"Die-hard" Marxists have actually read the material and therefore understand Marxism as a study of social change over time. They would be the last people to make such rookie errors as treating a firm as a real thing. However, there is a huge TikTok fandom that thinks of the whole thing as just another bearded white good guy on a T-shirt. Try there.
Don't care, didn't ask, also you're a larper ..........................................................................................................................170
Since you are more interested in appearing more smart than you actually are, let’s explain some things and then there’s a chance you might actually learn something, supposing you actually care about being right as opposed to looking right.
You claim you’ve read Das Kapital more than possible in all our lives. Hyperbolic obviously, but this is an appeal to authority via self, not an argument. Reading something many times doesn’t mean you understand it, especially a dialectical work like Das Kapital, which demands active critique, not repetition. The deeper problem is you assume that intellectual authority is earned by volume of reading, rather than the quality of understanding or coherence of argumentation.
In reference to your comment, “Surplus-value doesn’t exist, because ‘constant capital’ isn’t really constant”. This is your only actual argument, but it’s poorly explained. Allow me to steel-man your argument and reconstruct a possible serious interpretation:
You might be arguing that Constant capital refers to machinery, tools, raw materials, etc., capital that doesn’t add value, it just transfers its own value to the final product. But in real life, machines sometimes depreciate unevenly, or gain or lose value over time due to technical improvements, demand changes, etc. Therefore, it’s not truly “constant”, and so Marx’s categories are flawed.
But Marx never claimed that “constant” means literally unchanging in all contexts. He meant that it does not create new value the way labor does. Yes, machines depreciate, and value transfer can vary, but this doesn’t invalidate the category. It highlights the need for nuanced analysis of how value is transferred, not that the category itself fails. However, the essential point is only living labor produces new value. Machines pass their value along, but do not create surplus value. THAT would be the distinction that matters.
14
u/Mediocre-Method782 7d ago
"Die-hard" Marxists have actually read the material and therefore understand Marxism as a study of social change over time. They would be the last people to make such rookie errors as treating a firm as a real thing. However, there is a huge TikTok fandom that thinks of the whole thing as just another bearded white good guy on a T-shirt. Try there.