this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
177 points (94.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44194 readers
1241 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Capital, clearly. Not a single anti communist has ever read it because they never once refute a single talking point from the actual book. But every anti communist acts like they totally understand what's in the book and some go so far as to lie about having read it. And then you ask them what it says or why they're anti communist and they just make shit up or parrot 1950s Nazi propaganda and pretend like that's what's in Capital or what communism is about.
It annoyed me the first few times it happened to me but now it just makes me laugh. Having a book on your shelf or knowing the title of it is not the same thing as reading it or understanding it
Marx didn't consider human nature so he's totally wrong
Fuck, he got us. I can't argue with that!
I, Dagoth Ur, believe that the entirety of his theory rests upon a grievous error. He, in his folly, regarded labor as the solitary font of worth and, in his ignorance, failed to grasp that capitalism thrives not solely by the exploitation of laborers but also through the ceaseless march of technological advancement. He dared to belittle the other wellsprings of wealth: innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, and the unyielding progress of technology, all of which lie at the very core of his theory.
Curiously, passages within "Capital" and the "Communist Manifesto" speak of the global ascendancy of capitalism, prophesying the vanishing of all things traditional and the dissolution of feudal remnants. Therefore, I, Dagoth Ur, put forth the audacious proposition that we may indeed regard Karl Marx as the inaugural, true theorist of globalization.
Hey look someone who didn't read Capital talking about Capital.
Marx definitely wrote literally chapters about industrialization
Marx talks about most of what you just mentioned in the first chapter of Capital. Socially productive labor transforming nature is the source of value in any society. He also mentions rarity as a source of value, like I remember him specifically mentioning pearls as an example a few times.
He included machinery and technology as what he called "constant capital," and the labor is the variable capital. To say Marx didn't consider technology would suggest he was unaware of what a factory was and that he didn't observe the industrial revolution as it was happening. He was born in 1818. He watched Germany in his childhood go from empty fields full of peasants to factories, railroads, and telegraph lines in his adulthood. You know what made that technology possible? Labor? And who operates that technology? Laborers. This is all cooked into his work.
I'd also like to point you over to the Grundrisse, the chapter called Fragment on Machines, where Marx even speculates on if machinery were all fully automated, saying laborers could move aside from production and just become just "watchmen." This part is good:
"Capital itself is the moving contradiction, in that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as the sole measure and source of wealth [...] On the one side [...] it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature [...] to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it [...] On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created"
He's saying capitalism would have a hard tike reducing labor time to zero through technological advancement, since it would defeat the concept of value itself. In simple terms, how would you even price anything if there was no labor cost involved? How would a capitalist sell their product or assign value to it? Who would they sell it to?
interesting where does this technical advancement come from?
Typically through individuals hyperfixating and spending a lot of time fucking around, or spending a shitload of money to have other people fuck around. The countless randos who go from smithing scythes to machining cogs are necessary but not sufficient.
What a grand and intoxicating innocence to presume Marx did not consider these things
Almost no one has actually read capital it's like the Bible hugely influential but almost no one is willing to actually read the thing
If you truly want to understand Marx this is probably the best way to get started... https://archive.org/details/Introducing_Marx/mode/1up