As Quantity Theory of Money Is Illogically Derived from Definition Instead Premises, Marx Illogically Constructed the Whole Book of Das Kapital on Inconsistent Premises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to examine the truth of the whole book of Das Kapital instead the truth of a particular theory subordinating to the whole book of Das Kapital (e.g., labor theory of value and transformation problem). Theory is composed of logical inferences by which we derive conclusions from premises. One of methods that test the truth of a theory is to investigate the consistency of premises because a theory that is constructed on inconsistent premises will lead to contradictory conclusions. Labor theory of value and profit pursuing based on the analysis of supply and demand (i.e., maximum return rate on capital) are two premises in Das Kapital. This paper shows that labor theory of value and maximum return rate on capital are inconsistent logically because maximum return rate on capital does not operate under labor theory of value and this conclusion is logically contradictory to the premise that maximum return rate on capital operates. Further, shifting in supply curve or demand curve leads to logical contradiction between market monetary price and value while Marx stated that market monetary price is value in money form. Thus, the whole book of Das Kapital is illogical. I also demonstrate that dialectical contradiction and logical contradiction are different. Thus, Marxian cannot deny this paper by the argument that all logical contradictions are dialectic contradiction so that all logical contradictions in Das Kapital are not wrong because real world is dialectical.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".