Comment on Landlords are parasites
Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 3 days agoMarxism is also famously well known for falsely believing that labor is the only source of value in an economy when that’s just not true
But it is true, and it has been empirically proven time and time again. Just for reference, you can check Paul Cockshott’s 2014 paper. There has been no serious reply to this paper, or any followup by neoliberal economists finding any other variable explaining the creation of value to the extent that labour does. It is empirically true that labour is the only source of value, and you would need empirical evidence to argue otherwise, which you don’t have because it doesn’t exist.
Everything you said about the Soviet Union is simply false. I’ll come up with the references later, busy now, but you’re just making stuff up.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Source: Dude, trust me
I know that you just linked the very first link on google that appeals to your confirmation bias, because based on the content of this paper, you 100% did not read it.
First of all, this is not a study. It’s a response paper by 3 Marxist academics to another study that they disagreed with. Second of all, at no point in this response do they ever make the claim that labor is the only source of value in an economy. They just argue that it is a significant factor of value, which was supposedly not factored in the study they’re critiquing. So you saying that they argued that “labour is the only source of value” is just you making things up. Third of all, nobody ever responds to response papers except for the authors of the original study being critiqued, and that only ever happens on occasion. So this is not the smoking gun you think it is.
You won’t provide anything, ever, because you have nothing. You’re just straight up factually wrong on this.
…and there it is! You tried googling for anything to confirm your biases, but you couldn’t find anything because you’re wrong. Instead of being honest and admitting that you’re wrong, you did what all Marxists do and made up the lamest excuse imaginable as to why you can’t provide sources for your own claims. You can’t even defend what you say. This is just sad dude.
Your grand rebuttal is just you saying that I’m wrong without even providing any substance, you’re not able to provide sources because there’s nothing that supports what you say, and you can’t even elaborate on your own opinions. Yeah, I’m totally the one who doesn’t listen to facts, get real.
Look, Bart just did the thing! When a Marxist is called out on their bullshit and they’re clearly proven to be wrong, they can’t be honest and admit they’re wrong, that’s would be acting in good faith and that’s just against the core of the ideology. Therefore, you have to come up with any lame ass pejorative or insult to shut down the conversation without addressing anything. That way you get to feel like a pseudo intellectual without actually accepting your ignorance. Classic Marxism.
Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 1 day ago
I literally provided a source lmfao
I did not, I’ve read the whole exchange between Nitzan and Bichler and Cockshott, he has many videos on his YouTube channel talking about LVT and empirical demonstrations, and you can go through the references of the paper I sent such as the Zacchariah multi-country study.
That would be a good point if LVT wasn’t an extremely politically important point. If neoliberal economists had any sort of empirical proof showing otherwise, they’d be more than happy to share it, but there are no studies in the academia providing this. Please search them for me if you will.
As for references for why you’re wrong, you can go through Albert Szymanski’s “human rights in the Soviet Union”, Robert B Allen’s “Farm to Factory”, Pat Sloan’s “Soviet Democracy” or Alec Nove’s “economic history of the USSR” (paraphrasing the title of the last one because I read it long ago). You can go through my comment history and find references to all of those books if you want, but I have nothing to prove to you.
I gave you a summary paper collecting references several studies on labour theory of value, that’s already more evidence than you have provided. When you actually bring up sources to the conversation you may change my mind and make me do the effort, but you won’t do that I bet.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You specifically said that it was empirically proven that labor is the only source of value in the economy, and the paper you provided wasn’t a study with empirically evidence, but a response paper that didn’t make this claim to begin with.
I’m not going to do that. That’s not how providing sources work. If you want to provide a source, then you cite specific sources that support specific claims, and have to quote or point out specific parts of those sources that are relevant to the conversation. What you’re doing here is just lazy, it’s the equivalent of some MAGA boomer going “do your own research”.
No, they wouldn’t. Academia doesn’t work like Lemmy. There’s no team “Marxists” vs team “neoliberals” like you seem to think. Academics are not going to endlessly go back and forth arguing about politics because that’s a waste of their time. They have job duties to fulfill, and they will only ever respond to a paper if it either advances their career or is a defense of their work. No serious academic will ever respond to this paper outside of the original authors because they have to defend their reputation. The lack of responses is not an indication that team Marxism won the argument. That’s a debate bro mindset, not a professional academic mindset.
Yeah… no, that’s not how this works. What you’re doing here is just source dumping. Spamming a bunch of random article titles means absolutely nothing. It doesn’t make you right or look smart, it just shows that for a way out while saving face… which is fine, if you can’t handle this discussion then you’re free to end it, but at least have the honesty to do so directly.
In the off chance that I’m wrong, which I highly doubt, and you actually want to provide sources then you’re going to have to do what I mentioned earlier AND you also have to explain how any of these sources are relevant to the discussion, as in you have to actually explain which claims you’re using the source to support or disprove. Then, and only then, can we actually start talking about credibility of your sources, the merits of their content, and how the shifts the discussion.
However, if you’re not planning to do that and you’re just willing to insulting shit like asking me to go look through your comment history or go through your source dump without any having any connections to this discussion, then you have nothing of value to say and this conversation is not worth continuing any further.
That’s literally the whole point of this discussion. Keep in mind, you replied to me, you started this discussion. You chose to state your views. If you can’t defend your claims against such mild criticism that then that means you’re simply incapable of defending your beliefs.
But it doesn’t support what you claimed it did…
I’m not you, name me the claims you want sourced and I will gladly provide you relevant sources.