more things it reduces the profits. I can explain if you want me to. Or you can read about it in Das Kapital or online.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

dude technolagy makes companyes more efficent aka more money not less.

if a factory produces 100# a day with 100 workers the product costs more than the daily pay of the worker.
now if you would make a robot wich doen't take pay only maintanance
your costs will decreas and then profit incereases.

That's what it seems like but even though technology makes more things it reduces the profits. I can explain if you want me to. Or you can read about it in Das Kapital or online.

well making things more eficent makes more stuff and often better qalaty that makes profit rise becuse pepole will rather buy an inexpensive good qalaty eqipment and it will cost less becuse it cost less for the companey to make each copy.

but pelas explain and keep it short I don't like essays

Quote :

keep it short

No can do. Either a long explanation or no explanation at all. So here is my explanation:

First you have to understand value. One kind of value is use value. An object has use value if it can satisfy people's desires. The more something is desired, the more use value it has. The other kind of value is exchange value. Exchange value is the price of something. Use value is inherent in the nature of the object, for example, nails, if they are the same kind, are equally useful. Exchange value is not inherent in the object. It is just something that was invented by humans and now people love exchange value more than use value. That is why people value gold more than nails. Marx identified that the source of the value of an object, whether use or exchange value, comes from labor. Oil has no value in the ground but when people work to get it out it has value. Or even if they use machines the machines were made by labor. Or even if the machines were made by machines those machines were made by labor. And even if those machines weren't... well, what made the first machine was human labor. Any way, the source of all value, Marx discovered, is labor.

The basic cell of the economy is the commodity. The commodity is anything that has been bought or sold at one time, or will be bought or sold in the future. Examples are soda, couches, computers, and even labor. Commodities have exchange value and use value. The commodity that is the source of them all is labor. When workers exhaust their labor power it goes into the commodity and gives it its own value. The value of all commodities is equal to the value of the labor that produced it. Notice I have not yet said whether it is exchange value or use value.

Anyway, the worker is employed by the capitalists, who purchases the workers labor, which is a commodity. Obviously if the capitalist paid the worker the full value of their labor and sold the stuff for the same amount they paid the workers, they would not make any money. Therefore the capitalist must exploit the worker by not paying him the full value of his labor. Then he can sell the commodity the worker produced. Notice that the capitalist obtains a profit by selling the commodity at its actual value. If he sells it too low, he will not gain enough profit, but if he sells too high the other capitalists can undersell him and he will end up losing money. So the price of objects tends to be at the actual value of the object.
The difference between the wage and the value of the labor is the profit, also called surplus value, and the unpaid labor performed by the worker is called surplus labor.

To be continued... (Gotta run)

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

keep it short

No can do. Either a long explanation or no explanation at all. So here is my explanation:

First you have to understand value. One kind of value is use value. An object has use value if it can satisfy people's desires. The more something is desired, the more use value it has. The other kind of value is exchange value. Exchange value is the price of something. Use value is inherent in the nature of the object, for example, nails, if they are the same kind, are equally useful. Exchange value is not inherent in the object. It is just something that was invented by humans and now people love exchange value more than use value. That is why people value gold more than nails. Marx identified that the source of the value of an object, whether use or exchange value, comes from labor. Oil has no value in the ground but when people work to get it out it has value. Or even if they use machines the machines were made by labor. Or even if the machines were made by machines those machines were made by labor. And even if those machines weren't... well, what made the first machine was human labor. Any way, the source of all value, Marx discovered, is labor.

The basic cell of the economy is the commodity. The commodity is anything that has been bought or sold at one time, or will be bought or sold in the future. Examples are soda, couches, computers, and even labor. Commodities have exchange value and use value. The commodity that is the source of them all is labor. When workers exhaust their labor power it goes into the commodity and gives it its own value. The value of all commodities is equal to the value of the labor that produced it. Notice I have not yet said whether it is exchange value or use value.

Anyway, the worker is employed by the capitalists, who purchases the workers labor, which is a commodity. Obviously if the capitalist paid the worker the full value of their labor and sold the stuff for the same amount they paid the workers, they would not make any money. Therefore the capitalist must exploit the worker by not paying him the full value of his labor. Then he can sell the commodity the worker produced. Notice that the capitalist obtains a profit by selling the commodity at its actual value. If he sells it too low, he will not gain enough profit, but if he sells too high the other capitalists can undersell him and he will end up losing money. So the price of objects tends to be at the actual value of the object.
The difference between the wage and the value of the labor is the profit, also called surplus value, and the unpaid labor performed by the worker is called surplus labor.

To be continued... (Gotta run)

surplus labour??
you are saying they lose money becuse they have more workers than needed then they fier them.
+ a mahcene is made manually by labour and then it produces a lot more than the laborures worth that makes machenes cheper and more eeiceent wich makes the produceres richer and they spend more money on commodies creating moar jobs there wich in turn increases demand and the rich man makes more and there will aso be more rich men making those how they buy from richer this circular pattern creates growth and is what hppens when significan advances in technolagy are made F.X the industryal rev but also improvements like laser cutters wich altho more expensive make sure the commody can be sold at a higer prize wich is can be done becuse there is growth in society.


p.s wun't the world be a better place if marx haden´t had that awfull desise?

Okay, I'm back. So the capitalist can make production more efficientby using tools or machinery to aid in production. This produces more commodities so it would seem as if people would become richer. However, machines and tools don't produce any new value. The value of a machine is just the value of the labor. If a machine costs $10,000 and makes ten things then each has a value of $1,000. This conclusion can be arrived at the same way you can reach the conclusion that the value of something is the value of the labor. The machine is a commodity which gives rise to another commodity which therefore has the same value as the machine. This does not mean that if a machine breaks down quickly the things have more value. The value is the average of all the machines the capitalist owns. So you see that machines and tools create no new value, only labor does. To be continued...

Pannekoek wrote:

Okay, I'm back. So the capitalist can make production more efficientby using tools or machinery to aid in production. This produces more commodities so it would seem as if people would become richer. However, machines and tools don't produce any new value. The value of a machine is just the value of the labor. If a machine costs $10,000 and makes ten things then each has a value of $1,000. This conclusion can be arrived at the same way you can reach the conclusion that the value of something is the value of the labor. The machine is a commodity which gives rise to another commodity which therefore has the same value as the machine. This does not mean that if a machine breaks down quickly the things have more value. The value is the average of all the machines the capitalist owns. So you see that machines and tools create no new value, only labor does. To be continued...

you are saying a machine isn't worth it?
then noone will buy it only those who pay off will.
a machine produces more than a man and costs less per item then it pays off if not then there is no use foor it there for it is useless and not used only machnes wich will work faster and better will bebought and they will make more money( wow marx really was stupid, oh well he was born in the 19th century)

Quote :

you are saying a machine isn't worth it?

This mindless statement demostrates your lack of an ability to read. Read the whole thing, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I covered. The best objection to Marx's theory by a major economistwas the Okishio which stated in complicated terms that it might not be right because there could be other things Marx didn't think of so it needs to be empirically proven. And besides, I was not even done yet.

So anyway, if s= surplus value, v=variable capital (money invested in labor), and c= constant capital (money invested in tools and machinery), the formula for the rate of surplus value is: (s/v)/[(c/v)+1] Using this formula, you can see that the tendency to invest more in constant capital increases c/v, also called the organic composition of capital. This increases the bottom half of the ratio, leading to a decline in profit for the capitalists.

To maintain a decent amount of surplus value, the capitalists have no choice but to invest less money in variable capital. Translation: workers get paid less. They get paid less and less, resulting in the workers needing to do something if they want to survive. Viva la revolucion!

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

you are saying a machine isn't worth it?

This mindless statement demostrates your lack of an ability to read. Read the whole thing, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I covered. The best objection to Marx's theory by a major economistwas the Okishio which stated in complicated terms that it might not be right because there could be other things Marx didn't think of so it needs to be empirically proven. And besides, I was not even done yet.

So anyway, if s= surplus value, v=variable capital (money invested in labor), and c= constant capital (money invested in tools and machinery), the formula for the rate of surplus value is: (s/v)/[(c/v)+1] Using this formula, you can see that the tendency to invest more in constant capital increases c/v, also called the organic composition of capital. This increases the bottom half of the ratio, leading to a decline in profit for the capitalists.

To maintain a decent amount of surplus value, the capitalists have no choice but to invest less money in variable capital. Translation: workers get paid less. They get paid less and less, resulting in the workers needing to do something if they want to survive. Viva la revolucion!

humm, if the workers get less paid they don't revolt they qit.
a capitalist invests more and more in technolagy and that means he will have less workrs to pay for and his product gets better and more expensive. this means he can selll it at a higer prize so he not only has lowered his costs by not needing labour he has a better and more expensive product menin he will have more money wich will be spent on a new house luxury items and so on this creates the jobs that the pepole in the factory lost infact this is economic development wich gives birth to a population boom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg

notec how the population starts to rise at the dawn of industryalistaion.

What you says has nothing to do with what I wrote. Actually read it, if you can.

Pannekoek wrote:

What you says has nothing to do with what I wrote. Actually read it, if you can.

I read it you say expensis exxed income and with that evrything gose capput.

I think I said a little more than that.

Pannekoek wrote:

I think I said a little more than that.

oh umm why dose capitalism fail then?

I explained why in great detail. Read it.