Was Marx just misunderstood?

Using fake quotes doesn't help.

The revolutionary "world storm" that would destroy classes and races was something Engels went on about, not Marx. It was on an article about Tartars.

>world storm that will destroy class and race
Did Marxism grow out of a 19th century science fiction club?

bubbles can only be generated by fictitious capital aka fake wealth

publicly traded securities are "fictitious capital"
There's a huge build-up of fictitious capital during bubbles like dot-com, the great credit boom of 2002-7, and the current Everything Bubble

Fictitious capital contrasts with real capital, which is capital actually invested in physical means of production and workers, and "money capital", which is actual funds being held. The market value of fictitious capital assets (such as stocks and securities) is dependent on easy credit (QE, low interest, ZIRP, loose monetary policies) and mood (hype/mania/hysteria/propaganda)

fictitious capital is entirely speculative and a development of the credit system and the joint-stock (ownership) system.

Profit can be made purely from speculative trading in a variety of financial claims existing only on paper. This is an extreme form of the fetishism of commodities in which the underlying source of surplus-value in exploitation of labour power is disguised. Indeed, profit can be made by using only borrowed capital to engage in (speculative) trade, not backed up by any tangible asset.

With the development of interest-bearing capital and the credit system, all capital seems to double itself, and sometimes treble itself, by the various modes in which the same capital, or perhaps even the same claim on a debt, appears in different forms in different hands. The greater portion of this 'money-capital' is purely fictitious. All the deposits, with the exception of the reserve fund, are merely claims on the banker, which, however, never exist as deposits.

In periods of Capitalist crisis, the capitalist class appears to have a choice between devaluing money or commodities, between inflation or depression. In the event that monetary policy is dedicated to avoiding both, it will merely end up incurring both

>No, his predictions about the economy are demonstrably false
which of his predictions have been found to be false?
>He was just foolhardy and patently wrong.
could you give an example of something he was wrong about, besides whether or not workers "want" to overthrow the government (on which his theory doesn't seem to turn, but nevertheless).

>which of his predictions have been found to be false
Where he predicts international worker's revolution
Where he predicts capiaism to grow more unstable with time
Where he predicts revolution to occur in advanced capitalist countries and not in backwards agricultural ones

None of those are predictions about capitalism, except for the second one which is actually true, capitalism just keeps on hitting one crisis after another

>Where he predicts international worker's revolution
did he predict that this should have happened by 2019?
>Where he predicts capiaism to grow more unstable with time
do you have an argument against the labor theory of value?
>Where he predicts revolution to occur in advanced capitalist countries and not in backwards agricultural ones
granted. it's interesting to imagine what bearing he would have thought this had on the successes/failures of the 20th century revolutions.

Reminder that for all these stormfag fake quotes to exist there necessarily needs to be a group of stormniggers deliberately lying to push their agenda. People propagating them are either consciously lying themselves or useful idiots.

>capitalism just keeps on hitting one crisis after another
It's almost like capitalism is highly resilient and subject to adaptation, in direct contradiction to Marx

>did he predict
No. He merely promised it would happen. *waits ad infinitum*
>LTV
Do you have an argument for LTV? Remember to define terms.

Marx explicitly recognizes the countervailing tendencies that will necessarily occur in order for an economy to adapt to crises. the idea is that these can't be sustained in the long-term.
>No. He merely promised it would happen. *waits ad infinitum*
right, so this isn't one of the testable predictions generated by any of his theories. so you can't say that he was "demonstrably false" in this respect, just as I can't say he was correct.
>Do you have an argument for LTV?
you're the one who claimed that Marx was wrong about capitalism being unsustainable in the long-term. presumably, for this to be justified, you'd have an argument against the labor theory of value.
>Remember to define terms.
you mean you want a definition of the LTV? the basic idea is that there is a theoretical unobservable that Marx calls "value" that coincides with the equilibrium prices of freely reproducible commodities, and that this value is determined by the average amount of unskilled labor time required for the production of said commodities at a given time and place.

>revolution to occur in advanced capitalist countries

It occurred throughout Western Europe and America

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_Revolts

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1877_Shamokin_Uprising
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merthyr_Rising

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_the_20,000

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Soviet
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1907_Romanian_Peasants'_Revolt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr#Passive_resistance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1835_Philadelphia_General_Strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_General_Strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_general_strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_General_Strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_general_strike_of_1893

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_General_Strike_of_1917
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#General_Strike_of_1917
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Romanian_general_strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_General_Strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_General_Strike_of_1926
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_strike

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

No he wasn't racist and yes he did want a socialist revolution. Here's your "quote" in full:

"Now I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns."

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/04.htm

Billionare Hedge Fund, Ray Dalio: Capitalism Isn't Working

finance.yahoo.com/news/hedge-fund-billionaire-ray-dalio-160900200.html
www.thewealthadvisor.com/article/ray-dalio-capitalism-broken

Is Capitalism Ailing? Why Bill Gross Says It's Time to Cut
thefiscaltimes.com/2017/06/13/Capitalism-Ailing-Why-Bill-Gross-Says-It-s-Time-Cut-Your-Risks

>strikes and localized "revolutions" that last for very brief periods of time
Not what marx described

nope. see

>socialist, workers revolution that destroyed monarchies throughout Europe and established socialist States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848

>total revolution in Germany
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

Germany also experienced a Workers revolution in the 1930s (Stasserites and Nationalist Socialists)

also, May Day originated in US, where worker revolutions throughout the nation were crushed by a brutal police and military, with thousands of workers killed

With brutal and successful US response against workers, the rebellions could not develop towards successful revolutions

in Russia, however, peaceful strikes would develop into all-out revolution

The US spent more than 150 years crushing Worker revolutions at home and abroad.

There's a million different ways to interpret Marx. But one thing I think is pretty clear is that he was a revolutionary radical before he was anything out of. He was a product of an existing revolutionary tradition. It was a fundamental part of his political orientation.

>No, his predictions about the economy are demonstrably false

Yes, Marx was incorrect in his detailed analysis of the actual economic situation. But economic predictions aren't like scientific predictions under controlled conditions - you're essentially expecting him to predict the future, which is just fundamentally impossible.

But Marx did create a theoretical framework that's proven super useful for understanding and analyzing politics, history, and society. That's where his value is - he's like a scientist who made a major conceptual leap but missed a few of the practical details.

You're right about the revolution thing though.

>Yes, Marx was incorrect in his detailed analysis of the actual economic situation.
what was he incorrect about?
>But economic predictions aren't like scientific predictions under controlled conditions - you're essentially expecting him to predict the future, which is just fundamentally impossible.
Marx's theory of value is a scientific theory just like any other - it generates a series of testable predictions. if it is an accurate theory, we SHOULD expect those predictions to be confirmed.

He was woke on the JQ, of which his progenitors refuse to acknowledge let alone address.

descendants*

>Marx's theory of value is a scientific theory just like any other - it generates a series of testable predictions.

But we don't have the ability to meaningfully test them. We have one extremely messy and uncontrolled trial. We have a sample size of one.

which of the predictions generated by the LTV cannot be tested?

Not him, but of course we do. We can look at valuation and pricing patterns for goods and services that have substantially similar labor requirements and see what comes out.

>inb4 value and price are completely different.
If value is not price, then show how you get from value to price, which you can do with other valuation theories. If you cannot do so, then your theory of value isn't really very good, is it?

I don't know if I'm talking to but those are the predictions that I'm responding to.

Politico-economic-historical, not purely empirical economic theories. Both of which are important parts of Marx's thought.

>I don't know if I'm talking to
oh no, I'm someone else.
>but those are the predictions that I'm responding to.
only the second of those predictions is related to the LTV, and it's not one of the testable predictions generated by the theory, but rather a logical implication that we can deduce from it.
>If value is not price, then show how you get from value to price
the idea is that value is a center-of-gravity around which market prices fluctuate due to supply and demand. market price and value are distinct, then, but no Marxist would claim they have nothing to do with each other.

>the idea is that value is a center-of-gravity around which market prices fluctuate due to supply and demand
Are they? Take, for instance, metal ore prices, which correlate very well to availability and need (supply and demand, in other words) extremely well, and to labor involved in digging them up extremely poorly; which would otherwise indicate a remarkable similarity and what variations exist largely hinging around average node depth.

And of course, Marx's formulation of the LTV as only applicable on the macro-scale but not the micro-scale make no goddamn sense. If labor is the ultimate source of value, why does an individual labor product already produced shift in value if some new production tool or method rises to the fore lowering the ultimate man-hours needed to produce a new quanta? That sounds a hell of a lot like market exchange than anything else, even if it's not stated as such.

>Are they? Take, for instance, metal ore prices, which correlate very well to availability and need (supply and demand, in other words) extremely well, and to labor involved in digging them up extremely poorly; which would otherwise indicate a remarkable similarity and what variations exist largely hinging around average node depth.
assuming that two metal ores take the same average amount of unskilled labor time (or, "socially necessary labor time," as Marx calls it) to reproduce, they would have the same values. any difference in market price would be a result of supply and demand variance.
> If labor is the ultimate source of value, why does an individual labor product already produced shift in value if some new production tool or method rises to the fore lowering the ultimate man-hours needed to produce a new quanta?
because value is determined by *socially necessary labor-time*, not the particular amount of time you or I spend on a specific example of a commodity. I could spend 10 days making a chair; it wouldn't be more valuable than any other identical chair on the market.

>assuming that two metal ores take the same average amount of unskilled labor time (or, "socially necessary labor time," as Marx calls it) to reproduce, they would have the same values. any difference in market price would be a result of supply and demand variance.
Precisely; but the variance is going to swallow the value derived price, meaning that the tracking of value bears a tiny impact on an actually observable phenomenon.

>because value is determined by *socially necessary labor-time*, not the particular amount of time you or I spend on a specific example of a commodity. I could spend 10 days making a chair; it wouldn't be more valuable than any other identical chair on the market.
You're missing the thrust of the objection. Let's use Marx's actual example, shall we? Bolts of cloth, once you have the introduction of power looms, take far less time to weave than doing it by hand. Let's arbitrarily pretend that power looms were introduced into the European market in 1830. In 1825, hand woven bolts of cloth were worth X, as computed by however much labor time and skill factor is involved. By 1835, after you have the power looms, you have a much smaller value owing to the comparative ease of production.

So let's pretend we have a bolt of cloth that was produced in 1825, is locked away and forgotten about for 10 years, and then goes onto the market in 1835. It was made with the full and most efficient method of its day. It was produced with socially necessary labor time. Has its value dropped the subsequent introduction of power looms or not? Because if it has dropped in the intervening time, then a subsequent change in market conditions that in no way involved the labor, socially necessary or otherwise, in that bolt of cloth's production has changed its value. If its value has not dropped, then we have another LTV problem, this time in the form of its impossibility to actually determine the value of two identical sets of goods.

>Precisely; but the variance is going to swallow the value derived price, meaning that the tracking of value bears a tiny impact on an actually observable phenomenon.
don't know what you mean by "swallow." but under certain conditions we should expect values to coincide with equilibrium prices.
>So let's pretend we have a bolt of cloth that was produced in 1825, is locked away and forgotten about for 10 years, and then goes onto the market in 1835. It was made with the full and most efficient method of its day. It was produced with socially necessary labor time. Has its value dropped the subsequent introduction of power looms or not?
yes. because the SNLT has gone down.
>Because if it has dropped in the intervening time, then a subsequent change in market conditions that in no way involved the labor, socially necessary or otherwise, in that bolt of cloth's production has changed its value.
how are the changed conditions "no way involved" with labor? with the introduction of power looms, the labor-time required to reproduce a unit of cloth has diminished.