Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 1)

[Polident]

Right.  And the labor theory of value relies on obvious circular reasoning, not sure how it isn't joked out of existence.  It starts with the assumption that Marxists are trying to demonstrate - equating labor power directly with wage rates and surplus with profit ratios. But these assumptions make the core claims unfalsifiable.  Marx argues that the value of commodities is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce them. So he then defines surplus value as the difference between the value workers create through their labor and what they receive as wages.  So when Marxist economists attempt to empirically test or validate Marx's theory, they measure "labor value" by directly using wage rates and equate "surplus value" with observed profits.  So they use market-determined prices (wages and profits) to measure labor values and surplus values which were the fucking categories Marx claimed were independent of market prices and should instead explain them.

Also "socially necessary" is defined in such a way that makes it unfalsifiable and then it's "measured" in such a way that it could mean an endless supply of gruel in a trough in the factory and also what Royalan eats every hour for everyone on Earth. I think the funniest part is that you can eliminate surplus value just by changing the value of "socially necessary" in Marx's own equations. Which is essentially what "actual capitalism" did to his predictions.

I seriously can't comprehend how people read any of that stuff and think it makes any sense at all rather than just some circular loop. Especially at this point in history. But I know otherwise smart people who are Marxists, there's no hope for the comparatively ignorant.

Guys with rich parents, I presume?