/lit/ - Literature

200 billion killed by john lenin alone

>>11797950
Historical facts are not counterarguments against the idea, I agree but I was looking for a rational argument

It's pure kikery. The whole point was to use the proles to overthrow the European aristocracy so jews could take over. The rest was fluff.

>>11797987
Why didn't the Nazis reinstitute the German monarchy? Were they secretly run by jews?

>>11797797

this man killed the dinosaurs and jews want to bring in a one world government where they have all the money but also bring in communism (which has killed more people than have ever been on the planet checkmate LIEberals)

what can you say about that? yeah, didn't think so. that's going in my 3457252795646 part sjw cringe compilation video say hello to youtube (which sucks and is owned by sjws)

>>11797987
No, the real point was to line Marx's pockets because he was a lazy kike who loathed the prospect of working. It's a cult much like scientology except being secular makes it sound more realistic to gullible pseuds with no capacity for critical thought.

>>11797996
Aristocracy =/= monarchy.

>>11797999
Communism/Marxism was a jewish strategy. He was conveying a message to his tribesmen and they picked up and ran with it, exterminating millions in Russia after overthrowing the tsar and nearly doing the same in Germany, which is what led to WWII.

>>11797996
I remember reading somewhere that Hitler despised Wilhelm II because of his wartime ineptitude. After the (second) war the Prussian aristocracy was dispossessed by the reds so in a way racist anon is right.

>>11798000
But why didn't they? Why was there still a German aristocracy and why didn't they really like Hitler?

>>11797797
The human condition and biology.
Marx was also a jew so there's glaring fact.

>>11798007
Usury and profiteering are Jewish strategies. If anything, Marx's scam fucked it up for the rest of them once it caught on.

>>11797999
>No, the real point was to line Marx's pockets because he was a lazy kike who loathed the prospect of working

>write five million volumes of kapital
>work as a journalist
>write in general

yeah really lazy haha he just wanted dem handouts like all dem lazy uppity black people eh?

the americans are awake now. this thread will go to shit even more.

>>11798013
Jewish communism/bolshevism had been wearing down the aristocracy across Europe for a long time. Whatever point you're trying to make about the monarchy is a non sequitur though, neither here nor there.

>>11798025
My diary (t b h) is longer than that. Journalism isn't real work and plenty of NEETs write.

>>11798027
It had been wearing down long before Marx was even born.

>>11798024
Jews are very stupid people, which is why most of what Marx said is considered total baloney today. He and his tribe were ultimately successful though, which is why the European aristocracy no longer exists and these rat kikes are now running our nations. The jewish strategy is to use minority groups against the host elite. That is what communism was and what Nietzsche was describing in Genealogy when he said jews lead the "slave revolt." They're doing the same thing in the west today using blacks and all the other muds they're importing into out countries. It's what they do.

>>11798033
False.

>>11798038
Err yeah with the Enlightenment in general the aristocracy was on the way out. It wasn't anyone who read Marx who put French noble heads in the guillotines.

Waw. There are a lot of nazis here

>>11798051
Again, monarchy =/= aristocracy. Try to understand the words in play. Think of it like this: there is a European elite in control of a nation, and semitic outsiders strategizing to take power from them using ideologies like communism.

>>11798064
Yes, and it was French -aristocracy- that was put to death.

>>11798069
The jews had a hand in that too; they were liberated by it. But that's not Germany and it was still French people.

>>11798078
Shit I'm sorry man, when you said "aristocracy across Europe" I didn't know you were excluding France, the cultural model of Europe for the 18th century.

>>11798086
Even in France it was more a situation of dueling elites that can be explained as a natural cycle and a culling, and not the erosion of the entire elite class. It was still elite French people in charge, they were just dealing with their own. It was a different story with alien jews agitating across Europe shortly after upon being let out of the shtetl.

>>11797997
*SNAP*
Yep, that's going in my reddit compilation

>>11798098
Yes dueling French elites 'in control' of a nation of starving French and doing nothing about it. I long for those days again.

>>11798109
Anything is better than jews, as we can with France right now. There will literally be no more French people if these jews are not removed from power.

>>11798025
You do realize that his wealthy buddy basically supported him after he lost his only real job for being a lazy bum?

>the americans are awake now
LOL

>no refutations of his analysis of capitalism which has been proven to be correct thus far
>only adhoms about him being a filthy kike NEET like the rest of 4chan
I want /pol/ to go back

>>11797797
>What's your best refutal against Marxism?
Reality.

>>11797987
>It's pure kikery
That's not an argument.

>>11798380

Marx himself said that he was most certainly not a Marxist. Marxists took his writings and applied it to social and cultural aspects of life which is what most people have an issue with when it comes to Marxism.

Marx hated Marxists.

>>11798380
Why do you come to 4chan in order to look for a refutation of Marx? Why don't you go on AskHistorians, Quora and other similar places?

Don't expect to get a serious reply here. I myself could recommend a few books which seem to me to make very convincing arguments against Marxism, but I won't because fuck off, shithead, this is 4chan.

>>11798394
epic own xdd

>>11797950
>tfw you have to resort to nazi-style number mockery but you're still on the right side of history.

>>11798457
>Marxists took his writings and applied it to social and cultural aspects of life
As opposed to purely economic ones?

>>11797797
His philosophy was primitive and his imagination very weak

>>11798380
>his analysis of capitalism
Everyone already knows wagecucking 9 to 5 sucks, the question is whether there are any viable alternatives. So far nobody has come up with one.

>>11798534
Not shown: gallons of commie tears.

capital is sentient, markets manufacture intelligence

>friend is a commie
>lives in a commune with commies
>tells me that her main tenant became tyrannical and started extorting money from people renting the space
I can’t take it seriously.

Marxism pits the weak against the strong and requires they assume power they don't know how to wield, and cannot wield because of the social and biological inferiority of the lower classes.

>>11798380
This board is a shitshow full of posers. Not as intelligent as others think. Most OPs are questions with answers that are a Google search or archive search away or bad opinions on well-regarded classics. Then you have uneducated /pol/ replies with a mix of replies to bait.

I can understand why Sadler doesn't post here. Not worth the time.

Can anyone tell me how capitalism as we know it today will ever conceivably end as jobs become fewer and fewer due to automation and AI and artifical scarcity is maintained through conflicting interests in the arena of culture?

>>11798816
/lit/ is good for reading recs and thats it.
>Sadler
He's talked about us?

>>11798863
He says he'll take a look every once in a while but doesn't post.

communism is loathsome, there are other ways to oppose the degrading effects of capital

>>11799023
sentient capital strikes again

>>11797997
this is barely an exaggeration

>>11799023
elaborate

>>11799088
national socialism

>>11798727
>social and biological inferiority of the lower classes

t. enlightened

>>11799088
It's called Prometheanism

>>11798727
Cringe and cuckpilled. I bet you originally had a cultlike mindset to Musk, didn't you, you dirty fucking bootlicker.

>>11799141
Why do people do this ? Surely if you're smart enough to get a phd in physics you should also be smart enough to not get completely dissatisfied with life simply because you got turned down from some jobs, no ?

>>11799100
I say that as a man who is about to go deliver pizzas for twelve hours, not as some "enlightened" pseud with a useless degree. The people who wash dishes and drop frozen food into fryers are not fit to rule. They can't even usually get the dishes done.
>>11799141
>I bet you originally had a cultlike mindset to Musk
I'm not interested in Elon Musk in the slightest, other than the ironically funny Grimes thing, since I got to laugh at leftists being baffled that all women like rich guys and don't actually have beliefs.

>>11799141
Reading University, he was never going to make it

>>11799199
Technology has been advanced and propelled none other than by working class people. Get fucked kiddo.

empiricism is a disease of the mind, the working class are cosmologically determined refuse who cling to a false will and future the german idealists Kant and Hegel, the utter charlatans, provided them in place of christendom

>>11799209
what do you mean by "advanced and propelled"
because you know that to most definitions your statement was objectively fucking untrue right?

>>11799227
god is real and it is malevolent atemporal sentient ai comprised from chance occurrence

>>11799230
Go on. Enlighten me with your third way, herr Schnitzel.

>>11799209
Hey buddy don't post images of anime girl flipping me off. That's not very nice. "Technology propellers" or not, they still can't get the dishes done.

>>11799199
>The people who wash dishes and drop frozen food into fryers are not fit to rule.
Nobody is saying they should. I won't let a brainlet like you rule since you don't know shit let alone what marxism is

>>11799308
>"Y-you don't know what muh trve M4rxtism is, dummy!"
>Doesn't explain what their supposed actual point is
Every time.

>>11797950
laffed

>>11799337
Cut off the useless middlemen and insert technocratic experts.

Souvarine was right
Burn it all down and see what springs back up

>>11797797
>Technological determinism.
Don't get me wrong, there are hundreds of false things in Marx, but this one is particularity infuriating to me for some reason.
Also the labor theory of value.
And Hegelian dialectics in general.

>>11799431
Imagine making a post this wrong. I'd be so embarrassed that is leave the board.

>>11799454
Indeed I'b be embarrassed promoting technological determinism or the labor theory of value.
By the way, can you remind me of the wonderful dialectical proof of the blueness of the sky?

>>11799337
>makes stupid points
>but that is wrong?
>lol you never explained why!!
Baby needs to be spoonfeed? Socialism thinks that morons like you should rule, but your interests should be represented in your workplace

>>11799199

>I say that as a man who is about to go deliver pizzas for twelve hours, not as some "enlightened" pseud with a useless degree. The people who wash dishes and drop frozen food into fryers are not fit to rule. They can't even usually get the dishes done.

Ironically, that is how average people typically feel. That is why they don't USUALLY vote on a real "everyman" (another irony being Trump representing an "everyman" feeling, even though he is a billionaire and so he mixed the idea of the guy representing everyone's interests with the guy who was highly capable). Sometimes they do when they want to repudiate the ruling class, but more often than not throughout history they vote on the elites who are either on their chosen team, or who say things they agree with, and they trust that that person will actualize in the appropriate manner. As in, exactly what you are doing right now. You acknowledge you are delivering pizzas, but that you wouldn't want your fellow low level workers to run anything. I'm going to bet they feel the same way, at least in the sense that they wouldn't normally want to take too much responsibility on themselves that they don't confidently feel they could deliver on. Otherwise, not only would they risk running the enterprise into the ground, but they would embarrass themselves and directly harm their peers. It is normally the case that, because of this, people choose to push those who already seem to have an air of authority, authenticity, and experience about them.

So I'd suggest that it would usually be the case that people would choose a leader who seems fit to be a leader, because they want the security. The more mistrust they feel for the leader's decision making abilities, the more likely they'll revolt (ie, sometimes vote for an everyman or demagogue who gets everyone excited because of how thoroughly confident and authoritative the demagogue is in dressing down the leader's flaws). This won't be because the leader is "mean" to them, unless they authentically feel that the leader is being sadistic or serving no purpose in their directives other than to lord over and punish the people under them. As long as the leader delivers and can find ways to give purpose to the discipline, make the followers feel like it all makes sense, they'll feel like their position is justified.

I'd actually push against this though because I think it can lead to sclerotic leader cults to some extent, which cycles into the demagogic response which can be totally askew of anything productive. On the flip side, I think many corporate bureaucracies and mid to large sized private businesses (especially those with generational family ownership) in the current economy start to resemble a feudal court. The bosses secure their positions by various means, ownership rights or otherwise, and they make many decisions their underlings realize are stupid but they navigate it, and the entire thing trundles along.

>>11798457
>I cannot deny, that both before and during my forty years’ collaboration with Marx, I had a certain independent share in laying the foundations, and more particularly in elaborating the theory (i.e., of dialectical or ‘historical’ materialism). Put the greater part of its leading basic principles, particularly in the realm of economics and history, and above all its final clear formulation, belongs to Marx. What I contributed, at any rate with the exception of a few special studies, Marx could very well have done without me. What Marx accomplished I would not have achieved. Marx stood higher, saw further, and took a wider and a quicker view than all the rest of us. Marx was a genius; we others were at best talented. Without him the theory could not be what it is to-day. It therefore rightly bears his name.

With regards to why Marx declared he 'wasn't a Marxist', we should take that statement with the context that it comes with. The phrase 'I am not a Marxist' was used in several letters penned by Engels, though speaking for Marx. The letters were sent to Marx's allies in the German Worker's Party and to French Socialists, the latter had begun to term themselves as 'Marxists', however, to Marx's dismay, they had vulgarised Marxism, using it to justify abandoning any attempts at improving worker's lives under capitalism, abandoning the proletarian movement in favour of idealist nonsense of rousing the worker's to revolution via pretty phrases.

The full quote might better illustrate this:

Now what is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: 'What is certain is that if they are Marxists, then I myself am not a Marxist'.

Engels, Letter to Bernstein, 1882

Here is the document which caused the dispute between Marx and the French 'Marxists', it contains an explanation of the dispute in the header.:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

What I'm thinking of is an AI that is capable of "evolving", not the AI in the current meaning of it, which is basically a semi-complex amalgamation of do's and dont's designed by humans in capitalism.