@sigmahamster2@_Credible_Hulk That’s not really what they talk about there tho. In the first chapter, they praise capitalism; in the second, they clarify what the proletariat & communism are; in the third, they attack the leftists for being stupid; and in the fourth, they emphasize class struggle throughout.
The problem with marginalism, and with economists is that I can’t take their explanations seriously when they don’t actually explain scarcity. They define or infer scarcity from the very price relationship that scarcity is supposed to explain. That’s just circular reasoning.
Economists can make really good and convincing arguments, but the moment they start bringing up marginalism and shit like that, my respect for them drops a level pretty quickly.
@sigmahamster2 Profit is an incentive that motivates people to push further, but if you really think humanity would have no reason to innovate or progress without that incentive, I don’t even know what to tell you.
@thatoriginalist@sigmahamster2@GR1FF1NONE The stupidest form of Austrian economics is probably Hoppe lol. Overall, he’s the most illiterate among Austrian economists.
@steelineYT@NotNedLudd@sigmahamster2 Not going to reply to your arguments because most of it is slop, but Marx did not dismiss supply-and-demand arguments. It’s just that you stated that without providing any citations from Marx to support it.
@Knaperk@NotNedLudd@sigmahamster2 Yeah that would be Marx quietly aknowledging the validity of supply and demand curves, which he previously dismissed
Why does thousand year old wine have more demand (use value) and a higher price (exchange value) than wine straight from the plantation?
@steelineYT@NotNedLudd@sigmahamster2 I think you probably didn’t read the whole chapter, and I can’t really blame you because it’s quite long. But Marx does explain it through the equalization of profit rates, which redistributes surplus value among capitals with different turnover and production times.