/lit/ - Literature

Then. Now. Forever.

Does his viewpoint have a good counter for the calculation problem?

Working my way through Capital V1, and the first moment that really piqued my interest was in chapter 2. What bits of it did you like/enjoy? Also favourite marx work?

how did you come to the realisation that he's right about everything

>Despite the massive intellectual feat that Marx's Capital represents, the Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually zero. Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed. This neither denies nor denigrates Capital as an intellectual achievement, and perhaps in its way the culmination of classical economics. But the development of modern economics had simply ignored Marx. Even economists who are Marxists typically utilize a set of analytical tools to which Marx contributed nothing, and have recourse to Marx only for ideological, political, or historical purposes.

>In professional economics, Capital was a detour into a blind alley, however historic it may be as the centerpiece of a worldwide political movement. What is said and done in its name is said and done largely by people who have never read through it, much less followed its labyrinthine reasoning from its arbitrary postulates to its empirically false conclusions. Instead, the massive volumes of Capital have become a quasi-magic touchstone—a source of assurance that somewhere and somehow a genius "proved" capitalism to be wrong and doomed, even if the specifics of this proof are unknown to those who take their certitude from it.

>and my Capital

>>17044350
>>17044350
>Hegel stands above, Marx below the level of historical actuality. Take away Hegel’s
metaphysics and you will discover a political thinker with a sense of reality unequaled in
modern philosophy. As a "Prussian" by intellectual choice he placed the state at the
center of his extraordinarily profound, well-nigh Goethean vision of historical development, whereas Marx, the Englishman by choice, assigned to the economic life the central role in his Darwinian and mechanistic theory of historical "evolution" (he would call it "progress"). [...] Marx, on the other hand, conceived of history without the state as an arena for jousting parties, as a conflict of private economic interests. The materialist concept is the English concept of history; it reflects the countenance of that independent nation of Vikings and businessmen.

was pic related an Archon and an agent of Demiurge?

Socialism doesn't work. That's apparent after cursory examinations of empirical evidence. But is there something we can learn from socialist critiques of capitalism even if their solutions are god awful?

holy shit, this man was a genius

>Muh Marxists are just lazy and don't want to work
"He who does not work shall not eat"-Lenin
>Muh human nature
Look up primitive communism

Why are there still people who are against marxism? Can't we all just agree that he was right about everything?

>>15715084
Marx is also an INTJ

How does it feel to be this much of a cuck

>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of whores,” its unit being a single whore. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a whore.
>A whore is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.
>We have seen that when whores are exchanged, their breast size manifests itself as something totally independent of their pussy tightness. But if we abstract from their pussy tightness, there remains their sex appeal as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the breast size of whores, whenever they are exchanged, is their sex appeal. The progress of our investigation will show that breast size is the only form in which the sex appeal of whores can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of sex appeal independently of this, its form.
>A pussy, or useful article, therefore, has sex appeal only because pussy in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this sex appeal to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the sex appeal-creating substance, the sex, contained in the article. The quantity of sex, however, is measured by its duration, and sex time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of whores,” its unit being a single whore. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a whore.
>A whore is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.
>We have seen that when whores are exchanged, their breast size manifests itself as something totally independent of their pussy tightness. But if we abstract from their pussy tightness, there remains their sex appeal as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the breast size of whores, whenever they are exchanged, is their sex appeal. The progress of our investigation will show that breast size is the only form in which the sex appeal of whores can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of sex appeal independently of this, its form.
>A pussy, or useful article, therefore, has sex appeal only because pussy in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this sex appeal to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the sex appeal-creating substance, the sex, contained in the article. The quantity of sex, however, is measured by its duration, and sex time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of whores,” its unit being a single whore. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a whore.
>A whore is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.
>We have seen that when whores are exchanged, their breast size manifests itself as something totally independent of their pussy tightness. But if we abstract from their pussy tightness, there remains their sex appeal as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the breast size of whores, whenever they are exchanged, is their sex appeal. The progress of our investigation will show that breast size is the only form in which the sex appeal of whores can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of sex appeal independently of this, its form.
>A pussy, or useful article, therefore, has sex appeal only because pussy in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this sex appeal to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the sex appeal-creating substance, the sex, contained in the article. The quantity of sex, however, is measured by its duration, and sex time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

So uh when exactly is this “revolution” supposed to occur? It failed miserably last time and capitalism is continuing to evolve by the minute.

You have false consciousness.

Can you be a Leftist and acknowledge that race is a biological reality?

This guy was a loser NEET. For someone who understood capitalism so well, he had to beg his friend Engels in order to feed his family. I hate capitalism, but I will never call myself a Marxist.

For someone who understood capitalism so well, why was he such a fucking loser? He was a NEET, and his family would've starved to death if it weren't for Engels.

>>15157525
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? what make this thing more to trouble love make this even tougher even more difficult how are "all not even and, how can I make "people" sleep I fear I have tired this not have not have anyone decided to "had" yet anyone hasn't "had" he has I have no idea even has how to "had" I do not any of the major is "an" over I go no the "had" I all even plan to really mean this wasn't no. sure what have, plan to this is to get is what find out that I have asked for will even I stay all even and indeed to people very well an "even"

Beside's Marx's work?