THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 6, BELOW--
READ AND DIGEST THIS MAD THEORY OF MARX —
I WILL PUNCH HOLES INTO THIS SOON
http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm
The whole of the key Chapter Eight of Capital is a deliberate and systematic falsification to prove a thesis which an objective examination of the facts showed was untenable
Chapter 8: Constant and Variable Capital
Outline of Marx's Analysis
Constant Capital = c
– the value invested in the means of production, MP
– the value embodied in MP
Variable Capital = v
– the value invested in the hiring of labor-power, LP
– hired labor-power, LP
Labor
– preserves old value, by virtue of its character as useful labor
– creates new value, by virtue of its character as abstract labor
Workers
– create new value; more work, more value
– if more than the value of their labor-power, v, they create surplus-value, s
MP
– transfer their value to the product as they are used up
– quickly for raw materials
– over time for tools and machinery (depreciation)
– "their value undergoes a metempsychosis. It deserts the consumed body to occupy the newly created one."
Secondary points:
1) Marx treats the value imparted to machines during repairs the same as their original creation. The repair labor is added to the original labor to determine their value. So depreciation is that "which no doctor can cure."
2) with the value embodied in the product = c + v + s,
– rise or fall of the SNLT required for producing MP or LP will result in a rise or fall in the value of c + v
– thus s will diminish or increase accordingly
Marx resorted to the mother of all economic plug variables: only “Socially Necessary Labor” counts toward value.
The biggest problem with Marx’s Labor Theory of Value is that the whole “socially necessary labor” caveat reduces it to a meaningless tautology, essentially stating, “only labor that creates value creates BAHLOOO nay value.”
The definition of socially necessary labour time of Das Kapital is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity. This is an "average unit labour-cost", measured in working hours.
SNLT -- is labor time that society needs to spend in order to produce some commodity. That time depends on the skills of workers, machinery available, current needs of society.
Marx's use of language in this chapter is misleading. Writing of labor "preserving,""transferring" or "creating" value makes value sound like some metaphysical essence, some ethereal substance which can be conjured into being, conserved or transferred from one object to another.
This is particularly true when he writes of value undergoing a "metempsychosis," a term which usually refers to the transmigration of souls from one body to another. These verbs, preserve, create, transfer, are all transitive verbs that seem to have an object: value. Because value is not an object, but a sociopolitical aspect of labor, these words obscure the phenomena they are intended to evoke.
"Creating" value is nothing more than the simple act of working within the context of capitalist institutions. Workers "create" value every time their labor performs the roles capital assigns to it, i.e., creating commodities that are sold and on which a surplus-value is realized, and, in the process, serving to keep people's lives centered on work, now and in the future.
Socially necessary labour time ( SNLT ) in Marx's critique of political economy is what regulates the exchange value of commodities in trade and consequently constrains producers in their attempt to economise on labour. It does not 'guide' them, as it can only be determined after the event and is thus inaccessible to forward planning.
"Preserving" or "transferring" value refers simply to how useful labor, if it is performed competently, guarantees that the SNLT previously embodied in raw materials and machinery becomes part of the total SNLT required for the creation of the final product. Incompetent labor (or intentional sabotage), which results in wasted raw materials, broken machinery or flawed products, not only fails to add new value but nullifies the previous labor that went into producing the means of production.
Marx chooses to put us in fog.
Unlike individual labour hours in the classical labour theory of value formulated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Marx's exchange value is conceived as a proportion (or 'aliquot part') of society's labour-time.
"Socially necessary" qualification to labour time IS BULLSHIT Marx vacillates between a field theory (labour-time currently socially necessary) and a substance theory of value (embodied labour-time).
Confusion of the process of labour in general (adding use to a product, which under capitalism equates adding value to a commodity) with the task of quantifying the exchange value added.
The general process affixes labour time to a commodity, and providing the commodity functions as such the quantity of labour time is immaterial—an abstract unknown, so to speak—and can be expressed in many ways, e.g. "embodied in", "attached to", "associated with", etc.
Quantifying the amount of labour time associated with commodities requires focus on the social, shifting character of socially necessary labour, and specifically recognition that the quantities are 'current' i.e. incessantly changing.
Today's value is different from yesterday's and tomorrow's, and the amount of value can only be determined numerically on the basis of a given point in time at which values are realized simultaneously at specific prices.
Thus Marx's theory is best interpreted as a field theory, but for the reasons just stated, modelling the determination of value by socially necessary labour time mathematically is a STUPID exercise
Mad Marx believed that humanity's defining characteristic was its means of production and thus the only way for man to free himself from oppression was for him to take control of the means of production. According to Marx, this is the goal of history and the elements of the superstructure act as tools of history
Mao Zedong with Joseph Stalin in 1949; both of them created totalitarian governments that suppressed individual rights
Marxist regimes would lead to the "despotic control of the populace by a aristocracy— where beggars dressed up as kings..
In Kerala second standard failed commie MM Mani is Minister for electricity..
This useless fellow was directly responsible for Kerala floods two years ago, by playing to the gallery and micro managing dam shutters.
You think MM Mani can understand Das Kapital’s bullshit Malayalam translation MOOLADHANAM , done by Commie EMS Namboodiripad?
Their new-found power would fundamentally change their view of society and thus lead them to "look down at the plain working masses".
The stupid economic system proposed by Marxism is unworkable.
A MAD MAN NAMED MARX WROTE A MAD THEORY AND THIS CAUSED DEATHS OF MORE THAN 200 MILLION PEOPLE
Marxism is irrelevant, its core tenets and assumptions and bullshit.
Das Kapital is an obsolete textbook not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world.
Marxist economics is at a dead end
Marx himself admitted that his theory could not explain the internal development of the INDIAN " social system, where much of the world's population lived well for several thousands of years soaked in spirituality ( not atheism ) and rule of Dharma.
Marx never understood the laws of dialectics , and the way he ridiculously applied half baked ideas are fundamentally flawed
MARX AND HEGEL DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE MEANING OF DIALECTICS PENNED IN VEDANTA 7000 YEARS AGO..
he Indian rishis were the first to engage their great minds in dialectics in philosophy—the method of investigating the nature of truth by the criticism of initial concepts and hypotheses—all in the most peaceful natural surroundings .
The ancient Indian Vedic dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more rishis , master or student - people who may hold differing views, yet wish to pursue truth by seeking agreement with one another.
This is in contrast to debate, in which two or more people hold differing views and wish to persuade or prove one another wrong (and thus a jury or judge is needed to decide the matter), or rhetoric, which is a relatively long monologue oration conducted by a single stupid person.
Marxism, its philosophy is rejected as violating the most elementary laws of logic
and preconditions of rational thought.
Stupid Lenin called dialectics ‘the concrete analysis of concrete conditions’. When dialectical thinkers talk about contradictions they are referring to conflicts of opposing forces or tendencies in things. . dialectics is a logic in the sense that it specifies the laws of thought which must be adhered to if reality is to be grasped concretely.
Marx was a utter failure as a prophet. Jew Rothschild triggered revolutions using the useless theories of Mad Marx , to grab wealth and power-- that changed the course of history.
At the base of historical materialism and of Marx's view of history is the concept of the "material productive forces." These "forces" are the driving power that creates all historical events and changes. So what are these "material productive forces"? This is never made clear.
LEADERSHIP IS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE MEAN YOU LEAD.. COMPETITION IS INDISPENSABLE TO PROGRESS..
MARXISM WAS – AND REMAINS – A MIGHTY INSTRUMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLITICAL POWER BY SLIMY AND COVERT MEANS .. JEW ROTHSCHILD UNDERSTOOD THIS DAMN WELL.
Most forms of Marxism analyses people's class based on objective factors (class structure)
Marx failed to incorporate capital markets or subjective values in his analysis, nullifying most of his more pronounced conclusions
Like the other classical economists, Karl Marx believed in the labor theory of value to explain relative differences in market prices.
This theory stated that the value of a produced economic good can be measured objectively by the average number of labor-hours required to produce it. In other words, if a table takes twice as long to make as a chair, then the table should be considered twice as valuable.
Das Kapital: If goods and services tend to be sold at their true objective labor values as measured in labor hours, how do any capitalists enjoy profits?
It must mean, Marx concluded, that capitalists were underpaying or overworking, and thereby exploiting, laborers to drive down the cost of production.
While Marx's answer was eventually proved incorrect and later economists adopted the subjective theory of value, his simple assertion was enough to show the weakness of the labor theory's logic and assumptions; Marx unintentionally helped fuel a STUPID revolution in economic thinking.
For Mad Marx who had no idea of the subjective , class has three primary facets:--
Objective factors--
A class shares a common relationship to the means of production. That is, all people in one class make their living in a common way in terms of ownership of the things that produce social goods. A class may own things, own land, own people, be owned, own nothing but their labor. A class will extract tax, produce agriculture, enslave and work others, be enslaved and work, or work for a wage.
Subjective factors--
The members will necessarily have some perception of their similarity and common interest. Marx termed this Class consciousness. Class consciousness is not simply an awareness of one's own class interest (for instance, the maximisation of shareholder value; or, the maximization of the wage with the minimization of the working day), class consciousness also embodies deeply shared views of how society should be organized legally, culturally, socially and politically. BRRAAAYYYY…
Reproduction of class relations--
Class as a set of social relationships that is reproduced from one generation to the next
Almost all of Marx's predictions have failed nay fallen PHUTTT on its face .
Low flying messiah Marx predicted that wages would tend to depreciate and that capitalist economies would suffer worsening economic crises leading to the ultimate overthrow of the capitalist system. The socialist revolution would occur first in the most advanced capitalist nations and once collective ownership had been established then all sources of class conflict would disappear.
Instead of Marx's predictions, communist revolutions took place in undeveloped regions in Latin America and Asia instead of industrialized countries like the United States or the United Kingdom ( triggered by Jew Rothschild using Jews to steal ).
Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify
Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks ( all Jews ) overthrew the Russian government and established a communist dictatorship. The world has never been the same since.
Of all the legacies left in the revolution’s wake, the worst is a wrecked Russia.
30 million people perished in the Great Terror. Maoist China, destroyed 72 million lives
The Commie Soviets had failed to deliver on their grand social promises.
A BITTER LEGACY OF MARX IS TOTALITARIAN TERROR: STARTING WITH THE GREAT TERROR OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION, A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT WAS SET. NOW THE GATES WERE OPEN FOR OTHERS TO MOBILIZE MASS VIOLENCE IN THE NAME OF REVOLUTION.
THE USE OF TERROR TO REVOLUTIONIZE SOCIETY IS AN HISTORICAL PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY THE BOLSHEVIKS (AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONARIES BEFORE THEM)--. BOTH DONE BY JEW ROTHSCHILD.
GERMAN JEW ROTHSCHILD SIPHONED OFF THE HUMONGOUS WEALTH OF THE CZAR AND ALSO THE PRIVATE WEALTH OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE— BY A COMMIE POLICY WERE NOBODY CAN OWN PROPERTY FIXED OR MOVABLE ( PSSSST UNLESS YOU ARE A JEW ) ..
HIDING WEALTH LIKE GOLD MEANT DEATH IN THE ICY GULAG
Most of the 88 countries that score “repressed” or “mostly unfree” on The Index of Economic Freedom are either communist, former communist, or of some variation of a socialist economy.
Today communism and crude Marxism are dead in America (except for some university departments like Columbia / Berkley UC and extremist Neocon political circles).
Both Columbia / Berkley UC has Jewsih Commie professors who micromanage the social sciences depts. Of JNU/ DU/ JU/ TISS and now IITs.. Huge money is involved in bribing Indian Commie professors..
Rahul Gandhi was called to Berkley UC by Sam Pitroda and given questions in advance.. This stupid fellow surprised all Indians with his clear thinking and confident body language. TEE HEEEEE..
The New Left of the 1960s dropped the proletariat and abandoned the stodgy old men in the Kremlin. Instead, they adopted the hip new mantle of sexual and other forms of liberation in the name of equality— balls to Marxian economics , which went PHUTTT anyways..
The New Left’s attempt to distance itself from the old left of communism was brilliant politics. It enabled liberals to disown all the evil created by “their side of history.” They could now argue with a straight face that all that genocide and misery wrought by communism “has nothing to do with us.”
How, do historical changes take place in the Marxian schema? They can only take place in technological methods, since everything else in society is determined by the state of technology at any one time. In short, if the state of technology is T and everything else is the determined superstructure, S, then to Marx,
Tn → Sn
where n is any point of time. But then, the only way in which social change can take place is via change in technology, in which case
Tn + 1 → Sn + 1
As Marx put it in the clearest and starkest statement of his technological determinist view of history, in his Poverty of Philosophy:
In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production, and in changing their mode of production, their means of gaining a living, they change all their social relations. The hand mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill society with the industrial capitalist.
The first grave fallacy in this farrago is right at the beginning: Where does this technology come from? And how do technologies change or improve? Who puts them into effect?
A key to the tissue of fallacies that constitute the Marxian system is that Marx never attempts to provide an answer. Indeed he cannot, since if he attributes the state of technology or technological change to the actions of man, of individual men, his whole system falls apart.
For human consciousness, and individual consciousness at that, would then be determining material productive forces rather than the other way round. We are merely told that the relations of production become fetters on the productive forces. Marx merely asserts this point, and never even attempts to offer a cause, material or otherwise
Part of the deep confusion is both generated, and camouflaged, by Marx's failure to define "relations of production" adequately. This concept apparently includes legal property relations.
But if legal property relations were at fault in this dialectical delay in adjustment, thus setting up the "fetters," then Marx would be conceding that the problem is really legal or political rather than economic.
But Marx baby wanted the determining base to be purely economic; the political and the ideological had to be merely part of the determined superstructure. So "social relations of production," allegedly economic, were the fetters; but this can only makes sense if this means the property rights or legal system.
And so slimy Marx got out of his dilemma by being so fuzzy and ambivalent about the "relations of production" that these relations could be taken either as including the property structure, as identical with that structure, or else the two might be totally separate entities.
The entire concept of "relations of production," so necessary to the Marxian thesis of material or economic determinism, serves Marx as a "ghost battalion closing a vital gap in the front of Marxian theory”..
Yet in all this there is no way that the concept of "relations of production" can make economic determinism intelligible, and there is no way by which these relations can either be determined by the modes of production or can in themselves determine the property rights system.
The only possible coherent chain of causation, in contrast, is the other way round: from ideas to property rights systems to the fostering or crippling the growth of saving and investment, and of technological development.
Modern day Marxists, have often tried to save the day from the embarrassment of the technological determinism of Marx . They maintain that all sophisticated Marxists know that the causation is not unilinear, that the base and the superstructure really influence each other. Sometimes, they try to fudge the data to claim that Marx himself took such a sophisticated position.
Either way, they are characteristically obfuscating the fact that they have in reality abandoned Marxism. Marxism is monocausal technological determinism, along with all the rest of the fallacies depicted, or it is nothing, and it has demonstrated no inevitable or even likely dialectic mechanism.
Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that assumes that a society's technology determines the development of its social structure and cultural values.
Marx argued that changes in technology, and specifically productive technology, are the primary influence on human social relations and organizational structure, and that social relations and cultural practices ultimately revolve around the technological and economic base of a given society.
Marx's position has become embedded in contemporary society, where the idea that fast-changing technologies alter human lives is pervasive
Karl Marx is often interpreted as a technological determinist on the basis of such isolated quotations as: 'The windmill gives you society with the feudal lord: the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist' ('The Poverty of Philosophy', 1847), and determinism certainly features in orthodox Marxism.
The whole of Marx's work sprang from his transformative critique of Hegelian idealism and his disavowal of Feuerbachian materialism.
German Jew Ludwig Feuerbach is best known for his bullshit book The Essence of Christianity, which provided a critique of Christianity that strongly influenced generations of later thinkers, including Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Engels, and Friedrich Nietzsche.
In Marx's account, human activity is objective activity, neither an activity devoid of real human sensuousness nor the simple perception of reality, but conscious interpenetration.
Marxian class theory asserts that an individual’s position within a class hierarchy is determined by their role in the production process, and argues that political and ideological consciousness is determined by class position.
A class is those who share common economic interests, are conscious of those interests, and engage in collective action which advances those interests. Within Marxian class theory, the structure of the production process forms the basis of class construction.
The very term "subjective" has often functioned as an insult in Marxist polemics. Not only does it suggest something less than the lucidly objective understanding all science covets; even worse, it smacks of an anachronistic world of philosophical disputation, where idealists discourse on the unreality of the material world.
The Marxist theory of history, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the 'coming social revolution') their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified.
Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable.
They thus gave a 'conventionalist twist' to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.
Marx’s theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which attempted to make it compatible with the facts – but degenerated into pseudoscientific dogma.
Marxists used dialectic as a slimy method of side-stepping and evading criticisms, rather than actually answering or addressing them.
THE BEST COMMUNISM'S PRESENT-DAY CHEERLEADERS CAN MANAGE IS TO ARGUE THAT THE SYSTEM HAD 'POSITIVE ASPECTS'.. NOT ONE SINGLE JNU/ JU COMMIE KNOWS A SHIT ABOUT MRAXISM AND DAS KAPITAL—ALL ARE PRETENDERS
FOR ALL THE DREAMS OF ABOLISHING CLASS, COMMUNISM ENDED IN HIGHLY STRATIFIED SOCIETIES
THE FAIREST WAY TO JUDGE A POLITICAL SYSTEM IS BY ITS STATED GOALS. AND BY THAT MEASURE COMMUNISM FAILED NAY FELL PHUTT ON ITS FACE
Marx was never the great man he was made out to be by Rothschild’s media.. He was a screw master frequenting cheap whorehouses..
Marx was a mean sadist and an authoritarian. He treated people with whom he disagreed in a crude and sarcastic way, often ridiculing them in public gatherings.
Marx had no hesitation about being a hypocrite; when he wanted something from someone he would flatter them in letters or conversation, but then attack them in nasty language behind their backs to others.
He often used racial slurs and insulting words to describe the mannerisms or appearance of his opponents in the socialist movement.
Jew Marx had meanness in his DNA.. After all his ancestors were rabid rabbis on both sides of the family.
Marx was not bright enough even to imagine this truth – “Every a baby girl takes care of her own doll, not her commie government’s doll”.
It makes no difference to a victim if he is murdered in the name of a better future for the superior race or because he belongs to a social class that has no place in a communist society.
It is a central part of Marxist thought that capitalists are parasitic oppressors of the working class and, as such, the main cause of social problems.
Their very existence, therefore, is incompatible with the ideals of a communist society. It does not matter that German Jew Rothschild invented both Capitalism and Communism— milking both sides ..
Is the killing of 200 million people justified in the mad pursuit of a classless society?
People in Europe know that not a single Jewish Bourgeois was killed.. If at all a bourgeois was killed it had to be a Christian one.. The 200 million killed were all Proletariat.
Russia under communism was a highly stratified society. And Jews laughed all the way to the kosher bank.
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2013/08/chinese-revolution-biggest-genocide-on.html
TO BE CONTINUED --
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL
..
COMMENTS IN THIS POST WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED
MAKE COMMENTS IN THE POST BELOW--
https://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2020/01/communism-failed-because-jew-karl-marx_8.html