I'm in the habit of reading anti-capitalist treatises from time to time, to prevent myself from becoming completely uncritical. Anyone else do that? What was the most convincing critique against capitalism and the free market that you've ever read? Why did

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 7e91c1beceff291⋯.jpg (99.23 KB, 960x582, 160:97, Economic Circular Revoluti….jpg)

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 14:38:21 No.62503

I'm in the habit of reading anti-capitalist treatises from time to time, to prevent myself from becoming completely uncritical. Anyone else do that? What was the most convincing critique against capitalism and the free market that you've ever read? Why did it still not convince you?

I cannot really come up with something, because I found every critique of capitalism so far to be utter shit. The one that made me think was Amartya Sens idea that the market could cause famines, but that was before I really learned economics. It was also before I learned that his models only work out when 10% of the population starts eating over 6000 calories a day. Really, I can recommend finding a critique of his model, because the thought of some rich guy chewing pound after pound of wheat is fucking hilarious.

Picture related.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 15:16:09 No.62518

>>62503

Usually end up a complete waste of time. I focus on building upon what I already have instead of trying to play my own opponent. There are enough people and enough opinions in the world for someone else to provide meaningful critique someday if that is to ever happen.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 15:48:04 No.62537

>>62508

but Keen dismisses Marx's LTV using Bohm-Bawerk argumentation about transformation problem you fucking idiot

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 16:04:00 No.62544

>>62541

it is the basis of the whole Marxist theory of exploitation

without theory of exploitation there is no Marxism

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 16:21:58 No.62551

File: d9071e6198cc3bc⋯.jpeg (667.52 KB, 1170x621, 130:69, leo.jpeg)

>>62547

>keep digging, keep digging

toplel

what other ideas Marx had that are not ultimately rooted in LTV?

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 16:43:10 No.62555

File: e6a7515dd6e9fde⋯.jpeg (80.15 KB, 627x462, 19:14, ha.jpeg)

>>62553

>the idea that there would ever be a glorious revolution of the proletariat

>keep digging

which is based on the theory of the capitalist breakdown which is based on the theory of the tendency of the falling rate of profit which is based on the labor theory of value

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 16:52:18 No.62557

>>62555

And how exactly is that relevant? Marx is shit, period. I don't really care about the intricacies of his theory when he couldn't even establish his premises.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 17:05:36 No.62560

File: 2fd2417e4560dc2⋯.gif (2.91 MB, 291x300, 97:100, stalin.gif)

>>62558

wtf are you even blabbering about anymore you fucking psychology major

lolberts always mumble incomprehensibly when they start to backpedal on their claims

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 17:15:14 No.62561

>>62557

>when he couldn't even establish his premises

>marginalist schooling Marx about premises

First get rid of the log in your own eye faggot

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 20:02:35 No.62644

Bump

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 20:09:17 No.62647

>>62644

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 20:12:21 No.62648

>>62508

>>62537

This. He is sympathetic towards whole heterodox tradition of economics and had some warm words for Austrians in "Debunking Economics". Not to mention positive review from Robert Murphy there were only minor differences between his and Austrian approach.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 20:13:31 No.62649

>>62561

>marginalist schooling

Must be some /leftypol/ inside joke or something, but it doesn't change the fact that Marx didn't appropriately defend the LTV against other conceptions, never defined what a class is and didn't establish why socially necessary labor was relevant and not, say, actual labor. He was a sloppy thinker who made surprisingly few original contributions.