#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
You can’t defend Marxism if you can’t defend labor theory. Nom & FM can’t
| Add New Argument |
|
I repeatedly invited you to my other debate on the matter to weigh in. You ignored multiple invitations. I wanted to put “won’t wven try” but it cut it off. Since neither of you have demonstrated any ability to defend LT, I went with Can’t”. If I could I would correct it to “FM can’t and Nom won’t even try.” First of all Marx was a materialist, he did not like social constructs just as I don't like them. That being said Marx actually did not believe in value and his theory doesn't even apply to communism. The labour theory of value applies to capitalism and early stages of Marxist socialism. The theory is premised on the fact that putting labour into something increases it's value and also makes a resource available to be turned into a commodity. Labour does not actually determine the "base value" of a resource but turning a resource into a commodity is done through labour and turning resources such as metal into a household appliance for example is done through labour and changes the value. This is less subjective than the alternative theory because the "value" of something is determined by it's actual properties, as in a hunk of metal is less "valuable" than a toaster, and to create a toaster work needs to be done. Just as work must be done to mine and purify metal ore. Value is inherently subjective, but the material properties are not. It is labour that makes a material available to economic activity and it is labour that changes the material properties and structure of various materials into something which has utility. Therefor the Marxist labour theory is an attempt to make value corrospond to objective reality. Supply and demand does not alter the material properties of something, so under your theory there is no anchor of objectivity and prices are much more arbitrary. That is to say, it has nothing to do with what something physically is or what can be done with it, just how much you're willing to pay for it and how much someone can get away with charging. In the labour theory of value there is a "potential value" and "base value" and labour is what increases that value and makes that value available to the market, therefore in order for value to mean anything labour must be involved. Once again "value" is actually entirely subjective but the point of Marx's version of the labour theory is that labour is what provides you with everything that has value and therefor should be considered as root of value in the economy rather than leaving it entirely up to subjectivity and market fluctuations. Side note: Adam Smith created the original labour theory of value and Marx basically created his own version. All increase in value/utility (materialistically speaking) and economic expression of value is created by labour, therefor beorgiosie exploit labour to steal value they didn't produce. The beorgiosie are profiting simply by "owning" the means of producing value but they typically do not produce that which has value. This why capitalism is fundamentally immoral and entails theft. In early socialism, you are payed according to what you produce, in communism and other forms of advanced socialism it typically follows the motto "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That is a fancy way of saying that in full communism you won't have to pay for anything and money won't exist, only resources and the use of resources. 2
points
The bourgeoisie are profiting simply by "owning" the means of producing value but they typically do not produce that which has value. This why capitalism is fundamentally immoral and entails theft. Correct and the essence of economics is that labor is the only real wealth, for as Lincoln said, 'without labor, you have no capital.' This is incorrect. While not all activities actually produce commodities, there are a variety of activities that add value to the company and the consumer. Modern economies exemplify this fact and are not possible if the labor theory were correct. The essence of economics is human action, not simply labor. Labor is one of many factors related to human valuation. First of all Marx was a materialist, he did not like social constructs just as I don't like them. Being a materialist does not imply a dislike for social constructs. Marx spent his life immersed in current social constructs, critiquing them and developing his own ideas of social construction that he believed would replace current social conditions. He did not dislike social constructs. That being said Marx actually did not believe in value and his theory doesn't even apply to communism. Marx spent quite a bit of time discussing “use value” and “exchange value”. He believed in value. The labour theory of value applies to capitalism and early stages of Marxist socialism. Labor theory, was a classical economics normative theory of value. That is to say labor “should” be the determining factor for value and price. “Marx later modified this normative (moral) theory of value to become a new idea, that the economic value or price of something was literally determined by the "socially necessary labor", rather than by the use or pleasure its owner gets from it and its scarcity value.”(1) It’s not simply that Marx hated the social constructs of the market, he believed they enabled people to steal objective value from others. His communist elimination money (price) was not an elimination of value. Rather it was one of his means of ensuring people are not exploited and their value stolen. Thus, his brand of labor theory absolutely applied to his end goal of communism, while prices did not. The theory is premised on the fact that putting labour into something increases it's value and also makes a resource available to be turned into a commodity. Labour does not actually determine the "base value" of a resource but turning a resource into a commodity is done through labour and turning resources such as metal into a household appliance for example is done through labour and changes the value. It’s true that labor doesn’t determine the value of raw materials, as no labor has been put into them. What you are describing is what Marx called “use value”. “Use value is inextricably tied to ‘the physical properties of the commodity; that is, the material uses to which the object can actually be put, the human needs it fulfills”(2). This is Marx’s notion of objective value which is instilled in a commodity through labor. Value is inherently subjective, but the material properties are not. Marx did not believe that use value was subjective, he believed it was objective. Therefor the Marxist labour theory is an attempt to make value corrospond to objective reality. Yes. Das Kapital purports to do just that. Supply and demand does not alter the material properties of something, so under your theory there is no anchor of objectivity and prices are much more arbitrary. Economic Models of Supply and Demand were developed in 1890 by Alfred Marshall, After Marx had died. Marx was not critiquing this model. Marx’s issue with exchange value was that, within capital markets, money serves as what he called the “universal equivalent” for commodities to be compared to, which enables the exchange. The problem is that “money in fact hides the real equivalent behind the exchange: labor.”(2). Marx summarized on page 28 and 29 respectively of Das Kapital 1, “But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value”, and “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time” (3) Once again "value" is actually entirely subjective but the point of Marx's version of the labour theory is that labour is what provides you with everything that has value and therefor should be considered as root of value in the economy rather than leaving it entirely up to subjectivity and market fluctuations. “Should” is the pre-Marx labor theory. Marx believed that labor literally does determine the objective value of commodities, the use value, but that money and capitalist markets enable capitalists to steal objective value through the obfuscation, in the form of money, of labor value. The capitalist ownership of the means of production is merely them keeping for themselves the labor value stored in machines and factories, as well as the subsequently product of that stored labor mixed with the worker's labor needed to run said capital If you believe that value is subjective, then you are refuting Marxist economics as expounded in Das Kapital. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labortheoryof_value 2: https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/ 3: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ Being a materialist does not imply a dislike for social constructs. Yes it does, it means you would rather deal with something solid and empirical than something conceptual or subjective. Marx spent his life immersed in current social constructs, critiquing them Yes, critiquing them. developing his own ideas of social construction Marxism is materialist. Marx spent quite a bit of time discussing “use value” and “exchange value”. He believed in value. Ignoring what I say does not make me wrong. Concepts of value in Marxism relate to earlier systems, before a scientific methodology of resource allocation is developed. that the economic value or price of something was literally determined by the "socially necessary labor", rather than by the use or pleasure its owner gets from it and its scarcity value.”(1) Yes, it is determined by that. In order for a resource to become part of the economy labour must be done to acquire it from nature, and in order to increase the utility of raw materials labour must also be done to turn them into something else. Therefor all things of economic value are the result of labour. Marginal Utility is based entirely on subjectivity and social constructs, and in all fairness value is entirely subjective and a social construct. Marx attempted to make value about resources and labour so that it would be based in something empirical and universal, thus shifting society out of subjectivity and social constructs and taking a step towards scientific methodology. It’s not simply that Marx hated the social constructs of the market, he believed they enabled people to steal objective value from others. Marx believed that the beorgiosie are stealing the fruits of working class labour. In order to help quantify this, Marx pointed out how labour produces everything of value in the economy. His communist elimination money (price) was not an elimination of value. Rather it was one of his means of ensuring people are not exploited and their value stolen. You are not the expert here, I have studied Marxism. When you read at least one full volume of kapital then maybe you will have the right to pontificate about the labour theory of value. Communism itself is supposed to be scientific so primitive human constructs from the past don't apply, Communism was essentially a rough draft of the RBE which is the system of a type one civilization. It’s true that labor doesn’t determine the value of raw materials, as no labor has been put into them. But for these materials to be viable to the economy labour must be done. Therefore all things of value within an economy are provided by labour. If labour is not seen as the basis of value entering the economy then the rewards of labour can be stolen by those who produce nothing of value. If we accept that labour is what puts value into the economy then it is the value you produce which determines how much you should be rewarded by society. Marx did not believe that use value was subjective, he believed it was objective. Marx did not believe value itself was objective, he believed that all the value which enters the economy objectively enters it through labour therefor labour and material properties should be considered the basis for value which attaches the subjective concept to something tangible. Yes. Das Kapital purports to do just that. I don't believe for one second that you've actually read much of it, most of your knowledge of the subject probably comes from PragerU videos or something. Economic Models of Supply and Demand were developed in 1890 by Alfred Marshall, After Marx had died. Marx was not critiquing this model. Never claimed he was. The problem is that “money in fact hides the real equivalent behind the exchange: labor.”(2). Marx summarized on page 28 and 29 respectively of Das Kapital 1, “But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value”, and “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time” (3) Yep, and he was absolutely right. If you believe that value is subjective, then you are refuting Marxist economics as expounded in Das Kapital. Wrong. Value is subjective but labour is what objectively produces and/or makes it viable in the economy. Yes it does, it means you would rather deal with something solid and empirical than something conceptual or subjective. Incorrect. Materialism is not a preference for matter, it’s the belief that all can be reduced to matter because nothing else exists. Your anti-conceptual preference is not a feature of materialism The fact that Marx was a materialist does not conflict with the fact that his life’s work was in an effort to change some key social constructions into social constructs he found more preferable. Ignoring what I say does not make me wrong. It’s funny you should say that as you ignore my response which addressed what you said. Marx believes in value. Specifically he believed it was objective, ie beyond the social construction of capitalism. He formulated his notion of use value as contrasted with exchange value as a major feature of his critique. His economics absolutely apply to communism, wherein Marx conceived of use value being maintained by the workers who create it, rather than the capitalists who expropriate it. Marx believed in value, and his ideas on value apply to communism. Yes, it is determined by that. In order for a resource to become part of the economy labour must be done to acquire it from nature, and in order to increase the utility of raw materials labour must also be done to turn them into something else. Therefor all things of economic value are the result of labour This is a statement affirming objective value in the form of labor. This is incorrect. Time, good will, trust, competence, and ethic are a few things of economic value and require no labor. Marginal Utility is based entirely on subjectivity and social constructs Subjectivity yes, social constructs no. Marginal utility is based fundamentally on individual actions, which are necessarily subjective to the actor. Individual actions may or may not be made with regard to social constructs. Social constructs provide no basis for MUT. value is entirely subjective and a social construct A value is anything for which an organism would take action. That’s not a social construct. It is subjective, as I have said and as you have said. But Marx certainly didn’t think so. Marx attempted to make value about resources and labour so that it would be based in something empirical and universal, thus shifting society out of subjectivity and social constructs and taking a step towards scientific methodology. Not according to Marx is Das Kapital. Marx believed that labor literally was the objective “universal equivalent” which money was taking the place of. Marx believed that the beorgiosie are stealing the fruits of working class labour. In order to help quantify this, Marx pointed out how labour produces everything of value in the economy. That ignores what I said. He believed markets enabled people to steal objective value from others due to he nature of money. Marx believed that labor was the universal equivalent behind all exchange, but money was filling that role. There’s more to Marxist economics than simply the idea that capital ownership is theft. You are not the expert here, I have studied Marxism. Appealing to your own dubious authority will not win you this debate. Notice that I have provided sources, including Das Kapital, while you have provided only your incorrect opinion. Communism itself is supposed to be scientific so primitive human constructs from the past don't apply Human constructs always apply where humans are concerned. That’s one of the many flaws with Marxism. Communism was essentially a rough draft of the RBE which is the system of a type one civilization. I told you I didn’t need to study Fresco when I was already familiar with the origins of his recycled unoriginal notions. You seem to be content to misunderstand the original, so long as you have the recycled makeover. It’s true that labor doesn’t determine the value of raw materials, as no labor has been put into them. That’s another example of values requiring no labor. Add it to my list. But for these materials to be viable to the economy labour must be done. Their already viable, but I know what you mean. Labor must be done in addition to goal creating, planning, coordinating, bidding, purchasing time (a loan), and numerous other value added non-labor activities. Therefore all things of value within an economy are provided by labour. Not all things. Those things that do require labor require it in addition to other things of value. If labour is not seen as the basis of value entering the economy then the rewards of labour can be stolen by those who produce nothing of value. If we accept that labour is what puts value into the economy then it is the value you produce which determines how much you should be rewarded by society. Marx didn’t think that labor should be the source of all value, he believed it was. Labor neither is, nor should it be considered the source of value. The non-labor benefits accrued to me by society (mostly threat of penalty) is only one factor concerning the two parties of an exchange. Marx did not believe value itself was objective, he believed that all the value which enters the economy objectively enters it through labour therefor labour and material properties should be considered the basis for value which attaches the subjective concept to something tangible. I’ve provided sources, including Das Kapital, which disprove this incorrect opinion of yours. Your dubious authority notwithstanding. most of your knowledge of the subject probably comes from PragerU videos or something. Hypothesizing on my credentials won’t make your incorrect view of Marxism more credible, nor will it reduce my credibility as my position is supported by the facts of the matter. Have you considered providing sources? Probably not. Wouldn’t work as well for you. Yep, and he was absolutely right. No, he wasn’t. Money is not a stand I. For labor. Money is a standardized storage of value used as a means of exchange. Value, is what people will take action for. The action itself is not the value, not even when the action valued is labor. Materialism is not a preference for matter, it’s the belief that all can be reduced to matter because nothing else exists. You fucking retard, if Marx was a materialist then why would he believe something that is not physical can be a part of objective reality? " the belief that all can be reduced to matter because nothing else exists." is exactly why he wouldn't like your entirely subjective value and would rather anchor the concept to objective reality so that there is some real basis for it. The fact that Marx was a materialist does not conflict with the fact that his life’s work was in an effort to change some key social constructions into social constructs he found more preferable. You sound absolutely oblivious. Marxism is a body of scientific theories, not something that he just made up. Marxism is about cause and effect, what causes social change? What causes value to enter the economy? The first is answered by dialectical and historical materialism, the second is answered by the labour theory of value. Communism is not a mere political arrangement invented by Marx, it is a prediction based on those theories among others. Marx predicted that humanity would reach a higher state of social order where society is both classless, scientific and democratic and the constructs and institutions of before are no longer necessary and are rendered obsolete. Marx believed in value, and his ideas on value apply to communism. Citation needed. Time, good will, trust, competence, and ethic are a few things of economic value and require no labor. Those things don't have value in an economic sense, but they are things that can lead to the creation of value. You cannot buy or sell time or work ethic. Marginal utility is based fundamentally on individual actions, which are necessarily subjective to the actor. Marginal Utility doesn't explain how value enters the economy. Individual actions may or may not be made with regard to social constructs. Social constructs provide no basis for MUT It's based on value as a social construct with no relation to anything other than individual preference and social constructs within the market. LT is based on what objectively produces things which have subjective value. Marx believed that labor literally was the objective “universal equivalent” which money was taking the place of. Yes because labour produces that which has economic value. That doesn't mean value is objective, it means labour objectively produces that which has subjective value. Rather than merely "actions" it is specifically work of some form that obtains or alters a resource thus making it available or increasing it's utility, therefor without labour nothing of value would exist in the economy. Notice that I have provided sources, including Das Kapital, while you have provided only your incorrect opinion. You are literally cherry picking and misinterpreting excerpts while I have actually read an entire volume of it you jack ass. I told you I didn’t need to study Fresco when I was already familiar with the origins of his recycled unoriginal notions. You don't understand either, you are the universal equivalent of retardation. That’s another example of values requiring no labor. Add it to my list. Labour is what brings all value into the economy, even when it doesn't produce the value. Their already viable, but I know what you mean. Labor must be done in addition to goal creating, planning, coordinating, bidding, purchasing time (a loan), and numerous other value added non-labor activities. First of all physical labour is still required, for example mining or cutting down trees for raw materials. Intellectual labour is still labour as well. You fucking retard, if Marx was a materialist then why would he believe something that is not physical can be a part of objective reality? Most materialists do not hold your view that concepts, and their effects don’t exist. They simply hold that social and conceptual phenomenon are fundamentally the product of neuro-chemical activity. That means subjectivity too. This is not a preference. It does not dissuade materialists from studying and formulating a vast array of conceptual and social frameworks. Seems you’re confused about more than just Marxism. Marxism is a body of scientific theories, not something that he just made up. Marxism is about cause and effect, what causes social change? What causes value to enter the economy? The first is answered by dialectical and historical materialism, the second is answered by the labour theory of value. Answered incorrectly as it turned out. But sure. Communism is not a mere political arrangement invented by Marx, it is a prediction based on those theories among others. Marx predicted that humanity would reach a higher state of social order where society is both classless, scientific and democratic and the constructs and institutions of before are no longer necessary and are rendered obsolete. Marxism is more than predictions based on theory. It’s incorrect predictions based in no small part on Marx’s personal hopes. He and Engels were always looking for the Revolution to occur. They pushed and encouraged and hoped. Their theories are more a justification for this hope than an exercise in empirical science. Any Marxists left have abandoned science altogether in favor of this lost hope. Those things don’t have value in an economic sense, but they are things that can lead to the creation of value. You cannot buy or sell time or work ethic. You are absolutely more marketable if you have a demonstrated history of good work ethic. Ask me how I know and I’ll ask you how you don’t. Marginal Utility doesn't explain how value enters the economy. Value doesn’t enter the economy. There is no human action, and thus no economy without value. Economic activity presupposes the existence of value. It's based on value as a social construct with no relation to anything other than individual preference and social constructs within the market. LT is based on what objectively produces things which have subjective value. You’ll notice I have explained Marx’s LT in Marx’s terms and MUT in MUT terms and demonstrated the validity of one as opposed to the other. You’re explaining both in your own incorrect terms and challenging one on the premises of the other. That approach doesn’t lead to valid or logically consistent conclusions. MUT is based on subjective value, that’s true. But not value as a social construct, that’s not what value is according to MUT. Marx’s LT holds exchange value as subjective and wrong and use value as objective and right. Communism is an attempt to correct the supposed discrepancy. Yes because labour produces that which has economic value. That doesn't mean value is objective, it means labour objectively produces that which has subjective value. He didn’t believe that labor produced things of value, he believed labor literally made them valuable. Commodities are literally “masses of congealed labour time”. without labour nothing of value would exist in the economy. As I’ve explained, labor is a necessary aspect of the economy, but it is not sufficient. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for value. You are literally cherry picking and misinterpreting excerpts while I have actually read an entire volume of it you jack ass. I might believe you if you could “cherry pick” your own supporting evidence. Kicking and screaming that you are an authority won’t make it so. You’ve not demonstrated that you understand Marx’s LT. You don’t even speak in his terms but in reference to what I’ve already said. My position is not a misrepresentation. The quotes and sources provide examples of the accuracy of my position. You don't understand either, you are the universal equivalent of retardation. Mere insult is commonly your final refuge after being thoroughly refuted. Labour is what brings all value into the economy, even when it doesn't produce the value. Nothing brings value into the economy. Value is already inextricable from the economy. First of all physical labour is still required, for example mining or cutting down trees for raw materials. Intellectual labour is still labour as well. As I’ve demonstrated, labor is not sufficient. In this case it is not even necessary as the raw material holds value prior to any labor adding more. Intellectual labor is not involved in opportunity costs, Time purchased, or contract Trust (resulting from threat of legal labor). Marx’s LT simply does not have any empirical predictive power. MUT has almost all of it. This is why Marx’s theoretical application of his non-predictive theory gave him the ability to formulate exactly 0 successful models of communism. For it to be successful it would have to rely on an accurate theory, which would make it not communism. Most materialists do not hold your view that concepts, and their effects don’t exist. It's not that concepts don't exist, it's that they are a subjective reflection of physical neurochemistry and electricity in the brain. It does not dissuade materialists from studying and formulating a vast array of conceptual and social frameworks. Marxism is scientific, it deals with social constructs and their relation to reality but it doesn't socially construct anything. Answered incorrectly as it turned out. But that's just the uneducated opinion of a porch economist who was taught to hate communists from a young age and has never actually read one of Marx's books. Their theories are more a justification for this hope than an exercise in empirical science. Any Marxists left have abandoned science altogether in favor of this lost hope. It's true that Communism was seen as the favorable outcome and that it's culmination is not an inevitability. But if you look at all the factors at play there are really only 4 options for the future. 1: RBE 2: Fascist Technocracy 3: Human Extinction 4: AI take over followed by human extinction. If you understand where technology is heading, and understand that our current socio-economic system is a primitive type 0 civilization system, then that statement should seem obvious. But of course you don't understand those things, so you think we will be the same forever and capitalism/republic is the epitome of socio-economic systems. Value doesn’t enter the economy. There is no human action, and thus no economy without value. Economic activity presupposes the existence of value. Value is like energy, everything has potential energy, but force is required to use that energy. Labour is the force that pushes value through the economy, and thus all the value that circulates in the economy depends on labour. Communism is an attempt to correct the supposed discrepancy. You have no idea what communism is. You are getting way ahead of yourself. It's not that concepts don't exist, it's that they are a subjective reflection of physical neurochemistry and electricity in the brain. More importantly, being a materialist is not some kind of preference against concepts or social constructs. Marx the materialist spent his life critiquing the social construct of the capitalist economy while formulating an advocating for a different social construct. To say he, like you, disliked social constructs is mere projection. A wish based on ignoring the evidence of his life’s work. Marxism is scientific, it deals with social constructs and their relation to reality but it doesn't socially construct anything. It doesn’t socially construct anything because it doesn’t work. But it does lay out an alternative social construct to the contemporary one. But that's just the uneducated opinion of a porch economist who was taught to hate communists from a young age and has never actually read one of Marx's books. If you ever wish to win a debate, or even present a reasoned argument, your going to have to set aside the fallacies along with your childhood toys. I have presented my case against Marx’s LT based first on what it is and second on why it is incorrect. I have relied on the works of Marx as well as common interpretations of his works to articulate what it is. Your only defense has been to say that Marx’s LT is other than what I said without any supporting evidence. You cannot reference Marx to show that I got it wrong because I reference Marx to show that I am right. That’s how you lost this one, on the strength of my argument vs the weakness of yours. That’s why you are left with nothing but baseless suppositions about my credibility while demanding to be called the authority on the matter. You clearly are not. It's true that Communism was seen as the favorable outcome and that it's culmination is not an inevitability. But if you look at all the factors at play there are really only 4 options for the future. 1: RBE 2: Fascist Technocracy 3: Human Extinction 4: AI take over followed by human extinction. Speaking of porch economists…I’m not really interested in the debunked ideas you’ve acquired from nobody cares. Your tastes have already been found lacking. You should focus on trying to supporting even one of your positions before you move on to another topic. Value is like energy, everything has potential energy, but force is required to use that energy. Labour is the force that pushes value through the economy, and thus all the value that circulates in the economy depends on labour. Re-asserting what I have already disproved is not an argument. To maintain this position you have to ignore the non-labor things of value, some of which I have articulated. You have no idea what communism is. You are getting way ahead of yourself. Getting ahead of you isn’t the same as getting ahead of myself. Re-read what I said. If you actually have read Kapital, re-read that since you missed some fundamental, points. Don’t come back until you can defend your position. That means you’ll have to actually use Marx to make your point, like I did. 1
point
I am a student of Marx whereas you are a typical American wah wah wah wah wah... I'm still waiting for you to show us a list of left wing quotes from Mussolini, the creator of fascism. Wikiquote only has a bunch of left wingy quotes, and in one of them, Mussolini literally says that fascism is government control of businesses and the takedown of capitalism. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/BenitoMussolini The Fascist State directs and controls the entrepreneurs, whether it be in our fisheries or in our heavy industry in theVal d'Aosta. There the State actually owns the mines and carries on transport, for the railways are state property. So are many of the factories… We term it state intervention… If anything fails to work properly, the State intervenes. The capitalists will go on doing what they are told, down to the very end. They have no option and cannot put up any fight. Capital is not God; it is only a means to an end. As quoted in Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933), pp. 153-154, Interview took place between March 23 and April 4, 1932 Here, he trashes Christianity. God does not exist—religion in science is an absurdity, in practice an immorality and in men a disease. “Religion: Benito a Christian?” Time magazine (Aug. 25, 1924) Here he trashes patriotism. For us the national flag is a rag to be planted on a dunghill. There are only two fatherlands in the world: that of the exploited and that of the exploiters. La Lotta di Classe (1910), while a socialist, paraphrasing French socialist Gustave Hervé, quoted in Mussolini in the Making (1938) by Gaudens Megaro Here, he openly claims to have a medallion of Marx and to be a Communist. It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet. As quoted in Talks with Mussolini , Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933) p. 38. Interview between March 23 and April 4, 1932, at the Palazzo di Venezia in Rome 1
point
I was going to ask that you not come into this debate with outside, unrelated topics, but we are obviously done here. Carry on. While we are on the topic, you can always ask me to stay out of a debate, and I will. Oh, come back here Amarel. Also, I would like a hug from you. Oh, and about 20 minutes of snuggling where you pet me and call me a good boy. I think the most disappointing part of all of this is not only that you engaged in mere assertions backed up by nothing but fallacies ("I'm the authority here"? Really?), but that you called yourself "Sherlock" while doing it. In the end we do come to an agreement. This is becoming pointless. I will likely reference this debate in the future as illustrative of your most common deficiencies. It will also stand as a record for anyone on the site curious about what LT is and why it was debunked by MUT. Have a good one. There are a record 810,000 vacancies in the economy at any one time. the number of people in employment has increased by over 3 million since 2010. the UK has the third highest employment rate in the G7. the number of workers aged 50 plus has reached a record 10 million.Jan 24, 2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ Speak up Dummy and tell me why the UK needs people to work !!!!!!!!!!!! Why is there full time and part time employment in the UK ??????????? 1
point
It would be better if it had disproven capitalist economic theory as it set out to do. It's not a matter of "disproving" it, there are pros and cons to capitalism. Socialism is simply better when done properly. I responded to your post on the topic btw Yes, I'll reply sometime today whenever I feel like it. It's not a matter of "disproving" it, there are pros and cons to capitalism. Socialism is simply better when done properly. Preference can’t be proven or disproven, but theories are weighed against empirical evidence. Empirical evidence supports marginal utility theory, which has substantial predictive power. Whereas Marx falls apart by comparison. People like to say it works in theory but not in practice. They only say that about debunked theories. |
