Welcome again to everybody. Make yourselves at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread!

P.S. Update on those stability improvements/enhancements I mentioned in my previous weekly thread: they’re finished. The matrix server uptime is now better. Suspiciously better, some might say. Anyway, enjoy the reliability >:3

☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna’s Archive

  • marxiners@lemmygrad.ml
    6·
    6 days ago

    A rise in the productivity of labor implies a more rapid growth of constant capital as compared with variable capital. Inasmuch as surplus value is a function of variable capital alone, it is obvious that the rate of profit (the ratio of surplus value to the whole capital, not to its variable part alone) tends to fall.

    HOLY FUCK HE SAID THE THING

      • marxiners@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        6 days ago

        okay, eyes basically glazed over the last part. i think i’ll take a rest before coming back at all to this

        only thing i saw when glazing over and thought for sure i should note down and thik about but idk anything about it aside from word recognition and faintest impressions ->(Co-operative societies, i.e., associations of small peasants, while playing an extremely progressive bourgeois role, only weakens this tendency, without eliminating it; nor must it be forgotten that these co-operative societies do much for the well-to-do peasants, and very little—next to nothing—for the mass of poor peasants; then the associations themselves become exploiters of hired labor.)

      • marxiners@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        6 days ago

        “law of diminishing returns”, which charges Nature with the defects, limitations and contradictions of capitalism, is profoundly erroneous.

        he is against this law which i assume is popular and well defined economic theory and my basic outsider understanding or interpretation is that this is the one where it’s like it’s an absolute rule all input eventually returns diminishing payoff, but how does this not apply to soil and land, even if we account for real improvements in technology? (i’m thinking of green revolution/agricultural technology improvements irl, that i admittedy dont know anything useful or expert level about)

      • marxiners@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        6 days ago

        as i kept reading it seemed more related to discussing the relation of price, value, constant capital/input in the case of soil and land in selling crops, as naturally one acre of land may not produce same value for input as another

      • marxiners@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        6 days ago

        Further, the equalisation of profit in all branches of industry and the national economy in general presupposes complete freedom of competition and the free flow of capital from one branch to another. However, the private ownership of land creates monopoly, which hinders that free flow.

        #dontgetit

        get the first part i THINK where competition between enterprises necessitates extremely comparable profit margins (as price was defined earlier, in my probably faulty understanding,) which is a constraint on design and operations (as in, i can’t get too different from my competitor, let’s say i sell dolls and i make dolls that are higher quality and higher price, but my other competitor does not and C or constant capital is lower), don’t get the ‘branch’ thing STILL and what it actually refers to