/lit/ - Literature

>>10301970
>Says he for the workers
>Never worked. Mooched of a rich friend

Sounds like the retardation of the average modern marxist

>marxism
top kek

>>10303489
What if he felt bad about people living shitty lifes? Should he have had to get into the shitty situation he was describing in order to talk about it?
I'm a brainlet, haven't read Marx myself, but I don't understand how people tend to give this argument about his life to critique his work.

The Marxists have only changed the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it for the better.

>>10301970
>Spend 25 years honing your understanding of economics
>the product of your 25 years of hard labor is something as useless as LTV
>in doing so prove that labor does not possess inherit value

>>10303546
>Marx was a proponent of the labor theory of v-
"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power."

>>10303564
Kek nice btfo

>>10303564
The LTV (Marx calls it something else) talks about Exchange values, not use values. He says the exchange value is determined by the labor put into it.

>>10303591
>misreads commodity fetishism this hard
So are you the edgy econ undergrad that never read Marx, or just the good ol' Murrrican who never tried to understand him?

>>10301970
>tfw gigantic fucking morons ala >>10303546 are eternally butthurt and will be thrown into the dustbin of history anyway

>>10303489
>>10303494
Imagine being this ignorant

>>10303611
How does commodity fetishism have anything to do with what I just said. Commodity fetishism would imply that the exchange value of a particular good comes from some inherit value of the good itself. Marx just says that the exchange value comes from the labor put into it

>>10303619
>Marxism is becoming less and less popular since everyone who likes it and tries to model a government after it ends up destroying themselves
>You're going to end up in the dustbin of history mister!

was he part of the lumpenproletariat?

>>10301970
>dedicate 20 minutes to trying to understand complex government ideologies
>Learn of a contrarian ideology that supports the workers and diminishes freedoms
>Fail to look at real life examples and instead live in a theoretical dream land
>Claim anyone with a mind is an edgy kid or nazi fuck boy
Feels bad man

>>10303591
Labor theory of value, as it was laid out by Ricardo and Smith, is not about exchange value. It's about value in general. The most we can say is that Marx emphasized labor as a necessary component of capitalism as he described it. There may be evidence that, at some point, he supported such a labor theory of value, but there is also evidence that he later rejected it. Beyond that it isn't necessary for the general framework to function, nor is it his main contribution.

>>10303725
It's not just necessary for capitalism. Understanding that labor is the source of exchange value is, for Marx, the reason for Communism to be something to be desired.

>>10303489
>>10303494/
didn't he work as a printer or something?

>>10303489
Most of the wealthiest people in the world don’t work in the conventional sense.

Do you want to imply that George Soros or Warren Buffett don’t understand the economy, because they’re not manual laborers?

>>10301970
Marx’ great mistake was that he never developed a coherent theory of post-revolution society

>never worked a day in his life
>envisioned a world where he would never have to work a day in his life

>>10304491
>worked a day in his life
who actually wants to do this though

>hate capitalism
>supported by rich capitalist's son

>>10304491
NEET masterrace

Wageslaves will always stay wageslaves, since they don’t even have the time or energy to envision another life

>>10304491
What a retarded meme.

Marx adored labor, deemed it necessary and wished to lift the worker class above the capitalist class. Nowhere were workers as glorified as in the Soviet Union.

>>10304491
How is researching and writing all day not work?

>>10303489
Marx worked in journalism. You might wanna actually learn some history.

>>10303489
Marx worked in journalism.

>>10304475
Yes his " democracy " without state is very nebulous

>>10301970
>Have your critique be so inescapable that economics just ignores it,
That's literally not true

>marx never worked a day in his li-

>>10304626
I don't buy this. Marx was a terrible person and was terrible with his finances. I wouldn't criticise him for simply being born into wealth, but he constantly leached off others and spent frivolously. And he had a rotten personality. I don't know why Engels put up with him.
Coming from a rich family, being a B-list actor and writing novels isn't comparable. Coming from a rich family, working with academics, working with businessmen and then working in universities isn't comparable. Working in the government and then becoming a college professor isn't comparable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZybqpGVZu3k

Why didn't he just continue working in journalism? Censorship? He was obviously talented so why did he constantly borrow money?

>>10304475
Marx understood revolution could only destroy the old system, not remodel it in the will of man. Theology understands this and says that Creation is an act of the Divine, so Man can only destroy and create chaos, thus creating the opportunity for divine creation. This is the case of every revolution, they all gave way to a newer, unpredictable system.
>>10304511
Don't even reply to those saying Marx never worked. They're wageslaves who can't wait to get home to turn on netflix and watch TV shows. Despicable.

>>10304626
kek

>>10304865
>Don't even reply to those saying Marx never worked.
>They're wageslaves

>>10304626
>tuquoque.jpg

>>10303611
it really is pretty obvious you've never read kapital...

>>10303489
>His ideas were wrong because he was a hypocrite and I find his character loathsome

Try again snookums

>>10301970
>>Dedicate 25 years to studying everything written in economics up to cutting edge,
and still somehow manage to not learn anything

>>10305315
His ideas were wrong because they were wrong.
His core predictions for the demise of capitalism never came true and when Marxists during the early part of the 20th century became discontent with waiting for the Proletariat uprising that was never going to happen. Men like Lenin and Mao would set the tone for how Socialist regimes would begin, through an artificial uprising led by a cult of personality.

>>10305547
Actual criticism of Marxism that doesn't resort to ad hominem or straw man ???
Something I never thought I'd see in 4chan.

>intellectual labor is not labor

makes u think

>>10305547
>His core predictions for the demise of capitalism never came true
They are true and becoming reality. What's the deal with people consciously rejecting Marxism? Marx was right. And it is because he was right that we need to consider an other alternative than the dystopian shit he came up with. You are just closing your eyes to the inevitable, and it's going to come and fuck you up the ass. Open your eyes and fight against what's coming instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
Right wingers rant about 'cultural marxism' being everywhere, yet they'll say marxism isn't true and not possible. Incoherent.

>>10305666
>dude they're coming true now
That's not the case, prove that his assertions are coming true.
I'll wait.

>>10304626
Great.

>>10301970

HOW
DO
YOU
FUCKING
CALCULATE

>>10305754
Read Cockshott

>>10305724
If you can't see the problem with unlimited debt and credit you're literally dumber than a sumerian born 4500 years ago hahaha.

>>10305666
>"Right wingers rant about 'cultural marxism' being everywhere, yet they'll say marxism isn't true and not possible."

You realize we say that to call attention to the far-left parroting marxist ideology applied to culture (equity movements, etc), right?

You absolute fucking mong

>>10303623
i'd really rather not

>>10305763

From what i've read in the last 15 minutes. The solution is apparantly build a big computer, which is nonsense and doesn't solve the fact that wants are ordinal and not measurable.

>>10304865
>They're wageslaves who can't wait to get home to turn on netflix and watch TV shows
You mean the proletariat?

>>10304626
Except everywhere that Friedman was able to get his ideas through is much better off today than it was before. And much better than today than it's neighbouring countries that are shit.

>>10305666
Cultural marxism is the means to get marxism, you dimwit.

>>10304626
Funny post, but the entire reason this argument is made is to show the distance between Marx himself and the workers he claimed to care about. It's easy to 'care' about the noble workers idea when they're a complete fabrication in your mind (indeed, because even bourgeois in contemporary times still work), but in reality all Marx truly did was show his ignorance of the masses and hate for the rich.

You know, probably because he was a mooch and resented his own laziness, then took his ideology out on people who mostly didn't deserve it.

Like modern-day Marxists.

>>10305855
what? do you not know what marxism is?

>>10305893
Marx didn't care about anybody for fuck sake this board is driving me crazy. MARXISM IS NOT A MORAL IDEOLOGY.

IF YOU THINK IT IS YOU ARE THE BRAINLET TO WHICH THE MANIFESTO WAS ADRESSED.

YOURE TOO DUMB TO COMPREHEND HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND HAVE TO BE FED EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO MORALITY.

Marx couldnt give two shit about the living conditions of workers, except for its material repercussions on society.

If you don't have an actual mathematical understanding of markets honestly by practicing models and examining actual statistics, then you're no better than one of those pseuds who regurgitates popsci factoids about quantum physics without actually understanding the math behind relativity. This goes for everyone, not just Marxists. You can only go so far as an intellectual without having a firm grounding in mathematics.

You deserve to feel bad you stupid commie.

>>10306045

You are as bad as the Marxists.

Go on, model me the ordinal preferences of society. Economics is not a hard science you brainlet.

>>10301970
Marx is probably the most important philosopher since Kant and Hegel. Attempts to discredit him in this sphere (postmodernism, etc) are quite literally part of a bourgeois plot to protect liberal democracy.

Both the French state and the CIA supported Foucault and other postmodernists in an effort to eject Marxism from the academy.

>>10306078
>Economics is not a hard science you brainlet.
That doesn't mean we should just neglect the quantitative aspect of it. Just because it's not a hard science doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for an empirical basis for our theories over endless philosophical debates.

>>10303494
bad bait

>>10305603
>muh logical fallacies checklist

>>10305992
>"NOT A MORAL PHILOSOPHY"
>“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains."

really seized my means of production

It's worth remembering that equality is not a virtue.
Desires for equality are born out of covetousness and envy.
If a man is starving and in destitute poverty, he does not desire equality with a rich man, but rather he simply wants to be able to survive and feed his family.
Economics is also not inherently a zero sum game and most transactions are voluntary in the free market.
A man being rich does not deprive another man of wealth, not does employment exploit the employee.

>>10306256
PURE
U
R
E

>>10301970
Marx anticipated Friedman? Could you expand upon this?

>>10303489
>>10303494
BASED /pol/reddit at it again!

>>10306256
Marx didn't really talk about equality at all

>>10306271
He talks about inequality and pits economic classes against each other.
Inequality is not a problem in this world, only destitute poverty.

Capitalism succeeded where Marx believed it would fail. Destitute poverty is becoming increasingly rare in the US, as a result economists now use the idea of "relative" poverty which is just talking about inequality which is a natural occurrence when considering innate differences between people.

>>10306285
lel America is one it's way to become a third world country

>>10306288
Thanks to the demographic shift and a shrinking white taxpayer base.

>>10303494
Oh look, this one hasn't had a single semester of economics.

>>10304491
He literally has two standard bookshelf rows worth of books, possibly more.
He worked harder than you ever will. No, burgerflipping isn't 'work'.
>>10304527
Because it isn't for Soros, it's for oneself.

>>10306327
FUGMUGGGIN WHITE CIVILIZASHUN!!~!~!!!!!#!#!#!!

>>10305763
Cockshott is a fucking moron

>write volumes on a complex subject
>forgot about muh human naychur

Everything I disagree with is communism and Marx never had a job lol brainlet commies communism killed the dinosaurs

>>10306327
Thanks to capitalism

>>10306356
Hardly, it's no longer economically beneficial to import cheap labor with guarantee of automation on the horizon.

It's a concerted effort to ethnically replace European caucasians, by the UN's own words.

>>10306356
You guys are worse than poltards. It's always fucking (((capitalism)))'s fault. Any kind of nuance is lost with you retards. Marx is rolling in his grave.

>>10306351

>>10306364
>presents a ludicrous claim with no evidence

>>10306372
>.23 shekels have been deposited to your account

>>10303494

Fuck, this looks like one of those shitty forwards from grandma that gets posted on the_donald

>>10306364
Have you ever heard of the service industry? It's kind of a big thing in the west, you should look it up!

Also if the capitalists were to embrace full automation the entire system would collapse. It stops being profitable to lower costs when you target demographic have literally no money.

All those wasted years to a failed system. I honestly feel bad for Marx

>>10306589
>Also if the capitalists were to embrace full automation the entire system would collapse.

tfw capitalists bring about communism by eliminating the working class and not the other way around like marx said

>>10307230
Marxism isn't a political system, it's a method of analysis

The economic policies of the Soviet Union have very little to do with Marx. He specifically spoke out against nationalization and a top-down "barracks socialism" centered around commodity production

>>10306568
Go back to R*ddit.

>>10307242
>Marxist-Leninism has very little to do with Marxism

>it's another Marxists attempt to force their pseudoscience by shouting at mainstream economics thread

>>10307293
Tankies would get mad if they heard that but yeah, nowhere in Marx's body of work will you find pronouncements toward the policies advanced by the Soviet Union

>>10307230

>he actually has a deviantart link of the bottom of the poster

that is perfect, i never noticed it before

>>10307231
Nah it would be more cyberpunk than FALC unless they kill of all the working class

>>10301970
what is a "category" in this context?

>>10305315
>His ideas were wrong because he was a hypocrite

Precisely this dumbass. You cannot develop a theory on how the proletariat will operate if you yourself have not felt their struggle.

>>10304473
Wealth =/= Good theory

>>10307459
nice feels over reals, libtard

>>10304473
warren Buffet is marxist as fuck btw.

>>10304626
It's almost like the entire field of economics is filled with people who have sticks up their asses and know a damned thing about what their talking about.

>>10307468
forgot pic.

>>10305764
Infinite debt based on Fiat money is a complete of Austrian economics who have far greater preference and faith in market forces than fucking Marx.

>>10305992
>MORALTIY IS A SPOoK

>>10303650

Lol, no, but I see what you did thar lol

>>10303725

Thank you. Now the conversation can actually start.

>>10307479
I like this one better

>>10306349
Mind elaborating?

>>10304865

Marx bestowed approval of the Paris Commune, so there's an indication of his general vision of the post-capitalist communist society.

He stated that the Commune made a mistake in not continuing their initiative assault on the French key strategic centers and capital, thereby allowing the French military time to regroup, marshal their forces, and centrally attack the commune. Instead, they opted to, in Marx's words, "storm heaven" and focus solely on the internal construction of their existing commune.

>>10306589
>>10307231

Lol, you're delusional, capitalist would sooner kill each other and the general society to control the power of computers and automated systems before suddenly becoming benevolent and bestowing that power over to the proletariat.

Automation can bring about a technological communist paradise, but only through the organization and will of the proletariat.

>>10307375

This

>>10306351
Taking some basic universal aspects of human behavior into account is useful when you want to even vaguely predict the continued development of society. The failure of Marxian analysis demonstrates this.

>>10307577
there will be new people trying to go up and be the new masters. As tech to implant shit into human bodies, tech to modify the DNA, and IA evolve, this war of every freak against every other freak will be fun.
I would like to see it from a neutral position.

>>10307588
but he didn't fail.

>>10307594

This is the type of attitude that will lead to the end of the human species....tragedy

>>10306267
>>10306568
We need to ban marxists from 4chan.

>>10307601
another specie gone, like 90something % of species. Is not that important if you see the big picture.

my attitude will not change what is comming.

>>10307588
What failure are you talking about?

>>10305547
His ideas were right, the times were wrong. Most humans are still psychologically infants and content with an exploitative system that throws them breadcrumbs

>>10306256
>Desires for equality are born out of covetousness and envy.
Nope

>>10301970
My biggest problem with Marxism is that it is so damn weak, so damn delicate, so hard to understand and implement, so easy to misapply, it isn't self-sustaind and capitalist countries fare better in the long run.

The only thing that Marxism is good at is to charm intelectuals and high schoolers. As a meme, it doesn't go further.

>>10303503
>I don't understand how people tend to give this argument about his life to critique his work.
It lets them stop at his wiki page.

>>10308401
>capitalist countries fare better in the long run
love dem stagnant wages

>>10308401
Also it's so much easier to inflict mass suffering with socialism. DPRK-tier enslavement is impossible in the capitalistic Asian countries. Every socialist experiment is a dice roll.

>>10308414
Not even a dice roll but a time bomb with a random timer.

>>10308401
>implement marxism.

what is there to """"implement """" ?

>>10308539
Social ownership?

>>10305764
>hahaha

>>10305837
DELET

>>10308616
no

>A conventional measuring-stick is no more than an artificial language, a symbol like the xylem, z of algebra. By itself it cannot decide how much iron is the equivalent of one cow, or how much wine. In Adam Smith's world that determination was made through the supply-and-demand market, a mechanism unknown in Troy or Ithaca. Behind the market lies the profit motive, and if there was one thing that was taboo in Homeric exchanges it was gain in the exchange. Whether in trade or in any other mutual relationship, the abiding principle was equality and mutual benefit. Gain at the expense of another belonged to a different realm, to warfare and raiding, where it was achieved by acts (or threats) of prowess, not by manipulation and bargaining.

Were Bronze age peoples(historical planned economies) and archaic greeks proto-socialists?

>>10305666
HAIL SATAN

>>10308616
thats not marx, or marxism.

>>10308616
Marx didn't really talk about the social management of capital, but instead the abolition of capital and the centralization of production toward social need.

>>10308410
>import millions of migrants and flood the labor market
WOW, I just can't figure out what the fuck happened.(there are a lot more factors at work, but ensuring the labor market swings in favor of employers is bad for employees)

>>10308380
There's a lot of presuppositions there, just like Marx makes a lot of incorrect presuppositions and then builds his entire framework on it.

>>10308919
yes dumbass, a capitalist will act like a capitalist - HUGE SURPRISE

>>10308380
When did the middle class completely dissolve?
When did the under class grow extremely large and become completely destitute?
When will the Proletariat uprising happen?
Why did Capitalism improve the living quality of the lower class completely juxtaposed to what Marx suggested would happen?

Marxists parsed through entire bodies of work, sometimes with the help of its creator, and made justifications for the failures of Marx's critiques.

Freud suggested that Capitalism had made men complacent. That it had hidden their true nature which reveals itself in the forms of unconscious, uncontrolled actions, dreams, and slip-ups.
The Frankfurt School latched onto this idea for why the Proletariat were not killing the Bourgeois.

Marxists believed that the Capitalist Monolith was going to come crashing down during the Great Depression, they celebrated it as they could the coming Communist Utopia, but there was no uprising and no Utopia at the end of one of the worst economic times in US history.


So when people suggest that "Marx was actually right in the end", well given infinite time everything is a certainty, but Marx is a broken clock that was made wrong and isn't even right twice a day.

Communism won't happen now or in the future and Marx's critiques are empty.

>>10308721
Fucking dumbass trade by Smith's definition is mutual benefit. "Profit motive" still exists and has always existed in almost every exchange of goods because both parties seek to gain from exchange.

>>10308410
>Have an organization who explicitly seeks to stimulate the economy by encouraging consumption though all manor of monetary manipulation.
>Be surprised when wages stagnate forcing the common man to divest himself of money into goods so that his wealth can keep pace with inflation.

Reminder that Marx too advocates for a Central Bank.

>Not acknowledging natural human competitiveness in your economics
>Not understanding that wealth and social inequality are unavoidable
>Not understanding that destroying the system in place does not mean that a new or better system will magically take it's place

This is before I even bring up the body count of implemented marxism.

>>10309067
>Not acknowledging natural human competitiveness in your economics
>Not understanding that wealth and social inequality are unavoidable
>Not understanding that destroying the system in place does not mean that a new or better system will magically take it's place

Sound like good arguments for slavery.

>>10309122
Are you equating poverty in a meritocracy to slavery?

>>10309067
>implement marxism 2.0
>please refer to the guidebook that comes with your DVD.

>Dismantle the capitalist class by force
>Everyone fucking starves

Z I M B A B W E

>>10309145
Just acknowledging human competitiveness.
the weak should fear the strong.

Inequality is unavoidable, and we can't all be free.

>>10309159
Yeah if you ignore all those morals and shit we've been working on for the past 4000 years or so then yeah that one principle I said in an economics context is totally an endorsement for slavery. Much the same way telling my girlfriend 'I'm hungry' is also an endorsement for cannibalism.

Marxist should be shot.

>>10309173
I just agreeing with you. Actually capitalism and slavery are good friends:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/more-slaves-today-ever-before-4435373

get your own slave because you know... competition, you don't want to be left behind.

>>10309195
>implying unequal sums deserve equality

>>10309195
lmao that's like saying there are more people who are starving today than ever before. while technically true it's a warped way to present the facts because the actual amount of starving people is much smaller when you look at it from the perspective of the total percentage of the population starving

>>10309425
indeed. The blessings of capitalism.
More people, more slaves, and more free people.
everything grows.

>>10309425
>killing 1 man in a group of 2 is worse than killing 10 in a group of 15

>>10309443
>5 in a group of 15
FUCK

>>10309443
>marxists trying to talk morality with me
L M A O

>>10309443

>this is your mathematics on marxism

wow who could've guessed it
really makes me thinks

>>10309043
No he doesn't

>>10309067
>implemented Marxism
Marxism is a method of historical analysis. There's nothing to implement!

>>10307230
holy shit
https://iamjustahuviyaharel.deviantart.com/art/14-DAYS-AS-SAKURA-DAY-11-233584983
she still active

>>10309636
>She

>>10306372
you showed him

>>10308729
The only alternative to social ownership is private ownership. I really don't think there's an in between that isn't simply a mix of the two.

>>10308792
>the centralization of production toward social need.
That is social ownership

>>10309616
>Historical analysis
An particularly a critique.
The critique's foundation, however; is made of many presuppositions that are not observably true, nor were they historically true.
There's very little empirical ideas in Marx's critique and his unique terminologies he uses are often founded on his own anecdotal experiences or preconceived notions.

>Why was this?
Because all of Marx's critiques were used as a means to reach his dream of a Utopian society know as communism. Divorcing the Marxism from Socialism and Communism is to make Marxism pointless.
All those non-empirical and often irrational arguments have no where to direct their rhetoric towards without the underlying cause for their existence.

>>10303489
>A said B and A is bad therefore B is bad
you may not like it, but this is peak philosophical performance

>>10305851
>Thatcherism was good

L O L

>>10307604
Not either but I prefer Marxists to le maga based centipede faggots. At least there is something going on in their little heads

It is tho, apply it to this thought: the white are the bourgeiuse, all modern interpretations lead to destroying by degradation of society through making white men powerless and ensuring white women don't have white babies.

>>10306103
so "foucault is a cia nigger"?

>>10305763
I wanna shoot Cockshott in the cock

>>10304492
seconding this

>>10303671
ML's hate anarchists, liberals, fascists, pretty much everyone except them

>>10301970
He created nothing but an ideal of tyranny.

>>10310939
>pedophilia is good
Stop being a communist, you disgusting freak.

>pick a book about economics
>check author
>german
>into the trash it goes

>>10306346
>two standard bookshelf rows worth of books
It seems like you're projecting your own standard for success onto Marx.

>>10312923
nobody is talking about success dumbass, he's disproving that marx wasn't a hard worker

>>10306256
>not does employment exploit the employee.
employment in a company, by nature, means that the employee is producing surplus value for the company. If they weren't, the company would fail. It is because employees are being provided with but a sliver of their labor that large-scale companies can exist in the first place; the labor output is poured into, among other things, repairs, the manager's paycheck, and expansion. Where would the money come from otherwise? Paychecks of the higher-ups? No one is asking the CEO of Dunkin Donuts to take a pay cut from his 3,000+ dollar/hr salary in order to improve wages lower down, or to repair lighting fixtures. It all comes from the labor of the individual, minimum-wage employee.

>>10313116
One important thing that makes Marx's LTV obviously false is that it has no conception of opportunity cost (that I'm aware of, perhaps you could clarify). The function of the capitalist is to forego consumption and engage in the act of saving, and this saving has a very important role to play in the production of commodities. If a worker co-operative were to decide today to pool their collective resources and produce engines (the useful kind, not steam engines), they'd most likely have several problems. The most important problems are that they'd have no income until they sold the first engine, and that they'd have to assume the risk the engines sell. Wage labour isn't theft of surplus value, the wage-earner is getting something for it; they're avoiding the risk the product won't sell (they still get paid for their labour no matter what), and they're being paid now instead of later. If they weren't paid now, they'd have to have saved enough to see them through the production process, and as mainstream economists know, the value of money now is much higher than the value of money later (hence, interest rates). The capitalist isn't stealing surplus value, the labourers are foregoing the surplus value in exchange for mitigating the risk the product won't sell, and to satisfy their time-preference for money.

And how dense do you have to be to think that the conditions of the workers would see any major improvements should the higher-ups simply forego their huge salaries? The CEO of Walmart has a salary of about $20 million dollars, but they also employ about two million people. Let's say we reduce the CEOs salary to zero: that'll give the workers an extra $10/year.

This whole nonsense that any wage imbalances inside any company is causing poverty for the people at the bottom is just that, nonsense.

>>10313385
Shut up you filthy Capitalist pig, how am I supposed to get the proletariat to feel angry and betrayed at their purported victimization when you rationalize away the very things I was using to incite rage and induce a revolution.
wtf I am Marx now.

>>10306123
Because empiricism has, historically, 'solved' the endless philosophical debate, right? Even if you have an empirical basis, it will be subverted for ideological intents. This will just further mire the context and beget even more philosophical debate. 19th century lit already figured this out, catch up anon.

>>10306256
There were arguments similar to this for justifying child labor and 14-hour workdays. I'm sure, however, that your desire to keep things in inequality is borne entirely out of virtuous reasoning.

>>10313722
When it comes to child labor, children aren't capable of giving consent and signing contracts, so there's no ideological clash there. And if someone wants to work 14-hours/day, the government has no right to step in and tell that person he can't do that.

>>10306256
>Economics is also not inherently a zero sum game and most transactions are voluntary in the free market.
This.

Communisthistory explained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI2NnBoL09Q

>>10313722
Yet the west does not have child labour and for most people they do not work 14 hours a day.
So why bring up some kind of dystopian situation when it is not even on the table?
It COULD be used to justify those examples, but it's not, that's not a flaw of this line of thinking, just baseless skepticism not rooted in reality.

>>10313739
i think antifa people don't study enough and are ill-informed so i made a 12 minute video to explain the complete history of communism so that you can be more educated than antifa people

>>10313739
>they practice communist principles perfectly through their complete disregard for human life
its pretty hard to think of another philosopher as concerned with human suffering as marx.

>>10313785
That's why he suggested to pit economic classes against each other and calls for a genocide every time.

Very pious, very concerned with human life.
Wow.

>>10313736
It becomes a matter of wages being not enough to keep up with the cost of living (which there is growing sign of today), that then pushes workers into needing those kind of hours. There are many modern examples of this kind of influence; the trucking industry in America is built upon rampant stimulant & amphetamine abuse due to obscene hour demands and time constraints. Without drugs, these demands would never be met. If trucking as an industry was devoid of the abuse that makes it so efficient, a large portion of the homebound economy would fail. Also our economy still benefits greatly from foreign goods, produced largely at the hand of child labor, under illegal and unsafe circumstances. Sure, this is not our problem, and there's nobody here who is trying to justify child labor, but we still remain the benefactors of an unjust and uncaring system.
>>10313741
The west used to have both until very recently. Child labor wasn't outlawed on the federal level until 1918. As I outlined before, other places still do have it. We utilize goods and services, and have several whole industries, that are supported by this - everyday.

It's not skepticism in the slightest if it has historical AND contemporary presence. It's just stating the case and bringing to light how faux-moralist musing of a fat class of subordinates about what is good for people is entirely bullshit, or at least misguided and fallacious. I don't think many in our society particularly care for fellow human good, but rather the maintenance of the industries that bring them near-instant and ADHD like gratification.

Marxism is a science, read 'Contradiction and Overdetermination' by Althusser you goofs.

>>10313817
Obviously human truckers aren't very efficient anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if they were replaced by robots real soon, reducing costs and reducing the price - beneficial for the society.

And no doubt that there are many countries with shit systems and even shittier governments, but the people you are talking about are receiving a wage often far higher than what they would otherwise get from any local business, improving their lives and giving them a ladder on which they can climb and eventually escape poverty.

The problem isn't the factories producing clothes for H&M and the like, but the vast and systemic corruption in these countries

>>10313116
>>10313385
commies BTFO

>>10313817
It is skepticism.
100 years ago was a long time, consider how much progress has been made since then.
People don't live their lives, or do anything really, that is similar to how conditions were for people 100 years ago.

I haven't seen any calls for reintroducing child labor recently, have you?
Our ethics changed, but the underlying ideas of capitalism are largely the same, just with better ethics to guide it.

>>10301970
>Finally publish your work which shows that the fundamental categories of economics are underwritten by deep ideological mystification, and that an economics built on a robust critique of basic economic categories is destined to collapse, suffering cycles of reoccurring gluts
Then why did he spend his life on that shit instead of clearing-out the mist?

>>10313851
I know you guys like to jerk off to closet alters of John Smith, but the free market does not solve everything. The demand for cheaper price supplants other issues. Switching the workforce from human to robot just dispossess a crowd of workers (wow, another set of people used up and cast aside by capitalistic opportunism) and substitutes a new method where production is quicker and more expansive (benefiting ultimately the production company) and yet, just as, depriving consumers of of the prior jobs, using more resources in terms of gas and facility in favor of the producer, as also being beleaguered with questions of future abuse to any job or discrepancies that are generated in the maintenance of that new method. It's a circular issue that continually benefits the producer more than any one consumer or indifferent surrounding. Especially when manufacturing has become fixated on cheap, faddish goods that are meant to generate maximum profit with minimum cost.
>>10313866
No, you're just a fucking retard. 100 years is nothing in the span of human history, especially when America was birthed, built up, and now stands upon the contribution of the labor in that time. Before child labor it was slavery: this has always been a portion of the workforce within our country. And yet, this is the same issue that you're trying to say is somehow gone from the ethical framework of the nation. Nobody calls for reintroducing child labor here because it isn't fucking necessary when the third world can fulfill that role. Poverty isn't endemic here in the same manner as it used to be because that burden has been moved to the third world. And yet, there are still people here suffering under the demands of our society. The mentally challenged and otherwise disabled are usually cast in factory working conditions that others do not simply want to fulfill, the farms are and have been run with illegal migrant workers, underpaid and without regulation. I think it's easy enough to see the similarity in this. The underlying ethics haven't changed, the issue itself was merely subverted, and retards like you are too dull to pick up on why or how.

>>10313946
>First world prosperity is the cause of the third world's plight
It's as if you really believe the world functions like a zero sum game.
I didn't realize I was speaking to an actual retard.

Look lefties, just leave me alone, don't touch my savings account, don't touch my guns, stay off my property and stop fucking with my job. What's so fucking difficult to understand about this? Some of us actually work a trade and would be triple fucked if commies or fascists would ever take over

>>10313851
>And no doubt that there are many countries with shit systems and even shittier governments, but the people you are talking about are receiving a wage often far higher than what they would otherwise get from any local business, improving their lives and giving them a ladder on which they can climb and eventually escape poverty.

Also this is a myth perpetrated directly by the people benefiting from third world labor. The capacity of these industries is restrained by the sheer demand that we're placing on them, many people die or are simply thrown out of the workforce in being unable to work. The wages aren't even enough to justify the work; but these places have built up industries to support our demands instead of working on their own inbound markets. The higher classes of the third world make exorbitant profits, (not to be measured at the same level ours do) and the rest occupy the lowest rung, we acting as consumers, them acting as our mule to dole out goods.

It's morally reprehensible and I would like it if you'd just admit that. I can deal with people who are honest about what they think, but not someone morally indignant hypocrisy. Simony is the worst sin in my eyes: and you trying to link moral qualities to capitalism is essentially the same thing.

>>10313967
It's not the sole cause but it is one of the factors contributing to its continuance, as I said, largely due to our demand for cheap goods. This isn't in conflict with game theory in any sense. I don't even really see how you could say that any part of what i'm arguing implies that.

>>10313991
Leave morality out of economics until you've studied it in itself: ethical philosophy.

Your post seems completely ignorant of the moral turn in philosophy that occurred with Nietzsche.

>>10313991
>The wages aren't even enough to justify the work
So why don't they choose to work for someone else who would pay them more?

>>10301970
>want to help workers
>lead the deaths of 100s of millions of them
I can only imagine what could’ve happened if he actually wanted to kill them

>>10314310
t. an actual dullard

I'm not a Marxist, but the man was intelligent, whereas Keynes wasn't.

>>10314020
>So why don't they choose to work for someone else who would pay them more?
I hope this is bait. No one will. Capitalism necessitates unscrupulous use of labor. Any employer willing to pay more will be unable to compete with unscrupulous employers.

>>10314672
Exactly. If they thought they could receive a higher salary working for someone else or themselves, they would do that instead. Claiming that big business coming in and providing a better alternative somehow hurts these people is utter nonsense.

I'm saying we should work on improving the conditions in these factories, not close them down and impoverish millions of people in the process.

And capitalism necessitates an efficient use of resources.

>>10305772

You realize that you can’t simply just pick up “Marxist ideology” and “apply it to culture”.

Y’all seem to think that saying ‘there is an oppressor and an oppressed side’ somehow constitutes Marxism, and that any sort of movement which includes that has a genealogy to Marxism, it’s insane.

>>10314712
>I'm saying we should work on improving the conditions in these factories, not close them down and impoverish millions of people in the process.
>And capitalism necessitates an efficient use of resources
These are mutually exclusive you fucking idiot

>>10307459
>you can’t learn maths if you haven’t felt what it’s like to be a number
>you can’t understand history if you haven’t lived it

>>10303564
Use values are a bearer of value, not value, and use value in capital is the appearance to an exchanger of the ability to satisfy a need, not the ability to.

Exchange value resolves to embodied average socially necessary labour power, not specific labours, and labour power is paid at a socially constructed wage, which may Ben below the physicals necessity of immediate reproduction of labour (ie starvation).


IT IS IN VOLUME ONE FFS

>>10314745
No it isn't, dimwit.

They can produce t-shirts far cheaper than we can, and thus the resources will go towards creating t-shirts over there, producing jobs in those industries. The more popular it becomes and the more competition is introduced, the more the factories will have to pay for their labour.

Even now, companies like H&M could easily do a lot simply by enforcing already existing policies.

>>10314855
Also the commodity only exists in production in anticipation of exchange and the realisation of value and surplus value only occurs as exchange determines the social expectation of average socially necessary labour power.

>>10314896
And remembers average labour power skill mechanisation and exertion adjusted.

>>10311120
Yes he was

>>10301970
>Marx
A joke, but with terribly evil consequences.

>>10313385
>And how dense do you have to be to think that the conditions of the workers would see any major improvements should the higher-ups simply forego their huge salaries? The CEO of Walmart has a salary of about $20 million dollars, but they also employ about two million people. Let's say we reduce the CEOs salary to zero: that'll give the workers an extra $10/year.

the problems with CEO's salaries are the bonuses, which incentive short-sighted strategies focused on quarterly gains and/or cooking the books.
Alao the "risk" you're talking about is bs. When companies go bust the CEO run away with his buyout's millions while the worker can go fuck himself. If you were talking about investors, they most likely already have shares in the competition and if they have enought money the govt will bail them out.

>The capitalist isn't stealing surplus value, the labourers are foregoing the surplus value in exchange for mitigating the risk the product won't sell, and to satisfy their time-preference for money.
more bs. After the 2007 debt crysis, one of my nation's biggest bank went bust. Guess who were the biggest debtors? Big business and investor. Guess who footed the 20 mld bill to not crash the whole banking system? We, the people.
My proplem with capitalism is that reward a locust mindset. The capitalist pig use infrastructure, skilled labour, etc. funded by tax-payer money and then shop around for the best tax system, ransom government and just behave in an irresponsible and inefficient way.

Am I wrong for just wanting to seize their properties and execute them in the streets?

>>10315702
>Am I wrong for just wanting to seize their properties and execute them in the streets?
Yes, you're a cockroach.

>>10304626
You forgot that Ayn Rand collected social security.