/lit/ - Literature

>>13950968
>be Marx
>read literally fucking everything
>write literally fucking thousands of pages on countless subjects
>die
>get criticized by retards 150 years later
0/10 kys you stupid dildo

>>13950968
so u

>>13950977
>kys you stupid didlo

>>13950977
>be Marx
>never work
>pretend to be "working class"
>know absolutely nothing about industry or economy
>everything you say eventually gets shown to be hilariously wrong in real life
>the only people who still take you seriously are mentally ill trannies

>>13950968
Lol do you people even read him
>historical determinism
>rejection of moralism
>rejection of humanism
>colonialism is a progressive force
Marx was way too edgy for reddit

>>13951103
>colonialism is a progressive force
where did he write this

>>13951103
Cringe. Your lies wont work on me, tranny. I will never take your HRT.

>>13950968
I cringe every time I hear this redditor's name!

>>13951128
Some of his early writing, e.g. on India, can be taken in that fashion but he became more sceptical latter on. You're responding to an autistic structuralist.

>>13950968
Since when is calling people Jewish niggers, expelling Americans and making fun of faggots reddit?

>>13951384
Dilate, tranny

>>13951000
>pretend to be "working class"
never happened
>know absolutely nothing about industry or economy
not true
>everything you say eventually gets shown to be hilariously wrong in real life
never happened
>the only people who still take you seriously are mentally ill trannies
mentally ill trannies may namedrop him but they never read him and they contradict him at every occasion when they spout their liberal subjectivist bullshit. this is the opposite of taking him seriously

>>13951707
tankie

bump

>>13953029
i thought marxists werent generally tankies since the state in russia never became just a planned administration of things that ever withered away

>>13950968
he was a hegel

>>13950977
>be marx
>write theories that are disproven or unfalsifiable
>have no understanding of economics or the way humans interact in society/throughout history
>copy everything from Hegel and Kant
>literal retard
>get praised by retards later
0/10 kys your dumb illiterate retard with zero brain capacity or independent thought

>>13950977
He failed in chapter one. What a looser

Why do Americans hate so much Marx?

>>13954880
The cold war, communist tyranny, the modern left.

>>13954880
Cold War-era education has planted a seed in their heads that communism is bad since childhood. Even if they grow up and have their preconceived notions about it destroyed, the initial idea of communism being bad is almost impossible to take out, because they don't want to admit being wrong their whole life.

>>13954664
hello zoomer, how's your reading of nietzsche going?

>>13955061
Or maybe communism blows because you can look at the ideas both on paper, and in action, and see just hiw badly it blows.
There's a good fucking reason Hong Kong is protesting.

>>13954880
if people actually read Marx with an open mind they'd realize that he (and the other major 19th century socialists) are the natural realization of the ideals of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism on which the founding documents of the USA are based, so a lot of effort and propaganda goes toward making it as difficult as possible for people to make the connection, and to keep capitalists, landlords, and bankers safe and cozy.

>>13955157
What's it like being 12?

>>13953029
I'm not a tankie

>>13954802
>looser

>>13950977
Based

>>13950968
>pic not related

>>13951000
>never work

I guess intellectual work isnt work, huh

>everything you say eventually gets shown to be hilariously wrong in real life

Yeah, thats why my 12 year old son works 14 hours in a factory every day

>>13950977
>be Marx
>not live in accordance with your ideology whatsoever, rich as fuck and not working a single day in your life
>die
>worshiped by people in the same situation 150 years later
0/10 kys you stupid dildo

>>13956525
What would be "living in accordance with your ideology"? Everybody wants to have things, the point of communism is that everybody should have access to these things, not just the few.
It's almost like you're retarded enough to think the endgame of communism is for everybody to be poor.

>>13955705
From all the buttfucking Stirner gave him

>>13956572
>Everybody wants to have things, the point of communism is that everybody should have access to these things, not just the few.
Which is why Marx, as a rich man, should've redistributed his wealth to the poor.
>the endgame of communism is for everybody to be poor
Yes, everybody except the ruling class.

>>13956593
>Marx, as a rich man, should've redistributed his wealth to the poor.
>Yes, everybody except the ruling class.
lol kys faggot

>>13956606
There isn't a contradiction there, the ruling class will end up taking all of the wealth in the end thanks to corruption. The people who strive to get into positions of power are the most likely to abuse them to gain more power.

>>13951103
>rejection of moralism
If we posit that moral is a set of rules by which people judge what is injustice and not, then Marx does anything but reject morals.

In fact, it seems he fixes morals as something fundamental, and lets the rest of the world revolve around it. Take the appropriation of products from workers by capitalists, for example. This is posed to be an act of violence of the capitalist class upon the proletariat, and as such something to be abolished once the working class reaches a critical amount of class-consciousness.

Yet this requires that the working class even view this as an injustice, something to be abolished to begin with. And it isn't clear that this is the case. It's way more nuanced than that. There's no definite divisor between capitalist and worker, it's a spectrum connected by way more relations than Marx could ever hope to account for. Individuals are unique and form conglomerates outside that of economic class. There are so many possible groupings that this supposed revolution of the working class may never come to pass. It's even less likely when you consider my own point, that the "extortion" might not even be considered extortion by any random individual.

Marxism is nothing but an ideological deification of ultimate morality, and a very specific one at that. This parallels in all the online communist movements, with their incessant need for moral purity both in their in-group and by decrying their out-group.

>>13956616
>corruption
How is that exclusive to communist states fuckface?

>>13956644
It isn't, and that's why I don't want a state.

>>13954880
Do europeans love marx or something?

>>13950977
>be Marx
>be bourgeois socialist
>have nothing but contempt for bourgeois socialist
what mean?

>>13956650
So you're a libertarian?
AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>13956666
All Continental Philosophy was apologetics for Marxism

>>13956674
I'm an anarchist, but either way, not an argument.

>>13956696
What kind of anarchist?

>>13956696
Sure showed him bud

>>13956751
The black and yellow one.
>>13956752
I know :)

>>13956758
So you are a libertarian.
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>13956763
No, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Either way, do you have an argument or not?

>>13956772
>No, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
>Either way, do you have an argument or not?
In your utopia the corporations will just fill in the vacuum of power left by removing the state and it will be exactly what you claim to fear but worse because there will be no one to keep them in check, stupid cunt.

>>13956813
>In your utopia the corporations will just fill in the vacuum of power left by removing the state
Prove it.

>>13956819
Power doesn't exist in a vacuum fuckface. Remove one power and something else will take it's place. So if you remove the state without dealing with corporations, the next most powerful thing aka corporations will come and take it's place you you retarded dogshit cunt.

>>13956846
>the next most powerful thing aka corporations will come and take it's place you you retarded dogshit cunt
Except, they can't. They are kept accountable by the free market. I ask you again, how do they take the state's place in a free market?

>>13956846
Define power?

>>13956860
>They are kept accountable by the free market.
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHA corporations ARE the "free market" you stupid libertarian faggot.
>>13956861
>DURRRRRRRRRR WHAT IS POWER

>>13956884
I'm asking how a corporation becomes tyrannical in a free market. Why are you sperging out so hard?

>>13956884
>">DURRRRRRRRRR WHAT IS POWER"
Are you lacking an answer or just not willing to expand because you find the thought of somebody not knowing your own conception of something somehow joyful?

>>13956897
Are you fucking illiterate?
See >>13956846
>>13956910
You sound like the guy I fuck the girlfriend of.

>>13956940
The free market, a decentralized abstraction, cannot be tyrannical. Retard.

>>13956622
The working class needs to eliminate the capital owning class out of self interest, not because its "fair" or whatever, but because they can

>>13956954
Corporations will control the "free market" you retarded piece of shit.
You're not even replying to the post I linked you. It's like I punched you fucking hard in the face your nose is broken and bleeding and you tell me "hit me pussy".

>>13956984
>Corporations will control the "free market"
Yes. And how will they be tyrannical? You keep dodging this question and pretending like you've already answered it, all while using ad hominem.

>>13956968
Why is it in the self-interest of the working class to appropriate the means of production? Why can this be generalized to every single individual of the working class? Why do they 'need' to do so? An 'ought' cannot be derived from an 'is'

Again, who are the capitalist owning class, who are the working class. Say I own a computer on which I write code, and I hire people to help me write code. Am I of the 'owning class'? Do they appropriate my computer? Is it personal property or private property as I use it for monetary gain and for production? Do they appropriate my project, that which I started and am the main contributor to?

Even if you say that I am owning class in relation to the people I hire, say I am also a worker at a retail store. My boss would be to me what I am to the people I hire, would they not? These relational classes are relative and cannot be generalized, at least it seems that way to me.

>>13956940
Implying we have girlfriends here on our image board.

>>13951128
not an expert and i think the person your replying to is wrong, but engels does say in "a communist confession" that the communist society will be a unity of *civilized* countries with a community of property based on the expansion of " industry, agriculture, trade and *colonisation*"

so there is some basis for what he's saying. early communism was born at a time when there really wasnt such a strict delineation of left wing and right wing ideas

>>13956998
When there is no state and no one to keep them in check, corporations and entities with the most money will do whatever the fuck they want because they can. You're acting like corporations will decide to be good to people out of their own goodwill like some retarded bitch.
>ad hominem
cry bb

>>13957052
>corporations and entities with the most money will do whatever the fuck they want because they can
Nope. Other corporations and entities keep them in check. If they raise prices to an outrageous level, another company comes along and undercuts those prices. Read a basic economics book, dumbass.

>>13956954
Daily reminder private property can only be maintained through violence, whether aplied by a state enforcing contracts or through mercenaries
If you want to see how buisinesses would look like if they are the ones in charge, take a look at organized crime
Now shoo, retarded ancrap

>>13957073
How is that any different frm how private property is enforced today?

>>13957073
>Daily reminder private property can only be maintained through violence
Yep. What's your point?

>>13956998
Not him but you're unironically retarded if you think that a self-regulating free market is anything else but a pure irealistic abstraction born of faulty macroeconomy theories.

>>13957070
holy shit imagine actually believing this

>>13950968
>Be Marx
>Get infatuated with Hegel
>Never understand that 'Herrschaft' andd 'knechtschaft'. Are psychological tools to understand the growth of the all-spirit.
>Instead bastardize Hegelian idealism with your Jewish materialism.
>Millions die and retards centuries later still think you were a great thinker.

>>13957070
>If they raise prices to an outrageous level, another company comes along and undercuts those prices.
what is predatory pricing, what is monopoly, what is price gouging

>>13957089
Elaborate.
>>13957095
Not an argument.

>>13957070
>Other corporations
LMAO you are so fucking dumb. You realize different stores selling the same thing co-ordinate their prices so they don't have to lower their prices too much?
If some small business owner comes along and tries to undercut them they just buy it out. Even if they refuse they're too small to even matter.

>>13957083
Laws
Your sistem is literally what we have now, but worse

>>13957116
I'm not ancap anon. Just posing the question. Laws are mere abstractions that both states and their inhabitants violate on a daily basis. They are only functional in a sufficiently peaceful state. Interpretation also serves a large part in accelerating this violent farce.

>>13957087
Corporations will be tyranical through their use of violence
You ancaps really are something else goddamn

>>13956968
>but because they can

>>13957110
>Elaborate.
Libertarian free market "solves" all its issues by handwaving it with "the free market regulate itself through competition, resulting in a supply-demand optimum".
But that only works in an abstrat world with an infinite number of opportunities for an infinite number of companies with an infinite pool of workers (who don't need to work to pay for expanses according to the orthodox theory btw).
E.g in the situation where, say, a company gets a monopoly on civilian nuclear energy, the libertarian and starts gouging the prices, the answer would be "a competitor will emerge and people will switch to it, so the market regulates itself". Yet, in the real world, there is not an infinite amount of uranium mines providing for potential competitors. The monopoly holder just needs to make sure no one can get to the uranium, and the market won't be able to regulate itself. And that's without even taking into account things like, how does the competitor build the infrastructure, who will fund it, and what prevents the monopoly holder from destroying the would-be competitor with predatory pricing.
I presume you're a burger. Just take a look at your ISP situation.

>>13957126
Not that guy but laws are the exact opposite of abstractions fuckface, at least go to dictionary.com before you try to sound smart.

>>13957109
>what is predatory pricing
An unsustainable practice.
>what is monopoly
Impossible without regulation.
>price gouging
Impossible without monopoly.
>>13957113
>they just buy it out
But the small business owner would simply say "no", considering they can take down the large business by undercutting their prices and having a better product.
>>13957128
That is forbidden by the NAP, militias would form to tear down whatever corporation did that.
>>13957146
Your entire argument relies on the premise that somebody could possibly gain ownership over ALL uranium, how would they do this unless literally everyone who owned some was willing to sell it?

>>13957148
Elaborate

>>13957126
Yes, and the number of harmfull actions that are prevented under threat of punishment for breaking those laws sre even more numerous.
Literally why would anyone want lawlessness? You think the cartel controlled areas or somalia are nice places to live?

>>13957134
Contrary to ancap mythology, entrepeneurs and shareholders aren't actually some demigods whithout whom the masses would be clueless on what to do. More often than not they are just some rich asshole who were able to buy the work of other people according to the playbook of liberalism and who serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever

>>13957154
>An unsustainable practice.
Only need to sustain it long enough to drive competition in the ground. It's not like there's not a bajillion examples of real life occurences
>Impossible without regulation.
Totally possible without regulation.
>
Your entire argument relies on the premise that somebody could possibly gain ownership over ALL uranium, how would they do this unless literally everyone who owned some was willing to sell it?
No, my entire EXAMPLE relies on someone getting control of all the uranium. The ARGUMENT itself requires a company to get a hold of any necessary step in the product fabrication. Which can be done either by buying it, or by funding it itself.
>inb4 it's unrealistic because they'd need the funds to do it in the first place
Yes, that's why the free-est the market, the more it favors big fishes devouring small competition. Again, look at any big firm from any field. Disney swallowing every film studio. Tencent with videogame distribution. Google with tech.
And that's only speaking of stricto-sensu monopoly.
In a free market, there's nothing preventing 2 concurrent companies from striking a deal to get their own respective monopolies, like AMD and NVIDIA have done to each hold a virtual monopoly on different graphic cards ranges.
Which, by the way, is exactly why those type of deal are absolutely and severely tracked and punished by market authorities. Because nothing deregulates a free market faster than a free market.

>>13957154
>But the small business owner would simply say "no", considering they can take down the large business by undercutting their prices and having a better product.
It wouldn't matter fuckface. The most they can do is lower the market price of the product. The corporation will just undercut them to the point of losing money and the corporation will win because they have more money, retard.

>>13957176
my contention is with the notion of the workers forming some kind of coherent body capable of intelligent agency on behalf of all its members. Nothing like that has ever occurred, masses are controlled by smaller groups and internally fractured.

>>13957161
Never did I say lawlessness is desirable to a peaceful society with laws. I'm saying they're invented rules that aren't some kind of absolute divine judgement. They're perpetuated, designed by and acted out by humans and as such are susceptible to failure. They are not rigorous. It's only by threat of force, as you say, that laws are upheld. In absence of that, even if a nation has an official set of laws, a militia might exert its own "laws" or principles. This fact that laws can compete is a notion too often ignored. Might makes right, or whatever.

>>13957156
If you stab somebody and you're caught on camera stabbing the person you will go to jail for murder. Explain to me how they are "abstractions" fuckface.

>>13957197
See >>13957194

>>13957199
That's why you need a capable state you piece of retarded dogshit.

>>13957154
>he thinks small businesses have the means to produce for cheaper than large corporation
>he thinks small businesses have the means to produce better quality products than large corporations
>he thinks small militias stand a chance against corporation with access to better technology and highly trained combatants

>>13957199
FYI you don't know what abstraction means and you should stop using it.

>>13957205
Where did I ever attempt to upend the notion that we need a state? I'm open to discussion on this, I don't absolutely believe the state should be neither abolished nor kept going at all costs and expanded.

>>13957184
>Only need to sustain it long enough to drive competition in the ground.
There will always be competition.
>Totally possible without regulation.
How?
>No, my entire EXAMPLE relies on someone getting control of all the uranium.
Yes, I know. How would that happen? Unrealistic scenarios do not discredit an ideology.
>The ARGUMENT itself requires a company to get a hold of any necessary step in the product fabrication.
Again, how would that happen?
>>inb4 it's unrealistic because they'd need the funds to do it in the first place
That's an actual argument, address it. Naming monopolies supported by government subsidies, regulation, and intellectual property do not support the possibility of such a thing.
>there's nothing preventing 2 concurrent companies from striking a deal to get their own respective monopolies, like AMD and NVIDIA have done to each hold a virtual monopoly on different graphic cards ranges
Again, thanks to the government.
>>13957187
>The corporation will just undercut them to the point of losing money
They can't do that forever, and there will always be new competition.
>>13957214
>>he thinks small businesses have the means to produce for cheaper than large corporation
Yes, investors exist.
>>he thinks small businesses have the means to produce better quality products than large corporations
Yes, investors exist.
>>he thinks small militias stand a chance against corporation with access to better technology and highly trained combatants
How will a company figure out who is trying to fight back?

>>13956590
>Stirner
off yourself

>>13957194
Yes? Nobody is arguing that laws are devine or some other spooky bullshit

>>13957228
Divine*

>>13957228
My response can be divided into two parts
1. Pointing out the misinterpretation that I'm arguing for lawlessness
2. Explaining what I was really trying to say
If you have no problem with this then we agree right?

>>13957242
Yes we apparently agree

>>13951707
alright big boy

>>13957223
>There will always be competition.
No, there won't. That's why I said your utopia is irrealistic and only works in a fantasized world of infinites. You tell me that if a company gets a monopoly, there's going to be competitors until the monopoly breaks, when in real life what would happen is
>company gets monopoly
>guy decides to compete, gets funded by a bank
>fails because of undercutting
>second guy decides that this time it'll work, gets funded by a bank
>fails because of undercutting
>third guide decides to compete, tries to get funded by a bank, fails because no bank will want to fund what has already failed twice
>no competition
>monopoly is safe

I'll handwave the other bullet points as either the answer was already made. Just to quickly reiterate the point.

>That's an actual argument, address it. Naming monopolies supported by government subsidies, regulation, and intellectual property do not support the possibility of such a thing.
The same way entreprenarial conquests happen in the real world. Through generational wealth and/or private funding. You are deluded into thinking a free market means a infinite number of small fishes eating each other for an infinite amount of time for the greatest benefits of the consumers, when in reality, it means small fishes tearing at each other until one very big one emerges, or alternatively a handful of big ones making deals between themselves to secure their respective monopolies. With the nigh-infinite amount of such examples in the real life, I'd consider the burden of proof to be on you to prove how a free market would prevent the emergence of monopolies without resorting to the magical wand of impossible competition. For example, by telling me how, without any intervention from the state, could a company break disney's monopoly in our own real world.

>Again, thanks to the government.
Bruh. The state is trying to BREAK monopolies that emerge from DEALS between TWO COMPANIES NOT INVOLVING THE STATE.

>>13957259
>subhuman
This kind of essentialist classification of people is more in line with idealist busllshit like nazism or liberalism
Truth is, everyone is capable of being a "subhuman", just like everyone is capable of being a decent person

>>13957223
Yes they can you stupid piece of shit. Let me explain it retard-style for you.
Corporation ALOT money, small business LITTLE money. When corporation lose money, no big deal. When small business lose money, big deal.

>>13957223
do ancaps realize how that type of image is unsettlingly similar to the "b-but real communism has never tried" they despise so much?

>>13957271
>third guide decides to compete, tries to get funded by a bank, the bank rejects him so he goes to a different one
FTFY
>For example, by telling me how, without any intervention from the state, could a company break disney's monopoly in our own real world.
Disney's monopoly would fall apart without the state, as they are already reliant on it.
>The state is trying to BREAK monopolies
It doesn't matter what they're trying to do if they're not doing it at all.
>>13957287
Competition will always come back, you have yet to show me otherwise.
>>13957298
Anarchy has happened before, and worked. Ireland was in anarchy for 2,000 years, and so was medieval Iceland.

>>13957298
listen ancaps are people who became friends with their bullies. the result of that is that they're understanding of how power functions is totally fucked because they think somebody treating them like total fucking shit means they are friends.

>>13957303
>he goes to a different one
Which will still refuse to fund what has already failed twice.
>Disney's monopoly would fall apart without the state, as they are already reliant on it.
Oklolkthxbye
>Ireland was in anarchy for 2,000 years, and so was medieval Iceland.
What the fuck am I reading here. How the fuck are tribal kingdoms anarchies. What the actual fucking fuck man.

>>13957319
>Which will still refuse to fund what has already failed twice.
Listen, I'm tired of arguing over this retarded point. If a monopoly were ever to form and abuse their power, people would simply crowdfund a multitude of other companies until those companies destroy the monopoly. And yes, people will do this due to high demand. And no, the companies cannot fail due to their constant stream of money.
>How the fuck are tribal kingdoms anarchies.
Ireland was literally just a bunch of separated clans for most of history, same with medieval Iceland. There was no state.

>>13957303
>Competition will always come back, you have yet to show me otherwise.
A corporation can eat up every single smaller competitor, this is common sense for anyone who isn't a retard.
It's on YOU to explain to me how a small business would topple a corporation.

>>13956763
>AHAHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHA again
>AHAHAHAHA again

>>13950968
How can one man change the course of history through brainpower and pen alone?

Whatever I might think of Marx, his power to change the world was extraordinary.

>>13957330
>Listen, I'm tired of arguing over this retarded point. If a monopoly were ever to form and abuse their power, people would simply crowdfund a multitude of other companies until those companies destroy the monopoly. And yes, people will do this due to high demand. And no, the companies cannot fail due to their constant stream of money.
No, they'll settle for small, local distribution network who will soon be integrated or driven out of business by the corporate overlord of your choice. As history will tell you.
>>13957330
>Ireland was literally just a bunch of separated clans for most of history, same with medieval Iceland. There was no state.
How can someone be so correct and so wrong from one sentence to the other.
Just because there's not one island-wide state doesn't mean the tribal kingdoms are anarchists you absolute oiled buffoon. A tribal state is a state. That's like you're telling me because there's not one continent-wide state in america, then america is an anarchy.

>>13957348
inb4 unironic reddit spacing.

>>13957330
>people would simply crowdfund a multitude of other companies until those companies destroy the monopoly.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA this is your brain on anKEK

>>13957348
Newfag

>>13957340
>It's on YOU to explain to me how a small business would topple a corporation.
By having better products and better prices.
>>13957349
>No, they'll settle for small, local distribution network who will soon be integrated or driven out of business by the corporate overlord of your choice.
And then they'll do exactly what I just said, if they are being abused, that is.
>A tribal state is a state.
Does that mean the individual is also a state because he can govern himself? Your logic is fucking retarded.
>>13957354
Prove me wrong.

>>13957360
>By having better products and better prices.
I already told you faggot, the corporation can undercut them until they decide to give in.
Explain to me how they can sustain the profit-loss for longer than a corporation.

>>13957360
>Prove me wrong
You're the one who has to provide proof, you're the one making a claim.

>>13950968
Reddit is full of liberals not Marxists or communists. Once your burger brain can understand there's a difference we can begin your re-education. Unironically.

>>13957374
reddit is full of marxists and communists too

>>13957360
>And then they'll do exactly what I just said, if they are being abused, that is.
And then exactly what I and other posters have said will happen. Except that we have history on our side.
>Does that mean the individual is also a state because he can govern himself? Your logic is fucking retarded.
I'll stop replying after this last post because that kind of stuff very obviously shows I am at a disadvantage, as I'm arguing with one less chromosome than you.
A tribal kingdom is absolutely a state because it absolutely has laws that are above its agents and that apply to them. How in the ever loving fuck you could ever begin to even conceive the start of the idea that tribal ireland was anything like an anarchy is absolutely beyond me and, I do not doubt, any rational person.

>>13955136
hong kong is protesting because they're retarded and all of this started because they didn't want a murderer to come to justice. i literally guffawed when they asked trump for help and then trump started praising the chinese president. fucking hilarious

>>13957364
>Explain to me how they can sustain the profit-loss for longer than a corporation.
See: (>>13957330)
"If a monopoly were ever to form and abuse their power, people would simply crowdfund a multitude of other companies until those companies destroy the monopoly. And yes, people will do this due to high demand. And no, the companies cannot fail due to their constant stream of money."
>>13957371
I already provided proof. The fact that there would be demand to topple this monopoly, would mean that they would do this.
>>13957379
>And then exactly what I and other posters have said will happen.
How can a company go out of business if they constantly have funding from the population?

>>13955136
TOTALITARIANISM and AUTHORITARIANISM not communism you kanker flikker

>>13957387
>And yes, people will do this due to high demand
Prove it.
>I already provided proof. The fact that there would be demand to topple this monopoly, would mean that they would do this.
That's not proof fuckface.

>>13957377
Where? The low member subreddits where they're not liberals? They're capitalist cuckolds over there. Here too, but we're not talking about 4chan to be fair.

>>13957414
>Prove it.
People have brains and can think. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>13955136
hong kong and china are ultra-capitalism you incest baby

>>13950977
>be marx
>want free money
>invent gommunizm

>>13957424
Nice proof.
The main thing you've given me is that you're a delusional c uck stuck in some weird fucked up reality that you created for yourself to deal with trauma inflicted on you from being a bitch your entire life.

>>13957446
Why wouldn't they crowdfund companies to bring this monopoly down if they were being abused, you dumb faggot? That's basic logic.

>>13957436
he already had free money

>>13957421
I don't browse Reddit that much because it's annoying but I remember a few boards that were basically entirely socialist or at least very friendly towards socialism. LateStageCapitalism, EnlightenedCentrism, are two I remember seeing on the front page a lot, the comment section on those is always more socialist than liberal, often outright hostile towards liberals.

>>13957452
Give me an instance of this ever happening you nigger faggot.

>>13957452
It's funny because you're basically describing communism but you're so stuck in some fucked up warped reality from being treated like a worthless bitch your entire life.

>>13957467
It's never needed to happen because the government has been there to shut down any monopolies its created.
>>13957479
>It's funny because you're basically describing communism
Care to elaborate?

>>13957479
anarcho-communism maybe. Most communists say that is only coming about after a long period involving a powerful state.

>>13957491
Doesn't anarcho-communism imply a state-like entity to control the means of production?

>>13957482
>It's never needed to happen because the government has been there to shut down any monopolies its created.
LOL. This is good because on one hand states barely do this and on the other hand you seem to be arguing for the state here.
>Care to elaborate?
Your entire fantasy of individuals who have HAD ENOUGH OF BEING ABUSED and willing to put their own resources in to BRING DOWN THE POWER is interesting. It's too bad it's framed within the context of being fucked beyond the point of no return.

>>13957527
>you seem to be arguing for the state here
No. Monopolies would never exist if not for the state.
>Your entire fantasy of individuals who have HAD ENOUGH OF BEING ABUSED and willing to put their own resources in to BRING DOWN THE POWER is interesting. It's too bad it's framed within the context of being fucked beyond the point of no return.
I mean, people WILL retaliate before it's too late, and not just in violent means.
If a monopoly forms and abuses people:
>people will stop working for the monopoly
>people will boycott the monopoly
>people will crowdfund alternatives to the monopoly

>>13957491
I don't believe in an all-powerful state but getting rid of it entirely is fucking stupid.
>>13957541
>No. Monopolies would never exist if not for the state.
How?
>I mean, people WILL retaliate before it's too late, and not just in violent means.
They already are. Your utopia is letting the corporations fuck us over even harder THEN we fight back. You realize how stupid this is?

>>13957591
>How?
Pic here: (>>13957223)
>Your utopia is letting the corporations fuck us over even harder THEN we fight back.
How so? People would begin retaliating as the monopoly gains strength.

>>13957599
That doesn't explain shit, tell me how monopolies are created by states because they fucking aren't.
>How so? People would begin retaliating as the monopoly gains strength.
You mean like how people are rebelling against apple, google, amazon and facebook? Bro I don't believe you genuinely want to see the world messed up but you're fucking stupid as shit.

>>13957624
>tell me how monopolies are created by states because they fucking aren't.
Intellectual property laws, for example, prevent a company from doing the same thing as another one more efficiently.
>You mean like how people are rebelling against apple, google, amazon and facebook?
People do not rely on these companies for any vital part of their lives, so its only natural that they do not care as much. But if a monopoly were to form out of, say, gasoline, and the government did not step in, they would begin to do those things. But before you say "hahhaha ur defending the government!!", no, I am not. Because as I've said, these monopolies only form thanks to them.

>>13954880
They've never read him.

>>13957648
>Intellectual property laws,
Those laws are easily bypassed.
>But if a monopoly were to form out of, say, gasoline,
There are gas monopolies.
>But before you say "hahhaha ur defending the government!!"
You are defending the government.
>these monopolies only form thanks to them.
You still haven't explained how.

>>13957784
>Those laws are easily bypassed.
No, they aren't.
>There are gas monopolies.
They aren't really monopolies if they don't own the entire industry, and they aren't abusive regardless.

>>13957802
>No, they aren't.
They are, google it.
>They aren't really monopolies if they don't own the entire industry, and they aren't abusive regardless.
LOL.

2bh I'm losing braincells talking to you so i'm out.

>>13957844
>They are, google it.
You're wrong, Google it.

why do so so so so so many people have this weird ass knee jerk reaction to marx? especially americans?

absolutely the vast majority of them have hardly read a word of marx and pretend that they are experts on the topic; why do they do this?

it just reeks of cognitive dissonance - there are so many threads posted daily here about the ills of modern life, the despair inducing nature of our existence, the inauthenticity that is forced upon us, the shitty wagie shit that we have to put up with, the sense of alienation we feel in front of all this, the fact that all is under the sway of this inhuman power, the fact that none of us are able to follow up on what we actually want to do with our lives, the fact that books and movies and music and what not are all money grabbing shit shows today. and yet, yet after all this, people have this stupid ass knee-jerk reaction to the sheer mentioning of marx.

all us marxists ask is that you read him, do not read shitty secondary sources! do not read those that follow him! read marx and engels, read with an open mind, and read carefully. this isnt about ideology or communism vs capitalism or any of that shit, this is about diagnosing the ills of today and trying to look for the roots and how we might change that. whether you agree or not with the proposed solution (forget what you think the marxist solution is, everything thats been fed to you about marx is bullshit) does not matter, what matters is that you actually read it, learn about it, and think about it. it just makes me sad, i see all these others who go through the exact same despair as me, and marx has been one of the only ones available to give me the tools and descriptive apparatus to diagnose the root causes with clarity, but people just have the weirdest attitude.

>>13957855
Most people who hate marx without having read him do so because self-identified Marxists promote communism, which most people believe can't work and has been a disaster when attempted.

>>13957863
but people like this talk as if communism is some set in stone doctrine lol "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things."

you have to realise that marx was not writing in isolation, he didnt wake up one day and think you know what? time to destroy western civilization! he was writing within the workers movement, a movement that was already in existence, that had a history, with plenty of other thinkers. he wrote his works specifically for these workers to UNDERSTAND what they themselves were talking about, to understand the nature of capitalism, to understand the antagonisms of this mode of production, to understand the material underpinnings of their suffering. lenin did not wake up one morning and think yes it is time to "attempt" communism, no, it was part of a way larger workers movement that was trying to overthrow the current state of things, and that is never going to be the same anywhere or any time, especially today 100 years forward. it is the exact same today, we don't read marx and call ourselves communists because we want a re-doing of the ussr, it's because we realise that much of his analysis still applies today, and we use that analysis to figure out how we move forward TODAY. in any case, i won't get into it now but people have a silly view of the history of communism anyways

>>13957995
I have read some Marx and don't hate the guy, but I don't know that much about economics to be honest. I am highly suspicious of the entire field because it doesn't seem like real science but again I never studied it. Marx had interesting ideas anyway.

I was just explaining the antipathy towards Marx. It would be like if Hitler had declared himself to be following, idk, Thomas Carlyle, and then a bunch of people called themselves Carlyleans, but didn't want to be associated with hitler(or sometimes defended hitler). This is how the Right generally see this, they think the USSR was as bad as the fascist states, and directly produced by Marxists inspired by Marx's writing. From this basic outset, it's not surprising that they then don't go on to read abstract 19th century political/economic philosophy, since the only ostensible reason for doing so is to better understand the Leftist tradition inspired by him, a tradition the right think is intellectually bankrupt.

Most of the right also doesn't think the USSR had anything to do with workers. Views on the Bolsheviks vary from 'they were out of touch intellectuals' to 'jews'.

Once capitialism is over all my dreams will come true!

>>13958044
i agree i do not think economics is a real science but i wouldn't even count marx as a full on economist anyways i would rather say that there is an economist 'in' marx. the same way i would say that marx is not a philosopher but there is a philosophy 'in' marx etc.,,,,, marx is strange he's very much a hybrid thinker that is hard to qualify

and yeah i get you but lol i'm a straight up marxist and i hate fascism but if hitler wrote a bunch of texts detailing the mechanisms of capitalism i would read the fuck out of that shit and use it for analysis of today. this is what i don't get really; even if you're a damn fascist you can still learn a lot from marx.

also yeah thats true i wish they attributed all the shit they do to 'jews' to the 'bourgeoisie' instead

Communism is the natural progression of a capitalist economy. Soon all the winners of capitalism will emerge. The global market will run out room for competition because all the winners have been selected. In order to maintain the status quo, we won't need any more competition, we will need cooperation, a commune is idea of a society that is cooperative instead of competitive. A commune cannot exist where everyone doesn't agree on living in the commune. Communism gains the lost territory of capitalism, and capitalism withers away until people see that their no utility in capitalism anymore.

tfw you could already live in a post scarcity society but not for shitty capitalists hoarding shit