/lit/ - Literature

>Is Marx the actual redpill?
yes

these guys along with darwin are the ultimate redpill dispensary for the 19C.

maybe we still don't really know who the 20C equivalents of these guys are. maybe wittgenstein and heidegger.

>>11665103
>broke paraside out of a family which can trace 700 years of rabbis back leeching of jung and freut to whore around and stay drunk bitching about the evil of actually working
Yeah, really a big brain nibba right there.

Banks are the problem.

>>11665199
Capital was published before Jung was born and frued was just a kid

>>11665168
And the 21st century? Shapiro/Crowder/Peterson

>>11665248
>Shapiro/Crowder/Peterson
kill me now

for the shortlist of 21C equivalents i would cheat and say a late reception of deleuze and guattari by way of plant + land and others.

no doubt also computer science and evolutionary biology guys not yet born.

>>11665244
FREUD WAS JUST A STUPID KID BACK THEN

HE TAKES BACK ALL THE WORDS THAT HE SAID

>>11665271
MEIN GOTT!

>>11665277
yeah. well, it's not going to happen for my guy either. culture is a fickle mistress.

>DUDE just sit back and get paid by the government all day, they should be paying you to live in their shitty country anyway!

is this an accurate summary of his thoughts? if so I don't think it was very red-pilled.

>>11665304
>is this an accurate summary of his thoughts?
No, what a retarded thing to think and say. Fuck off back to /pol/, you brainlet

Communism and anarchism are the real red pills. Capitalism still has you in an illusion.

>>11665304
No, not really. Marx even went so far as to say that the state would eventually disappear. The funny thing is that what you describe (the welfare state) is just the capitalist defense mechanism for preventing shit to hit the fan. If you do the least amount of research into "really existing communism", you'll realize that there were hardly any free gibs. In most communist countries, you *had* to have a job, and the state made sure you did (which of course had a lot of problems, like economically unreasonable state businesses).

>>11665103
He's one redpill among many. His criticisms are insightful and valid. His positive project is vague, undeveloped and filled with shoehorned Hegelianism

>>11665304
Marx only says that the worker will get what he earns, all of the surplus that goes to the capitalist (your boss) goes to you instead of him. So it is not "no work and free gibs" its more of a "while working you get what you actually deserve". At least that's what he says in communist manifesto and writings on surplus value

>>11665385
yeah and you hardly had any choices. my family lived under communism over 50 yrs, kill yourself commie shilling faggot, you dont know the misery it brings fuckface.

>>11665492
marx was just a spoilt brat who never worked in his life. anyone who worked at elast for a fucking summer job can put 1+1 together why was he wrong.

>>11666766
You are a very reasonable fellow and I greatly respect your objective approach to rhetoric

>>11666766
I think marxism/communism is wrong but you're a retard.
1. no such thing as 'living under communism' given that you can't live under something that not only doesn't exist but wouldn't have a state (what it actually is, is varying forms of state socialism and state capitalism -- very specific forms mind you, there is no singular of anything).
2. no one gives a shit about your dumb family you cunt, speaking of these things is speaking of the world. Of the fate of humanity. Not your overblown prejudices. Tell me what country this so-called communism was lived under, and I'll elaborate even further. Most so-called communist countries saw rapid development and prominence from a state of very undeveloped feudal or feudal-like existence, that is to say, greatly improved lives and rights.
3. you know nothing about Marx. He was a journalist and evidently wrote a great deal later on, which is hard and is respectable (at least I hope so, given that we're on a fucking literature board). Yet all of this is irrelevant, doesn't matter who Marx is because his works are largely economic in nature. Many pieces of science that you implicitly utilise on a daily basis were brought about through means you may disagree with and people you don't like, and by countries you think failures. Doesn't mean anything though, as they're almost entirely disconnected.

>>11665304
No.

"Capitalism needs to increase profit rates so it will seek to increase mass production while keeping wages as low as possible. At some point in time, inevitably, the majority of workers won't be able to afford the products/services that companies are selling. This means it's no longer possible to have profit. Capitalism will have maxed out. Revolution begins. Oh, and when this hapens we'll have capitalism will have developed the necessary technology for us to live comfortably and share everything."

That's Marx in a nutshell.

>>11666766
>marx was just a spoilt brat who never worked in his life
lmao he was a labour organiser and a journalist. He was dirt poor.

>>11665103
Let us take any worker; for example, a weaver. The capitalist supplies him with the loom and yarn. The weaver applies himself to work, and the yarn is turned into cloth. The capitalist takes possession of the cloth and sells it for 20 shillings, for example. Now are the wages of the weaver a share of the cloth, of the 20 shillings, of the product of the work? By no means. Long before the cloth is sold, perhaps long before it is fully woven, the weaver has received his wages. The capitalist, then, does not pay his wages out of the money which he will obtain from the cloth, but out of money already on hand. Just as little as loom and yarn are the product of the weaver to whom they are supplied by the employer, just so little are the commodities which he receives in exchange for his commodity – labour-power – his product. It is possible that the employer found no purchasers at all for the cloth. It is possible that he did not get even the amount of the wages by its sale. It is possible that he sells it very profitably in proportion to the weaver's wages. But all that does not concern the weaver. With a part of his existing wealth, of his capital, the capitalist buys the labour-power of the weaver in exactly the same manner as, with another part of his wealth, he has bought the raw material – the yarn – and the instrument of labour – the loom. After he has made these purchases, and among them belongs the labour-power necessary to the production of the cloth he produces only with raw materials and instruments of labour belonging to him. For our good weaver, too, is one of the instruments of labour, and being in this respect on a par with the loom, he has no more share in the product (the cloth), or in the price of the product, than the loom itself has.

Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labour-power.

Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist. Why does he sell it? It is in order to live.

But the putting of labour-power into action – i.e., the work – is the active expression of the labourer's own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labour itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another.

>>11667440
This is repetitive as hell, no wonder shit is like 2000 pages long.

>>11666766
I don't mean to use the "not real communism" meme here because it does nothing but enable people who are stupid but unironically according to Marx you did not live in a communist society, you lived in one that was trying to establish socialism in an effort to bring about communism

>>11667832
So it can't even be started, it just jizz in its pants?

>>11665335
You do know you're just shitting your own bed, right?

>>11667440
Nigger, you want to plant, grown, harvest wood, acquire the knowledge and tools to transform it into a chair, find a way to produce a lot,distribute it, a marketing strategy and costumers/market to trade it for whatever, be my fucking guest. Fuck, you can even do it with your commie friends for all I fucking care, plus you have the freedom to choose how you do it, that is fucking CAPITALISM you dumb motherfucker.

>>11667945
Yes because his theories are flawed
Marx doesn't have to be right about everything to be right about some things

>>11665168
You forgot one.

>>11665168
bergson dropped the uktimate redpill

>>11668041
i try to keep the red and breadpills separate.

>20C
>heidegger and wittgenstein, two mystics with complex relations to theology

it's not a perfect system, mind.

>>11668048
he's 20C though, not 19C.

>>11665168
>everyone’s favorite cocaine addict
>smelly grandfather
>sickly misogynist

>>11665248
LOL

>>11665103
no

>>11668142
pretty great office tho

>>11665103
Not in the least. Inequalities are natural and inescapable. Moreoever, it's a sin to covet what rightfully belongs to your neighbor. But that's not to say that systemic problems cannot exist in economies. His complaint is misdirected though, perhaps because he's a Jew. The problem with modern Capitalism is Usury, not trade. Trade and labor are necessary and inevitable, but Usury, now that is truly an artifice, a ghost even, if not a demon.

>>11665103
He was a writer writing in economics before it was a serious field of study. Just like we don’t take the writings of Marie Curie as the be-all-end-all of her field, we must recognize that Marx’s theories, while a major breakthrough in thought at the time, have been surpassed in every way by modern study and thought.

>>11668235
Marx denounced the Jews though

>>11668219
>all those phallic stautes

>>11668269
I love how Marx fucks with antisemites. They try and cope and say "he's a Jew", but then 'On the Jewish Question' solidifies him as an antisemite to a lot of uncharitable readers. So, which is it guys? Was he the Jewish mastermind poisoning western culture or a basedboy calling out the JQ?

>>11668289
/pol/ agrees with Marx on a lot of shit

>>11665103
>He doesn't know about Moses Hess.
Also, Marx was just trying to fit in at the time.

>>11668297
That's because they're socialists

>>11668310

>>11668142
Welcome to the water anon.

>>11668269
But if his characterization of the Jew was deterministic, and I'm not sure whether it was or not, then his denouncement would read more like confession than denouncement. Marx was a Jew after all.

If me and a world famous painter expend the same amount of effort to paint the same painting but his still sells for more, how can that be possible under the labor theory of value?

>>11668333
>selling art
Stay spectacled cuckhold

>>11665103

>>11668351
Scarily accurate.

>>11665248
My fucking sides

>>11668333 (checked)
Labor has no value in a vacuum. What creates value is social labor, or work that fills the wants and needs of those around you. See the "mud pie" argument, for example. You can spend your entire life making mud pies, but that labor can't be considered social labor if no one gives a flying fuck about mud pies.

The painting of the world famous painter carries the prestige and guarantee of quality one would expect from a world famous painter, whereas yours does not. The labor of the famous painter carries a heavier social necessity.

>>11665103
Does Capital work as a standalone book or do I need to read all three of them?

>>11668465
You don't need to read any of them. They're about as useful to understanding economics as Diane Steele.

>>11665103
No, and marxist problem+solution such boring reduction. I can't comprehend how anyone could find it fascinating.

Try reading a "Communist manifesto", it is shorter and great book to start with

>>11668475
Kek, all modern economics is a response to Marx but tries to deny this because it mostly amounts to imperialist propaganda.

>>11668420
>labor can't be considered social labor if no one gives a flying fuck about mud pies.
So value is subjective. Thanks for proving my point. Also, children cannot consent. That's a Leftist thing, not an ancap thing.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/01/16/chad-felix-greene-lgbt-left-sexualizes-kids/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/05/how-the-alt-left-promotes-rape-and-pedophilia/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/653/lefts-latest-push-pedophilia-sexual-attraction-ben-shapiro
https://www.therebel.media/how_the_left_pushes_pedophilia
https://www.dailywire.com/news/252/lefts-newest-hot-cause-pedophilia-ben-shapiro
https://www.dailywire.com/news/109/salon-pedophilia-new-normal-aaron-bandler

>>11668531
All of those publications use the term "left" or "leftist" erroneously

>>11665103
>Is Marx the actual redpill?
No, you 19-year old edgelord.

>>11665385
>The funny thing is that what you describe (the welfare state) is just the capitalist defense mechanism for preventing shit to hit the fan.

my fucking sides!

>>11667341
And that will never happen, because it doesn't work like that. Thanks to capitalism the ordinary man has never been able to afford to buy as much as they can today.

>>11668537
How so?

>>11668531
>So value is subjective. Thanks for proving my point.
I don't disagree, but the same applies in classical economics, wherein value comes from the subjective preferences of consumers.

>That's a Leftist thing, not an ancap thing.
Future senator Nathan Larson disagrees.
https://archive.fo/2gVvl

>>11665248

>>11665103
He is and will always be absolutely BASED and redpilled
Evola on the other hand is CRINGE and bluepilled

>>11665103
No. This is a dead and buried paradigm

It's the perfect tool to weed out "intellectuals" from intellectual people who have a grasp on the real world.
As someone said before, as soon as you actually worked at least one single summer job among actual workers you will soon realize the real-world limitations of any theoretical idea based on these workers

In fact you are about 100 years too late, World War 1 was meant to bring the global communist revolution where workers rise up against their oppression. What happened? The people did rise up and grabed their weapons, but in order to fight and die for their fatherland

>>11665248
Basada y rojopillado mein kamerad

Yes, and it's about time you pseuds and /pol/ browsers learn how close you actually are to being redpilled. The jews are of course a problem, but it's not just the jews, it's all wealthy people.
Mostly billionaires. They're pitting you against minorities so that all the proles don't rise up and fucking kill them like we should have 200 years ago.

>>11668603
yes, I would be totally fine with my whole continent being repopulated with third worlders if it wasn't for those wealthy people pitting me up against them, good and absolutely accurate observation from the outside, as always

>>11668351
Ahahah, owned!!! How do I upvote your post?

>>11668605
why would minorities be bad if they weren't committing crimes and being uneducated like they are now under capitalism

>>11668531
you are conflating value and price, anon; air has massive use value but no one pays for it.

>>11668579
>One pedo speaks for an entire movement.
I guess every single political ideology is compromised then.

>You see, under this definition of value that I made up with zero empirical evidence to back it, being paid a wage is the same as being stolen from, and this is why I shouldn't work for a living

The only redpill you should get from Marx is that his children starved to death. They became the first good communists.

>>11668612
>Karl Marx, among others, famously based his value theory on the amount of labor that went into a good. If the worker did not receive 100% of the final price of a good he made, he was being "exploited."

>The problem with all such efforts to conceive value as dependent on some "objective" factor is that they are viciously circular. If the value of a flute depends on the labor that went into constructing it, then how do we determine the value of that labor? If the value of a head of lettuce depends on the value of the land that produced it, then how do we explain the value attached to that land?

>Marx himself recognized, but didn't resolve, this difficulty. He understood that someone who labored all day vigorously smashing chairs could not expect the same pay as someone who worked building them. He declared that it was only "socially useful" labor that determined value. But how in the world could we characterize "socially useful" labor other than by the fact it produced "socially useful" things? In other words, we are still stuck in a circle, explaining the value of goods by the labor that went into them and the value of that labor by the goods it produces.

https://mises.org/library/carl-menger-nature-value

>>11668606
deleting system32

>>11668603

>>11668637
this, "intellectuals" are too full of themselves to consider the possibility that it is them themselves who are being brainwashed into hating the wrong enemy

>>11668603
>>11668637
>Bourgeoisie = "rich people"

>>11668603
Yeah, and then we'll all starve to death like the seven million in Ukraine when the communists killed all the successful kulaks who were providing everyone with food.

>>11668609
>if they weren't committing crimes and being uneducated like they are now under capitalism
That's how humans have been since the dawn of man, you idiot. It is only capitalism that has managed to lift the masses out of poverty in the last 100 years.

>>11668655
you pretty much just blamed the Holodomor on dekulakization which makes the Holodomor sound like an accident. you should work on your rhetoric.

>>11668667
It was a result of communists killing all the successful farmers and government mismanagement of resources, yes. Because communists are idiots.

>>11668674
Stalin starved the Ukraine on purpose, you inadvertent tankie

>>11668645
This. Bourgeoisies are usually the richest people, but not all rich people are bourgeoisie

>>11665103
I don't know but I just ordered Capital and the manifesto. Hope they're good.

>>11668763
Proof?

>>11665103
Yes. Anybody who says no is negated by this post ×100

>>11665103
It's bad economics, bad philosophy of history and bad philosophy of science.
It's also bad ethics but he didn't care about those that much (ironically).

>>11668528
Literally nope. More like responses to game and decision theory. The field has moved so far beyond describing the social mechanics of pin factories that I always presume any discussion of Marx (or Smith or Von Mises, for that matter) is ironic and meant simply to amuse.

>>11668528
>Kek, all modern economics is a response to Marx
nobody in the field of economics thinks anything of marx because he's such a minor author that there's barely any point in mentioning him.
Ricardo is far more important (historically, not right now).

all communists should die.

>>11669094
>not right now
Shame, since no one seems to understand how trade works.

>>11665103
No, or maybe somewhat. He has valid criticisms of capitalism, but his proposed solutions have worse consequences than capitalism's shortcomings.

Threads on Marx always expose the illiterate /pol/ lurkers on this board.

>>11669308
*Most threads.

Lit has been infested by pol for a while now

>>11668770
The definitive lack of definition.

>>11665103
No.

anyone who doesn't admire Marx's brilliance is a level 10 pseud. agree with him or not (whatever that would even mean considering how different his circumstances were from ours), the dude knew fucking everything.

>>11665103
Considering how "redpill" usually means "I have retarded beliefs" I'd say yes.

>>11669495
>tumblr
>authoritarian right understanding anything
No.

>>11665103
His philosophy of history is wrong, his labor theory of value is useless, the superstructure/base division is vague and wrong, his ethical beliefs are retarded (killing the bougie is a-ok because it's a-history, madame), his structural-economic analysis of capitalism is wrong (neither does the rate of profit tend to fall, nor do wages tend to become lower, nor do monopolies become the norm under capitalism; neither of these is inherent), his rhetoric is gay, his intellectual legacy is a bunch of failed dictatorial states and and an enormous amounts of freudo-marxist ""intellectuals"" who didn't (and don't) posses 1/100 of his intelligence who wrote a billion books about how gaabidalism is muh alienating this soteriological immanetizing of the eschaton that, just statalize everything and everyone who disagrees with me is being i d e o l o g i c a l, bottom text.

The ONLY good thing that can be said about Marx is that he served as the ideological fuel of socialdemocratic forces in yurop and indirectly thanks to him we don't have to deal with the equivalent of the republican party.

>>11668249
>we must recognize that Marx’s theories, while a major breakthrough in thought at the time, have been surpassed in every way by modern study and thought.
t. mainstream economist

>>11668605
Both America and Europe have third world countries in them, so your continent has always been populate by third worlders, whatever it may be.

>>11669639
If you actually read Marx instead of reading Wikipedia pages or right wing propaganda, you’d realize that Marx never said half the shit you are claiming he said. The superstructure/base division is something that the Soviet Union made up, it was not Marx’s idea. Marx himself was a historical materialist who corrected the idealism of Hegel. What that means is that he correctly recognized that human sense-data preceded thought, and that thought was based on this sense-data. From these thoughts, people then created concepts in their minds, which were a reflection of the social a priori. These concepts were then used to alter material reality. This was Marx’s view of history, which was far different from the USSR’s mechanistic view.

The labor theory of value wasn’t something that Marx just made up. It was accepted by all mainstream economists up to that point. However, after Marx exposed the implications of the LTV, bourgeois economists retreated from the theory. The labour theory of value posits that the statistical expected value (or mean) of the price of a freely reproducable commodity is proportional to the statistically average total labour input necessary for its reproduction. This is easy to prove logically and empirically.

Marx did not say that killing the bourgeoisie was morally OK. He believed simply that the bourgeoisie would resort to violence if socialists ever got in power, so self-defense was nessesary. Do you think that the American Revolution was wrong because they needed to defend themselves in order to achieve a free democratic government?

>does the rate of profit tend to fall, nor do wages tend to become lower, nor do monopolies become the norm under capitalism; neither of these is inherent
Lol. The rate of profit falling only happens if the rate of exploitation says static. If exploitation intensifies, then profit will obviously rise. Wages obviously become lower. Even the most braindead economists realize that the goal of a business is to maximize profit, and a part of that is driving down wages. Also, do you really think that capital does not have a tendency to monopolize? If it weren’t for the governments of the world having anti monopoly laws, we would all be buying shit from one corporation. Actually try reading some books, I think it would be good for you.

>>11668333
>under the labor theory of value
why do people who haven't read Marx love trying to debunk his theories so much

>>11670439
>The labour theory of value posits that the statistical expected value (or mean) of the price of a freely reproducable commodity is proportional to the statistically average total labour input necessary for its reproduction. This is easy to prove logically and empirically.

yea except for the fact that this completely neglects the industrial revolution

>>11670484
What the hell are you taking about?

>>11665277
HIS NAILS!

>>11670493
that the value of a good isn't tied to the labour done to produce it

>>11670520
What is it tied to then? How can every single commodity be priced according to the same standard? The answer is obvious, they share the fact that human labor was necessary to create them. If you believe in the subjective theory of value, you must believe that a certain large number of toothpicks is exactly as “subjectively valuable” as a car. The subjective theory of value is obviously nonsense on the face of it. Anyway, read at least the first chapter of Capital. And remember, value =/= price.

>>11669495
>US GOOD THEM BAD
gee, I never thought of it that way

>>11665103
Well yes if your aim is to cause massive suffering and material disaster. Look at results beyond the words.

>>11670439
Aaah! This reads like a post from latestagecapitalism. Fresh from r*ddit, eh? Let's see why you're wrong and a liar, point by point (I'll ignore your kindergarten textbook tier refurmulations of M's theories, since they're useless).
>The superstructure/base division is something that the Soviet Union made up, it was not Marx’s idea.
This is so laughably wrong that I could stop here because anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity would recognize that you're lying through your teeth (that, or you're extremely dumb): Marx explitictly uses the concepts of economic structure and superstructure as they're commonly understood in A contribution to the critique of political economy.
>The labor theory of value wasn’t something that Marx just made up. It was accepted by all mainstream economists up to that point.
Misleading. A labor theory of value existed both in Smith's and in Ricardo's thought. Smith also thought that R's ltv could only be applied to primitive societies. Neither of these were the same as Marx's own formulation, which is substantially different.
>owever, after Marx exposed the implications of the LTV, bourgeois economists retreated from the theory.
Conspiracy theory tier ideological narrative that ignores that the fact that the main reason economics as a discipline has moved away from the various ltvs is due to marginalism. Big bad bougie economists don't want to admit marx is right, as if marx's theories weren't already disproved by reality enough. Also blatantly ignores the fact, not intentionally obv :),that R already thought that capitalism was going to be a disaster in the long run.
>This is easy to prove logically and empirically.
lol
>The rate of profit falling only happens if the rate of exploitation says static.
Wrong, on two accounts. First, Marx explicitly says that the tendency of rate of profit to fall is inherent to the capitalist system, so that on the long run this would cause capitalism to collapse under its own weight. Second, you're empirically wrong. The rate of profit had been going up and down for the second part of 19th century - completely unrelated to the actual exploitation of workers and then it remained somewhat steady for all the 20th century despite massive increases in real wages and reduction in working hours, not to mention many places, mainly in yurop, saw a strong reduction in economic inequality.
>Even the most braindead economists realize that the goal of a business is to maximize profit
I like the smug condescension towards a field you know nothing about: good job.
>and a part of that is driving down wages
This isn't necessarily true, in a competitive market firms often compete for human capital by increasing wages of skilled laborers.
>Also, do you really think that capital does not have a tendency to monopolize?
In absence of regulation yes. Invoking the government only proves my point: this tendency of the capital to monopolize isn't inherent, it's dependent on institutions.

>>11671697
>>11670439
cont
>Actually try reading some books, I think it would be good for you.
I highly suggest you follow your own advice.

Also I'm not really sure why you implied that my sacrosant disdain for Marx's ideas is due to right wing indoctrination when I explictly insulted the republican party and praised social democratic forces. I guess everyone to the right of Lenin is a right winger?

>>11668333
>meme pic
check
>shitty straw man to ebin gtfo irrational marxists
check

>>11671758
Marxists are not irrational, they are pure evil with dash of psychotic insanity. They only use Marxist rhetoric to try to gain permanent moral high-ground, and use that to gain power, after which they drive their countries to hell. Happened every time, in every country. They don't even live by their own standards, they are not starting up worker owned businesses, they simply want to seize what other people made in their insatiable lust for power.

>>11665103
>I am reading Capital and I am finding it fascinating.
No, you're not.

red pill=/=redpill

>>11668249
Marxism was not a breakthrough, it was the dying gasp of classical economics, and was a step back from the trend towards neoclassical economics that would manifest several years after the publication of Das Kapital through the marginalist revolution.

>>11669531
Lel

>>11669529
>the dude knew fucking everything
Not basic maths, apparently.

>>11667440
Let us take any capitalist; for example, a weaver-employer. The worker supplies him with hours and hands. The weaver-employer applies himself to work, and the hours are turned into wages. The worker takes possession of the wages and they are worth 20 shillings, for example. Now, is the value of the cloth of the weaver-employer a share of the wages, of the 20 shillings, of the product of work? By no means. Long before the wages were sold, perhaps long before the work for them was done, the weaver-employer sold his cloth in a future's contract. The worker, then, does not spend his labor hours out of the free time he will obtain from his wages, but out of the hours already available to him. Just as little as future's contract or the laws of the land which enforce it are the product of the weaver-employer to whom they are supplied by the workers, just so little are the commodities which he receives in exchange for his commodity-wages-his product. It is possible that the worker found no purchasers at all for his wages. It is possible that he did not get even the amount of the hours by its sale. It is possible that he sells it very profitably in proportion to the weaver-employer's cloth. But all that does not concern the weaver-employer. With a part of his existing wealth, of his waking hours, the worker buys the talent of the weaver-employer in exactly the same manner, as with another part of his time he has bought the raw material - the hours he sells - and the instrument of the labour - a contract with his employer. After he has made these purchases, and among them belongs the tools necessary to the production of the wages he produces only with raw materials and instruments of labour belonging to him. For our good weaver-employer, too, is one of the instruments of labour, and being in this respect on a par with the contract, he has no more share in the product (the wages), or in the price of the product, than the contract itself has.

Cloth, therefore, is not a share of the capitalist in the commodities produced by himself. Cloth is that part of already existing commodities with which the worker buys a certain amount of productive wages.

Consequently, wages are a commodity which its possessor, the capitalist, sells to the worker. Why does he sell it? It is in order to live.

By the putting of labour-power into action - i.e., the work - is the active expression of the capitalist's own life. And this the activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labour itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another.

>>11671984
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_manuscripts_of_Karl_Marx

please say something else stupid

>>11665103
Marx was an alcoholic jew who leached money off of everyone around him and spent his life writing half baked prophecies that would kill millions of people in the 20th century. Marxism is one of the most toxic brain cancers humanity has ever known, and it's total eradication should be a dream of any thinking person.

>>11668347
>>11668420
>>11670453
>>11671758
>>11668606
>>11669529
Marx gets his dick sucked more by you cucks than any other author / celeb / figurehead and that's truly astonishing.
It'd be more tolerable if there were at least funny pro-communism memes. Haven't ever seen one.

>>11672192
dumb phoneposter

>>11672230
t. Jordan Peterson

>>11672339
>having this image saved
wow...

yes ..... its the literal "redpill".

its associated with the colour red and is one of the first ideologies that pertains to allow you to see through "false consciousness"

>>11665103
A virulent mind virus that turns you into an ideology dispenser thus preventing further learning about the actual world.

>>11673009
nobody was talking about anime though

>>11672192
Neo Ricardians everywhere are laughing at you.

>>11668552
That's exactly what Marx predicted.

>>11665103
You guys are always so determined to point out the economic and political ramifications of Marx' ideas, never the cultural, interpersonal relationships, what it means to be human. These days "Social Capital," is considered an acceptable term by which to refer to your friends, which is to say people only "invest," in other people with their time if they expect "returns," and this goes way beyond what it means to have reciprocity in your relationships. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels criticize the bourgeoisie for not being content to seduce each other's wives but turning the wives and daughters of the proletariat into their mistresses and prostitutes. What we have now with the "Tinder," culture is simply the 21st century version of the same old thing. The proletarian yearns to live in the same way as the bourgeois, they want the freedom of consumption, the expansive social reputation and contact with luminaries, they want the choice to not to have to report to their drudgery for a day or two without it costing them their livelihood, and in order to manifest these desires the put themselves at a disadvantage. If a prole takes a day off work to relax that's a day's wages they won't take home. If they want to cavort with some ladies extra-marital, it may result in disease, divorce, if they try to be a good-time Charlie they cheat themselves out of honest emotional connection resulting in loveless sex, a degradation of institutions, cheapening of the experience. The bourgeois, it is true, are not by definition rich, the word comes from fortified cities, literally gated communities. They will not let you in no matter how hard you try. Either you were born into the community or you are an outsider. In a sense it is a sort of fascist subset, they maintain their communities strength through their numbers, members, traditions. They observe outsiders with more contempt than the town drunk, even if you're loaded. In a bourgeois area, you can be a millionaire and they will still turn their nose up at you for being "out of touch," with the simple ways they conduct their business. They will find something to despise about you, even while they smile and accommodate your requests. It is insidious.

>be me
>say "marx is right!!!!" and other bullshit
>revolution comes
>get put in a camp
>FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUU-

>>11674134
git gud lol.

Also, yes there is a strive to be better, which usually results in an idealisation of people closer to that ideal. So what?

> They will not let you in no matter how hard you try. Either you were born into the community or you are an outsider.

The is nonsense. Americans are disgusting mudpeople who value nothing but commodified goods, yet they've always found respect in eachothers tacky plasticine. Classes are not monarchy, it's just another facet of culture. You can wail to the moon about tribalism all you want, but implying it's all just mean boogies not accepting their lessers is just irrational. There will always be those who don't fit in everywhere, if you're strong enough you'll still survive it, what matter the contempt of inferiors?

>>11670439
except marx did invent the base superstructure distinction. he never called himself a historical materialist, though i believe engels said something similar, "historical and dialectical materialism" was a notion of stalin and your idea about the idealism of hegel being corrected was also a soviet party line. what you've described is just empiricism. i could go on but what's the point ahha
>easy to prove logically and empirically
prove it then
you absolute faggots don't even know your own theory
this is why you're a joke.

>>11674141
>be you
>say "marx is wrong!!!!" and other redpills
>revolution comes
>get put in a camp
>FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUU-

Pointing out that economics is fake is hardly some great achievement.

>>11665340
Anarchism is blue pilled except MAYBE mutualism.

>>11668537
Aside from niche movements like casapound the distinction between leftist and liberal is irrelevant since almost all leftists are also liberals. Even leftypol is filled with liberals these days.

Also this liberal part is always dominant among leftists. Leftist parties (as in actual communist parties, trotskyists...) never seriously try to get the economic policy they support enforced while they regularly succeed at enabling the liberal policies they support (gay marriage, reading immigration, gender stuffs).

>>11670574
Price is a reflection of value, and a bunch of toothpicks sold at market value for a price equal to a car will not sell to the same type of person with equal frequency because the toothpicks have a lower marginal utility than the car.

>>11675086
lol this is the dumbest thing, like trotskyists and actual communists have ever been in power in the west
you're basically saying "well I say these parties are leftist even though they're liberal and call themselves liberal and they don't do leftist economic stuff" which is a nice strawman

>>11670520

Politics and economics are mass hallucinations

>>11676393
tf does that mean

>>11667832
> I don't mean to be a retard but I can't help it

>>11676393
If your implication is that consensual mass hallucinations are anything other than "real" I have some bad news for you

>>11676378
You should obviously use the diamond to kill the water seller. Duh.

>>11665103
after this, read him

>>11668289
It's because there controll agents by (((them)))
>>11665103
this is the real redpill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bkO6LimH4k

>>11676926
also don't buy books, most of the important shit is free online
https://www.marxists.org/