/lit/ - Literature

>>12555933
Oh good, another useful idiot to work towards the end of civilization.

>>12555933
Because they have an inherited hatred of him from the time of Nobles. Most of the far-right are pseudo-Marxists now anyway

>>12555933
> Why do Peterson and Prager hate him so much?
Read The German Ideology

At this point Marxism is a reactionary movement. It is solely for the good if western civ. It is championed in its true form only by white men. It represents a return to real society. It is authoritarian, philisophic and intellectual. Marxism is poised to combat "woke capitalism" , social justice tribalism, and pseudo conservatism. Come home white man.

>>12555948
>Most of the far-right are pseudo-Marxists now anyway
Elaborate.

Read pic related an all of Peterson's political/social opinions will become clear.

>>12555948
>Nobles
who

>>12555971
The only goal of marxism is the end of the world.

>>12556035
Barnes&

>>12556039
>saving the world
Oof

>>12555971
>It is authoritarian, philisophic and intellectual.
>authoritarian

>>12556039

>>12556080
Yeah look it up. Dictatorship of the proletariat innit? Don't try to emasculate our revolution skiddy

>>12555933
Felt similar tbqh. Didn't make me not a capitalist but I was still like "damn wagecucking sucks."

>>12555933
young marx is pretty based
reason why people shit on him is because he went insane and senile in his later age

>>12556089
It's only a transitory phase. Marx was fundamentally against the inhrent paternalism of authoritarian thinking.

>woke
I rest my case

>>12555933
Simple. They hate Marx because they’re capitalists. “Blue pilled” af

>>12556099
Wrong. He was in favor of a shift in power not doing away with power all together you are talking about neomarxist reformism. More parliamentarian apologetics I.E. neoliberalism.

>>12556099
>It's only a transitory phase.
doubt.png

>labor theory of value

>>12555933
His theory of alienation would be good if it were aimed at taxation and not voluntary transactions.

>>12556147
Well after the return of initial investment what excuse does he have? Also the market does a terrible job of assigning value. In the marketplace of ideas, shitposting proves the most valuable on 4channel

>>12555933
>tfw you are a neo-platonist so you can easily steal marx's hegelian bullshit for your own purposes

:)

>>12556158
>t. John Milbank

>>12556167
Sssshhh don't tell my wife

>>12556147
>I pos’ed it agen mommy!!

>>12556147
>>>/r/conservative

>>12556039
this sadly.

>>12556101
Socialism is the first step to feudalism

>>12556237
Yeah and the first step out. Imagine falling for the linear progress meme. Hillary voter?

>>12556237
Theocracy is the first step to feudalism.

Socialism has gone step by step with capitalism since the modern iteration came out of the age of revolution. Socialism it’s shadow, Wolff says.
Are you even sincere with this red state retard remark though? Most people don’t want authoritarian socialism. That’s what was rejected with the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Look, capitalism has changed over the years, and it’s incapable of going back o what it was, and so has socialism. Stop scaremongering and read up on what’s going on. The markets goin to crash again in the next year or two

>friend claims to be "very far right wing"

>only politics she ever talks about is how ebil banks and capitalism are

How did the right get so cucked, fellas? Seems like they move further to the left everyday

>>12556141
That's what Marx said. Communism isn't supposed to mean indefinitely prolonged dictature of proletariat, no matter how it turned out in USSR or whatever. That would be like saying libertarianism favors monopoles because the most unregulated capitalists countries also have monopoles.

>>12556288
Maybe she's a antisemitic feudalist organic monarchist. That almost as far right as it gets;

>>12556237
>>12556275
feudalism is just an expression of a heathy society and theocracy is its handmaid
socialism is just how societies which have been forced into modernization, without being ready for it react, which is why leftists are strongest in all of ex-reactionary strongholds in europe

>>12556315
Feudalism is slavery and socialism is a desire for freedom.
And you know it
Or you had better.

marxism is so gay man, it's super hip but totally wrong

>>12556147
You're not really explaining profit here or what determines the average rate of profit. The entire premise of classical economics was no outlay of labour is needed to obtain rent or interest. That provided a much more powerful explanatory framework for how things really work. If you're using the term profit as just a synonym for earnings regardless of their source you're masking rentiers and the tendency for their compound interest demands to approach infinity. It's not just a scholastic issue of imputation.

>>12556315
socialism is oriental despotism not feudalism

>>12556300
Paleolibertarians support natural monopolies, but not those based on massive aid to finamciers from quantitative easing, bonds and bail outs. As Richard Nixon and Clyde Wilson both note, gimmedats for financiers dwarf Negro aid

>>12556319
lmao feudalism is freedom
socialism is a misguided cry of people enslaved to capitalism who can never go back to real freedom, but cannot content themselves to capitalist slavery

>>12556327
rent seeking is not the same thing as entrepreneurship, maybe this is where marx got confused

>>12556320
It’s just economics. Leninism and Stalinism is what’s wrong

>>12556313
this except antisemitic part, its not necessarily incorrect, but not relevant enough of a signifier related to other terms you used

>>12556342
it's wrong economics

>>12556342
early marx was based
unfortunately instead of completing his theory by escaping from brain prison of materialism he went totally senile in his later age

>>12556350
>marx realizes he's wrong and starts to get back to reality before he dies
>people dismiss marx's later work as senility

oh im laffin, it reminds me of a wigger kid i was buddies with as a teen, he loved the malcolm x movie but only the first part when he's a criminal lol

>>12556361
>trapped in the brain prison of materialism he is unable to find the truth which lies outside it
>his incomplete theory cannot be implemented
>as his sanity diminishes he starts to go to increasing lenghts of mental gymnastics to try and complete it until it all devolves into an utter larp
>wOrKeRs oF dA wOrLd UnTiE

>>12555933
because they're standard grifters

>>12556334
>bondage to your sovereign is freedom
LARPing ass

>>12556347
There’s variation. How can you dolts square your complete adoration of the very system “da jewz” own you with and fear breaking free of this bondage as yet another Jewish conspiracy? Bafflingly stupid. Break your conditioning

>>12556350
He was a swaggering oaf, a product of his time unfortunately, brilliant, but not enough to see the sense of Stirner and Bakunin

>>12556379
>bondage to your sovereign is freedom
you dont even udnerstand the complexity that is feudalism
>sense of Stirner and Bakunin
please tell me you are joking

>>12556337
I never meant Marx... the labour theory of value was a concept of classical economics (Marx criticized) that understood profit clearly as the net return to capital invested in plant, equipment and related outlays whose cost was always reducible to the labour time that went into their production.
There is no clear theory of profit today, all income is assumed "earned"... the concept of unearned income is pretty problematic. Also the distinction between "rent seeking" and "entrepreneurship" seems pretty blurry since most "entrepreneurship" today boils down to trying to monopolize intellectual property and milk a massively inflated return.

>>12556379
i'm not one of these wannabe peasant retards, capitalism is the only system that gives people freedom, but maybe many people are not cut out for freedom so they yearn to be enslaved

>>12555933
His diagnosis is fairly spot on but his solution is pretty much nonexistent. He gives vague theories on how to solve the problems he's revealed to you but there's no physical, material answer. So you're left trying to figure out how the fuck to actualize the overturning of the bourgeoisie and the creation of a proletarian dictatorship and every attempt to do that thus far has been a massive failure. Of course you also have to realize that when people like Peterson refer to "Cultural Marxism", they're not referring to a classical interpretation that you're going to find around here and that you seem to be coming to. They're more referring to the modern Neo-Marxist interpretations popular among most young leftists nowadays deriving from French post-structuralists like Jacques Derrida and critical theorists like Walter Benjamin.

>>12555990
Traditional fascism was also a bit psuedo-Marxist in that it recognized class warfare and realized that the bourgeoisie were responsible for a lot of the bad shit afflicting modern man. Their answer however was obviously different. I think it's interesting though, if you go onto /pol/ (obviously ignoring nu/pol/ Trump masturbation) or onto right-wing twitter, the rhetoric is almost exactly what a Classical Marxist would say as far as disdain for bourgeoisie-led capitalism, only where Classical Marxists would deride fascists as being bourgeoisie stooges you now have the far right deriding Neo-Marxists as bourgeoisie stooges. I mean fuck, look at the whole Soros angle (which has gained conservanormie status at this point). While obviously they hate the leftists he funds, they outright identify him (the ultimate modern bourgeoisie) as the cause of their problem.

>>12556394
>capitalism is the only system that gives people freedom,
No it doesn't, it enslaves everyone to debt, both on a personal and a national level. It is an abomination

>>12556147
the LTV's conclusion isn't that workers deserve more compensation, but that the capitalist mode of production itself is unsustainable in the long run.

>>12556157
>Also the market does a terrible job of assigning value

How so?

I would rather take a buffalo diarrhea dump in my ear than spend on minute not being a huge waste of space

>>12556422
you really need an answer to that knowing that prince harry and twitch girls exist

>>12556405
>His diagnosis is fairly spot
That's all that really interests me. I'm not a materialist, nor do I believe that there is some rational Hegelian eschaton that can be realised on earth.

>They're more referring to the modern Neo-Marxist interpretations popular among most young leftists nowadays deriving from French post-structuralists like Jacques Derrida and critical theorists like Walter Benjamin.

Aha, well that makes sense. I've read some Benjamin lately and I can't tell if his writings on "aestheticised politics" vs "politicised art" is genius or retarded.

>>12555933
>Marx
>woke
>Peterson

obvious bait

Why do people fall for this shit

>>12556406
>thinking debt is slavery

wow pretty dumb bro, the interest you pay on debt is basically the fee you pay to use someone else's capital, if you don't want debt., don't use it, except there are many points when using "other people's money" aka debt and equity makes a lot of sense

>>12556394
Capitalism allows you to rent freedom only.
But eventually the winners of the game are going to bring it all crashing down.

>>12556439
yes, you bootlicking moron, debt is totally the only problem about capitalism

>>12556439
>people aren’t expected to pay off debts.

marx is retarded
read any other non state socialist instead

>>12556448
utter brainlet, if debt is bad why are you mad that banks wouldn't give blacks loans in the 50s?

i love butterfly!

>>12556439
>just dont use banks bro lmao

your opinion on a cashless future?

>>12556459
Don't white knight her. She backs off from true communism at every turn

Here have a commie waifu

>>12556456
Like Richard Wolff or Paul Cockshott or David Harvey

>>12556454
just because you took out a 200k loan to dude a fag studies degree doesn't mean everyone makes such poor decisions, most people pay of their students loans after 5 years, and most people will pay off the mortgage on their house, low income people who took liar loans in the 2000s aside, in fact funding a business with debt is a hell of a lot better deal than funding it with equity, but its too fucking risky so most people are not going to give loans they're going to want the strong upside that comes with ownership

>>12556458
im not
im mad that central bank is controlled by the ultra rich and ensaving us all - its particular method of enslaving us concerns me little
being mad about banks not giving back loans is the small thinking that makes good people vote for social democrats and distracts them from the big picture that is the opression of the current system

>>12556482
>wacko nutter who believes weird conspiracy theories about the fed

why not tell us your opinions on vaccines and jfk while you're at it

>>12556432
Yes, I do.

>>12556477
Debt itself is a fake accumulation of values. Explain how debt creates value outside of contract theory. Lots of things become possible in coercion. We need gulags for people like you. No need to apologize for stalin when fags like this exist.

>>12556459
Thanks.

>>12556473
Yet you post a anarchy-syndicalist, which I support whole heartedly

>>12556488
retard

>>12556493
>a syndicalist
Aka the real heroes and true communists
Communism is an end not a means to an end
The means are by any means necessary

>>12556488
How is pointing out the unethical stuff the fed does a conspiracy theory

>>12556435
>That's all that really interests me.
I think most people on the far right nowadays implicitly agree with Marx's critiques, but obviously for strategic reasons they could never explicitly reach such a conclusion.

>I've read some Benjamin lately and I can't tell if his writings on "aestheticised politics" vs "politicised art" is genius or retarded.
Eh, my take with Benjamin is again kind of similar to Marx. I think his ideas are good but the route he takes with them is just pants on head retarded. He recognizes that the aura of art and ritual is lost on modern man in the age of technological reproduction but he entirely fails to point out that aura is exactly what the fascists were rekindling. Fascists are just larpers who take their larp so seriously that they're willing to kill and die for it, and at that point it's really not a larp anymore is it? It has a regained aura that's lost on materialism, both capitalist and Marxist.

>>12556488
ultra rich controlling the monetary policy instead of the government isnt conspiracy
its corruption of the worst kind

>why not tell us your opinions on vaccines and jfk
vaccines are useful, but dangerous because overusing them to feed pharmaceutical industry that fills politicians pockets will lead to viruses becoming resistant and even worse than before + lowering natural immunity of the people
jfk is a generic conservanormie who got elected by the democratic party cause populism, but started to be difficult to control so they had to cut him loose

>>12556439
>wow pretty dumb bro, the interest you pay on debt is basically the fee you pay to use someone else's capital, if you don't want debt., don't use it, except there are many points when using "other people's money" aka debt and equity makes a lot of sense
Yes well unfortunately fiat currency and quantitative easing makes--intentionally--my money worth less day by day. My only hope for my to hold any value is to turn it over to moneylenders and financiers so they can make more money off my money in exchange for preserving its value. A house today costs thrice what it did in 2001, the game is rigged. Also rampant state spending is pushed so financiers can lend to the state at interest, which the taxpayers must take on the debt for. And if financiers get in trouble, we have to borrow money from financiers to bail them out with, and again the debt is passed to the taxpayer.

Damn capitalism, damn Yankyism, damn Lincolnism, damn liberalism.

>>12556503
I’ll support nearly anything, just as long as it gets us there. If the democratic socialists can do it, I’d be surprised, but pleasantly so

>>12555971
Yeah but we reject "woke capitalism" and social justice because its not radical enough. Marxists are still anti-racist and anti-sexist.

>>12556147
I have never read Das Kapital. Can someone explain to me how Marx's LTV accounts for scarcity? Specifically the scarcity of primary resources?
I am not a capitalist I'm just curious

>>12556522
Of course anti racist and sexist which is also reactionary when epidemic racism and sexism is sold as "media representation" while women and brown people around the world remain violently opressed.

>>12556512
inflation is a wealth tax, it makes it so that rich people have to use it or lose it, isn't that what progressive wankers like sanders want? you guys are so fuckin stupid man, and now you're complaining about taxpayers taking on debt? all the spending is for fucking communist programs to help lazy shits, if we just spent only on the roads, trains, and cops, we wouldn't have a debt problem

>>12556530
scarcity (and supply and demand in general) will determine market prices. Marx recognizes this. the LTV isn't a theory of market prices.

>>12556516
I like you I'm just being adversarial for fun
Youre actually an oldfag on /lit/

>>12556538
is that why women were much happier under reactionary systems and why half of contemporary feminist demands could bve easily mistaken for traditionalism

face it, women need traditional roles, not having them is opression

>>12556319
Serfs had rights and plenty of control over their lives. Each caste had responsibilities to each other and more often than not honored them.

>>12556538
Its not reactionary, its that "more women CEOs" is reactionary and not real progress. Female CEOs are just as happy to exploit women as male CEOs. Its a faux solution, as any solution is that tries to marry capitalism with progressiveness. The fact is the system of private property and production for profit is rotten to the core and needs to be torn down and a new system built.

>>12556558
Happier is hard to determine even harder historically when there is literally no way of knowing beyond speculation

>>12556509
>I think most people on the far right nowadays implicitly agree with Marx's critiques
As in the class distinctions and what not?

>>12556522
Marx himself wasnt antiracist so that bit you guys have added in from the Progs
I also imagine that in a situation where antiracism and marxism are pitted against each other the former wins doesn't it

in reality you're progs first, and Marxism is a sort of fashion statement for you (look at me im radical and intellectual)

>>12556560
serfs had much better lifes than we do
only way for her to react is to simplify it into retardation so she could keep her socialist non-logic

>>12556541
Inflation means lower real wages, quantitative easing always spurs investment.

I am a paleocon, not a pinko

>>12556561
>a new system built
At this point any system at all is not new. Capitalism has abandoned systems in favor of metastasis

>>12556564
happiness is relative and measurable in research

>>12556566
>marx himself wasn't anti-racist
What? Did you even read "On the Jewish Question"? You're not a marxist, you're a far-right capitalist trying to use marxist language without any understanding of it.

>>12556579
Capitalism hasn't abandoned systems, its a material system like any other and its starting to seriously ail.

communism is dumb sorry

>>12556598
>>12556598
im not marxist or far right or whatever you want to call me, i dont care, im just pointing out that your antiracist beliefs dont come from marx

>>12556509
Interesting opinion on Benjamin

>>12556566
BASED
"antiracism" ignores the primacy of class conflict. Fuck progs. Fuck feminists. Fuck the NWO. Simple as.

>>12556566
On the Origin of the State says monogamous marriage is the start of oppression of women by men. Marxism is woke

In his 1877 Notes to Anti-Dühring, Engels elaborated on the subject of race, observing “that the inheritance of acquired characteristics extended … from the individual to the species.” He went on, “If, for instance, among us mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child and in no need of proof from evidence that is solely the result of ‘accumulated inheritance.’ It would be difficult to teach them by proof to a bushman or to an Australian Negro.”

>>12556560
>plenty
Says you.
All irrelevant of course. There’s no going back.

>>12556571
There’s no going backwards in time. We will not go back to kings and churches. You want that life back? You can have something like it with socialism. Seriously

In the New York Tribune in 1853, Karl Marx came close to advocating genocide, writing, “The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” His friend and collaborator, Engels, was more explicit.

In 1849, Engels published an article in Marx’s newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung. In it, Engels condemned the rural populations of the Austrian Empire for failing enthusiastically to partake in the revolution of 1848. This was a seminal moment, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

“From Engels' article in 1849 down to the death of Hitler,” George Watson wrote in his 1998 book The Lost Literature of Socialism, “everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist.”

So, what did Engels write?

Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality—the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary."

“The Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians,” he continued. “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

>>12556542
I meant more in terms of how a resource would be distributed in a post-revolution world. The proles own all the factories and mines, but some metals are rarer and more crucial for some technologies. It's "more valuable", but it's not any harder to mine it than the iron those blokes down the road are mining.

>>12556561
>private property
>rotten to the core

Dear, God.

marxism is just modern manichaeism believing that all history is an epic battle between good and evil, dumb in 300AD, extra dumb in 1800AD

>>12556288
>she
Post her tits
Also yea fuck the banks and capitalism, its all Jewish right along with communism and socialism

>>12556650
>There’s no going backwards in time
you are the only one talking about it
>We will not go back to kings and churches
lmao we live in those times rn, except they go by different names, you as a communist should fucking know this
>You want that life back?
no, lol
>You can have something like it with socialism
sry im oriented towards the future unlike socialists
future which will be built according to same principles better societies abided by and adapted to current life, not a utopian sham

>>12556650
>says you
Well, say most medievalists, but I won't give you an argument from authority. If anything, I suggest you read up on Feudalism, because there's quite a lot of good literature on it and it's quite interesting for its own sake. Local lords and the church had nowhere near as much of a tyrannical grasp of the farmers than you make it seem. It was all quite symbiotic. Almost 1/3 people in any given village had a small "title", like brewmaster or head of thatching.
>none of it matters now
Correct.

>>12556662
"Friend" as in we're not in a sexual relationship

>>12556624
Yes they do. They come from a marxist understanding of race as being based in the material conditions of capitalism. Which is entirely consistent with what Marx says in "On the Jewish Question": that the jewish "nature" exists because there is a Jewishness in society, not because jews themselves have essential traits. Now there's debate to be had about whether he was perpetuating negative stereotypes by acknowledging them in the first place, but the fact is he is explicitly saying race comes from the economic base, not some mystical essence inherent to people.

>>12556643
This is a deliberate misrepresentation. That passage comes from the fragmentary note Dialectics of Nature, in which Engles is not talking about race, but about mathematics and quantity. He is using a metaphor.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch07e.htm

>>12556652
oh, the LTV is a descriptive theory of capitalist economies (i.e., how freely certain commodities ARE ALREADY valued) not a prescriptive theory of communist economies (i.e., how commodities SHOULD be valued post-revolution).

Has /pol recognized that Marx (at least in his critique) was totally right? They basically use the same rhetoric but at the same time condemn "cultural marxism".

>>12556662
>only ethnic capitalism cin werk

>>12556667
I’m not talking about returning to feudalism
>I’m oriented towards the future
Fine. Also something socialism embraces
>utopia
Always a funny snipe. You’re such a cliche

>>12556687
duh, ltv came from ricardo, that's why non-retards consider marx a minor ricardian, as would everyone else on earth, if a german agent hadn't turned him into the god of a state religion after a coup

>>12556692
maybe they should rehabilitate the second international! it's time!

>>12556697
Marx's LTV is quite distinct from Ricardo;'s.

>>12556687
Okay, I misunderstood. Where does Marx talk about how they SHOULD be valued? I thought Marx saw the LTV as the true value of a product, but we often pay different prices because of capitalist fuckery
>>12556697
Well, Locke and Smith wrote about a Labor Theory of Value way before Ricardo, so that's not exactly right.

>>12556695
>You’re such a cliche
it wasnt intention to invoke a cliche, but to refer to the contrast of an openended worldview based on practical situation and tempered by history with one governed by ideology concocted in heads of fancy intellectuals, distanced from reality and limited by human intellect and context in which the said person lived

>I’m not talking about returning to feudalism
you are talking about returning to the past which is typical of socialist mentality, referring to what i wrote above

>>12556716
it's still wrong

>>12556708
"The idealists, all those who believe in the immateriality and immortality of the human soul, must be excessively embarrassed by the difference in intelligence existing between races, peoples, and individuals"

-Mikhail Bakunin "God and the State"

like i said, come home white man.

>>12556723
>thought Marx saw the LTV as the true value of a product, but we often pay different prices because of capitalist fuckery

wrong. marx believed that all value comes from labor, so the value of anything comes from the labor that went into it, so the more capital intensive an industry is the less profit it will make because there will be less value produces to be appropriated by the capitalist

>>12556737
There is no contradiction in believing all men have souls and some men are exceptionally more intelligent than others. Or some groups being more intelligent than others.

>>12556753
Or some races are more intelligent than others

stop being an intellectual coward, Bakunin was not

>>12556747
Now I'm confused again. Did Marx believe the amount of labor that went into something still determined how valuable it would be in the post-revolution world?

>>12556753
>souls
The entire point of that quote was to contradict religion you fucking brainlet liberal

>>12556723
>Okay, I misunderstood. Where does Marx talk about how they SHOULD be valued?
he doesn't think commodities should have an exchange value in communist societies.
> I thought Marx saw the LTV as the true value of a product, but we often pay different prices because of capitalist fuckery
not sure what you mean by "capitalist fuckery" but yeah, Marx does see labor-time as determining the true value of certain commodities. but specifically in capitalist economies.
>>12556726
do you have an argument for that
>>12556747
>so the more capital intensive an industry is the less profit it will make because there will be less value produces to be appropriated by the capitalist
Marx recognizes profit is equalized across industries, so no.

>>12556747
this thinking is still mired in pre-industrial modes of production, the land will not produce anything without labor, an the land owners who expropriate from the labors who till the field is literally rent seeking, but applying this to capitalist industry was wrong, marx didn't think so good

>>12556755
I obviously implied races when I said groups. What's your fucking point?

>>12556725
No.

It’s a simple idea really. Not doing capitalism will change the way people interact with one another. And many will be all the better for it. It would snowball from there, into a better world.
I have not even invoked any ideas of the past, but when I have it was only in service to illustrate how people behaved. Didn’t do any of that ITT though

>>12556759
no. also don't listen to that guy.

>>12556762
>Marx recognizes profit is equalized across industries, so no.

what

>>12556771
when i glorify feudalism it is because i rightfully see it as a system, which in context within which it existed formed a system ultimately superior in most, if not all ways to rest of systems we know of historically, particularly wealth inequality (since you are so obsessed with that aspect, being metaphysically impaired) which it dealt with masterfully bringing to shame socialism in a way that even the most hardened peasant revolts praised and advocated for the same paradigm - now relate that to contemporary system before you make any unwarranted comparisons to the present situation - thats right, you cant
only thing contemporary man can do to fight this realization o its inferiority is brainwashing, simplification, clichees, obscurantism
id say all negative things that paint feudalism are basically self-unaware projection

i can only dream of having a system of such level created by post-modern civilization

>>12556759
marx said very little about the post-revolution world, which is why being a marxist is fairly dumb

>>12556770
race and groups have very different implications

>>12556761
I'm aware. I'm saying it's retarded.
>he doesn't think commodities should have an exchange value in communist societies.
Okay, right. So who gets what is determined from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs? It doesn't matter how much harder or rarer a thing is, if someone needs it it will get to them?

>>12556771
>Not doing capitalism will change the way people interact with one another. And many will be all the better for it. It would snowball from there, into a better world
that is in no way different to my own worldview and it is most assuredly not socialist
>I have not even invoked any ideas of the past
perhaps you should have since no system can exist blind to history and reality

>>12556789
Groups accounts for the fact some groups even within races are dumber than others.

>>12556777
surplus-value is extracted and distributed by the capitalist class as a whole, for Marx. this is why profit rates in labor-intensive industries aren't higher than capital-intensive industries. he outlines this in vol. III https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch10.htm

>>12556792
well our concept of need has been so perverted by consumerism i don't doubt that a huge revision in standards of need would be in order before an appropriate appropriation could move forward. The revolutionary period will be ugly. The only fault of the Soviet Union is that it did not have enough time to grow. Such evolutionary epochs in human society would take many centuries. Think Egypt for instance. Unfortunately retards like the USA and Europe intervened in the process and held humanity back.

>>12556792
what about things no one needs but everyone wants, who gets tickets to the opera and who gets the new xbox? luckily we live in a free market where people get to pay what they want for things they want, laotze already had this figured out 2000 years ago when he told the emperor "running the economy is like cooking a fish, you ruin it with too much poking" a quote that was no doubt on the chinese leaders mind when they axed nixon how he made america's economy so good, and replied that he didn't "do" anything, he gave the people freedom and they created the wealth themselves

>>12556802
well overall some races are dumber than others and that is what you're pussyfooting around. btw the word pussyfoot is highly erotic to me :^)

>>12556792
>Okay, right. So who gets what is determined from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs? It doesn't matter how much harder or rarer a thing is, if someone needs it it will get to them?
I guess. I'm not well-versed in communist theorizations.

>>12556813
why should some be burdened with producing what noone needs? your value system is fucked, it has been retarded by consumerism. you think things like opera and xbox have a place in history when in reality they are no better than any other kind of masturbation. captialism and consumerism are inherently degenerative to the soul. read some romantic poets you fuck. read DH Lawrence for fuck sake. get laid. stop going to the opera and playing Minecraft.

>>12556812
>well our concept of need has been so perverted by consumerism i don't doubt that a huge revision in standards of need would be in order
You're right, even though I'm not a Marxist.
>>12556813
I'm fairly certain there's a good Marxist answer to this, though I'm a huge brainlet with a bad memory.
>>12556819
I have literally already agreed with you that some races are more intelligent than others. Get some fucking reading comprehension

>>12556812
egyptian culture and economy was almost entirely static for 3000 years, just as the soviet union was static from stalin to the collapse, there is on progress in oriental despotism

>>12556833
>we should only produce the bare necessities of subsistence, anything else is a waste
>recommend i purchase a book of poems as a remedy

best be trollin retard

>>12556845
STASIS BAD

>>12556842
well if you agree that some races are more intelligent than others
CONGRATULATIONS
you are a racist

>>12556884
>i want it to stay the 90s FOREVER

so this is all just a peter pan syndrome driven nostalgia obsession

>>12556889
Well it's true based on all cognitive tests and fairly blatant based on basically all observable evidence. There are always thousands of outliers; I have no doubt there are tens of thousands of idiotic ashkenazi jews and genius congolese.

>>12556906
nostalgia is a function of the consumerist epoch
i recommend you look into biostasis ergo equilibrium
it is THE favorable way of being for organic life

>>12556908
well what is the point of fetishizing the exception? nothing but aristocracy.

>>12556918
I don't fetishize the exception, I just accept those exceptions make implementating any sort of policy extremely complicated. And it's enough to make me respect any individual could be much smarter than me, even if they're from a race that scores lower on IQ tests than mine. Given they're not dressed like shit loitering in a shitty neighborhood.

>>12556912
>some biology bullshit
ya ok ever heard of evolution you fucking retard

>>12556798
>not socialist
Meh. So what is it?
And I believe in said I refer to the past at times to show how people have behaved.
People are under the impression that before we had money we had a barter system, but that’s just not true. Barter only happens after ready cash is swept up in a war. Primitive capitalism conditioned people so.
What did we do before money? We shared.
That’s the one component of the past I think we can bring back.

>>12556958
>What did we do before money? We shared.

yeah the pharoah loved to share!

>>12556938
>ever heard of evolution
yeah evolution comes to an end at biostasis you retard. evolution is like pain, it is necessary only insofar that disease exists. there is an end to evolution and we are approaching it if only faggots such as your self get put into the pogrom.
>>12556937
it is only as complicated as you are willing to make it. problematization is the function of postmodern laxity, a luxury we will not afford in the current state of an extinction event. enough prevarication! APOCALYPSE NOW!!!

>>12556968
>egyptians didn't use money

>>12556682
>not because jews themselves have essential traits
If this is the case, you have to explain pre-capitalist jewish behavior, e.g. their behavior in egypt in being exiled (the osarseph folklore on the egyptian side of the moses myth), their behavior during the roman empire (see cicero or cassius dio's accounts), their behavior with the persians (the celebration of ethnic slaughter of their enemies with the holiday purim), their behavior in communist societies, and a variety of other behavior not associated with capital. Anyone that reads the history of the jews can see other civilizaions complaining about similar behavior a long time before capitalism even occurred or when capitalism is not present, e.g. in group clannish, hyper-aggression towards the outgroup, taking over or influencing financial and political power centers, trying to upend the traditional values of the host society to make things "good for the jews".

>>12556988
>dishonestly posting a random pic of unknown providence they hastily pulled off google

yeah ok

>>12557015
hey hey fuck you you were being dishonest too

>>12556988
>when your dumb anarchist theories get btfo just post made-up stuff

ok

>>12557032
the egyptians didn't use any kind of coinage until the greeks, deal with it, this is why communism is called oriental despotism, the party owns everything like the pharoah owns everything, there is no money, there is no progress, you toil, you die, the end

>>12557045
ok. your question was fucking stupid. >>12557055
you toil you die the end

and what are you doing faggot?

>>12557004
stfu anti semite

>>12557089
not working in the fields all season so the pharoahs cops can come and jack half my shit, that's what

>>12557098
just ignore that retard

>>12557098
He stated anti-semitism is grounded in capitalism. Again, explain anti-semitism in pre-capitalist or non-capitalist societies accounting for the fact it occurs in a diverse set of cultures and socio-political systems. It's a simple question.

>>12557098
This level of rebuttal is why the wrongthink is spreading tbqh

>>12557098
Anti-semite only applies to jews. You might as well be a muslim and call him an infidel. You think he cares what you think with your special jew word for "pattern recognition"?

>>12557099
hahah COPE i'm sure youre doing something analogous

>>12557109
>Again, explain anti-semitism in pre-capitalist or non-capitalist societies
The jews are a bunch of assholes on a genetic level and they always find some way to get themselves kicked out of a nation, whether it be stealing from the poor with usury, cutting the edges off of coins, abducting children, you name it.

They're hated for how they act. There's nothing wrong with that.

now that the frankfurt school got exposed, is this the left's new angle? regression to oriental despotism? should we all do corvee labor to build pyramids for xi jinping in the off season instead of shitposting in our homes? would that make you happy? maybe bring back human sacrifices like in the pre-columbian mexico? you can get the high priest to cut out your wife's son's heart and offer it to god! maybe bring back subsistence agriculture and return to illiteracy and patriarchy like in india, oh wait, 100s of millions of people still live like that in south asian right now! yeah man, weird flex but ok

>>12557135
>maybe bring back human sacrifices like in the pre-columbian mexico
They passed a bill for that in new york recently. Now they can kill babies for fun.

>>12555933
marx exposed how ur all being used. peterson says its going to make you a whiney unhappy fag instead of making the most of your exploitation cuz u cant change it anyway

>>12557116
i'm shitposting on the internet using a macbook pro hooked up to a 4k monitor, and sipping a cup of fresh hazelnut creme coffee, while i stream music into my bluetooth headphones, how about you?

>>12557140
source

>>12557163
i thought you lefty shitlords stayed glued to buzzfeed

>>12557163
https://www.faithwire.com/2019/01/23/new-york-senate-erupts-in-applause-after-passing-horrific-late-term-abortion-bill/

>>12557156
listening to daft punk's Random Access Memories on heroin and THC candy and touching myself :/

>>12557182
wow capitalism is just so terrible wouldn't you rather be up to your ankles in water and human shit bent over in the sun trying to cultivate rice to survive

>>12557173
?

>>12557188
Or abandon both and go with the only one that has worked for the people.

>>12557191
dont u like how the democrats cant pass a bill getting people healthcare or living wages, but they manage to pass a bunch of new baby murder bills

>>12557188
don't you look a little deeper and realize all we are doing is to make up for the emptiness left inside from consuming. surely you are capable of imagining something better than this? also, unironically, think of people other than yourself. there are plenty of people living in the shit, for the sake of our lifestyle, doesn't that defy human dignity? of course.

why does every Marx discussion on here turn to shit

>>12557211
>>12557211
>all we are doing is to make up for the emptiness left inside from consuming

speak for yourself loser

>>12557202
baby murder is one of their most important goals. They don't give a damn about healthcare.

Democrat Platform: Baby Murder, White Genocide, Communist Revolution.

They are evil. They always have been. They formed the KKK, for fuck's sake.

>>12557215
cuz marxism is fucking dumb

>>12557215
Because the only people who are stupid enough to believe his lies cannot cope with the truth.

>>12556345
I'm french, in my country i't's almost compulsory for organic monarchists to be antisemitic one way or another. Without that they're abit like cake without icing.

>>12557220
haha the """cool""" nihilist
>>12557215
because slowly fading storefront captchas

>>12557226
>>12557228
do either of you have an argument against the labor theory of value

>>12557222
is it possible to be this stupid

>>12557211
And your system will fix it? Fucking idiot.

>>12557202
no.

>>12557232
>haha the """cool""" nihilist
>i'm too stupid to find meaning in my own life so i will destroy capitalism for everyone else

looks like totalitarian fantasies give your life meaning, like neonazis

>>12557235
Absolutely none of marx's predictions came true.

>>12557237
They passed baby murder. They all openly hate whites, and the democratic socialists are the holding the reigns of power within the party.

>>12557241
there is no system to fix anything. socialism like all utopias represents a desire. if we stop desiring, if we succumb to nothing but want, to consumption we are left with a world determined by the marketers which is what you and i are living in and i for one am suicidal

>>12557256
>Absolutely none of marx's predictions came true.
which of the predictions generated by the LTV have been disconfirmed

>>12557245
fuck meaning. i detest suffering. your cynicism is cowardice.

>>12557264
>no true scotsman
really nigger?

>>12557271
? your argument against the LTV is that none of its predictions have come true. I'm asking you to give me an example. how is that a no true scotsman?

>>12557265
>i detest suffering so i will trash capitalism and destroy the world economy

ok, i'm sure everyone will be really happy about that

>>12557280
Because i can easily cite how it's never worked any of the times its been tried and you'll just say "not real communism lol".

>>12557259
Oh. So you've got no solution. Cool. Come back when you have something that isn't just cheap rhetoric for the proles.

>>12557295
how what's never worked? the LTV? it's a descriptive theory - how can a descriptive theory be "tried"? why are you now abandoning your claim that the predictions it generates have been disconfirmed?

>>12557295
ltv doesnt have anytihng to do with capitalism, ltv is kinda shaky although it might give some insights at times, for example the reason facebook (or reddit or 4chan) is so valuable is because millions of people labor creating content for the platform for free which is then appropriated by zuckerberg, the idea that ALL value comes from labor is clearly wrong tho, marx is dumb, but at least know what you're arguing against

>>12557302
>cheap rhetoric for the proles

proles instinctively know socialism is stupid, that's why it mostly comes down the bourgeois supporting it, only the bourgeois have lived lives privileged enough to think they can just change the direction of world history on a dime because the current situation has been deemed "not fair" not working person is that stupid, socialism is a bourgeois disorder

>>12557302
fuck you faggot. better a prole than a pleb IN FACT

Marx is actually pretty useful for understanding capitalism from a traditional conservative point of view. Marx does very well to point out the terrible damage that capitalism has incurred on traditional society and the family. Only liberals disagree with this perspective of his analysis.

>>12556055
so Nobles is a memory address?

>>12557295
ltv doesnt have anything to do with communism, ltv is kinda shaky although it might give some insights at times, for example the reason facebook (or reddit or 4chan) is so valuable is because millions of people labor creating content for the platform for free which is then appropriated by zuckerberg, the idea that ALL value comes from labor is clearly wrong tho, did labor create the sackler opioid fortune? sure some labor went into making the pills and distributing them, but clearly that wealth came from somewhere else, marx is dumb, but at least know what you're arguing against

>>12557327
proles were the guns in the russian revolution you dishonest fuck. also the cuban revolution. also the vietnam war where the USA got BTFO. learn history before making suck an ass out of yourself online you fat faggot.

>>12556288
>very far right wing
>only politics she ever talks about is how ebil banks and capitalism are

I don't really see a problem. Only deracinated angloid ignorant of pre-enlightenment history would think capitalism is inherently "right wing".

>>12557337
This isn't reddit. Say it right the first time.

>>12557329
if the right co-opted marx a long ass time ago instead of going full neoliberal they would be miles ahead by now.

>>12557329
This. It always baffles me how in the anglo world conservativism has become synonymous with free trade and unrestricted capitalism, when both of these things have done huge damage to things we wished to conserve in the first place.

>>12557329
this. any serious conservative needs to take Marx seriously.

>>12557351
it's amazing how disconnected from reality some people can be.

>>12557337
why is Marx's LTV dumb?

>>12557366
explain the labor value in fentanyl?

>>12557347
It's no coincidence either that Marx supported free trade out of its destructive principles. For this reason Marx hated especially the German economists and their policies at the time which were extremely protectionist in comparison to Britain's liberal policies.

>>12555933
Marx is beta. Read Evola and your dick will triple in size.

>>12557386
read adam smith for infinite dick, evola is wack

>>12557382
I'm not sure how fentanyl is produced.

>>12555933
Here's an interesting article about Marx and asexuality

https://marx200.org/en/mediathek/marx-imagined-totally-asexual-worker

>>12557340
Always the gun and never the one holding it. Also, there's McDonald's in Vietnam but you can keep pretending the reds won.

>>12557337
So what you are asking is how does LTV deals with value of scientific discoveries?

>>12557328
Glad to see commies still hate fags

>>12557394
it's basic chemistry.

>>12555933
>Thinking Prager is a legitimate intellectual source
Wew lad

>>12557400
the vietnam war was a nationalist movement that leveraged communism to get free guns from russia, if the french and americans had just fucked off they would have been super anti-communist since they hate the chinese, they'd rather prosper with capitalism than be slaves to a dead ideology in the 21st century

I mean how exactly does the LTV apply to a service based economy? What means of production am I really owning? My computer?Most of these are just bullshit anyway to further capital but you're gonna have a LOT of dead wait

>>12556432
>I don't like something, nor do I care to understand it, therefore it has no value.
>The whole world should value what I value. Then we can finally have some democracy.

>>12557405
i'm not sure oxycontin (time release opiates in a pill) was some amazing scientific breakthrough but ok explain the value of innovation under ltv if u want

>>12557425
Sooooo I'm right. What point are you even making? That communists wasted a lot of money for Vietnam to be capitalist? Also we gave our good chinks free guns.

>>12557441
Oxycontin was invented to kill white people. The creators did not hide it. They lied about it being less addictive than morphene when they knew that wasn't the case.

>>12557443
the communists wanted european colonialists out, if jfk hadn't been a fucking retard and just left instead of ratcheting up the war, nothing would have happened

>>12556586
What kind of research ? I hope to God you're referrng to those /10 happiness scale where each number is matched with a different smiley.

>>12557421
I'm assuming it's not a freely reproducible good.
>>12557438
the idea is that the wealth of an entire economy is ultimately rooted in the "productive" sector.

>>12557453
too bad the guy who created aids probably died poor meanwhile the sacklers are billionaires, j/k no but regardless of what it was created to do, the labor theory of value struggles to explain it

>>12556438
Because it's fun to fight when we know we won't change anyone's mind. No restraint. No consequences. It is the art of dialogue made into monologue--the ideal conversation where the opponent is always wrong, and you are always right. Victory comes not from skill, but stamina. Pure rhetoric disguised as pure reason. The epitome of our age.

>>12557471
>I'm assuming it's not a freely reproducible good.
what the fuck does that mean?

>>12556482
But there will always be those who have more than others, regardless of the system. The only legitimate criticism of capitalism is its bad aesthetics.

>>12557484
>But there will always be those who have more than others, regardless of the system

your point?

>>12557471
>the idea is that the wealth of an entire economy is ultimately rooted in the "productive" sector.

this is one of those things where your "gut" says it must be true, but that's not really true, do doctor's create value? they keep unproductive people alive longer than they can be productive, so are doctors actually value destroyers? is a rich surgeon who saves lives actually stealing from the working class?

>>12557480
the LTV only purports to apply to freely reproducible goods. I'm assuming it's illegal for non-government labs to produce fentanyl.

>>12557486
What are you complaining about?

>>12557490
fentanyl was legal to produce in china until last year, trump twisted their arm in trade negotiations, now it's regulated

>>12557045
Pre-Bronze Age
What, did they use sea shells? Pebbles?
Hell, even post-Bronze Age, they had tools of bronze that they would have to share the usage of. And of course some people would outright steal. These are the ancients fighting over rare metal tools or food during famine time.
But tribes and townships didn't keep fucking tallies on things like now. They fucking shared.
And we're advanced enough in technology that we can do this again.

>>12557496
>small tribes and town with less than 50 families shared
>once large population centers rose on the nile, tigris, and yangtze shared ended permanently
>but we can bring it back using machine learning to get 8 million people in new york to share

good fucking luck with that, god communists are dumb as shit

>>12557496
>they shared
Not really, and certainly not all things, and never equally. You are just overwhelmed by technology and naively imagine primitive living to be simpler, when it was obviously far more chaotic and demanding.

>>12555933
>muh fee fees

>>12557441
You can't, value of scientific discovery is fundamentally unpredictable. You may try to study something boring and after short while you may come up with discovery of world-changing importance or you might try to study something of utmost importance and after long hard work you might end up with disproven theories.

>>12557488
I think you misunderstood what I mean by "productive sector." I just mean the sector that produces freely reproducible commodities through human labor and physical capital.
>do doctor's create value? they keep unproductive people alive longer than they can be productive, so are doctors actually value destroyers? is a rich surgeon who saves lives actually stealing from the working class?
I really don't know what you mean by this. "value" isn't ascribed to people, nor in the existence of "unproductive" people.
>>12557495
okay, so fentanyl was once a reproducible good in China - you're asking where its value comes from according to the LTV? whatever the labor-time involved in extracting the raw materials, producing the chemicals, etc. should determine its value.

>>12557519
Doesn't that go completely against LTV? The value of the researcg exists solely in the capital. If you never discover new capital, the work will essentially be wasted, no matter how much time was spent on it. The value is not in the discoverer or the discovering, but the discovery.

>>12557526
>I really don't know what you mean by this. "value" isn't ascribed to people, nor in the existence of "unproductive" people.

that's my point, according to the ltv, surgeons create no value, therefor any wealth they have must be "stolen" from the proletariat, yeah marxism is dumb, but that shouldnt be a surprise

>>12557532
>Doesn't that go completely against LTV?
That's why I said "you can't". Even if you take in account skill of the researcher.

> the work will essentially be wasted
Not entirely. In science negative results are still results. You explored a road, now others don't need to explore it anymore and will start from the point you left or they will avoid the road altogether.

>>12557543
>that's my point, according to the ltv, surgeons create no value
well, "value" in the technical sense its used in the theory. it surely is valuable (as used in mainstream parlence) to the patient.
>therefor any wealth they have must be "stolen" from the proletariat
this is an odd leap. if they aren't capitalists extracting surplus value from laborers, they aren't "stealing" anything from anyone (I assume that's what you're getting at).

>>12555946

Fpbp

>>12556147
First two panels of that image are quite disingenous and actually conceding to the labour side. The boomer did labour in designing the cup and he did labour in analysing what do people want.

>>12557458
And? Do you have a point?

>>12557579
that labor isn't part of the labor involved in reproducing the cup though. so it isn't part of what determines the cup's value.

>>12557579
What if... LTV...and capital...are both corect.

Hnmmm?

>>12556977
>yeah evolution comes to an end at biostasis you retard

Not really. If that were the case a species tha thrive in an environment would never evolve, and we wouldn't see old species cohabitating with their descendants. Yet this happens a lot (see : spiders in Australia).

You're completely forgetting that mutation is an invetiable consequence of the structure of DNA. With mutation comes the possibility of evolution. You have to stop thinking teleologically about this and look more closely at how species are actually formed.

>>12556405
>I mean fuck, look at the whole Soros angle (which has gained conservanormie status at this point). While obviously they hate the leftists he funds, they outright identify him (the ultimate modern bourgeoisie) as the cause of their problem.

Anon...How come you don't know that the by far most important group Soros funded were anti-communists. The anti-communists that took power in Eastern Europe after 1989.

>>12557579
wait so ur saying jeff bezos might have done some labor while dedicating his entire life to building one of the largest retail distribution systems in world history and therefor might be entitled to a few bucks just like the weed smoking dropout who works in his warehouse packing boxes? mind blown

>>12557496
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
Argue against the points and not the man.

>>12557587
in kid can work the cup machine but only the old nigga could make the cup machine, so it seems like he should get the lion's share, since he is essential, the other guy can be replaced

what I want to know is why the guy I was talking to completely abandoned our discussion after this post (>>12557306). could it be because he doesn't actually have an argument against the LTV?

>>12556405
Currency manipulation and political destabilization are not market capitalism. A free market does not mean total anarchy. Deceptive action is inherently anti-capital.

>>12557113
Antisemite can applies to anyone who discriminate against jews. It was coined by a French journalist who didn't like Jews but had trouble understanding that not all semites are jews, it's kind of a retard word that way.

>>12557603
okay. the LTV isn't a theory of who deserves what.

>>12557606
i think he didn't know what the ltv was now he do so he dropped that train of thought

>>12557610
so the ltv doesnt decide who deserves what, and it can't be used to determine prices, so like, what is it good for? absolutely nothin

I'm so tired of these threads but I'm glad more people seem to be coming to the light. Lots of immediate dismissal.

The one "good" thing about Marx is that he's sort of a symmetric proof of God.

If someone could be as filthy, perverse, depraved, and evil as Marx, there must be some entity equally clean, ordered, pure, and righteous or we couldn't identify his depth of rottenness.

I've seen some anons reference Marx's devil worship. They're not all the way to the answer though, because you have to realize, Marx IS the Devil. Marxists are devil worshippers, and it wouldn't be wrong to burn them on stakes.

"Equality" of his brand just means nothingness. Disregarding my earlier theatrical talk, a "Marxist utopia would end with the species being killed off by some sort of pathogenic blight, like a bastard merger of Interstellar and Brave New World. That's the BEST you could hope for.

Anyways OP, fuck off to reddit or facebook or something. You are a doublenigger. Saged because I hate you and myself for writing so much.

>>12557135
> instead of shitposting in our homes? would that make you happy?

But shitposting makes nobody happy anon.

>maybe bring back human sacrifices

If you think about how our society is structure, about what precisely is a sacrifice, and about our history of the past 5000 years, you'll understand that we have always practiced human sacrifice and that we still do. There is nothing to bring back that hasn't always been there.

>>12557615
it explains the center-of-gravity around which market prices fluctuate.

>>12556651
>>12556643

/his/ visitor, just here to do some cleaning up.

please read the actual pieces yourselves, this anon is stripping them of its context and neither of them advocate for genocide lmfao.

Marx's use was him describing the destruction of classes and races AS A RESULT OF CAPITALISM. The whole text is literally Marx talking about migration and how economics and politics affect migration. More actual context:

> But with modern compulsory emigration the case stands quite opposite. Here it is not the want of productive. power which creates a surplus population; it is the increase of productive power which demands a diminution of population, and drives away the surplus by famine or emigration. It is not population that presses on productive power; it is productive power that presses on population.

>Now I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns.

>The Economist knows very well that they could not emigrate at their own expense, and that the industrial middle-class would not assist them in emigrating. Now, to what does this lead? The rural population, the most stationary and conservative element of modern society, disappears while the industrial proletariat, by the very working of modern production, finds itself gathered in mighty centres, around the great productive forces, whose history of creation has hitherto been the martyrology of the labourers.

>>12556039

>>12556089
the world "dictatorship" in the 1800s meant "to dictate" as in to have primary dictation over the economy, not dictatorship as in authoritarian. This gets lost in contemporary readings.

>>12557594
He might be entitled to even larger amount of money, since managing such a large company take an awful lot of labour and skill.

btw in what ways does the concept he created benefits the society? Is it like a huge agregate of smaller shops, that makes it easier for the customer to browse through goods? I'm not from a country where Amazon is a thing, so I don't really know much it.

>>12555933
How on earth is Marx woke
>reality is a factory bro

>>12557631
>dictates the economy
That's literally authoritarian bro.

>>12556407
And since the LTV is obnoxiously wrong, we can also disregard Marx's predictions of capitalism's inevitable death.

>>12557631
>the world "dictatorship" in the 1800s meant "to dictate" as in to have primary dictation over the economy, not dictatorship as in authoritarian.
Please read Dictatorship, by Carl Schmitt. Dictator mean someone who was invested with absolute power, generally due to a state of emergency, by an otherwise republican state

>>12557645
if the LTV is wrong, yes. do you have an argument against it?

>>12557634
you can pick anything you can think of, click on it, and in 0-3 days it will appear on your doorstep, and as a side hustle he created the leading cloud computing provider in the world (aws) which is used by the majority of silicon valley startups because it lets small teams scale up virtual hardware thus requiring less of both labor and capital

>>12557654
Value is not created by the hours of labor input into something. Value is subjective. If your politics are based on a deprecated 19th century economical theory that has absolutely no basis in reality, how do you propose to successfully run a nation based on that system?
It seems to me that Marxists are simply just ideologues who assume it to be true because it is as Marx stated, regardless of any further argumentation or proof of its credibility.

>>12557670
>Value is not created by the hours of labor input into something. Value is subjective.
this is just repeating the claim, followed by an unsupported assertion.
>If your politics are based on a deprecated 19th century economical theory that has absolutely no basis in reality, how do you propose to successfully run a nation based on that system?
the LTV is a descriptive theory - you can't "run a nation" based off of it. this leads me to believe you don't actually know what the theory is.
>It seems to me that Marxists are simply just ideologues who assume it to be true because it is as Marx stated, regardless of any further argumentation or proof of its credibility.
I'm inclined to believe the same for you, inverted.

>>12555933
Marx is only awesome for those wholly without a sense of dignity, hence the being despised.

>>12557655
>you can pick anything you can think of, click on it, and in 0-3 days it will appear on your doorstep
So it's basically online supermarket as I suggested?

>>12555933
>Why do Peterson and Prager hate him so much?
This is a very typical reaction for anyone with at least a 3 digit IQ. Sorry, OP.

>>12557685
The LTV itself is an unsupported assertion. The proponents of the theory are the ones with the burden of proof. Or is it a common thing for Marxists to toss around the burden of proof and attempt to force their detractors into proving negatives?
>you can't "run a nation" based off of it
Of course, which is why I was quite obviously talking about the leftist politics based on the ideas and mistakes of that time. LTV being the most egregious example of something that in this day and age is the equivalent of young Earth creationism.

>>12557655
It's debatable whether those things are, in a broader sense, a value to society. But in the short term, and according to the choices people make, most people definitely consider it valuable. This is what socialists really need to recognize. Capitalism is socialized democracy. If you want to change the world, change what people want. With that in mind, there is nothing dumber than trying to get people to want the vague idea of wanting something else.

>>12555933
>respecting Prager enough to read him

>>12557700
>The LTV itself is an unsupported assertion. The proponents of the theory are the ones with the burden of proof. Or is it a common thing for Marxists to toss around the burden of proof and attempt to force their detractors into proving negatives?
you're the one who claimed the theory is wrong. the burden of proof is on you. I haven't made any claims.
>Of course, which is why I was quite obviously talking about the leftist politics based on the ideas and mistakes of that time. LTV being the most egregious example of something that in this day and age is the equivalent of young Earth creationism.
so we agree that the theory is not prescriptive, great. back on topic - what's your argument against the theory?

>>12557691
yeah walmart's online store is comparable on some metrics, but still weaker, bezos just does online retail best

>>12557703
the thing is ... communism has not been able to produce an online store comparable to amazon, some government committee run by marxist management professors are just not going to be able to make such a well oiled distribution machine as bezos has built, and since marxism is supposed to be materialist, if communism doesn't objectively provide better material conditions then it has no justification to exist

>>12557511
>once large population centers rose on the nile
>...The chiefs (proto-pharaoh) continued to share. Eventually making way for the elites entrusted with the advanced tools/weapons etc. and the shamans to get the bigger/choicest shares
In a world of plenty, an automated and socialist economy can be arranged so that everyone has that plenty, yes.

>>12557515
You are so myopic. Families and tribes shared. Elders and elites kept cohesion. When there was none, people were free to disband and start their own tribes. The fir adults would obviously take care of the children and elderly.

>>12557599
Psycho killer
What does it say?

>>12557717
> better material conditions

you're looking at it through the lens of the customer, now look at it through the lens of the worker and talk about better material conditions again

>>12557700
the thread's about to hit bump limit, so if you want we can continue the discussion here: >>12557724

>>12557703
now dig this my dude...anyone can buy shares in amazon, so when bezos succeed we all can succeed with him...i am a lazy bum that survives on a part time job, but some how i managed to buy shares of amazon over the years, so not only do i get all the advantages of amazon's convenient for shopping and web hosting, but when bezos wealth increase so does mine, now THAT'S socialism i can get behind u feel me

>>12555933
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/communism.html

>>12557710
>the burden of proof is on you.
No. The burden of proof in this case is on whoever making a positive claim, since the LTV is in no way a publicly accepted, nor does it have any veracity in its claims. An argument from ignorance does nothing to improve its credibility.
>I haven't made any claims.
Then, due to the lack of any sort of evidence or non-ideological support for the LTV, we can finally accept that the theory is utterly false, yes? Good.
>what's your argument against the theory
It is wrong, quite simply. It will be held in the same regard as other fringe theories of its sort, until someone proves it has any validity at all.

>>12557721
>In a world of plenty, an automated and socialist economy can be arranged so that everyone has that plenty, yes.

everyone in america already has plenty, our standard of living is thousands of times better than even the richest man in ancient babylon

>>12557722
>you're looking at it through the lens of the customer, now look at it through the lens of the worker and talk about better material conditions again

amazon hires workers for their warehouse with NO INTERVIEW all you need is a social security number to show you are legal to work in the united states, then amazon provides state of the art robots to make your job easy and productive, all while paying a living wage, communists btfo again

>>12557734
>No. The burden of proof in this case is on whoever making a positive claim, since the LTV is in no way a publicly accepted, nor does it have any veracity in its claims. An argument from ignorance does nothing to improve its credibility.
"the LTV is false" is a positive claim. are you suggesting that you can't disprove ANY scientific theory?
>Then, due to the lack of any sort of evidence or non-ideological support for the LTV, we can finally accept that the theory is utterly false, yes? Good.
you've given no reason for me to accept that.
>It is wrong, quite simply. It will be held in the same regard as other fringe theories of its sort, until someone proves it has any validity at all.
so you don't actually have an argument. you should have just said so from the outset.

>>12557721
He seems like a pretty levelheaded killer. Also. Its not my job to read for you. If you won't look out sources to contradict and challenge your views that's on you but it makes all of your arguments fundamentally built on confirmation bias.

>>12557746
>"the LTV is false" is a positive claim
It's absolutely not. There is no positive claim of existence or inclusion being made. "Proof of the LTV's validity does not exist" is not a positive claim even in your eyes, is it? A claim of a lack of something is negative.
>are you suggesting that you can't disprove ANY scientific theory?
I certainly hope you're not insinuating the LTV to be in any way scientific. In fact, just about the fastest way of showing its lack of validity would be to apply the scientific method.
>you've given no reason for me to accept that
Why do you think it matters what you accept or not? You are an ideologue. What you accept was never of relevance, since you've openly shown yourself to hold irrational beliefs with no regard for their truthfulness.

>>12557811
>"Proof of the LTV's validity does not exist" is not a positive claim even in your eyes, is it?
this isn't the claim you made. you didn't say you were agnostic of the theory because there is no proof; you said that the theory was false (which IS a positive claim). if you'd like to change your claim, go ahead.
>I certainly hope you're not insinuating the LTV to be in any way scientific.
which criteria of a scientific theory does the LTV fail to meet? it generates testable predictions.
>Why do you think it matters what you accept or not? You are an ideologue. What you accept was never of relevance, since you've openly shown yourself to hold irrational beliefs with no regard for their truthfulness.
more empty rhetoric to mask your lack of an argument.

>>12557721
In thos primitive families, everything belonged to the Father. In the tribe, everything was at the grace and charity of the tribal leader. The only limits to this were real politik. Everything existed on the principle of strength, knowing that a few could dominate one, and charity is rewarded with loyalty and compliance. Over time, as society became more advanced, we discovered even greater benefits in family and community. These things remained strong until socialism. It was not capitalism which destroyed these eternal values, but socialist attacks against cultural mores with the explicit intention of destabilizing society for the sake of revolution. If you doubt this, take a look around you. It is the left which encourages excessive travel, it is liberals who are more likely to move away from home, it is progressives who introduce restrictive rules in neighborhood associations, it is liberals who argue for bussing students, it is socialists who demand unified curriculum over family education, it is socialists who celebrate individual pleasure--individual profit--over sacrifice foe the group. Socialists destroy the very things they say they care about in the name of defending them from capitalism. If there has been any alienation, it has been from the socialist attack on art and culture, intentionally deconstructing the communal understanding and eliminating provincial tastes in the name of the new and ever changing freedom of nothingness.

>>12557735
>Cavemen didn't have microwave burritos
>Merrica! *Crushes Miller Light can on forehead*

>>12557765
>Its not my job to read for you.
It looks like you're familiar with this piece. I don't like his brand of primitivism, so I ask one more time. what are YOU trying to say?

Paul Cockshott is levelheaded. Never killed anyone, not in prison.

>>12557835
>everything belonged to the Father
I say everything belonged to the grandmothers.
>Strength
Women wielded the strength in about half those communities
>Socialism destroyed the family
That was capitalism, actually. You're just bellyaching over women's emancipation and general equality in the household. Multiple breadwinners being needed to stay afloat under decrepit capitalism after all.
...Lemme skip to the ending...
>Blaming socialism for the capitalism that infects everything
You probably think we live in socialism or something. "Freedom of nothingness"? This means you can't get laid, right?

>>12557833
>agnostic of the theory because there is no proof
I am not agnostic of it and I never insinuated as such. There is NO evidence for it and as such it has the same worth to it in my eyes as young Earth creationism and other fancy lunacies held by ideologues incapable of enough introspection to avoid projecting their moralistic fallacies onto the world.
>which IS a positive claim.
To claim something is false is to claim that it is not true. You can consider my claim changed if this fact is new knowledge to you.
>which criteria of a scientific theory does the LTV fail to meet?
It's not exactly a criteria, but the fact that it has failed to move forward from being a hypothesis, has been given no verifiable evidence or scientific support, yet is still being portrayed as a valid theory of economics. Due to lack of proof it can be dismissed as false.
>it generates testable predictions.
As do the schizophrenics locked up in a mental asylum.
>more empty rhetoric to mask your lack of argument
There is nothing to argue against, since there is no genuine support for the LTV. Even among the people who espouse it few can offer even the simplest of arguments in support of it and most simply rely on moralistic fallacies disguised as arguments and honest claims.

>>12557852
The entire essay is an argument against your exact argument. That primitive societies did not have sharing in the way you describe it. They had private property. The sharing of food and supplies is simply a byproduct of having too little or having difficulty in acquiring them. As soon as agriculture developed it took extended periods to grow the food meaning that people were capable of abandoning their nomadic life in favor of a sedentary one. The sedentary life allowed for the production of goods and supplies that were impossible under the nomadic life. The production of these goods (the technological system) allowed for capitalism (in its most simplistic form) to emerge. You can't have civilization and equality. They don't mix.

>>12557884
there is a huge difference between the claim "I'm not aware of any empirical support for the LTV" and "the LTV is false." for the former to be a justified claim, you would have to have an argument that either a) the theory is logically incoherent, or b) that there is empirical evidence that disconfirms the theory's predictions. you haven't provided any of this.
>It's not exactly a criteria, but the fact that it has failed to move forward from being a hypothesis, has been given no verifiable evidence or scientific support, yet is still being portrayed as a valid theory of economics. Due to lack of proof it can be dismissed as false.
completely evading the question. you have no idea what constitutes a scientific theory; why would you claim that the LTV isn't one?
>There is nothing to argue against
great, if we agree you don't have an argument, we're done here.

>>12557925
for the latter to be a justified claim*

holy shit, did anyone actually read Marx in this tread ?

>>12557892
>As soon as people stopped being nomadic they invented coinage
Absurd.
Starting with the nomads, these close-knit communities would periodically settle and grow crops in a place, and drift off later with the seasons. Becoming more attached to favorable regions, they would settle, sure, declare their farms theirs? maybe. Horde surplus crops? Or try to SELL them? what a novel and stupid idea. It was the tools people started to develop that became the prize and instrument of thefts and conquests.
AND gifts!

>>12557835
>In thos primitive families, everything belonged to the Father. In the tribe, everything was at the grace and charity of the tribal leader. The only limits to this were real politik. Everything existed on the principle of strength, knowing that a few could dominate one, and charity is rewarded with loyalty and compliance.
OK.

>Over time, as society became more advanced, we discovered even greater benefits in family and community.
The benefits were lesser, as societies became larger.

>These things remained strong until socialism.
Nope. Even ancient peoples had republics.

>It was not capitalism which destroyed these eternal values
What values? Monarchy? Ownership of the society by single "father"? Capitalism certainly helped in destroying the ancien regime, if not doing bulk of the work.

>but socialist attacks against cultural mores with the explicit intention of destabilizing society for the sake of revolution
Bullshit.

>If you doubt this, take a look around you. It is the left which encourages excessive travel
BerlinWall.jpg; "Freedom to travel" was one of the most well regarded things that fall of communism brought.

> it is liberals who are more likely to move away from home
Liberals are the main opponents of socialism, if you haven't noticed.

> it is socialists who celebrate individual pleasure
Dood, what? Individualistic hedonism was displayed as the very opposite of what oughts to be celebrated. West was often shown as contrast between debauchery of bougeiose and suffering of working people.

>it is socialists who celebrate individual profit
Now you are just trolling.

>If there has been any alienation, it has been from the socialist attack on art and culture
To be fair, most people don't really give a fuck about art or artists anymore. They were happy with innofensive landscapes or socialistic realism, the "working class" doesn't really understood modern art made by the dissidents and still doesn't.

>intentionally deconstructing the communal understanding
Bullshit, that came with capitalism. You can clearly witness that boomers raised under the reds have better communal bonds. Even from people who had no love for the reds

>eliminating provincial tastes
No. Just no. People raised under communism prefer to consume domestic food, domestic music and domestic movies. Zoomers consume western popculture.

>>12557925
>"I'm not aware of any empirical support for the LTV" and "the LTV is false."
No there isn't. If there is no empirical support for it we can outright dismiss it as empirically false and consider it as such until someone offers proof.
>a) the theory is logically incoherent, or b) that there is empirical evidence that disconfirms the theory's predictions. you haven't provided any of this
Absolutely not. This is utter lunacy.
a) There is no need at all for the theory to be logically incoherent for it to be false. Logically valid explanations can be fashioned for just about anything, yet they are not assumed to be (empirically) true until proven so.
b) No. Negative evidence is not required for something to be considered untrue. If it were so, considering (a), we would have to consider absolutely everything in the world true, no matter how insane, simply because there is no negative evidence directly disproving it.
Even if we consider the false to be true and assume you to be correct in (a), we would still be forced to think everything logical yet unproven to be true. What even defines what is logical if positive proof is not required? How do you form axioms if a lack of negative proof has the same validity as positive proof? This is an utter argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy of a child's level. No wonder you're a Marxist.
>why would you claim that the LTV isn't one
A mistake in thinking.

>>12557992
>No there isn't. If there is no empirical support for it we can outright dismiss it as empirically false and consider it as such until someone offers proof.
you really can't grasp the distinction between the claims "there is no proof for the theory" and
'there is proof that the theory is false"?
>There is no need at all for the theory to be logically incoherent for it to be false
I never said there was. I gave you two options.
>No. Negative evidence is not required for something to be considered untrue.
empirical evidence disonconfirming testable predictions is not "negative evidence."

>>12557965
So you just kinda glanced at that didn't ya? Why don't you go practice reading comprehension while the grown ups debate.

>>12558050
>you really can't grasp the distinction between the claims "there is no proof for the theory" and
>'there is proof that the theory is false"?
Of course I can, but the distinction is not relevant for what we consider to be true and false. If there is no proof, or rather evidence, for the theory, we can outright assume that it is untrue until proven otherwise.
>I gave you two options
Both of which were logically completely incorrect, making absolutely no rational sense at all.
>empirical evidence disconforming testable predictions is not "negative evidence"
Evidence against the predictions of a theory is definitely negative evidence. If your theory predicts X and all evidence shows Y, then that is negative evidence against the theory, as the evidence shows a lack of (thus negative) proof for the theory.

>>12558105
>Of course I can, but the distinction is not relevant for what we consider to be true and false. If there is no proof, or rather evidence, for the theory, we can outright assume that it is untrue until proven otherwise.
again, you have to point to empirical data that proves that the predictions generated by the theory have not been confirmed. THAT would support the claim that there is no proof in support of the theory.
>Both of which were logically completely incorrect, making absolutely no rational sense at all.
that's the standard criteria by which one can disprove a scientific theory. it's not proprietary to me.
>Evidence against the predictions of a theory is definitely negative evidence. If your theory predicts X and all evidence shows Y, then that is negative evidence against the theory, as the evidence shows a lack of (thus negative) proof for the theory.
great, so what's an example of such evidence? that's literally what I've been asking you to provide.

>>12558144
>agin, you have to point to empirical data that proves that the predictions generated by the theory have not been confirmed. THAT would support the claim that there is no proof in support of the theory.
No I don't. There is no burden of proof on me to find evidence to support your side of the argument. If there was some common acceptance of the veracity of the theory, then questioning it would certainly require me to provide evidence, (e.g. claiming heliocentricity is false) but as the LTV is only accepted in fringe groups of leftists and the economically illiterate, there is no such need.
>that's the standard criteria by which one can disprove a scientific theory.
And for there to be something to disprove there would have to be evidence for it in the first place. A hypothesis is considered untrue until evidence is gained to support it as a theory.
>great, so what's an example of such evidence? that's literally what I've been asking you to provide.
[This]


See? No evidence. There's clearly a lack of it.

>>12558257
>No I don't. There is no burden of proof on me to find evidence to support your side of the argument.
it would be evidence in support of YOUR side of the argument (that the LTV is false).
>And for there to be something to disprove there would have to be evidence for it in the first place.
lol what are you talking about?
>See? No evidence. There's clearly a lack of it.
there's a lack of evidence that disconfirms the predictions generated by the LTV? how does this prove your point?

>>12558274
>it would be evidence in support of YOUR side of the argument (that the LTV is false).
No such thing is required so long as there is no supporting evidence for the LTV. Just like I do not need to disprove that there are no invisible pink unicorns flying around the sky, causing plane accidents.
>there's a lack of evidence that disconfirms the predictions generated by the LTV? how does this prove your point?
There's plenty of negative evidence as there is no evidence for the LTV in the first place. The lack of positive evidence is my evidence against the LTV.

>>12558280
>No such thing is required so long as there is no supporting evidence for the LTV. Just like I do not need to disprove that there are no invisible pink unicorns flying around the sky, causing plane accidents.
so if I make the claim "the earth is flat," you wouldn't be able to provide evidence that that it false unless I provide evidence in support of it?
>There's plenty of negative evidence as there is no evidence for the LTV in the first place.
we just established that that's not what negative evidence is.
>The lack of positive evidence is my evidence against the LTV.
this wouldn't be evidence that the theory is false. just that there is no evidence that the theory is true. you still fail to understand this distinction.

>>12558067
Oh how I love to see them goose step away like this.

>>12557135
>now that the frankfurt school got exposed
heh

https://youtu.be/ZybqpGVZu3k
How can leftoids accept this man.

>>12557593
who exactly are you talking about? i need names

>>12557215
fetish. Desire is being redicked towards boorgasm. I has bias in this medium yet the intamecy of means and I have lost such luster that now we can all enjoy at least the ideal of that beast corrupted as such, (packaged mostly not to craft but to famine relief prescineity).

>>12557969
Learn to read. I said the society around you. Communists predicted capitalism would destroy traditional values, so they attenpted revolutions in order to save tradition. Communist nations ultimately destroyed tradition (in no small part because most traditions are tied to religion), and all people had left were the small traditions the state couldn't reach. Families began disinigrating. But that's not the societ around you. The society you live in is one in which capitalism survived. In this society, those most fervently against communism are the strongest supporters of traditional values. Meanwhile the socialist, in trying to destroy capitalism, have positioned themselves against every tradition. You're just mad that Campbell's tomato soup doesn't taste like your romanticized vision of a provincial borscht, and yet you have not spent any time trying to recover and practice these lost arts and values. Instead of building up tradition, all you care about is destroying anything you believe to support capitalism.

>>12556147

>>12555933
>reading marx as philosophy/literature
based

>>12555946
Really ironic.

>>12556845
If you say the soviet culture was static then you know nothing of Soviet Union.

>>12555946
This is not how a logical and civil discussion begins. Besides, you're a faggot