Marxes critisism

V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,[3] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,[4] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are "corrected," his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.[5] Likewise, Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall says that labor-saving technological changes tend to lower the economy-wide rate of profit. However, the "corrected" version of this law — Okishio's theorem — implies that such technological changes tend to raise the rate of profit.[6]



LOL I LIKE that text and if you read my post they kinda match don't they?

it's not a religion

it's a science

MarxistFreeman wrote:

it's not a religion

it's a science

Thats the best you do?


If you need me to defend Marxism just ask
Il be just sitting over here planning reforms.

MarxistFreeman wrote:

it's not a religion

it's a science

LOL I know but this is an argument agains marxes theoryes.

Quote :

[quote="mattabesta"]V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,[3] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,[4] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are "corrected," his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.[5] Likewise, Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall says that labor-saving technological changes tend to lower the economy-wide rate of profit. However, the "corrected" version of this law — Okishio's theorem — implies that such technological changes tend to raise the rate of profit.[6]

The temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory eliminates the apparent inconsistencies in the value theory and is now accepted, implicitly or explicitly, by specialists in the field including critics of Marx.

The Bortkiewiczian interpretation of Marx's value theory was a product of misinterpretation and is no longer valid.

[quote="inkus2000"]

Quote :

mattabesta wrote:

V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,[3] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,[4] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are "corrected," his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.[5] Likewise, Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall says that labor-saving technological changes tend to lower the economy-wide rate of profit. However, the "corrected" version of this law — Okishio's theorem — implies that such technological changes tend to raise the rate of profit.[6]

The temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory eliminates the apparent inconsistencies in the value theory and is now accepted, implicitly or explicitly, by specialists in the field including critics of Marx.

The Bortkiewiczian interpretation of Marx's value theory was a product of misinterpretation and is no longer valid.

yes I have read that too and simply fail to understand marx so this is for reading not debating on my behalf.

[quote="mattabesta"]

inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

mattabesta wrote:

V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,[3] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,[4] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are "corrected," his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.[5] Likewise, Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall says that labor-saving technological changes tend to lower the economy-wide rate of profit. However, the "corrected" version of this law — Okishio's theorem — implies that such technological changes tend to raise the rate of profit.[6]

The temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory eliminates the apparent inconsistencies in the value theory and is now accepted, implicitly or explicitly, by specialists in the field including critics of Marx.

The Bortkiewiczian interpretation of Marx's value theory was a product of misinterpretation and is no longer valid.

yes I have read that too and simply fail to understand marx so this is for reading not debating on my behalf.

You knew it was invalid and outdated and put it up anyway ?
tut tut

inkus2000 wrote:

MarxistFreeman wrote:

it's not a religion

it's a science

Thats the best you do?


If you need me to defend Marxism just ask
Il be just sitting over here planning reforms.

it's fucking matt dude

and i figured Emy or someone else would take care of it anyway.

what's with the provocations?

[quote="inkus2000"]

mattabesta wrote:

inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

mattabesta wrote:

V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,[3] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,[4] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are "corrected," his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.[5] Likewise, Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall says that labor-saving technological changes tend to lower the economy-wide rate of profit. However, the "corrected" version of this law — Okishio's theorem — implies that such technological changes tend to raise the rate of profit.[6]

The temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory eliminates the apparent inconsistencies in the value theory and is now accepted, implicitly or explicitly, by specialists in the field including critics of Marx.

The Bortkiewiczian interpretation of Marx's value theory was a product of misinterpretation and is no longer valid.

yes I have read that too and simply fail to understand marx so this is for reading not debating on my behalf.

You knew it was invalid and outdated and put it up anyway ?
tut tut

no it isn't invalid and outdatet that is just your own opinion.
this is here for pepole to read not discuss becuse I know the communists will reject this a slies or "invalid"

I critisize Marxism all the time on the Russian forums, even though I'm communist. Marxist theory is good, but cannot remain the same for ages, thus needs to be revised.

Riddler wrote:

I critisize Marxism all the time on the Russian forums, even though I'm communist. Marxist theory is good, but cannot remain the same for ages, thus needs to be revised.

grate someone agrees that marx is long worn out.

mattabesta wrote:

Riddler wrote:

I critisize Marxism all the time on the Russian forums, even though I'm communist. Marxist theory is good, but cannot remain the same for ages, thus needs to be revised.

grate someone agrees that marx is long worn out.

He just had several mistakes in his theory.

Riddler wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Riddler wrote:

I critisize Marxism all the time on the Russian forums, even though I'm communist. Marxist theory is good, but cannot remain the same for ages, thus needs to be revised.

grate someone agrees that marx is long worn out.

He just had several mistakes in his theory.

dozens rather.

Trotsky and Canon anyone?

MarxistFreeman wrote:

Trotsky and Canon anyone?

I would like a dubel canon burger plz.

Trotsky is good, Cannon is good. The Okishio's Theorem is fundamentally flawed because it says capitalists would never choose to employ a technique of productino that lowers their rate of profit. A falling rate of profit is therefore automatically excluded. The crucial error here lies in the presupposition that technical progress is merely a question of capitalist "choice" and not one of necessity. Marx noted long ago that competition forces capitalists to choose the technique with a lower unit cost, even when it implies a lower rate of profit. Whoever makes this move first will undersell the others. The only "choice" the other capitalists will have is to sell their products at a lower rate of profit than before or at no profit at all.

Source:http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/crisis_theories.pdf

Pannekoek wrote:

Trotsky is good, Cannon is good. The Okishio's Theorem is fundamentally flawed because it says capitalists would never choose to employ a technique of productino that lowers their rate of profit. A falling rate of profit is therefore automatically excluded. The crucial error here lies in the presupposition that technical progress is merely a question of capitalist "choice" and not one of necessity. Marx noted long ago that competition forces capitalists to choose the technique with a lower unit cost, even when it implies a lower rate of profit. Whoever makes this move first will undersell the others. The only "choice" the other capitalists will have is to sell their products at a lower rate of profit than before or at no profit at all.

Source:http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/crisis_theories.pdf

what you good sir are talking about is extreme compitition were companyes are trying to steal profit from othere companyes by underselling them, this can be very destructive but as we are seening with airlines they choose to merge to covere inflating casts the most notebel mergers are probably al italy and air franch wich was called off and then also north westren and delta.