/lit/ - Literature

>>13373173
most people don't read Marx, you or the Marxist replying, so don't get too hung up on it

>>13373182
And this is the other thing they respond with
>read Marx
I have read Marx, so why can nobody agree on what this guy believes?
It seems to me that its just a way for Marxists to deflect arguments without actually making an argument.

>>13373200
I take it you don't read much philosophy; people are still arguing what Plato was talking about

>>13373173
haha that's some epic trolling

>>13373215
I haven't seen anything on the same level as Marx
Also please dont compare Marx to an actual philosopher

>>13373282
You're of course right, but for the wrong reasons. Marx's wasn't a philosopher, he was a communist.
People tend to have all kinds of opinions about Marx because they often assume after only looking at a bunch of quotes of his that his theoretical work supports whatever retarded utopian or reformist garbage they happen to believe.

>>13373282
>>13373315
And even if you point out that Marx disagreed with whatever they're spouting then they might still retort with something like "well, that's just Marx's personal opinion, but that's different from Marxism". And thus close to anything vaguely "leftist" can pass as Marxism.

>>13373282
>>13373315
>Marx wasn't a philosopher
yikes

>>13373200
>>13373173
>Makes broad statement without a specific example to refer to
>REEEE why do they do this thing that definitely happens but which I won't elaborate on

>>13373315
Then is it not a valid criticism to say that he has utterly failed to communicate his ideas? Since every one of his supposed followers got it wrong.
Is the manifesto completely worthless?

>>13373446
>Is the manifesto completely worthless?
lmao read Capital you fucking noob. Marx is a perfectly clear writer.

>>13373450
You dodged my question.

>>13373435
He was as much a philosopher as Donald Trump

>>13373452
No, the manifesto is not a complete representation of Marx's thought. Capital Volume 1 does a much better job at being that although you can read his other work if you're interested in specific ideas/applications. But you're not asking about anything specific other than Marx. So what is it that you don't understand?

>>13373182
I read the communist manifesto. It was garbage. Is it just a memey commercial for communism, or is it a good summary of Marx's stance?

>>13373446
He communicated his ideas clearly. People who get it wrong either barely read him or go in with some heavy misconceptions acquired on Reddit or from some dumb hack like Richard Wolff. In the worst case they've already decided that they're "Marxists–Leninists" or some other -ists and they proceed to only cherrypick from Marx whatever fits this viewpoint. The level of confusion is much higher than with regular philosophers because distorting Marx's views was used as a heavy propaganda tool in the last century.

>>13373452
That wasn't me.

>>13373468
It's not a good summary.

>>13373462
I'm sure its not, its a glorified pamphlet
Why should I need to read multiple thousand page long works to understand this rather basic idea he is trying to communicate? I feel I already have a decent grasp on what he believes.
>So what is it you dont understand
What I dont understand is why does nobody "understand" Marx? Presumably all of his historical followers who tried to implement socialism or communism didn't understand him. Supposedly people who quote his actual works dont understand him. So what is missing? Is there some golden truth in there that can't be communicated through a 4chan post or something? I honestly dont understand. The "read more" argument feels like a pathetic way to just avoid defending your beliefs by insinuation that the detractor is uneducated or misinformed.
Explain what you think Marx believed and what works you would reccomend I read and for what reason.

>>13373494
Ok so what should I read? I've made it about 1/3 way through Capital v.1 but its so horribly boring.

Holy shit you're so wrong dude, Marxists don't do that at all

>>13373459
When Donald Trump finishes his PhD thesis on the differences between Epicurius and Democritis' theory of nature, let me know

>>13373498
>Why should I need to read multiple thousand page long works to understand this rather basic idea he is trying to communicate?
So you haven't read them? Then how do you know the idea he's trying to communicate?

>I feel I already have a decent grasp on what he believes.
Obviously not.

>What I dont understand is why does nobody "understand" Marx?
You're the one claiming that everyone says that. Failures in other communist revolutions weren't from not "understanding Marx enough" but from happening under different historical-material circumstances than the ones Marx wrote about (industrial capitalism in the West). I've already said I think Capital Volume 1 is the most complete work to read if you want to understand his breakdown of capitalism, so do that if you want to learn or don't if you don't.

>>13373509
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy
Comments on James Mill, Éléments D’économie Politique
The Value-Form
Wage Labour and Capital
Value, Price and Profit

>>13373518
>So you haven't read them? Then how do you know the idea he's trying to communicate?
Because I dont think I need to read them to understand his ideas. I dont need to read all of Nietzsche to understand what he believes. I dont need to read all of Plato to understand what he believes. As much as it pains me to compare Marx to those thinkers. I have read enough Marx and I have concluded that he is essentially just a wishful idealist. The arguments I've seen from his followers just cement this belief even further.
If I have indeed missed something huge and there is some work I haven't attempted to read yet, then please point me towards it. Should I force myself to finish Capital is that what you're saying? It seemed like mindless econobabble about the history of Capitalism from what I read.

>I feel I already have a decent grasp on what he believes.
>Obviously not.
I'm still waiting for you to make an actual argument instead of using the very same logical fallacy that the thread is about.

>You're the one claiming that everyone says that.
YOU are saying that
Also just take a look at this Marx thread
>>13373048
>>13373239
>>13373275
>>13373454
>>13372798
>>13372784
There's a few more examples of it

>Failures in other communist revolutions weren't from not "understanding Marx enough" but from happening under different historical-material circumstances than the ones Marx wrote about (industrial capitalism in the West).
Can you cite some examples?

>I've already said I think Capital Volume 1 is the most complete work to read if you want to understand his breakdown of capitalism, so do that if you want to learn or don't if you don't.
Alright well I guess I'll finish reading it then.
I'd still like you to explain what you think Marx believes so we can have an actual discussion, but i understand if you don't want to have an argument.

>>13373563
Is there one in particular that I should read? I really dont have the time or the motivation to read that much shit about economics. I really hate economics with a passion. As long as it works and I'm not eating out of a gutter I'm content.

>>13373517
>PhD thesis

>>13373446
>thinks he has taken down Marx
>thinks the communist manifesto is Marx's major work
like clockwork

>>13373622
>I really hate economics with a passion.
So did Marx! A big part of is work is a critique of economics.

>Is there one in particular that I should read?
Not really. Maybe "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"? You can just pretend they're one book, since together they're probably a bit shorter than Orwell's 1984 (~80k words).

>>13373498
Explain to me the concept of immanent dialectical critique and I'll accept that you "have a decent grasp on what he believes"

>>13373666
I never claimed either of those, but thank you for playing into the stereotype of the thread.
I asked if the Communist Manifesto is accuratem because people like yourself seem to imply its utterly worthless, which is perplexing because its by far his most famous work
I dont think i have "taken down" Marx either, I just think he's living in a fantasy and I dont wish to waste any more brain power on theorizing about some post-capitalist utopia-that-is-also-not-a-utopia

>>13373712
Do you mean what we now call Critical Theory?
Its the materialistic conception of history that Marx uses to explain all historical conflicts

>>13373749
No, not critical theory, the method of immanent dialectical critique of phenomena. Please explain the self-contadictions Marx identified within Capitalism, and how and why it necessarily points beyond itself.

>>13373805
>No, not critical theory, the method of immanent dialectical critique of phenomena. Please explain the self-contadictions Marx identified within Capitalism, and how and why it necessarily points beyond itself.
Whats the difference? Marx believes all of history is a series of dialectical conflicts between classes that essentially boils down to masters and subordinates inherently at odds.
As for what he believed were the contradictions of Capitalism, he thought that Capitalism inherently leads to automation and therefore lower profits, correct? Only he is wrong and no such thing has happened, profits have continued to rise. But he believed this leads to conglomeration of industries, division of labour, and all around harsher work environments. All of which is false and not reflected in reality, not yet anyway. Certainly not to that extent. I defintiley think there is a discussion about automation and monopolies that needs to be had, but I dont see Marx as a realistic answer to any of that.
If I'm wrong or I'm missing something please point it out

>>13373874
>Only he is wrong and no such thing has happened, profits have continued to rise.
lmao

>>13373900
Where is that graph from lmao?

>>13373900
Based and redpilled. The data economy will kill the notion of profit. The only way to gain money is to hold and hoard deinflatory assets.

>>13373967
Gdp per capita isn't profit... It's just the gross of money that one wageslave makes.

>>13373991
Riiiight so this quality of living we all enjoy today is just an ILLUSION
CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY
Spooky

>>13373999
Right. It's not an illusion. Nobody is saying that current materialistic conditions aren't real.

Also, "we all enjoy" is hilarious. Tell that to 3rd world countries.

>>13373874
Marx observed that capitalism is a system which purportedly promises individual bourgeois rights to each and every citizen, one of which is the right to work or labour. However, unemployment is inevitable under capitalism, which is in a state of constant self-reproduction through various major crises (for more on this see Luxemburg's Accumulation of Capital or Lenin's Imperialism). Capitalism is to date, the absolute best system of social ordering that humans have ever experienced, and Marx believes this, however, it necessarily points beyond itself as socialism is only possible through capitalism.

"Capitalism is the model of the Marxist-Hegelian procedure of immanent dialectical critique: this is how capitalism itself moves, how it reproduces itself through self-contradiction. Capitalism is its own practical critique, reproducing itself by constantly overcoming itself. As Marx put it, the only limit to capital is capital itself; but capital is the transgression of any and all limits. It is the way capitalism overcomes itself, its dynamic process of change, which is its unfreedom, its self-limitation. The Marxian horizon of freedom beyond capitalism is freedom beyond the Hegelian dialectic, beyond the bourgeois dialectic of transformation — beyond labor as a process of self-overcoming through production."

https://platypus1917.org/2018/07/30/ends-of-philosophy/

>>13373173
>Say something wrong
>Get corrected
>HOW FUCKING DARE U

Why are you like this OP?

>>13374006
Even third world countries are better off now than they were 500 years ago anon
Unfortunately you cant fix genetics though

>>13374013
Because Marxists never correct you they just say you're wrong and ignore the argument

>>13374008
Right, I understand that. But lets say we removed money and went back to a system of barter trade, is that still considered Capitalist? From what I understand marxists dont believe in trade at all

>>13374041
what do you mean by "better off"? in terms of access to technology and so on? of course, they have more access to technology and so on to wage slave more efficiently for the neoliberals.

>>13374041
>Right, I understand that
No, I don't think you do, as you're talking about something completely irrelevant and unrelated. Please at the very least read the article and engage with what I'm trying to say to you

I think what makes Marxism so dangerous is that Marxists dont see it as an ideology, to them its a religion. Its objective reality so you cant argue against it, it just simply is. You can't argue with Marxists its lile trying to argue with Christians (the irony).

>>13374078
propose a better way to interpret the reality than materialism then faggot. it's an ideology, but it's much better and bigger than any other ideology known to mankind.

>>13374091
Case in fucking point
Hahahahaha

>>13374071
I do understand, what you posted is irrelevant and unrelated
>marx observed that this thing he defined does this thing and therefore he's right
I'm trying to define the terms we're using here
So would a system without money be Capitalist?

>>13374094
and you don't want to face the reality. i don't really care for the opinions from the cowards. i'd take you seriously if you actually tried to propose an alternative.

>>13373173
Hmm, let's give it a try: Marx was a rabid antisemite and a xenophobe.

>>13374107
You dont care for anyones opinions other than your own because your mind is already made up
Why would I waste my time arguing with a religious fanatic?

>>13374116
NOOOO YOU'RE WRONG READ MORE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>13374041
>Because Marxists never correct you they just say you're wrong and ignore the argument

Even if that hadn't been bullshit, there's the sheer fact that you're literally doing what you're accusing them of doing.

>>13374136
But I have made multiple arguments including one in the post you responded to

>>13374105
Why the fuck are you talking about trading? You claim I'm talking about something unrelated, but my original argument was that you don't understand Marxism (which you don't) and I'm sitting here trying to help you understand something which you refuse to even acknowledge or discuss. Of course a system of barter trade wouldn't be capitalism, but either way a return to such a system is impossible

>>13374116
"Rabid" was a bit much, but, yeah, dude made plenty of statements that are pretty antisemetic by modern standards. Still, dude was a jew, and he didn't exactly propose progroms, just made weird racial cracks literally all the time.

But if we are to discount a man's ideas because of his nature as a racist, we must also discount Kant, a good chunk of Catholic thought is out the window given the Church's history, and most of the Greeks are right out.

>>13374161
>[insert meanie extreme right-wing nazi bigot here] made plenty of statements that are pretty antisemetic by modern standards
>But if we are to discount a man's ideas because of his nature as a racist, we must also discount Kant, a good chunk of Catholic thought is out the window given the Church's history, and most of the Greeks are right out.
Funny how this works, lolz.

>>13374123
i do care for other opinions. there is just no other real alternative to materialism except for religions. if they're all religions, then might as well pick one that produces some semblance of accuracy in interpreting the reality.

>>13374159
I do understand it, I'm trying to formulate an argument against it by defining the terms we're using.
What you posted is saying nothing in a lot of words. It just tells me what I already knew, Marx observed a problem in this thing he defined and holds the irrational belief it will lead to this [not-utopia] that requires a fundamental change in brain chemistry.

>>13374234
>I do understand it
When asked to explain, you couldn't. you clearly are not open to actually thinking about anything other than what you've already decided for yourself so I'm not going to waste any more time trying to help you understand something that you refuse to engage with

>>13374230
Marxism produces no more accuracy than any other theory, its just the one you chose to throw your lot in with.
Fascism is much the same. It observes a lot of objective truths about the world. It makes a lot of the same arguments as Marxism (was inspired by it in actual fact). Nobody could really argue that it is wrong on any empirical basis, and supporters of it are impossible to sway because their belief is backed up by airtight arguments and observable reality. Yet it comes to very different conclusions.

>>13374217
It's funny how you cut out the part where I mentioned that he didn't exactly call for progrom, and only made weird racist jokes, and then tried to make it a defense for nazis.
For someone who complains about dishonest argumentation, you sure are being very dishonest.

>>13374254
When asked to explain what? I explained the contradictions he observed in Capitalism, was I fucking wrong? Prettt sure I'm not because I just looked it up right now and can confirm that what I said was right, lol.
So what's the massive misunderstanding here? Are you just angry that I dont agree?

>>13374258
when you say marxism, i assume that you're referring to materialistic dialect. fascism attempt to offer an alternative to marxism by rejecting materialism.

in order to sway materialists' opinion, you'd need to provide an actual empirical result that correct a preexisting notion of the empirical reality. maybe, you're finding difficulty because you lack the knowledge to do so?

>>13374284
Fascism doesn't reject materialism. It just acknowledges things beyond materialism while maintaining the criticisms outlined by Marx. This is clearly stated in the Doctrine of Fascism. It believes that Marxism denies an essential component of humanity and reduces humans to mere numbers (which is does) rather than individuals with wills that transcend their base desires and needs. It see's Marxism as truthful but inadequate and completely undesirable.

>>13374302
>Fascism doesn't reject materialism.

It very explicitly does.

>>13374267
Your explanation in no way explains Marx's method or the basis of his thought. What you've explained here >>13373874 is not what Marx believed the self-contradictions of capitalism to be, but small economic minutiae derived from his system of thought.
>As for what he believed were the contradictions of Capitalism, he thought that Capitalism inherently leads to automation and therefore lower profits, correct? Only he is wrong and no such thing has happened
even if I were to grant you that what you said is true and that Marx was wrong, as Lukács wrote,
>For assuming that more recent research has incontestably shown the factual inaccuracy of entire single statements of Marx, then every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist could unconditionally acknowledge all these new results, reject whole single theses of Marx – without for a moment giving up his Marxist orthodoxy. Thus orthodox Marxism does not mean uncritical acknowledgement of the results of Marx’s research, nor does it mean ‘faith’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a sacred book. Where Marxism is concerned, orthodoxy refers far more to method exclusively. It implies the scientific conviction that the Marxist dialectic is the correct method of investigation and that this method cannot be developed, extended or made more profound except in the spirit of its founders.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/hcc-alt/orthmarx.htm

>>13374344
furthermore, what you said doesn't even constitute a contradiction
>Capitalism inherently leads to automation and therefore lower profits
is just a postulate, what are the two contradicting facts?

>>13373173
I got a take on this. Marxism seems incomprehensible, because capitalists deliberately describe it incorrectly in order to prime the reader to make poor conclusions about the theories. I remember being told that the Labor theory of value was a stupid Marxist idea, even though it was Adam Smith's idea. There is so much bad info on economics that the only way to know what's in those books is to read them yourself. If you base it on secondary info, you will almost definitely get it wrong

>>13374262
>only made weird racist jokes
Nibba, why do you lie like this? I'm serious, what compells you to be this slimy piece of shit? we're on an anonymous forum, you don't have to do this, there is no actual or imaginary social gains for it. Just stop.

>>13374309
Im words maybe, but Mussolini was a Marxist before he was a Syndicalist. It influenced his ideas no doubt. It builds upon the criticisms of Marx but denies historical materialism.

>>13373563

Haha I'm not wasting that much time on a failed ideology. It'd be like reading 10 books on how to square a circle.

>>13374361
There was no lie in what I said, you either know there was no lie in what I said or you don't know what you're talking about, and you're not going to convince me that I am lying, so why the fuck make your own retarded ass post?

>>13374344
What the fuck do you mean it in no way explains the basis of this thought? Its in fucking Capital Vol. 1
This is what I mean with you faggots, its never good enough is it
What do I have to read to understand why everything he said in his other works is wrong or inadequate by your fucking retarded metric?
This is also the FIRST result on google pretty much repeating verbatim what I said:
http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.com/2017/11/marx-on-contradictions-of-capitalism.html?m=1

>>13374355
That Capitalism seeks a level of production it cannot meet and therefore it eats its self until the worker is crushed
Is that wrong? If thats wrong then I dont understand Marx, you got me.

>>13374374
That it influenced his ideas does not mean his ideas adhere to those thoughts. To give a religious example, it is quite obvious that Muhammad was inspired by Zoroastrianism and Christianity, but no reasonable modern person would classify Islam as adhering to either.

>>13374423
>I dont understand Marx
You said it :^)

>>13374459
No its more like the difference between european paganism and christianity, one builds upon the other, even though they are opposed they share many similarities.
Making such comparisons is pointless though. It is what it is, the Doctrine of Fascism outlines what elements of socialism is seeks to integrate and what elements it denies because they are inadequate or undesirable.
Fascism was just one example though.

>>13374497
Then I guess I'll just have to live with that

>>13373200
>>13373509
>I have read Marx
>I've made it about 1/3 way through Capital v.1

>>13374638
I read the manifesto and 1/3 of that massive snorefest, plus I've read multiple other books criticizing marxism

>>13374701
we get it, you're purposely wasting everyone's time

>>13374842
>DUDE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND MARX JUST READ 5 MORE BOOKS

>>13373615
>Because I dont think I need to read them to understand his ideas.
Then don't read it and stay dumb.

>Can you cite some examples?
The USSR. Maoist China. Cuba.

I'm not going to give you a 1 sentence Marx summary. What does Marx believe in relation to what? His breakdown of capitalism is pretty self-explanatory. His idea of communism follows naturally from there. A society in which the workers own the means of production is not that complicated to understand but its implications are far reaching.

Damn, now I remember why this board is shit. The guys defending Marx stupid shit are 1st period college level.
Good luck on life.

>>13374860
read capital

>>13373173
Yes, I think we should now be able to admit that Marxism doesn't exist as a concept.
Every other ideology, even Fascism, is able to consistently point to itself in some coherent matter, but Marxism simply is not. And no, please stop telling me "Mary believed X", I don't care and neither do 95% of selfproclaimed Marxists.

Marxism does not exist.

>>13375253
Mary believed in the resurrection, as she was a witness.

>>13373967
What does that have to do with the rate of profit you retard?

>>13374041
>But lets say we removed money and went back to a system of barter trade, is that still considered Capitalist?
You can't just "remove money" while retaining trade. Some commodity would become money in a matter of weeks.

>From what I understand marxists dont believe in trade at all
What? Don't believe how? A socialist (communist) society doesn't have market-based distribution, if that's what you mean.

>>13373173
and that's a good thing

>>13373468
The manifesto was made for the proles.

>>13373173
Wow, just like postmodernism

>>13373468
it's literally a propaganda pamphlet for barely litterate proles in the 19th century

>>13373615
>I have read enough Marx and I have concluded that he is essentially just a wishful idealist
>mfw someone just called the father of "dialectical materialism" an idealist
You're really not doing much to justify the idea that you've read 'enough' Marx. Also its arrogant to assume you can fully grasp a thinker without reading all of their works and appreciating the development of their thought, seems a bit of a disservice to their ideas. You're not giving them the time or attention they deserve

>>13375253
Marxism only exists insofar as it is a critique of the dominant mode of production, IE. capitalism. That's why every communist revolution has been a failure– Marxism can only refer to/critique/challenge capital, it cannot formulate the conditions of a world outside of it without engaging in brutal authoritarianism or dictatorships. However that's not to debase the value of critique– its probably the best thing Marxism has going for it, IE. developing a vocabulary that can competently voice its concerns with the dominant system.

>>13373900
Maito uses Marx's definition of capital that leaves out things like housing and intelectual property, which he didn't use in his analyses.

By measuring wealth and it's relation to profit the relation is much more stable.

The rate of profit on things like residential property is essential to understand how well an economy is doing in humane terms, because it tells us how desirable it is to live in any one place. But this should be common sense since George's Progress and Poverty.

>>13376213
>it cannot formulate the conditions of a world outside of it
capitalism itself formulates the conditions of a world outside of it

>>13375253
That could be very well used against Protestant Christians and Buddhists since they have so many different sects and so little coordination.

>>13376221
Not disagreeing with ya there, pal. And neither would Marx, technically (he voted in favour of free trade because he was well aware of the market's potential to break down all pre-existing hierarchies, and to direct us towards a new kind of society). Marxist critique has basically been subsumed as an immanent self-critique of capital, so hopefully it gives some guidance to the unrestrained vector of capitalism.

>>13373446
Manifesto pisses me off because it's a good excuse for people to say that they have read Marx and pretend they can argue about him. It's like reading "a game of thrones" and then discussing about the "a song of ice and fire" saga with someone. You can't really.

You should read Engels, the origin of Family, Private property, and the State, first.

>>13373615
Marxism is based on the premise, that there is no private property, hierarchy, exchange, State, in the primitive tribe.
Surplus labor is only a valid concept if you believe that nobody took advantage of others in the primitive tribe, i.e, if nobody was working for the sole benefit of someone else.
If you believe that man always exploited man, even before the neolitic revolution (in the primitive tribe), or if you think that it wasn't the case before, but it's better now for some reason, then reading Marx is just a waste of time for you.

>>13377564
Marxism is not "based" on any premises about any primitive tribes.
>If you believe that man always exploited man, even before the neolitic revolution (in the primitive tribe), or if you think that it wasn't the case before, but it's better now for some reason, then reading Marx is just a waste of time for you.
That's gotta be the dumbest excuse for not reading Marx I've heard this summer.

>>13376218
Not the anon you were responding to, but, I'm left wondering what, exactly, is the meaning of highly priced yet poorly selling real estate? Is the economy truly doing well (in humane terms) if the rent is too damn high in some places and there's a glut of empty houses and buildings as a result? Sorry if this is worded poorly, I'm an economics-let desu

>>13377681
No, it's not working properly. As Adam Smith pointed out rent seeking through being a landlord is immoral and ruins any sort of market economy.

They are being used as safe investments because the price of housing does not fall.

>>13377669
Yes it is. Marx clearly explain that in the primitive tribe, everyone produce according to physiology (the women produce this stuff, the man that stuff, the older this other one). In Engels: the origine of the Family, Private property, and the State, it's explained how production evolved from everyone producing for the community, to some people producing for other people exclusively.

Many competent economists dismiss Marx theories because for them, there is no necessary labor and surplus labor, but just labor.

It is fundamental to understand that there is no surplus labor in the primitive tribe, since all production is only for immediate consumption. The aim of the mode of productions after the primitive communism, have always for a few to capture surplus labor (slavery, feudalism, capitalism).

>>13376218
Sure, but measuring how well "an economy is doing" in "humane terms" is completely beside the point, since I was only rebutting someone claiming that the rate of profit on productive investment is not falling. Or rather someone who didn't know Marx was talking about this specific rate of profit because they haven't read Marx.
Of course Marx here doesn't care about profits someone makes from owning a house, since those kind of profits don't directly determine profitability of investment in expanded reproduction, profitability that must not fall to zero for capitalism to not fall apart.
As for measurement in humane terms, my favourite one is this: is the economy directed at producing value? If yes, then it's inhumane.

>>13377723
I don't know how's that supposed to show that Marxism is "based" upon those premises.

>>13377737
>Marxism is "based"
I agree. And redpilled.

>>13377737
Because in Marxian economy, profit is unpaid labor, surplus labor.
For classical economy, there is no surplus labor, there is only labor. Thus, for classical economy, Marxian economy makes no sense.

Many people will also argue that "there was always exploitation". "only competent people should lead". That could be valid arguments if you don't know about the primitive tribe, however, if you know that there was no surplus labor and no hierarchy, those arguments fall apart. Do lions have to live in cages, and do tricks in circuses? No. Their essence is to live in the wild. Same for human. They are not made to work for others, under hierarchy. That's why Marxian economy is interesting, because it is compatible with homo sapiens nature (how we lived in the primitive tribe).

>>13373200
Early Marx is different than late Marx

>>13377888
>Because in Marxian economy, profit is unpaid labor, surplus labor.
Not unpaid. Marx never says labour = money which is what unpaid presumes. Rather, the labor power put in via work adds a surplus to the commodity that is then realized by the owner of the surplus value, the capitalist.

>>13373173
>Liberalism
We just want a reasonably free society where people are able to debate ideas and the ones that win out are implemented without violence and everyone is equal under the law.
>Fascism
We just want a super cool and powerful warrior society with strongly enforced moral values (racial homogeneity included for Nat Soc).
>Marxism
We just want everyone to be equa...- The western proletariat must seize th...- Actuarry the interrectuar bourgeois must be kirred or brought to re education camps and arr are pots and pans merted for iro...- No you bigot we must end the gender hieararchy and make cutting off your a completely acceptable act that makes you a woma...-DID YOU EVEN READ MARX AND ENGELS AND THESE 5 OTHER SPECIFIC MANIFESTOS OR CRITIQUES OF THEM!

>>13377976
That's right. Marx, for example, was more and more anti-statist. In the end (Critique of the Gotha program), he was clearly anti-statist. That's why when people say that Marx is "responsible" for Bolshevism, they are completely mistaken, since Bolshevism was completely centered around a strong State until the end.

>>13373173
read marx

>>13378025
um no... that was the dictatorship of the proletariat...

>>13378008
Marx uses the term himself, although he also explains that it's only a "popular expression" and not strictly correct.
>After the analysis given above, it is no longer possible to be misled by the formula unpaid labour/paid labour into concluding that the capitalist pays for labour and not for labour-power. Unpaid labour/Paid labour is only a popular expression for surplus labour/necessary labour.... During the other period, the period of surplus labour, the utilization of the labour-power creates a value for the capitalist without costing him any value in return. He is thus able to set labour-power in motion without paying for it. It is in this sense that surplus labour can be called unpaid labour.

>>13378025
He was clearly anti-statist since 1844.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140427183658/https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/11/state.htm
From his draft:
>Suffrage, the fight for the abolition of the state and of bourgeois society.

>>13378022
this post, while true, only works under the assumption that you can equate marxism with fascism and liberalism. marxism is not an ideology in the same sense as the latter two

>>13378022
cringe

>>13378107
>no no marxism isn't an ideology.
I'm a Marxist and you're deluded.

>>13377696
Thank you for this concise explanation, anon.

>marxist literally prove OP's point right by refusing to tell him what marx actually thought instead referring him to read the works