Source: Facebook

—“WHY ISN”T MARXISM TAUGHT OUTSIDE OF PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE”—

Um. BECAUSE ITS FALSE (Actually it’s pseudoscientific nonsense). In fact, it’s the subject of ridicule in economics precisely because it is false (pseudoscientific nonsense).

It’s false on the premises:

1) Value is subjective and marginal, and determined at the point of sale. period.

2) Value is created by the use of incentives to produce a voluntary organization of innovation, estimation, speculation, calculation, production, distribution, and trade. You can forcibly reorganize physical materials (labor) but you cannot forcibly reorganize talent(humans), or the capital of humans, in competition with other humans. THEREFORE the value is not in labor but in organization.

Labor is, as history has demonstrated, relatively worthless, and contributes very little to the entire process. Instead, laborers (the lower classes) are the principle beneficiaries of the vast discount in costs of consumer goods, services, and information. While for the middle and upper classes the only difference is consumption that produces signaling which assists them in the ‘dance of trust’ required for the collective risk necessary to fund speculative investment, production distribution and trade. Labor has no multiplier.

3) The lower classes were not oppressed, but domesticated through the use of organized violence, manorialism, and religion to cull sufficient numbers from the population that only those not a drag on the rest of humanity remained.

Those groups that successfully culled their underclasses through prosecution (killing), manorialism (starvation), urbanization (plague), and warfare (hunting of other humans), today have the highest standards of living.

The economic reality is that each person at the bottom is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive. Ergo, the wealth of nations is determined by the degree one can shrink it’s underclass.

The entire marxist canon is nonsense.