/lit/ - Literature

tfw I read him but ironically

Don't read Marxs unless you're at least superficially familiar with German idealism and classical British economics

Even if you are opposed to him it's a good idea to read your enemies. Some of his stuff is more dense and unfinished though, specifically thinking Capital vol 3

>>10253653
Genuine is probably a strong word, but I took the Zizek-pill and have read Marx unironically. Marx's analysis of capitalism was top notch. It's remarkable how pointed and lucid those parts of his writing is. His writing on revolution is vague and uninteresting, and his writing on what communism is supposed to look like is nearly nonexistent. Ultimately I still consider myself a communist because I don't think capitalism can solve many of the "big problems" of today's (more specifically tomorrow's) society - refugee movement, bio-genetics, ecology. These are problems the market cannot solve.

some secondary reading might help
Isaiah Berlin's biography of Marx.
'Marx in his own words' by Ernst Fischer.
grab the Marx-Engels Reader to dip in.
Marx is important and, more than that, engaging. He is also intriguing to place within the history of political philosophy. The materialist progeny of Hegel.
t. non-leftie

He wrote an entire bookcase full of text.

Not a single word is worth reading.

>>10253703
Same. I really don't understand how's the markets are supposed to sustain 10 billions people without a ww3.
Untill now they managed it by dumping externalities on third world countries.
How do we find the resources to give 1 bln indians and 1,5 bln chinese the western lifestyle?

>>10253690
How can you be opposed to something you haven't read? Why would you go so far as to call what you don't understand an 'enemy'?

>>10253653
He's just some dirty bum that edge lords got into and now he's just become the cucks jesus.

>>10253817
Two words: /pol/ boogeymen.

>>10253653
I unironically studied him in Economics, and I also had to study him for an elective sociology class. And for about a couple months I agreed with his critique of capitalism (capitalism is shitty) and I expected him to give a plausible alternative, but slowly realized his alternative is actually even worse or basically the same.
sad.
I remember telling my dad "communism works in theory, its just hard to put into practice" and he Bert stared me for a minute and told me to do more research and I did and I was wrong. Dad is from an ex-commie country, who knows first hand what "the experiment into communism" is all about.

>>10253920
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810

>>10253947
>All attempted implementations of communism failed, therefore Marx is a le evil conspirator.

>Wall Street Journal

start with this, OP

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5ZZjbLXsoLKNHptWHozQm9GWms/edit

disregard /pol/ shitters still inhibited by anti thought propaganda. it's no coincidence every revolutionary movement since industrialization has its roots in marx philosophy. educate yourself

>>10254006
>educate yourself
iwonderwhoisbehindthispost.jpg

>>10254017
I know who it was, it was an anonymous poster on an internet imageboard

>>10254094
No it was a Jew.

>>10253751
>How do we find the resources to give 1 bln indians and 1,5 bln chinese the western lifestyle?
you don't
that's the sleight of hand
the capitalists are banking on a future genocide of those people by climate change

>>10253941
>Dad is from an ex-commie country, who knows first hand what "the experiment into communism" is all about.
this is like saying that you know what sex is like cause you got raped once

>>10254156
nah, many western countries are already largely shitholes. there are many small and medium sized cities in China/India that are very high quality, in everything. This will continue to happen.

>>10253653
>If you are one, can you explain why?

what other political ideologies advocate against the concentration of wealth into a select few hands? marx was way ahead of his time and continues to be a threat to the powers that be. just the mention of his name triggers a militant, dogmatic hate as seen ITT

some notable quotes from the communist manifesto:

>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>10. Free education for all children in public schools.
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

before you troll, remember the USA has largely implemented many of these concepts already and are only moving further left as marx predicted. the only thing holding back this progression is a white supremacist movement willing to burn the country down before the powers are shared with minorities to disperse the concentration of wealth and power

>>10254167
How many times does communism have to result in millions of deaths before people will stop with their "real communism" meme?

>>10254250
three

>>10253674
>>10253690
>>10253725
>>10253941
>he hasn't even read the manga

>>10253751
>markets have to provide a living for everyone because otherwise my feelings will be hurt

>>10254006
revolutionary movements are cancer, so whats your point?

>>10254263
the point of an economic system should be to provide for everyone, otherwise it's shit

>>10254282
thats just like your opinion man.jpg

people starve, thats life.

Yes. I majored in English literature in college. I had to read lots of Marxist literature so I decided to read the man himself. My conclusion is that Marx himself is an idiot, his ideas are idiotic, but the people who followed after him were brilliant, their insight into human society staggering. If more people read Althusser, Adorno, Balibar etc they'd probably understand postmodernist thinking and Marxism a lot better, and if they then read Foucault they'd utterly despise the entire socialist project.

>>10254282
>>the point of an economic system should be to provide for everyone
What naive thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc&t=9m18s


OP watch Jamie Johnson's, heir to the Johnson and Johnson company, great 1% documentaries. They will enlighten you how intellectually and genetically superior our job creators are to lowly proletarians such as yourself.

Pay particular attention to this time stamp of a millionaire wealth manager admitting to fighting tooth and nail to prevent the socialization of public goods and services so the capitalists can leech from the actual people performing the work and risk.

>>10254320
I don't see how
or is any goal other than "survival of the fittest" childish and simple, whereas those who say "we have to make hard choices" while always putting the cost of those hard choices onto the backs of the weak and vulnerable are mature thinkers

>>10253941
You and your father are retards. Not marxist, socialist or communist (I kind of hate them actually, though I hate pretty much all """""""political theory""""""""") but I can't even begin to say how flawed and empty this thinking is. Some main points though:
Your father knows nothing, he's some random person with no knowledge or experience of how the country he was born in was run or its formal ideology. Shit, he probably only spent his childhood there. "commie" means nothing. A huge swath of related ideologies and theories are not objectively dismissed because of some bad experiences in a shithole country, wherein said ideologies/theories weren't even employed. It was simply a shithole, under the label of capitalist, socialist or communist- it doesn't make a difference. That country is likely still a shithole today, probably has lower quality of life too (high wealth inequality, lack of investment into infrastructure- common for shitholes). All due to corruption, stupidity, and being exploited by other nations.

Marx gave little to no alternative, yes, yet you use that as an excuse to accept the metaphorical rotten dick of capitalism in your mouth. To discount the possibility of any alternative. Pathetic.

Adhering to your father's "feels" instead of your own thoughts is unbelievably stupid. Be your own person, and as objective as possible when discussing matters such as these. You weren't "wrong", you convinced yourself that you were because you're a cuck to other's fragility and hierarchy.

>>10254336
You're right about a lot, but I think a moment like the one anon had with his dad should give a humane person pause, though. It is a useful starting point or frame through which to reconsider the moral seriousness of your beliefs.

>>10254335
you have to be 18 to post here

>>10254335
Life does not provide for everyone, each person must provide for himself. Nobody will get you out of bed in the morning and make you perform the necessary functions to preserve your life, eating, shitting, and so on. So from where comes this expectation that economic equality should be provided to everyone? This is not a single evidenced or ideological foundation on which to rest this notion of economic systems providing for everyone. It is simply wishful thinking, a desire for things to be better without having even the slightest idea of how to accomplish it.

>>10254336
>yet you use that as an excuse to accept the metaphorical rotten dick of capitalism in your mouth. To discount the possibility of any alternative. Pathetic.
Unless you have an alternative you're not helping anyone. Something you learn very early on working in a professional environment is that criticism is generally always welcome, but only if you also provide suggestions and solutions to the problems you point out. If all you do is point out problems but never give solutions then people stop listening to you, or even remove you from their group. Because all you do is create negativity, even if what you say is true it doesn't actually improve the situation, it actually makes it worse by lowering morale and creating resentment.

If your goal is piss a bunch of people off and foment discontent, then yes, Marxism is great.

>>10254386
>Life does not provide for everyone, each person must provide for himself.
life doesn't provide a skyscraper or a plane either, so we made those and use them
life doesn't provide legal protection from rape and murder, but we invented the insittution of law and have those protections
and there are many many other things life doesn't "provide" that we have nevertheless taken ourselves
your assertion is without any basis in reality
it sounds good, I'll give you that, all deep and philosophical, but it's bullshit

>Nobody will get you out of bed in the morning and make you perform the necessary functions to preserve your life, eating, shitting, and so on.
that's not what I'm asking so...OK

>So from where comes this expectation that economic equality should be provided to everyone?
ethics, morals, a desire for a better world, call it whatever you want.

>This is not a single evidenced or ideological foundation on which to rest this notion of economic systems providing for everyone.
this is ridiculous, there have always been people struggling for fair treatment

>It is simply wishful thinking, a desire for things to be better without having even the slightest idea of how to accomplish it.
the fact that someone doesn't know how to get from point A to point B does not refute his need to get to point B or make point A a better place to be
this seems self-evident

>>10254402
>Because all you do is create negativity, even if what you say is true it doesn't actually improve the situation, it actually makes it worse by lowering morale and creating resentment.
god forbid someone lowers the morale by pointing out problems and requesting solutions, shameful behavior

>>10253653
His writing is insanely influential and can totally change how you view the world. Things you take for granted such as sports, can be taken and viewed in a Marxist lense. Though I would consider myself not for the revolution, he has definitely changed my perspective for the better and I agree with him on many points.

>>10254402
>boohoo your critiques does nothing but make everyone sad
You know that other people can listen to your critique and come up with solutions too, or at the very least stop digging in the hole they found themselves in

>>10254237 >remember the USA has largely implemented many of these (socialist) concepts already and are only moving further left as marx predicted.
This is why every poor emigrant in the world would prefer to live in that "socialist" country over their failed capitalist one, which had succeed only for the elite that lives in a way that Americans could only dream of. The third world capitalism works great for them.

>>10254320
muh ebubububublooshun
>>10254386
Top ideology

I read "The Communist Manifesto" when I was about 16. I expected it to be some sort of high-quality, intellectual, rational, stimulating document. But even my immature teenage mind could see clearly that it was pure rubbish. That was the end of my interest in anything Marx had to say.

>>10254641
>posting this unironically

>>10254336
good post

>>10253703
What would you recommend for Marx's criticisms of Capitalism? Just Kapital? Other author's examinations of Marx?

>>10253817
In the past many people read Marx and created these things called summaries. A person can use these summaries to formulate a general idea about the author's main points... that is how it is possible to be opposed to something one has not read.

>>10253653
Yes.

You shouldn't.

>>10254282
> the point of an economic system should be to provide for everyone
> should
scarcity is scarcity retard

>>10254689
Sperg-tastic post.

>>10254167
>this is like saying that you know what niggers is like cause you got raped by niggers once
I'm sure they was good kids, on their way to church.

>>10254719
>scarcity is scarcity retard
lol scarcity, the ultimate cop-out

>>10254781
I could just as easily say that a hammer "should" hit all the nails in at the same time and I'd make exactly as much sense.

>>10254336
I just imagine someone in college or something giving you the "communist countries are all shit" argument, then you toiling internally for years... eventually coming up with this meaningless, nihilist shit as a coping mechanism for your retarded world view. His dad is not a retard and it is perfectly reasonable that after 50+ years on earth, he could observe individuals around him and understand their actions. For instance, every guy like you his dad ever knew became an angry childless ideologue pussy and probably got divorced. Wisdom > "knowledge"

You may fool some people with this shit, but not me. Kill yourself my man

Most of my books in my masters in teaching program are using him and his theories of social reproduction in regards to education being the factory to produce culture. The entirety of schools are racist and favor white culture and niggers and spics can’t move up because of the system itself, genetics don’t matter because biology is formed through cultural history.

But some how individual work still exists but if you fail you can blame the system if you failed, if you succeed it’s because of the hard work. Retarded.

It’s so fucking dumb. I got 2 years of this gay anti-white shit.

It’s like the took white privilege and turn it into the fucking boogeyman for all plights America.

>>10254788
except that a hammer isn't an economic system
so yes, that comparison would make sense if you're an idiot

>>10254840
I can tell that you're not big on abstract thought, so I'll clarify. The point is that the limitations of a tool aren't evidence of the failure of that tool. Economic systems are resource distribution systems. An economic system "should" allocate resources as efficiently as possible, not necessarily as efficiently or plentifully as you'd like. The inability of a system to meet any arbitrary standard isn't a failure of the system anymore than it's the failure of hammers that they can only hit one nail at a time, or the failure of the sun that it doesn't shine everywhere in the world at once,

>>10254868
too bad all of that is bullshit since you're defending a system that doesn't allocate those resources efficiently
otherwise 5 people wouldn't have as much as the bottom 50% of the world

>>10254868
You speak of resource distribution as if said resources are the "group's" property/responsibility to distribute. You have already missed the point.

>>10253703
>and his writing on what communism is supposed to look like is nearly nonexistent

This is simply wrong, Marx writes about communism and communist society in all his works and he does so extensively.

From Capital, Vol 1, Ch.1, Section 4:
>Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own
personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our
community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its
apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to
distribution.

>>10254271
The point is that there is two sides in this argument. One is telling OP to read and the other is telling him "trust me, don't read"

>>10254250
How many times is it necessary to repeat things to you people in order to actually consider what someone else is saying?

>>10253947
Do you have any actual reading comprehension or do you just lurk threads like a hawk and need to shit out irreverent garbage at a moments notice?

>>10253751
We do that by showing them the way, that free markets and free trade benefits both parties and have them engage the world in trade so that they can attain the prosperity we have.

Just as capitalism has lifted the masses out of poverty wherever it's policies have been adopted, so too it will raise the third-world countries once they start liberating their economies.

>>10254336
Wow, what a sad sack of shit you are.

>>10254206
>many western countries are already largely shitholes
Yes, thanks to socialist/communist policies like the EU, which has already screwed over several countries and more are to follow.

>>10256004
>socialist/communist policies
Welfare and wealth redistribution aren't socialism.

>>10254237
>what other political ideologies advocate against the concentration of wealth into a select few hands?
Basically every single right-wing ideology, whilst left-wing ideaologies are all about the concentration of power in the hands of a selected few government officials.

And pretty much every quote you just pulled is absolutely disgusting, both morally and economically.

>>10254282
The point of an economic system is to provide freedom for people, you fascist twirp.

I have. Marx is good, and actually reading the source will illuminate the stupidity of most arguments around Marxism. It becomes obvious how many people are arguing for/against without actually having read it.

>>10256004
>eu is communist

How is possible to actually think this is true? What kind of stuff do you read?

I haven't but I pretend to have so whenever someone criticises Marxism I can say "pffft brainlet you obviously haven't read Marx".

>>10254781
>scarcity, the ultimate cop-out

>>10256016
>wealth redistribution aren't socialism
Lmao.

>>10256027
That doesn't mean shit.

The EU started out as a good idea, but it has developed into a whole different kind of horse over the past decades. It was becoming the new USSR, but thankfully the markets seem to have destroyed it before we got to that point.

>>10254893
> what is distribution through economic incentives
> what is free market
> what is trading
kys intellectual midget

>>10253653
Reading materialist garbage like Marx and Adam Smith is ignoble and harmful to the aristocratic soul.

>>10254336
> a pseud attempted to blame others rather than change his retarded worldview

>>10256045
Wealth is measured in a quantity of commodities, usually money. Socialism seeks to abolish commodity production in its entirety, not "fairly" distribute commodities. You're confusing socdems with socialists, admittedly a common mistake.

>>10253653
>>10256059
Everything you read should make you more transcendent OP, so stay away from worldbound thinkers.

>>10256072
wut that is retarded

>>10254868
this right here

>>10256072
You can keep saying that, but you do realize there is a reality out there that we have to adhere to?

What have socialist countries/politics actually done? Stop with the 'It's not really socialism'-meme, it's getting pretty tiring.

>>10254641
The Communist Manifesto is literally a pamphlet aimed to poorly educated workers, and yet you in your high intellectual chair managed to completely miss this very obvious point which is probably talked about in the introduction of most modern editions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSQgCy_iIcc

Educate and read his works for yourself, OP. Marxist political theory does not particularly advance a white supremacist or misogynist agenda so don't expect to find any sympathy for discussion on 4chan.

>>10253751
This is a bit above my pay-grade, but the way I see it, capitalism is the natural state, in a way. Now that doesn't mean that it is good, pleasant, or incorruptible. The Free Market, much like natural selection, is brutal, unrelenting, and can be twisted in favor of those with resources and the know-how to do so. The market can and will solve almost anything, but it will take time and do so in such a shitty, horrible way that we, as a civilized society, cannot accept it. So yeah, the free market will fix things...by killing a lot of people...so kind of like communism desu.

>>10256079
You're free to think so, but the fact of the matter is that, for the working class, it is preferable to have the means of production owned in common rather than owning nothing at all and staying subservient to the owning class.

>>10256085
"Socialist country" is an oxymoron; either the entire world is socialist or it isnt. It simply cant co-exist with capitalism due to the ever-expanding nature of capitalism. Socialism is recognized by its direct fight with Capital and that is not what the EU/Soviet Union/Cuba is/were doing.

>>10255989
>>10255989
>capitalism has lifted the masses out of poverty wherever it's policies have been adopted
Nigger what the fuck are you talking about, are we living in the same planet? The last 30 years have been all about the precarization of everyday life.
On a closer scale, I'm a brazilian (inb4 uma delicia) and we just went from a social-democratic government to a neoliberal one and I'm literally getting paid a third of what I was three or four years ago for doing the same job.

>>10256134
>capitalism is the natural state

Former Marxist here with a Masters degree in economics, I recommend reading Marx mostly to be able to read contemporary marxists and get a different perspective at current politics

>>10256134
>but the way I see it, capitalism is the natural state, in a way.

>>10256134
capitalism is a perversion of the natural state by way of financial instruments that abstract the concept of power. In a natural state power is held by an aristocracy that is visibly evident to it's subjects and backed by hereditary noble values, not hidden behind paper trails that remove all sense of responsibility to ones people.

>>10256134

>>10256134
>natural state
we need to start a "Google Hume" meme for everytime someone tries to derive an ought from an is

I haven't read him but i will vote for the communist party in the next election.

>>10256156
>>10256183
>>10256200

>>10256146
>On a closer scale, I'm a brazilian (inb4 uma delicia) and we just went from a social-democratic government to a neoliberal one and I'm literally getting paid a third of what I was three or four years ago for doing the same job.
he's talking about himself and his buds in the high-earning sector
the rest of us are bugs to be squashed

>>10256134
the natural state is killing and stealing
anything else is a perversion of human nature

>>10256191
Yes, and I agree with that. But ownership of property and whatnot are deeply ingrained in the human psyche, given how even prehistoric humans were buried with their stuff. I guess "modern" capitalism goes far beyond that, given how with the centralization of power and ease of communication elites can game the system with greater ease to ensure that they remain in power. But, to be perfectly honest, I'd still take this system over Communism. Given how I grew up in the socialist hellscape that follows the (inevitably failed) attempts to implement communism and the fact that a good part of my family tree is absent from pictures due to acute cases of lead poisoning and starvation. But hey, that's just my opinion. History of my country and blood of my relatives may be keeping me from taking the "zizekpill" and getting "woke" right and proper.

and no, I do not see Communism as "natural" in any way, shape, or form. Besides, despite claiming to "free" the people, in implementation, it only constricts them more. Why have the boot lifted off your neck if it's only going to come down faster and harder?

>>10256245
Personal possessions like clothes and shit are not what Marx means as "private property", no marxist is going to invade your house and steal your PS4 (even though they should, it's a shit console and it should be purged)

>>10256245
>But ownership of property and whatnot are deeply ingrained in the human psyche, given how even prehistoric humans were buried with their stuff.
toothbrush meme strikes again

>>10256245
>But ownership of property and whatnot are deeply ingrained in the human psyche, given how even prehistoric humans were buried with their stuff.
>people buried with possessions means they understood and practiced the concept of private property
Nah you are just stupid

>>10256245
There is a difference between personnal and private property under Marxism

There is an alarming amount of Marxists lurking in 4chan these days, is the pendulum swinging left or what

>>10256249
>>10256260
>>10256261
>>10256264
Oh, fuck. Really fucked that one up, didn't I? It's not like the prehistoric man had a textile factory to be buried with or anything. It's been a long while since I even glanced at anything remotely Marxist, so do forgive the ignorance.

>Marxist
Wew

"Under Communism we should have all the worst spiritual effects of industrial Capitalism extended and emphasized because their tyranny would be universal. It would be the killing of the soul of man and its dignity."

>>10254386
>Nobody will get you out of bed in the morning and make you perform the necessary functions to preserve your life, eating, shitting, and so on.

>>10256296
Why do you faggots keep on posting this kind of quote? It only makes capitalists look like pampered dandies terrified at poor people using a fish fork to eat beef or wearing cravats wrong. You people think some bizarre abstraction like "the soul of man" is worth more than actual people starving and dying from perfectly curable diseases.

>>10256303
Who exactly are you criticizing? Capitalism is an abominable ideology, but that doesn't mean Marxism is better in any meaningful way. Yes, I think the souls of human beings are valuable, and that people deserve to be individual people and not commodities, mere factors of production, as occurs in capitalist and Marxist systems

>>10256320
>Yes, I think the souls of human beings are valuable, and that people deserve to be individual people and not commodities
individual people ARE commodities

>>10256320
>as occurs in capitalist and Marxist systems
It only does if you subscribe to the american notion that marxism is just state capitalism

>>10256332
Haven't most attempts to implement communism end in state capitalism? If there's an exception, I'd like a source.

>>10256320
>and marxist systems
Marxism aims to get rid of mass commodification, if anything fascists are the ones that still operate under the SNLT and help save and uphold the capitalist mode of production whenever commies gain support

>>10256341
Kronstadt territories, the Catalan free territories, the Oaxaca free territories, thousands of christian communities around the world, blah blah blah

But then you'll tell me how those failed (always due to external influences) and move on with it.

>>10253653
yes, no, former, because i read marx.

read engels if you're interested in how dialectical materialism is supposed to work in the system, but nobody should be forced to read marx, i don't think they even made people do it in gulags.

>>10256346
Yeah, because nothing ever happens in a vacuum. No political or historical even has happened without some outside involvement. Why are communist societies so fragile that they almost always get overrun by tankies and reactionaries?

>>10256332
>>10256345
but marxism treats workers as a class, which is a form of commodification to their end

>>10256357
>those failed (always due to external influences)
>overrun by tankies and reactionaries
you're either a good troll or not getting what he meant at all

>>10256360
What part of "classless" society do you not understand, its capitalism that treats workers as class, Marx only pointed it out

>>10256357
The EZLN municipalities don't seem that fragile, considering they've existed for almost 30 years now and don't look like they're going to end anytime soon.

>>10256370
Leading people in a revolution is using them as instruments to achieve your aim

>>10256382
Who's talking about leading people into a revolution, they should go because they want to.

>>10256382
The people lead themselves

>>10256371
Right. He also named numerous Christian communities and some of those are still around. Don't see tankies kicking their head in anytime soon either, desu. It's clear from these examples that Communism is, in fact, workable on a rather small and decentralized scale. I just don't see them being very stable in "state" form, as that attracts undue attention. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

>>10256388
>>10256390
So they just don't want to right now? No one is oppressed enough to desire change? Why do Marxists try to raise class consciousness then?

>>10256392
>Don't see tankies kicking their head in anytime soon either, desu.
again, you're either a troll or hilarious

>>10253817
>how do you know phlogiston isnt real? do you understand it??

>communism is when government does all the stuff
>I don't care that I can't use all the wealth I'm accumulating I just want it
>taking away the possessions of the better off to provide for the starving is morally repugnant

>>10256052
None of these meme greentexts argue the point at hand.

>>10256395
None of your claims follow from the replies you quote.

>I WANT TO GET FUCKED BY MY BOSSBULL
>YES, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WAGEKEK 8 HOURS OF THE SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOR TIME
>YES, YES, LET ME SPEND A THIRD OF MY LIFE WORKING

Are capitalism apologists the ultimate wagecuckolds?

>>10256392
A lot of marxists (and other leftists) completely agree with that to the point that a book I was reading recently (pic related) spent like a third of it criticising the prevalence of localism. I can't recommend or disavow it because I had to read other shit for school, dropped it and still didn't went back, but their analysis of the rise of neoliberalism is quite good.

>>10256399
I must be missing something, then. Kronstadt lasted all of 10 days. Makhnoists got betrayed by the Bolsheviks and the same happened in the Spanish Civil War. My reading comprehension must've really taken a nosedive if I fucked up as bad as I think I have. Oh, and the bit about tankies and the Christians was sarcasm.

>>10256395
this is a really loaded question and yojmu won't get a nuanced answer to it from a 4chan post, either way marxists believe that when the material conditions are right, revolution becomes inevitable as was the case throughout most of history, but I believe that a lot of contemporary leftists have realized that capitalist crises only makes the system more adaptable

>>10256422
so a troll it is, OK desu

>>10256395
welfare state and red scares

>>10254260

>>10256444
are you implying that the examples I brought up didn't happen? I am at a bit of a loss here. The guy I responded to brought up examples of communist communities that work but are on a small scale and are very local. I'm trying to be polite, but I seem to have missed something in that post. Perhaps a turn of the phrase or something of that sort. Besides, I really don't think I have it in me to troll a literature board on a Ugandan sweater knitting forum.

>>10256464
deftly done good sir, the ruse is afoot!

>>10256414
>resources are the "group's" property/responsibility to distribute
nobody forces anybody to trade, they do it voluntary out of self interest. There is no commitees that do the trading in capitalist society.
I will continue to debate if we agree on the point resources are finite

>>10256449

>>10256456
the only way this would be better is if the guy scolding marx was a tall skinny cunt with a pompadour and sideburns called Max

>>10256467
well, I sure don't see any way I can respond to that...

>>10256481
my work here is done

>>10256486
It has truly been an honor

>>10256488
>>10256486
>>10256481
god job senpaitachi desu!

>>10256488
do you now see what is possible when working as a collective, comrade? the finest shitposting, which will be enshrined forever in the halls of warosu.

>>10256506
yes, I do, comrade. There might be hope for me yet...

>>10256506
>>10256518
>>10256488
>>10256486
>>10256481
>>10256493
t. samefag

>>10256476

>>10255904
>Give a vauge what
>Not even an implication of the how
I mean it makes sense, if the system was going to come about no matter what why would Marx waste his time writing about it? It's not to tout this shit like "each to their need, from their abilities", but how do we organize ourselves to bring this about? Marx did not tell us this. I say this as a Marxist too; there is no prescriptive account of communism in Marx's writings. Speculations and inferences, yes, but solid political alternatives to Capitalism? No.

When are we going to delete /pol/ddit from the cup?

>>10256532

>>10256137
>"Socialist country" is an oxymoron; either the entire world is socialist or it isnt.
>being this retarded
Read more Marx you pussy. Socialism =/= communism, and the fact you are mixing them up makes you the shittiest political theorist there is.

>>10256526
...right

>>10256560
3 from your computer

3 from your phone

>>10256532

>>10256566
I know not whether to be amazed or horrified...

>>10254260
>manga
>right to left
I just can't

>>10256282
/lit/ has always been leftist, though there's been vile splutters of p(r)olaps that fell here in the past half year or so

>>10256282
these are posters from /leftypol/. Listen up fags I've seen the same thing you did to /his/. Leave us alone with your subversion. 4chan is not a golden egg that will do the memeing for your leftist ideology. Come to /pol/ to do that shit

>>10256137
Most every country in the world is neither 100% capitalist or socialist/communist, they're all mixed economies to varying degrees. The ones that deviate most from the idea of free markets and free trade are the ones that are deepest in the shit.

>>10253653
Like it or not, his work has historical value, and in that context, it's important to read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, so you have a baseline to understand what all the fuss is about. The manifesto was required reading when I was going through NCO acadamy when I was in the Army, Das Kapital was required in college during econ 101. While your at it, read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, to round out the basics.

>>10256146
>Brazil
First of all, my condolences. Being an untermensch can't be easy.

With that said, instead of blaming capitalism for what isn't thair problem, you should take a closer look at your state-directed market and the favours it receives from its friends in the government.

With a set-up like that, in a country like Brazil, you're bound to get a horrible amount of corruption.

>>10256417
You do realize that throughout history, before capitalism arrived people worked far longer than 8 hours a day, for far less money, in far more horrible conditions.

How come every single one of you leftist morons seem to think reality is optional, that you can just choose to ignore it if it doesn't fit your ideology?

>>10253653
Marxism is nonsense. Seizing the means of production? How?

>>10253653
You should read him whether you hate marxism/communism or not.

>>10256597
this is left to right tho

>>10256129
A person who writes absurd, pathetic trash to any group shows himself for what he truly is -- a pretender, a hypocrite, and a liar.

>>10258659
with a liberal application of violence

>>10258619
>you leftist morons
I suppose you're unaware that the right is statistically less intelligent and less educated than the left, or the center for that matter?

>>10258703
Which is why a /pol/tard's shitpost horrifies me much less than the stuff I see on lefty/pol/. Knowing that those people are actually educated and yet unironically say the things they do hurts my heart and soul.

>>10258703
>gets BTFO
>lel ur uneducated durrrrrr

really makes me think

>>10258731
I'm not the person he replied to.
And would you care to see the study?

>>10258709
>leftypol is educated
If you call being a 5'10 manlet and under educated, so be it

>>10258743
"studies" and polls are almost worthless information, if they were accurate the medai would have predicted drumpf 8)

>>10258749

>>10254641
>Your whey two entelligent fur Marks
Grow up

>>10258752
t. 5'8

Here's one. Oh, btw, it's not a "poll." It's a peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal. Assuming you know what that means...

"Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact"
http://m.pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187

>>10258757
Oh, I'm all grown up now, Junior. And Marx is still a delusional fool.

>>10258759
>"Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact
>In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood
a sample of 15,000 britbongs
>All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status

>>10258766
You missed the part about the American statistics? You didn't really read it, did you?

>>10258619
Capitalism is literally destroying our civilization m8.

While you're digesting that one, here's another (statistics by Pew Research):

"Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group. 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education."
http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/part-3-demographics-lifestyle-and-news-consumption/

>>10258783
Those statistics shouldn't surprise anyone.

>>10258783
Yeah, they all have useless degrees in literature, sociology, gender studies and what-not. Nobody save for themselves think they're smart people.

Why do you think all they complain about is how poor and oppressed they are, and how they need more benefits in order to make ends meet?

I suggest reading the commodity fetishism section of Capital just to read pic related

>>10258780
Yes, extreme capitalism is eventually just as destructive as extreme Marxism. In the meantime, most sucessful countries with strong economies, high standards of living, and healthy levels of personal freedoms are social democratic welfare states with a good blend of both socialism and well-regulated capitalism. That's the formula that actually works. Countries that stray too far to either extreme fail like clockwark.

>>10258806
>le mixed economies meme
Not the guy you're replying to but the only reason those countries actually work is because their capitalists are shitting up the environment of third world countries to make profit.
there is no such thing as a "blend of both socialism and well-regulated capitalism" because socialism fucking negates capitalism, the state doing stuff isn't what socialism means, it still operates under the capitalist mode of production

>>10258794
Woops, no. Most STEM scientists (that's the hard stuff, you know... physics, math, engineering, chemistry) are overwhelmingly liberal. Oh, look, there are some statas about that, too:

There are very few Republican scientists in America:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

>>10258814
I'm sure that's true in your mind. But anyone who actually takes a look around at the real world can see clearly that you're mistaken.

Always remember to read Marx not the Marxists

>>10258815
At the same time, liberals/democrats have caused the most amount of damage to your country.

Funny how that works.

>>10258825
No, read factual data from the real, physical world. That's how you get in touch with reality, which is something you won't find in books by Smith or Marx. Maybe Keynes if you want to learn some economics that works, or Krugman, the Nobel Prize laureate.

>>10258766
>we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood
So? What does this have to do with party affiliation?

The majority of all leftists are racists in their beliefs, and a large amount of them are anti-semitic to boot. Does this mean the study concludes that dumb people are more likely to vote labour/whatever? Probably not, because they don't think that the soft bigotry of low expectations is racism.

>>10258831
Ummm, no. In reality, the greatest period of economic success, military power, strong personal liberties, international respect, low national debt etc., was the FDR era. As democratic as democratic can be.

>>10258841
But that's factually wrong, you see. Just saying it doesn't make it true. You need evidence. And the evidence shows clearly that right-wingers, who as we all know are the Republicans, are the racists.

>>10258841
just popping in here to add that liberals on average have higher IQ's than their conservative counterparts in virtually every study ever done on the matter. there hasn't been a single study that even hints at that the right wingers have a higher intelligence. so just wanted to throw that out there. of course it's meaningless.

just throwin it out there tho

>The majority of all leftists are racists in their beliefs, and a large amount of them are anti-semitic to boot.
lolwut

>>10258834
>Maybe Keynes if you want to learn some economics that works
What? The reason people all over the world have been moving away from Keynesian economics these past 40-50 yearsis because they proved to be false. His terminology is useful though.

>>10258842
In America, the greatest period of economic growth and development was during the high tide of capitalism. And you forget, even under FDR the taxes were a hell-of-a-lot lower than they are today, so why don't you want to go back to that, since even you seem to understand that lower taxes are better in creating the incentive needed for people to produce more, better and cheaper products that make our lives that much better?

>>10258845
Except it was the Republican party the freed the slaves from racist democrats, and a majority of people voting for each civil rights act were republicans while a majority of people voting against the civil right acts were democrats.

That's history, so what about today? Today democrats are the people who give shit education to blacks and then price them out of the market with well-intentioned raises of the minimum wage. Trapped in the welfare-system they have no choice but to keep voting for democrats in order to get benefits, for should they try and make it own their own, produce some of their own money, they lose all the benefits. Try to save up for a car, an education or anything that could improve your life? You lose the benefits. And this keeps you a slave, which is what the democrats have always wanted.

>>10258851
And yet it's the smart people who have caused most every tragedy known to mankind throughout history.

Think about that for a second.

>>10258857
>even under FDR the taxes were a hell-of-a-lot lower than they are today
>Except it was the Republican party the freed the slaves from racist democrats
>a majority of people voting for each civil rights act were republicans
you're just plain stupid, the 1st and 3nd line are easily googled and you still couldn't get them right
the 2nd line is a standard republican gem that completely ignores the fact that time doesn't stand still, it passes, and things change so all those mean dems you're talking about when mentioning the civil rights act eventually became republicans

>>10258857
During WWII the the top bracket of 94% was applied to all income above $200,000 (~$3 million today).

The top bracket didn't fall below 70% until the Reagan tax cuts in the 80's.

The current highest tax bracket is 40%.

>>10258905
Oops, confused FDR with something else.

Yeah, during war times the government steps in and requires huge amounts of resources. I don't see why that should continue during peace times.

And the 'big switch' you're talking about is just false. Racism had nothing to do with the switch which happened first later on in the 90's. And that was due to religion, not race, you idiot.

>>10258917
Exactly. During ~1850-1950 you guys experienced the biggest growth in wealth the world has ever seen. Then you started raising the taxes and messing around with Keynesian economics which started a decline in the economic growth. Reagan turned things around but for the past decade or two you've started taking steps in the wrong direction again.

>>10258937
>pic
it says right there that a majority of people voting for the act were democrats - 153 D vs 136 R in the house, 46 D vs 27 R in the senate

>Yeah, during war times the government steps in and requires huge amounts of resources. I don't see why that should continue during peace times.
because the same resources are needed during peacetime

>And the 'big switch' you're talking about is just false. Racism had nothing to do with the switch which happened first later on in the 90's. And that was due to religion, not race, you idiot.
sure sure, keep telling yourself that

>>10258941
yeah except that whole great depression thing everything was going swell

>>10258955
>it says right there that a majority of people voting for the act were democrats - 153 D vs 136 R in the house, 46 D vs 27 R in the senate
Yeah, the Democrats are a bigger party, and a larger percent of that bigger party are racists.

Are you that stupid?

>because the same resources are needed during peacetime
I guess you really are that stupid.

>>10258959
Which was the fault of the FED and government intervention.

Up until the great depression the US economy had gone through several economic crashes, each lasting only a couple of years. When the FED was created, it was created in order to deal with exactly those kinds of conditions, but what did they do? Absolutely nothing. They just stood by and watched as banks collapsed in '31-'33, instead of purchasing bonds en masse and making sure they had enough reserves and stop people from panicking - just like others did in 1907, before the FED was created and took on that role. But because you now had the FED, no one else thought it necessary to do anything, and so through a mishandle of the money levers (not to mention several other policies that did further great harm) - more specifically, not increasing the amount of money - that led to the longest and worst economic disaster in your countries history.

The capitalists set the crisis off, but the FED and government lengthened it by a decade.

>>10258979
>Yeah, the Democrats are a bigger party, and a larger percent of that bigger party are racists.
>Are you that stupid?
yes, I'm stupid cause I read what you write and not what you meant to write but weren't able to put into words
"a majority of people voting for each civil rights act were republicans" doesn't mean whatever you think it means

>I guess you really are that stupid
yeah the free market will solve everything, the invisible hand will raise us all up into heaven

>Which was the fault of the FED and government intervention.
it always is with you people, though to give you some credit you do at least mention that the capitalists set it off
and hoover was president in '31 & '32, FDR went into office in '33

Marxism/communism is mental illness, born out of incompetence, extrapolated to ideology.

>>10256133
>le jeux

>>10258619
>before capitalism arrived people worked far longer than 8 hours a day, for far less money, in far more horrible conditions.
None of those happened coz of capitalists

>>10258995
You claimed the Republican party was the party of racism, I showed you otherwise. Suck it up.

And no one has ever claimed that the free market can fix everything. Law and order, military defence, basic infrastructure and externalities are things people on the right tend to believe the market can't produce in an efficient manner.

What we mean is that there isn't a single system out there that can fix every single issue, and that comparing anything to perfection or to a arbitrary standard solves nothing.

>it always is with you people
It is when it is.

If you can show me any other time during capitalism before the FED got involved (or rather, when it didn't get involved after its creation) with a depression lasting anywhere near that long, and you might convince me that I'm wrong.

Had the FED not been created, the very same measures as in 1907 would have been taken: a restriction of payments. Which ended the crisis and put the country back on track after a couple years, instead of a decade. But no one did anything, and why should they have, seeing as how that was supposed to be the job of the FED?

>>10258995
And to give a few examples of some of the bad policies that took shape during that time:

1. Passing of the largest peacetime tax increase in the history of USA - funny, how even Keynesians think that when economic activity slows down, you should lower taxes...

2. Passing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in '30-'31 or something like that, increasing the tariffs by a lot. This led to trading partners implementing retaliatory restrictions, which dampened the demand for US products, making sure that production slowed down even further.

3. Both Humbert Humbert and FDR (mainly FDR though) increased the amount of "public work" programs that dragged people away from the labour force into meaningless and wasteful activities. Or maybe you think that it was a good idea to use tax payer money to carve in some faces on a mountain, what do I know.

4. The FED increased the required amount of reserves banks needed ~mid 30's, leading to even bigger decreases in the money supply. This lead to a recession within a reception.

And there are many, many more examples of horrible policies that time and again made things worse just as things were about to take a turn for the better.

Keep in mind that before any governmental intervention, the unemployment numbers reached a peak of ~9,5%, a few months after the economic crash, and quickly started going down again before reaching ~6% after 6 months. Then the government stepped in and the trend took another turn, this time reachin a peak of 25% and staying in the early 20's for a long, long time.

>>10259306
>restriction of payments
And who would enforce it? Who could carry it through? What would have happen is. All depressions are the results of inaccurate value, of having an account book where the numbers don't add up. A reset of the books is necessary but nobody wants to lose out and be the one that savings are lost. The Fed stepping in was necessary because otherwise someone else would have done the necessary reset either the mafia or some other oligarchical group. If it's the fed than they would have a legitimate claim on the resetting. If it's some other group, violence will be used to enforce the change and those change will necessarily be advantages to them.

>>10259306
>You claimed the Republican party was the party of racism, I showed you otherwise. Suck it up.
You didn't "show" anything. Quoting something they did SIXTY years ago doesn't mean shit and you know why - because of the switch. The only way you can be right is if things don't change with time (people don't grow from children to adults, the planet doesn't revolve around its axis etc) and that's simply not true.

>Both Humbert Humbert and FDR (mainly FDR though) increased the amount of "public work" programs that dragged people away from the labour force into meaningless and wasteful activities. Or maybe you think that it was a good idea to use tax payer money to carve in some faces on a mountain, what do I know.
Your free market shit didn't work, what were they supposed to do? Yeah Mount rushmore got built but so did a shitload of infrastructure.

>Keep in mind that before any governmental intervention, the unemployment numbers reached a peak of ~9,5%, a few months after the economic crash, and quickly started going down again before reaching ~6% after 6 months. Then the government stepped in and the trend took another turn, this time reachin a peak of 25% and staying in the early 20's for a long, long time.
The problem is that I literally don't believe you. Either you're straight up lying or you're mischaracterizing what happened or you're missing something that doesn't fit your ideological frame.

>mfw socialist practices worked so well, i was elected 4 terms in a row and congress was so butt hurt, they had to amend the constitution to prevent it from happening again

>>10259522
Reformism isnt socialism

>>10259354
>And who would enforce it? Who could carry it through? What would have happen is
Look at 1907. Look at 1907. And again, look at 1907.

It has already been tested. It had positive results. It's not uncharted territory.

And the problem with the FED wasn't that they stepped in. Had you actually read anything I said the problem was they they were created to take over the reigns, but when things started moving, they did absolutely nothing for several years.

And then government stepped in and made things even worse with >>10259330 policies.

>>10259510
The switch that you're still harping about didn't happen right after the Civil Rights Act (which, again, more republicans than democrats were in favor of), so it has nothing do with racism. The democrats who switched to republicans did so twenty years later, because they felt things were starting to get a little too degenerate around there and wanted some good old fashion bible-thumping to begin.

>Your free market shit didn't work, what were they supposed to do?
For fucks sake, I've already said it a thousand times: the FED should not have been created but since it was, it should've increased the money supply so as to make sure not as many banks rolled over, and the government shouldn't have done anything - you know, just like every single economic crisis before they got involved, crisis' that lasted a couple years at best when left on their own.

>The problem is that I literally don't believe you
Then I guess this will be my final post on this issue.

In Oktober 1929 the stock market crash happened. In December 1929, two months after, unemployment reached a level of 9%. Over the following six months to about June 1930, the unemployment rate started going down, and by June had reached 6,3%. Not once did it go into double digits.

In June 1930 though, the government steps in with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, designed to reduce unemployment by resticting goods into the US, making sure you guys have to produce themselves. A thousand economists advised the government not to go through with the bill, saying it would do the exact opposite.

Withing five months of the bill being passed, you were up in double digit unemployment, and like I said earlier, it just kept on rising to a peak at 25% for a while before "stabilising" at ~20-23%. For several years.

>>10254336

>>10258759
don't you see anything wrong with this a party calling themselves liberals for the good of humanity spends money on research to demonize their opposition. Liberals are charlatan. They vilified and executed monarchs on their knees and now they tried to do the same thing with the current conservatives. I am a reactionary but I do feel sorry for them

>>10258857
>the greatest period of economic growth and development was during the high tide of capitalism
No, it was during New Deal WPA programs that employed artists, social causes, and public works using private enterprise.

Private-public partnerships with heavy-handed oversight is what works.

>>10258806
>In the meantime, most sucessful countries with strong economies, high standards of living, and healthy levels of personal freedoms are social democratic welfare states with a good blend of both socialism and well-regulated capitalism

Those states are slowly being transformed into third world countries because when you give people a "healthy" level of personal freedom they decide not to marry and raise children.

>>10260975
We should start starving our white citizens so that they fuck more.

>>10259649
I think you're missing a frame of the u.s. invading

>>10260988
We should leave all policy decisions to landowning males above the age of 35

>>10254889
If you took money from the rich and used that money to build a power plant for some 43 IQ Africans, they would steal the copper and sell it back to a successful capitalist. in the end you might achieve minor wealth redistribution, but more than anything you'd have caused wealth destruction. Even worse, the defunct power plant is now an environmental hazard, and a waste of real estate; further, the Africans who hit the ghetto lottery will probably just pump out another kid and ameliorate global poverty. Your do-goodery furthers civilizational collapse.

If the "global south" wants to stop wallowing in the mud, it has to start effectively protecting property rights. The fact of the matter is that they're too stupid to figure this out.

>>10258806
capitalism flops for the same reason any other system flops: people suck. capitalism flops a lot less than the alternatives--just keep capitalists far away from the reigns of Power.

>>10254282
>the point of an economic system should be to provide for everyone, otherwise it's shit

>>10259649
Funny enough no state has ever claimed to be communist so your point collapses to begin with.

>>10258783
>The people that get indoctrinated by their radical left-wing professors tend to be more left-wing
What a shocking turn of events!
There was a British politician that once said something along the lines of "every institution that isn't explicitly right-wing, will become left over time". Even if you enter university with a slight lean towards the right or thinking of yourself as apolitical, the pressure from your most vocal peers & professors will push you to the left. At some point you just go along to get along: if somebody starts talking about systemic sexism in STEM or racial biases, unless you are a very convinced ideologue, at some point you will just submit and nod your head. Most people never actually think about their believes that deeply, they are simply shaped by the people around them and because they want to avoid conflict, they start to assimilate. And the most vocal people on University campuses are radical left-wing ideologues.

>>10261789
This. Universal suffrage was a mistake. Allowing people that get legally bribed by politicians (receive welfare) to vote was an even bigger mistake.

>>10262670
Yeah, because there is no state in a commie society you fucking retard..

>>10262748
>Allowing people that get legally bribed by politicians (receive welfare) to vote was an even bigger mistake.
same for people who get any kind of tax break
the only voters left will be the amish or something

>>10261865
It's not like capitalism ever damages the environment or anything.

>>10262756
Tax breaks should be eliminated desu. The only people that will ever be able to take full advantage of them (without doing something illegal) are the wealthy that can afford to pay somebody to do their taxes for them. Better to just reduce taxes by a few percent across the board.

>>10261865
nice story, you should make a novel out of it, a mix of camp of the saints and the turner diaries

He wrote too fucking much. Try David Harvey's Youtube series and companion texts.

I tried to read Capital like 10 times but just could not do it.

>>10254336
Now read this again but imagine that he's talking about capitalism

>>10256133
>School of Life

>>10253751
>How do we find the resources to give 1 bln indians and 1,5 bln chinese the western lifestyle?
>He hasn't yet taken the final and hardest redpill

Ctrl + f "jew" = 1 result.

Smdh at you all.

>>10256422
>10 days

But Comrade, it must have been a glorious ten days for the proletariat!

>>10262917
>>10262991
Well, they're here, goodbye rational discussion. Pack it up boys.

>>10258834
What do you think this guy did in his monograph?

>>10263012
>thinks he can understand Marx without understanding jews
You unclog your toilet with your toothbrush too?

>>10262991
Not an argument

>>10253653
yes

>>10263025
You either haven't read Marx's On the Jewish Question or you didn't understand it. Either way, it's probably too late for you.

>>10253653
Just read the abridged version.

>>10263063
> expecting a jew to be honest about the jewish question

Communism is evil

>>10262750
So communism has never been tried?

>>10263074
Marxist-Leninism

>>10264110
Never been implemented on a national scale, no.

>>10264114
>no.
That's my point, any meme argument going over how communism was bad because of the USSR logically crumbles by itself.

>>10264132
I can't believe some people are so retarded that they still repeat this line.

>>10264132
>communism has never been tried
lmao

If that's the case, then capitalism has never been tried either, because there has never been a completely unregulated and free market.

>>10264188
What you're saying is there's never been market capitalism with a backing government. The Ayncap ideal could last up to a week or so before they formed their own governments, but at least you'd see what it was like to have a free for all.

Yes of course we have capitalism. We've had centuries of primitive capitalism and now all these differing types of "free market" and social reformist mixed economies. Even the Marxist-Leninist state-capitalism of the USSR. It's all kinds of capitalism.

*poof*

>>10264205
>Market capitalism WITHOUT a backing government
Sorry

>>10264139
Haha another ad hom by a communist. Refute this you shit for brain

>>10264205
What we have are mixed economies, where the ones who deviate the most from the ideal of free markets and free trade are the ones who are the most poor in general.

The only way you can achieve the kind of society you keep pushing for is through force and coercion, and the tool you people eventually always use to enforce that is the government.

The world has seen the communist argument, the world rejected it. Because it's a disgusting shit idea that translates into even more shit when you put it into practice.

>>10264279
>where the ones who deviate the most from the ideal of free markets and free trade are the ones who are the most poor

>Europe
>Poor
hehehehe.

>The only way you can achieve the kind of society you keep pushing for is through force
I am an anarchist. It's only going to happen if people join in and heft capitalism out the proverbial window

>The world has seen the communist argument
They haven't actually. That was Marxist-Leninism and it is state-capitalism

>>10254295
>>10254320
>>10254719
>>10261906
>communism is shit because it causes starvation, if capitalist do it its a-ok though

>>10264338
Europe is heading towards bleak, bleak times. Sweden is on the verge of a big economic crisis due to largely the same reasons you guys had the crash in '08; Finland because of their stupidity in adopting the Euro as their currency. Ireland, Spain, Greece, Portugal are already fucked. More will follow, especially now that the EU's contingency money has run out.

What made the countries in Europe wealthy to begin with was capitalism, and socialist policies that have started taking more and more place since the 50's have started to erode the wealth.

Sweden is usually the lefts favorite country to look to when it comes to socialism, but the wealth predated the welfare-system. From ~1870-1935 Sweden had the highest growth rate out of all industrialized nations, during the period after up to '08, it had declined to 13th. During the same period Sweden dropped from being ranked the 4th richest country in the world to the 13th.

>I am an anarchist
LOL

>That was Marxist-Leninism and it is state-capitalism
No, the only people who don't believe it was communism every single time are either radical communists or confused anarchists.

>>10264409
There's crisis of capitalism in Europe?
Y'don't say.

>Confused anarchist he says.
Do try to learn, anon. You can do it.

>>10264428
Nope, crisis of socialist policies.

Should probably work on your reading comprehension.

>>10264452

>>10264409
The EU is politically technocratic and has followed strict monetarist policies, that's the root of all its problems but it can't fix that because it was designed as such.

I don't see how you can see "socialism" as the big problem in Europe, control over next to notting is really under popular control. What you're looking at is a technocratic society, private corporations may be better or worse than government bureaucrats but control either way is a totally alien process.

Sweden was always rather exceptionally protectionist, it wasn't ever really a case study in liberalism. The social democratic model did work exceptionally well during its prime but it isn't really relevant any more in a globalized world.

>>10264409
Look at this retard. Writes about the economic crisis in Sweden and doesn't even mention how the Swedes, though mainly the jews running their institutions, have imported a third of their population in the form of 70 IQ third world shitskins the last couple decades who contribute absolutely nothing and are collapsing their social infrastructure. *That* is the problem. Full gynocracy + jews going full kike on the most trusting people on the planet.

>>10262757
Capitalism, given equivalent levels of development, damages the environment less than the alternatives; of course, civilization will necessarily encroach upon the natural world. Good luck convincing everyone to embrace anarcho-primitivism.

>>10262765
thankfully, it's already been done:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elusive_Quest_for_Growth

>>10264351
>allocating resources in a way that tends to reward competent people is totally indistinguishable from one that subsidizes the proliferation of retards

>>10264205
A laissez-faire society needs not be ancap--you could just as well have a sovereign who only assesses a property tax.

>>10265350
>A laissez-faire society needs not be ancap--you could just as well have a sovereign who only assesses a property tax.

Gorf. Not recommending that.

>>10253653

Sure, im a marxist. Marx is definitely worth a read, primarily because he is *Literally* the only one who presents us with an alternative "unbiased" perspective regarding capitalism.

Everything else you read is Pro-Capitalist.

>>10265427
>Everything else you read is Pro-Capitalist.

>>10265427
Not sure if you fit the bill here, but any white man who self-describes as a Marxist is the bottom of the barrel in intelligence and awareness.

>>10265453

A stupid question deserves an equally stupid response.

>>10265491
What question? It was a statement.

>>10253653

Hi Op,

Not so much a Marxist here but someone who is willing to concede that he was not all wrong and had some vauable insights into the negative side of Capitalism.

Grew up hating him until I decided to "know my enemy". Turned out I was being very judgemental and had believed alot of hogwash.

Marx was very insightful, regardless of what alot of people say, there's a reason why his name is so well known.

I will dump some books I found helpful OP, hope they help you also.

>>10253653

Because of the rather clunky terms Marx uses I feel that the best option is to read other marxists before you delve into Marx.

Best beginners book here! Easy, focuses on the essentials and has a handy glossary. Great book to batten down the basics and helps give a bare bones non faff introduction.

>>10253653
Not quite as easy to read as the previous book but very good to hammer home the essentials of Marx's beliefs.

>>10253653

The first half is very good but the second have is a tad guff as it focuses on the crazy marxists that we have today etc

>>10265496

I was referring to the OP:
"If you are a Marxist, can you explain why?"
A vulgar question deserves a vulgar answer,
Marx is important to anyone interested in economics....

But I don't see how that's such an insult, rather than a compliment, because, as we know, capitalism is oppression on a mass scale.

My adventures in Beginners Marxism. (Because it was there) It's just simple introductory stuff of course.

Thanks Marx book posting anon.

>>10264535
And thank you.

>>10265546
>as we know, capitalism is oppression on a mass scale.
"We" don't know that. You are blaming a system that runs however humans tell it to run; the problem stems from the people making the decisions in their interests, jews, which is counter to the interests of whites, and which causes some whites to mistakenly blame capitalism, an abstract entity, instead of the jews who are determining how capitalism is borne out.

>>10265576

"You are blaming a system that runs however humans tell it to run"

Nowadays, people don't even have the choice, they serve capital interests (which have developed into sentient forces of their own).

>>10265559
Happy to help!

The Communist Manifesto makes alot more sense when you have the key terms nailed down

>>10265612
No, they haven't. Try to apply reason here. Things do not run on their own, they run according to human decision. There is no capitalist machine with a mind of its own, there is a capitalist machine working in the interests of jewish globalists who are making the decisions about what results they would like it to produce.

>>10254678
Not him but Wage Labor and Capital is a good starting point opposed to just trying to dive right into Capital.

>>10265632

No, it's perfectly reasonable to say that a Capital
although created by an individual, continues to
go through the capitalist production process (even after the individual's death).

In fact, the process of Capitalism is the alienation of the individual from the means of production,
the metamorphosis of all humanity into wage slaves.

>>10265713
You're repeating scare propaganda that ultimately means nothing. Capitalism can benefit the people and work in their interests, and did previously when men with noblesse oblige were running western institutions. Those nations are now being run by jews who detest the non-jewish populations below them and actively seek to disenfranchise them and keep them at bay. That's the crux of the problem here: a hostile alien elite. Capitalism is just a tool that will produce different results based on the ethnic makeup and moral character of the people in charge.

>>10265632
>Things do not run on their own, they run according to human decision

A system most definitely at some point can become autonomous and take control

>>10265741
>d actively se

Ironically, you're the perfect example of why
we need to read Marx. And lots more.

>>10265748
That's silly. But to the extent that statement could be portrayed as true, it would be like a skateboard skimming down the street by itself after a kid kicked it; the skateboard is technically moving forward on its own, but is doing so as a result of the kid who kicked it.

>>10253817
>how can you know hitler was a bad dude, did you talk to him in person?

>>10254237
gr8 b8 m8

>>10254282
The point of an economic system is to facilitate trade

>>10254295
ow the edge

>>10253947
t. wall street shilling division

>>10256134

Money itself is a very unnatural concept.

>>10266513
t. you

>>10266513

Its observable existence and regular usage in the real world strongly suggest otherwise.

>Capitalism sucks!
>Yeah I guess.
>So Socialism!
>MFW

Does it all really boil down to Capitalism or Socialism? Is there no other alternative?

>>10254295
>fuck communism it starves people
>"but starving is normal, it's the way of life"
Why are they always so contradictive and edgy?

>>10266630

>>10266513
commodity money is probably the most natural thing i can think of.

>>10258619

yes, when capitalism arrived, bosses minimized work hours to just 40 hrs a week and created a minimum wage, all on its very own, since markets tend towards less and less profit

>>10266630
anarcho primitivism

>>10253703
A competitive economic system is the only one that truly works. Everything else is silly until we reach a point of true post-scarcity. To counter any points on monopolies, those should be destroyed whenever they pop up.

>>10266630

>Is there no other alternative?

Keynesian economics

>>10266837

nice try Kaczynski but I enjoy not being in the food chain and not dying at 19 from a bacterial infection after cutting my toe

>>10266800
>National Socialism
I am highly doubtful of its implementation in the modern day. Would get sanctioned, proxy-fucked and potentially outright invaded.
>>10266837
>Anarcho Primitivism
As with National Socialism except it would just shit on itself. Assuming this is a meme reply, still I don't know how anyone would imagine even between Capitalism and Socialism that having no economy is preferable.
>>10266844
Is Keynesian Economics functional?

>>10265259
Waah waah dem evul joos did it!

You retards are hilarious.

>>10267575
You aren't fooling anyone with this anymore, rabbi.

>>10266604
Money was invented in like 700bc. That's fairly late for a natural thing

>>10266844
So capitalism

>>10253653

Marxism is the only way forward and capitalism is absolutely horrible.

>>10253653
Marx is an extremely influential, and controversial figure in Economics, Philosophy, Political Theory, Historiography, and Sociology, any degree in any of those fields will force you to read him. What do you want to read him for?
Do want to understand Marxian Economics?
Or Dialectical-Materialist Philosophy?
Or Scientific-Socialism?
Or Historical-Materialist Historiography?
Ir Marx's influence in modern sociology?
Fuck, even researching one of those five, reading Marx is just a first step to understanding the thousands of theorists that came after him. Technically not even a first step, because Marx wasn't the first in any of those fields, and reading his works requires a fuckton of prior reading.
If you want to understand Marx's work in its entiretry, it'll take you a Decade at least.
If you want to understand "Marxism" as a whole, that requires a lifetime of work, and a genuine desire to understand that borders on clinical.

>>10267600
Coin money dates back to 3500BC, in ancient Sumeria, and Egypt. I'm Anti-Capitalist too, but you're embarrasing us both.

>>10253683
Don't read German Idealism until you are familiar with Guenon

>>10267790
If you ARE dead-set on reading Marx, though I made these two charts for /leftypol/, that should get you started:

>>10267805

>>10256412
Theft is generally considered morally bad.

OP here, I just remembered I posted this thread, I am not reading 316 replies lol.

Can you just dive right into Capital or is there a primer that you need first? Marx's writing style is... difficult for me.

>>10264535
>The social democratic model did work exceptionally well during its prime

Except during 70's-90's when it was at it's highest, everything also went to shit and led to the 90's crash. Leading social democrats after that said that the tax system they built up was, using their own words, "perverse".

Not that a moron like you would know that.

>>10265259
The refugees Sweden has taken in the last couple of years will make things worse, but we would've had this crisis even without that, you fucking moron.

Why don't you go suck off Richard Spencer, you flaming faggot.

>>10253653
Had to read him for class, but it was just nonsense.

Marx and Engels had barely worked a day in their miserable lives when they started talking 'in the name of the workers' LOL.

It's just a bunch of whiney, pretentious kids who want to be rebellious who listen to and admire Marx, but eventually they'll grow up, get a job and stop being such pathetic losers.

Unless you read Marx, you'll be utterly unable to understand economics and how production works. Marx provides us with a neat, rational materialist framework, and his exposition is the only rational and logical system of economics ever invented.

This is why when you hear the neocons talking about economics they are utterly unable to explain basic concepts like Money and the origin of profit. They look at economics with mysticism and idealism, whereas with Marxists we have complete irrefutable principles that properly explain economics.

>>10253751
CAUSE WE ARE JUST GONNA KILL EM

>>10267794
you're thinking of debt and barter. Coins are much later. Egyptian trade specifically did not involve it.

>>10268169
>barely worked a day
They worked a lot, they just weren't wageslave. It seems thats the only kind of work people understand nowadays.

>>10262750
>>10264110
No because Communism is the end product of the socialist state. When the apparatus of the socialist state would fade away and you'd be left with a currencyless, propertyless, stateless, classless society.
The problem with the "never been tried" argument is that it confuses, either intentionally or unintentionally, tried and achieved.
Communism has unarguably been TRIED, considering the better part of Eurasia lived and still lives under a COMMUNIST party of one description or another.
Has Communism been achieved? No, or not that I know of.
Saying communism hasn't been tried because former movements failed to achieve the end goal is like saying real christianity hasn't been tried because nobody's brought the second coming about.
>>10262670
>no state has ever claimed to be communist
No, but plenty declared themselves to have the intention of achieving communism.

>>10269236
>nis

Just because it hasn't yet been achieved doesn't mean it won't or can't be achieved in the future.