>>69466
> claims to be for the working class
i never said that, i myself have a little property, and i depend on property to survive. as well i admit a high ammount of the working class still have some trust on the system, being socialism not ready to emerge.
>>69467
>southern
>"evolution is just a theory"
dude are you doing this on purpose?
>>69471
machines will do the fixing procedures in the future and the service sectors will be uncommodifiable.
>>69473
>Knowledge problem
>Calculation problem
both are pretty much the same problem, i forgot to tell you not to use this shit too, but since you already have done it, i will answer:
the "calculation problem" argument stands, just like many other austrian school "rebutals" of marxian economics, in a flawed sight on socialism, as a system where a state can dictate prices, generating inefficiences, just as what had already happened in statist regimes in history.
you shall realize this argument is based on two disjunt assumptions:
>socialism=statism
and
>states can't allocate resources
being the first statement total bollockery and the second one habing many counter-examples (lange model is my first bet, but any labour voucher/cockshott related stuff would work, ignoring how utopian these ideas are).
>Historical determinism a shit
economics isn't a quantum, truly ramdom system. it's at most a conglomerate of chaotical processes and as such it can be studied within rigid margins with a calculable uncertainity.
(and even, if it was a quantum system decoherence will make the macro-characteristics of the system to converge into a measure within a little margin of error, ignoring quantum ramdom events also have calculable probabilities to happen)
it's nothing as marxian economics could predict every exact aspect of the future by looking at the current information, but to predict long term stuff it has worked a hell of a lot.
>Confused value theory
i hope you don't be refering to the mudpie argument are you? there is this video about it made by kapitalism101 and it could explain further why it's retarded.
in my point of view (and apparently Wiliam Clare Roberts's one), LTV can be derived from the decoherences of the marginal theory, at large scales.
>Utterly confused methodology, inb4 dialectic materialism/"Hegel somehow!"
materialism is easy to comprehend, it's just: "people need to eat and to wear clothes before they can make science or intelectual development"
hegel in my view is totally expendable, but marxism is quite beautiful once you view it through a dialectical point of view.
>No definition of class that's independent of the capitalist mode of production
of course there is, class antagonism have existed in every other mode of production before capitalism (slavery, hidraulic depotism(no bullying pls) ,feudalism).
>You cannot do observations either without an a priori basis, yet this is exactly what dumbasses try to do who use a historical method in economics.
the theoretical basis is historical materialism and LTV.
>"Fascism" isn't even a meaningful designati….
state ownership is also private property, and it's even worse because no competition apply.
>Then why do you try so hard to establish it if it will work out on its own? Why spread the word, then? And also, why did you swallow the post-scarcity pill, holy shit?
i personally don't. i enjoy capitalism currently, but that doesn't mean i must fool myself with crap-ideology.
also post scarcity is needed for socialism to emerge, it's like the basics and you should know that.
btw im the guy who once did an austrian school rebuttal thread in 2016.