source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37132053
Dog whistles are when you state a verifiable fact in a straightforward way
Look, pal! I have my understanding of how the world works, and it's different from yours!! That means I'm right even if the facts don't agree with me!!! NO SHUT UP TANKIES IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALA 🌽
Every. Single. Time. Sweaty, now you can see how serious I am.I don't see what the prison population of a single nation has to do with that.
bloodshed and subjugation. Every. Single. Time.
Bloodshed and subjugation. Every. Single. Time.
Right, the moment
hears that someone wants fair compensation for their natural resources and labor without being exploited (and god help you if you say 'l*nd reform')If we were alive 2000 years ago these motherfuckers would be defending the Roman Empire
The labor theory of value is the core Marxist economic principle, and it is incorrect.
This is probably a really dumb rhetoric (I've seen it a lot), but I'd to see a good explanation of how dumb it is. Is it like "Newtonian physics doesn't explain black holes, therefore gravity DNE" or is it something else?
To take a step back, the user claims Marx was wrong about some details, but I'm presuming they're not saying it for no reason, the unstated and implied conclusion is probably something like "therefore, we shouldn't try socialism".
At least I'm trying to follow the logic of if Marx was wrong about X, Y, Z, then [conclusion], but there's only the claim that he was wrong about some random things as if anyone gives a shit if Marx was wrong about some obscure economics detail 100 years ago.
The empirical grounding for the labor theory of value has been conclusively proven since at least 1998 thanks to statistical work from Anwar Shaikh and Eduardo M. Ochoa using US input output data
To be honest you don't even have to go that far, these libs literally don't know the difference between use value and exchange value, or embodied labor and concrete labor
The gist of it is that marginal value theory shows that there’s an optimal level of employment within a particular workplace/job for maximizing value creating (basically, one worker is going to be spread too thin to be efficient, more workers increase efficiency but at some point adding more workers doesn’t increase efficiency). Liberals argue that Marx didn’t factor this in, plus some impacts capital reserve levels have on pricing, ergo labor theory of value is wrong.
This is a problematic argument on a few levels. One, Marx explicitly stated in Capital that particular businesses may have particular methods and ways of setting up their workflows that allow for greater value production that others, but that this doesn’t change the macroeconomic reality of value creation; he took it into account. Second, it’s used to validate the idea that we need a capitalist class to make those important efficiency decisions to optimize marginal values, but this is patently silly as most socialist economic platforms still have some sort of organizational oversight to examine these things, it’s a question of what class they report to. Third, Marx’s labor theory was more of an analysis of time as a limited resource for laborers than as a pure pricing determinant; Richard Wolff has talked about this. Fourth, it’s dressing up nitpicking as a refuting of the fundamental argument. Okay, Marx got some of the calculations wrong, that doesn’t make the whole theory invalid. Like, modern copies of The Origin of Species are full of footnotes stating which bits of Darwin’s arguments about particular evolutionary mechanisms have been overturned by subsequent biological research but it doesn’t render the theory of evolution wrong. Or to put it another way, if Marxist economics is wrong because of this nitpicking then all of Adam Smith’s works are wrong as well as he also used labor theory of value.
To implement public housing and good working conditions and women's rights and free child care and good bus systems and gay discos and not having everything destroyed by capitalism it is first necessary to murderer 69 billion people. I am very smart and i understand economics.
Show me a political economy ideology without a genocide or two on its hands, and I’ll show you one that’s only existed on paper.
Also, it’s ironic that they’re complaining about Marxists using “but, but, America!” arguments when nearly any story about bad shit happening in America will have some lib in the comments saying “just imagine how much worse this would be if it was happening in China!” even though the story has nothing to do with China.
