/lit/ - Literature

>>14439851
>Neuroscience shows instincts are hard wired though.
This does not contradict the notion that notionsa re a product of their material conditions. To argue otherwise is an implicit admission to believing in magic.

>I've seen marxists claim that racism, sexism, transphobia are the result of capitalism. This doesn't make sense.

so basically you think that racism is something that you are born with, apparently neuroscience 'shows' this (it doesn't)

the claim that marxists make about the nature of racism is that racism--as it exists today--is not just some belief about some group of people, but instead a historical situation created through things like the history of western imperialism (which only is made possible through the marriage of capitalist exploitation and some politico-military arrangement). i mean, there are too many examples to list. welfare queens, hatred of immigrants, you name it.

Diogenes would chokeslam marx to death

>>14439851
>Isn't this wrong due to the fact humans have hardwired biological instincts that determine a great deal of their behavior?
The way I see it, though of course I could be wrong, marxism denies this, just as many other sociological schools. The only human nature is its social nature; the fact that the social being determines behavior and character.

>>14439851
>Neuroscience shows instincts are hard wired
for you

>>14439862
>notionsa re a product of their material conditions
they aren't though, they're a product of people's instincts
Marxists believe in magic.

>>14439896
>so basically you think that racism is something that you are born with
True. Bias towards the in group and people that look like you is part of instincts.

>but instead a historical situation created through things like the history of western imperialism (which only is made possible through the marriage of capitalist exploitation and some politico-military arrangement).
This is so hilariously flawed it's incredible.
People have hard wired instincts, of course social pressures can alter these things but not as much as you think they could.

>>14439926
>The only human nature is its social nature; the fact that the social being determines behavior and character.
So basically it's false and denies human instincts(Which make of the majority of human behavior)

Marxists and most sociologists are a pseudo-scientific joke.

>>14440011
What could possibly influence the development of instincts and personality traits if not material reality?

>>14439862
>To argue otherwise is an implicit admission to believing in magic.
To say that our ontological catalog is incomplete is not an absurdity. To say that there are things that empiricism is incapable of uncovering is also not an absurdity. Yet your assertion that for both of these things to be true and agreeable for something IS an absurdity. Why don't you back that position up with some actual dialogue?

Marx's dialectical materialism was reductive. Determinism is a property not of a system, but of knowledge of a system. The fact that material reality is non-deterministic implies that there is a missing piece of the puzzle. The more we poke and prod and fiddle with the atomics of the material, the less sure we become of longstanding beliefs about the nature of the material. The fact that we are running out of road with regards to new scales to make observations in would further imply that we're not going to find that missing puzzle piece by assuming that the material is only affected by itself. This is not a case of merely where the line falls between complexity and randomness, but rather the complete and total incapability of the actual systems that drive the material realm to be understood to their finality.

>>14440027
>What could possibly influence the development of instincts and personality traits if not material reality?
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Instincts came from millions of years of evolution, not a few hundred years of ideology

>>14439851
>Doesn't it say that humans are solely the product of their "material conditions"? Neuroscience shows instincts are hard wired though
our brain is material anon; neurological wiring is a material condition

>>14440027
if you bred mice and place them in entirely different environments that would all have the same goal: survival and reproduction
Instincts are just a list of "if thens" on a genetic level to increase their odds of survival and reproduction

>>14440072
Wrong. There is no "if then" when it comes to biology on a macro scale.

>>14440060
>our brain is material anon
So? It cannot be endlessly changed, the brain is not a blank slate.

>neurological wiring is a material condition
This doesn't mean it is dependent on economic conditions lmao

Marxist view of materialism is horseshit.

>>14440084
>Wrong. There is no "if then" when it comes to biology on a macro scale.
your going to have to elaborate on your post anon I was just stating that insticts are hardwired into our genes to increase our odds of survival by expressing/repressing specific genes

>>14440104
>It cannot be endlessly changed
Sure it can, from generation to generation your neurological makeup is influenced by stressors or lack thereof.

>>14440104
>It cannot be endlessly changed
okay but why does that matter? why would a materialist philosophy need things to be endlessly changeable? Marx didn't believe in tabula rasa
>This doesn't mean it is dependent on economic conditions
okay but why does that matter? anon, have you ever read Marx? I can't even tell what point you think you've made

>>14440104
here, from the German Ideology. read the last sentence extra carefully to see why your objection is unfounded
>The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.

>>14439851
>I've seen marxists claim that racism, sexism, transphobia are the result of capitalism
Marx was racist and sexist and there were no such thing as trans people back then so I think you should read books instead of weirdo leftist ramblings

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Dialectical materialism more than anything seeks to demonstrate change - that is, process - as a result of economic forces. Yes, there are innate elements to human behavior - but given that those are unchanging, looking at material conditions is a good way to understand how and why societies have changed, conflicts have occurred, etc. over time.

This isn't even totally a Marxist viewpoint. Even a hardline psych reductionist like Pinker argues that violence and warfare have reduced precisely because it is in the interests of the trading, capital-owning class to have that.

There is a good deal of unfalsifiable bullshit in Marxist historiography (especially when it precludes even the idea of any non-economic conditions from driving changes in societal superstructure) but diamat lent itself and continues to lend itself well to legitimate critical theories

Not a commie, btw, fuck nigs and jannies

>>14440118
>Sure it can
Marxists, ladies and gentlemen.
Denying scientific reality as usual.

>>14440156
>why would a materialist philosophy need things to be endlessly changeable?
If human instincts are hard wired, economic determinism is false.

>Marx didn't believe in tabula rasa
He did though.

>okay but why does that matter?
Because it disproves DM.
> anon, have you ever read Marx?
Why do you subhuman animals always revert to this?
Have YOU ever read marx?

>>14439851
>I've seen marxists claim that racism, sexism, transphobia are the result of capitalism. This doesn't make sense.
doesn't it?

>>14440182
Are there actual marxists here?
Are people honestly this retarded?

>>14440182
>Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.
He said this stuff but it completely contradicts the economic/historical determinism of his theories.
Marx was filled with contradictions, what else is new?

>>14440262
>looking at material conditions is a good way to understand how and why societies have changed
Sure but that's not solely what marxism is, it prescribes it's own narrative and it's constantly wrong.


>Even a hardline psych reductionist like Pinker argues that violence and warfare have reduced precisely because it is in the interests of the trading, capital-owning class to have that.
Tons of people believe this. This has nothing to do with marxism however.
I'm a pinkerite and it's shocking to me that other people here are not.
People here don't even believe in evolution.

>>14440349

>Sure but that's not solely what marxism is, it prescribes it's own narrative and it's constantly wrong.

ya this is why nobody is actually a marxist anymore

are you the kind of jordan peterson reading faggot who thinks postmodernism is a marxist movement

>>14440328
>racism was INVENTED
Why are you ignoring the fact throughout human history everyone supported their racial in group over the outgroup?
People knew about race for thousands of years.
You people are fucking delusional cultists.

>>14440325
>If human instincts are hard wired, economic determinism is false.
what do you mean by this, elaborate
>>14440349
>He said this stuff but it completely contradicts the economic/historical determinism of his theories
the German Ideology is literally the most detailed discription of his theory of historical materialism, this is just desperate cope.

>>14440328
>capitalism invents racism to justify slavery
Why the fuck do you people even exist?

>>14440353
>ya this is why nobody is actually a marxist anymore
tons of people are marxists and nobody is bothering to counter them unfortunately

>are you the kind of jordan peterson
Fuck no.

>who thinks postmodernism is a marxist movement
It's not but it's still garbage.

>>14440325
Marx didn't believe in tabula rasa you absolute moron, he was highly critical of the idea. this is why people tell you to read Marx

>>14440368
>what do you mean by this, elaborate
Human action cannot both be determined SOLELY by economic forces and also determined by instincts.
Nobody said economic forces don't contribute to human action, but the idea that they are the sole factor is obviously false when INSTINCTS exist.
Marxist class theory is unfalsifiable garbage and his predictions have tuned out to be false. Marxism wont even exist as an ideology in 50-100 years.

>the German Ideology is literally the most detailed discription of his theory of historical materialism
So? He contradicts himself in the same book.

>>14440382
>Marx didn't believe in tabula rasa
He believed in economic/historical determinism though.
It's just as stupid as tabula rasa and denies human instincts effecting human behavior.

>>14440373

Name one influential Marxist who is currently active and advocates for a linear diamat version of history. I implore you to name one (1).

>it's still garbage

I could see why someone might believe this. But postmodernism was never supposed to lead to stuff like fat studies and deaf culture advocacy. It was just meant to critique power dynamics and constructions in western thought. That cringe stuff is all just Americans autistically systematizing things that were intentionally vague and contextual as opposed to explicit

>>14440386
>Human action cannot both be determined SOLELY by economic forces
I don't think I've ever read him say this, do you have a quote for this? doesn't seem to line up with his theory of nature at all. you wouldn't just be talking out your ass, would you anon?
>He contradicts himself in the same book
oh so you are familiar with it? please pull out the contradicting quotes real quick for us

>>14439851
How are any of those ideas incompatible

>>14440392
>denies human instincts effecting human behavior
why do you think this? it's totally unsubstantiated. I think you are misunderstanding what economic determinism is...

if anything economic prosperity elevates people beyond racism/sexism/transphobia/etc since you are more successful and thus less influenced by genes looking at the Rat Utopia project further backs this up

>>14440398
>Name one influential Marxist who is currently active and advocates for a linear diamat version of history.
What do they advocate for instead?

>It was just meant to critique power dynamics and constructions in western thought.
Does it not also deny instincts?

imagine thinking you destroyed materialism because you assume no one had ever thought about instincts before lmao read a book you absolute plebe

>>14440427

>What do they advocate for instead?

they just use Marxist apparati to critique society. Think Zizek bro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

>does it not also deny instincts

No it does not unless it is applied literally by retarded copers in the humanities which was never Derrida or Foucault's intent

also can i guess something? from the way you write replies I'm going to guess you're either 18 or a woman. am I right? please don't take this the wrong way

>>14440386
economics is just a theory of human behavior that focuses on capital
Economic forces are human forces. I do not understand your confliction between economics and human nature?
Economic forces are, in theory, governed by human instincts

>>14440449
>Economic forces are human forces.
wrong
even marxists understand the difference between social forces and economic forces

>>14440447
>they just use Marxist apparati to critique society.
So they use an outdated incorrect theory to critique society?
What's the difference between this and using Scientology to critique society?

>Foucault
lol man, this guy obviously believed social forces are what influences humanity far more than instincts.
He was def tabula rasa

>>14440434
We are materialists, we just don't agree with marx's batshit version of materialism.

Human instincts dominate society, the human brain is material.

>no one had ever thought about instincts befor
because you brain damaged religious cultists literally DONT think about them
Read a fucking book shitstain lmao

>>14440456
>even marxists understand the difference between social forces and economic forces
of course they would, they are the only ones that think that way

Why can't we just throw marxist bootlickers from helicopters?

>>14440406
>doesn't seem to line up with his theory of nature at all
Explain to me how instincts work perfectly with marx's economic determinism.
I'm willing to listen.

>>14440479
read
>>14440449
economics are heavily dependant on human instincts

>>14440473
We can.

>>14440461

And what is the theory that they're using? What part of it is outdated? It's much more complex than the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on dialectical materialism

>this guy obviously believed social forces are what influences humanity far more than instincts

what the fuck are you talking about

anyway are you a girl? can you sex me

>>14440466
again, read the German Ideology, he lays out very clearly where economics emerges out of man's struggle over nature. instincts are literally the basis for this whole movement lmao you are severely uneducated on this topic

>>14440456
>>Economic forces are human forces.
>wrong
literally wot?
What do you think economics is

>>14440484
>economics are heavily dependant on human instincts
then why ascribe arbitrary "classes" to humans and pretend that this shit means anything at all

>>14440512
why do you think Marx's class distinctions are arbitrary? you know that in a philosophical discussion you are expected to make arguments to defend your position. every post you make like this is basically an admission you don't have a point to make

>>14440491
>What part of it is outdated?
It's unscientific and marx's theories has been debunked, his predictions are false and living conditions for workers under capitalism has been increasing over the past 150 years.
I mean the LTV itself has been replaced by the marginal revolution.

>what the fuck are you talking about
Foucault was a social constructionist

>anyway are you a girl?
unironically yes

>>14440500
>he lays out very clearly where economics emerges out of man's struggle over nature
Marx literally thought human could be socially engineered to be communist and that the state would wither away lmao
>instincts are literally the basis for this whole movement
No they aren't lmao, human instincts weren't even an accepted theory during marx's time.
>you are severely uneducated
You're defending marxism lmao

>>14439851
>Does dialectical materialism imply
Whatever the phrase 'dialectical materialism' is supposed to mean, it has nothing to do with anything Marx and/or Engels ever wrote. Read a book, son.

>>14440529
>why do you think Marx's class distinctions are arbitrary?
They're just marx's headcannon.
The "classes" don't contradict each other either, the capitalist helps the working class by increasing economic production while taking very little consumer goods in return.

>>14440479
Imagine thinking that instincts developed independently from the material drive to obtain food, water, shelter and other resources
Imagine not understanding that "economic conditions" generally refers to the way we use markets to allocate these things genuinely believe you're trolling or retarded at this point, no way this is a good faith argument

>>14440541
Why do marxists still exist?
Why do flat earthers still exist?

>>14440547
>Imagine thinking that instincts developed independently from the material drive to obtain food, water, shelter and other resources
They didn't you fucking idiot lmao.
Now that instincts already exist, claiming that changing the material conditions will somehow change instincts is fucking RETARDED
Instincts took millions of years of evolution to develop and they are hard wired into our brains.
Socially engineering people or changing their material conditions won't change instincts.
You people are extremely ignorant on this topic.

>>14440548
>Why do marxists still exist?
Because their analysis of capitalism is foundational and essentially the most accurate to date.

>Why do flat earthers still exist?
Because dumbfucks like Qanon-believers/polcels/etc. will always exist.

>2020
>people still take marxism seriously

Why is this a thing?

>>14440544
>Nobody has ever done work except on their boss's orders under threat of starvation
>Therefore it is good that a handful of individuals monopolize access to the productive engines of society, after all they might let you keep some scraps :^)
Capitalist defenders are the most cucked beings in existence

>>14440563
>Because their analysis of capitalism is foundational and essentially the most accurate to date.
But it's not.
Living standards for the working class has constantly increased since marx's time.
Why would there EVER be socialist revolution if living standards keep increasing?
>b-b-but living standards have stagnated in the west
Sure but that's due to other factors like central banking etc

>Because dumbfucks like Qanon-believers/polcels/etc.
Marxists are just as bad as those people.

>>14440560
>Socially engineering people or changing their material conditions won't change instincts
It will change the expression of these instincts
What the fucks are you trying to prove lmao

>>14440534

>It's unscientific, etc.

Marxian economics is largely in the dustbin of history but Marxism is a lot more than just LTV. Understanding the dynamics of capital and power in a society, base and superstructure, etc. are still useful analytical tools. Adorno on the culture industry - tell me that's not a good takedown of dumb modern mass media

>Foucault was a social constructionist

Social constructionism as in structuralism far precedes Foucault. You misunderstand if you take them as saying that the human instinct to shit, piss, fuck, sleep is constructed socially. The theory is far more complex than that... all I can say is you need to legitimately engage with these ideas beyond the most basic level of punchy critiques and shitty summaries it seems you've been exposed to

>unironically yes

post feet

from here on out i'm not giving you (you)s until you post feet. god i bet you're a little young conservative girl who thinks she's got it all figured out and the other liberal girls in her college classes are so stupid. i have fucked so many of your kind in the past

>>14440534
>unscientific
>debunked
shibboleths, my smooth brained friend. Marx didn't think that the proletariats conditions would simply get worse and worse, but rather that any benefit to the proletariats conditions would coincide with a widening inequality which would ultimately serve to erode social cohesion. ironically this is one of the best demonstrated points where Marx got it right
>Marx literally thought human could be socially engineered to be communist
wrong, he was against this approach completely
>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. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
>human instincts weren't even an accepted theory during marx's time.
well then Marx was ahead of his time because he speaks quite a bit about how "needs" (i.e. instinctual drives) are a foundational element of historical materialism

>>14440567
>threat of starvation
This exists in any socialist society as well lmao
You have to work or starve.
Dumb bootlicker.

>>Therefore it is good that a handful of individuals monopolize
This is precisely what marxists, especially leninists want. It's fucking hilarious when marxists talk about monopolies.

>after all they might let you keep some scraps
lol dude, the working class consumes virtually all of the end product of production under capitalism
How do you not even know this by now?
Do you think taking over the means of production will allow you to receive any more consumer goods than you already are?
You're confusing money for resources lmao

>Capitalist defenders are the most cucked beings in existence
lmao it's always hilariously ironic when bootlicking marxists defend their statist monopolies, restrictions on freedom and trade
kill yourself

>>14440544
okay so you don't understand Marx's theory of class either lmao
is this just bait? did I get baited this whole thread?

>>14440575
>Marxian economics is largely in the dustbin of history
Good. We can leave it at that.

>human instinct to shit, piss, fuck, sleep is constructed socially.
imagine being dumb enough to think these basic instincts are what we are talking about and not higher ones

>i bet you're a little young conservative girl who thinks she's got it all figured out
I'm a moderate libertarian that laughs at low iq marxist leftcels that think they have it all figured out when they don't even understand even the simplest concepts in economics or what central banks are

>i have fucked
leftcels dont get laid lmao

>>14440572
>It will change the expression of these instincts
It can only modify them slightly, the instincts are hard wired, human nature is not endlessly plastic lmao

>>14440586

>imagine being dumb enough to think these basic instincts are what we are talking about and not higher ones

There are really very few higher instincts that are not socially constructed

>I'm a moderate libertarian that laughs at low iq marxist leftcels that think they have it all figured out when they don't even understand even the simplest concepts in economics or what central banks are

I have a masters degree in financial economics from Columbia

>leftcels dont get laid lmao

give me your digits and i will fuck your brains out. simple as

>>14440591
this isn't an argument against Marxism though anon, you are arguing against a strawman that exists solely in the minds of retards who never bothered to read Marx

>>14440577
>my smooth brained friend
You people don't even accept neuroscience as effecting human behavior lmao
>any benefit to the proletariats conditions would coincide with a widening inequality
Why the fuck would people care about inequality if their living standards are constantly increasing? lmao
Why would a socialist revolution ever take place?
>ironically this is one of the best demonstrated points where Marx got it right
But it's not, you're confusing marxist predictions for other factors.
>he was against this approach completely
Then how is communism supposed to magically happen?
>well then Marx was ahead of his time
But he wasn't. He didn't accept instincts at all.
>"needs" (i.e. instinctual drives) are a foundational element of historical materialism
lmao dude needs are some of the most basic instincts, instincts are far more complex than that

>>14440597

you're talking to a girl bro. just ask her to post feet don't make me be the only one being aggressively sexual here

>>14440591
You are either the dumbest poster this board has ever seen or a meta-troll

>>14440581
>no argument
ahhh I love seeing bootlicking marxist teenagers SEETHE

>>14440597
So you're admitting economic determinism in the way marx described it is false, okay lol

>>14440571
>>14440534
>unironically yes
Are you the 'central banking' antagonist?

>>14440607
>no argument
Imagine being stupid enough to still believe in marxist dogma in 2020.

>>14440596
>There are really very few higher instincts that are not socially constructed
HAHAHAHAHAHA Holy shit the absolute state of marxists.
Read Pinker you pseudoscience worshiping brainlet.
>I have a masters degree in financial economics from Columbia
I bet you're proud of wasting your money on learning neo-keynesian garbage.
>and i will fuck your brains out.
dumb leftcel

>>14440603
>You people don't even accept neuroscience as effecting human behavior lmao
you obviously can't read because I have never once in this thread denied a single conclusion drawn from neuroscience
>why would people care about inequality
now who's uneducated in economics
>y-you're confusing marxist predictions for other factors I won't m-mention
retard
I wont respond to any more of your bait if you refuse to make arguments

>>14440613
What?
I'm against central banking, yes.
All libertarians are.

>>14440620

post your feet you unlearned whore, don't make me ask again. I understand more than you could possibly know

>>14440586
>low iq marxist leftcels that think they have it all figured out when they don't even understand even the simplest concepts in economics or what central banks are
And yet, you don't even grasp what Rothbard was saying.

>>14440612
>Plato thought that forms were made out of matter
>no he didn't, read Plato
>NO ARGUMENT, ALL YOU PLATONISTS EVER DO IS TELL ME TO READ PLATO

>>14440620
>Read Pinker
topkek

>>14440624
>now who's uneducated in economics
If living standards are increasing, real wage growth is increasing etc, why would people give a shit if the rich can afford slightly bigger houses?
Why in the world would a socialist revolution ever take place?
Explain yourself.

>or other factors
Central banking, government intervention. Those are the most powerful and destructive ones.
It's okay though kid, in 50-100 years your ideology won't even exist. You're just going to seethe hard as you watch marx's predictions not coming true and your ideology fading away.
>laws of history
lol

>>14440626
>I'm against central banking, yes. All libertarians are.
All banking is fraudulent. "Central Banking" is just a cherry on top that serves as a steering committee for the cartel.

>>14440640
>too dumb to read pinker
Seething biology denialist.

>>14440631
But I did.

>>14440627
>brosocialists being incels
what else is new?

>>14440613

Let's elevate this retarded thread,
How can the maximization of the money multiplier be morally justified when the majority of people are on the losing side of compound interest

>>14440648
>All banking is fraudulent.
>a group of people offering to hold your money for you for a small fee is fraudulent
No it's not.
Fractional reserve banking and central banking are fraudulent.

>>14440655
>money multiplier
Yikes, more keynesian fake math garbage.

>>14440627
>do u even read thery!!?

>>14440653

I'm not an incel or a socialist. Just post your feet how hard can it be

>>14440645
>Explain
Read Piketty (and Gini)
>Central banking, government intervention
how do those factors disprove his point? Make a fucking argument please

>>14440667
The money multiplier is not mentioned in that picture

>>14440676
>I'm not an incel or a socialist.
Do you want to know why I know this statement is false?

>>14440678
>Piketty
I know of him, this isn't an argument.
I asked you a question, now answer it.

>how do those factors disprove his point?
YOUR point?
These factors cause economic stagnation and poverty for the working class, this is the reason why the west is stagnating.

>>14440679
Literally all of keynesian theory is debunked on this website, have fun.
https://tugwit.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-keynesian-infinity-debunked-fiscal.html

>>14440667

every day this board finds new ways to disappoint me

>>14440682

you clearly want attention otherwise you wouldnt pretend to be retarded like you are right now. post feet. this will be my final (you)

>>14440660
>Fractional reserve banking and central banking are fraudulent.
Sure, but it goes beyond that. The entire concept of lending money into existence (credit-based monetary system) is fraudulent and should be abolished. See:

"This paper presents the first empirical evidence in the history of banking on the question of whether banks can create money out of nothing. The banking crisis has revived interest in this issue, but it had remained unsettled. Three hypotheses are recognized in the literature. According to the financial intermediation theory of banking, banks are merely intermediaries like other non-bank financial institutions, collecting deposits that are then lent out. According to the fractional reserve theory of banking, individual banks are mere financial intermediaries that cannot create money, but collectively they end up creating money through systemic interaction. A third theory maintains that each individual bank has the power to create money ‘out of nothing’ and does so when it extends credit (the credit creation theory of banking). The question which of the theories is correct has far-reaching implications for research and policy. Surprisingly, despite the longstanding controversy, until now no empirical study has tested the theories. This is the contribution of the present paper. An empirical test is conducted, whereby money is borrowed from a cooperating bank, while its internal records are being monitored, to establish whether in the process of making the loan available to the borrower, the bank transfers these funds from other accounts within or outside the bank, or whether they are newly created. This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, "out of thin air"."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265909749_Can_Banks_Individually_Create_Money_Out_of_Nothing_-_The_Theories_and_the_Empirical_Evidence/link/55e0bd2e08ae2fac471c9fb5/download

>>14440620
>pseudoscience
which criteria of a scientific theory does Marx's LTV fail to meet?

>>14440691
if you know about Piketty then you onow the argument I would make
>YOUR point?
no, Marx's point you retard lmao. were you dropped as a child?

>>14440694
>The entire concept of lending money into existence (credit-based monetary system) is fraudulent and should be abolished.
I'm an austro-libertarian and I completely agree.
We've been talking about this shit for over a hundred years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_s1Zbs20aA

>>14440534
>his predictions are false and living conditions for workers under capitalism has been increasing over the past 150 years
Marx's mature writings don't predict otherwise.

>>14440694
>or whether they are newly created
This is already considered fraud though isn't it?

>>14440705
The surplus value doesn't manifest as any actual real resources in the real world for one.
Getting your surplus value back is like getting air back.

>>14440707
>if you know about Piketty then you onow the argument I would make
How about you make the argument instead of relying on some academic to make it for you?

>Marx's point
What point?
Why would there ever be a socialist revolution if living standards for the workers keep increasing worldwide? Even WITH the inequality.

lmao fucking dumbass

>>14440710
So why would there be a socialist revolution if things keep getting better?
I'm honestly asking.

The anger demonstrated by the seething right-wing thot in this thread is a perfect example of ressentiment - her construction of a value system that demeans people better-read than she is.

tres triste. maintenant nous pouvons parler en francais pour filtrer le plebe, oui?

quel et votre texte favorite de deleuze, mes amis?

>>14440719
so by "know of Piketty" you mean "heard his name before but haven't read any of his work". did you really just ask why I would refer to an economists position on a matter of economics? do you trust anonymous more than a tenured economics professor?
>Why would there ever be a socialist revolution if living standards for the workers keep increasing worldwide? Even WITH the inequality.
read Piketty

>>14440355
supporting your in group over the out group is not what racism is.

>>14440050
And in evolution contains the material struggle for survival and flourishing.

>>14440719
>The surplus value doesn't manifest as any actual real resources in the real world for one.
>Getting your surplus value back is like getting air back.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of Marx's theory of exploitation. regardless, this has nothing to do with whether or not the LTV is scientific. it could be an inaccurate scientific theory.
>>14440724
the idea is that as an economy approaches total automation, there will be a series of unavoidable and increasingly severe crises, even if in the long-run worker conditions continue to improve.

>>14440709
>I'm an austro-libertarian and I completely agree.
Thanks. I'm a libertarian socialist, but I wouldn't have 'woken up' to monetary issues were it not for the works of people ideologically aligned with Rothbard et al. Fellow leftists, keep an open mind: the paleocon/ancap stuff on money is worth exploring (however our solutions may ultimately differ).

>>14440731
>seething right-wing thot
Why are low IQ leftists ALWAYS incels?

>>14440734
>"heard his name before but haven't read any of his work"
Yes.
Why don't you repeat some of his arguments instead of telling me to read him?
>do you trust anonymous more
No, I'm just trying to have a debate with you and you're literally telling me to drop everything and read and entire book. lmao
>read Piketty
So you don't have an argument. gotcha
>>14440742
Recognizing other racial groups has been a part of the human experience since forever. All animals do it, it's part of our instincts.
Racism wasn't "invented".
>>14440745
So what? You can't change hard wired instincts through even a few hundred years of social conditioning.

>>14440767
>how dare you ask me to read relevant sources to the discussion
/lit/

>>14440719
That chart has been thoroughly debunked again and again. Why do you keep posting it?

>>14440749
>the point of Marx's theory of exploitation
Not really. The workers wouldn't benefit or get anything from stopping this "exploitation" so to claim it exists is a big stretch.
>it could be an inaccurate scientific theory.
indeed it is
>the idea is that as an economy approaches total automation, there will be a series of unavoidable and increasingly severe crises
Which is false.
The recessions are the result of central banking and government intervention causing malinvestments.
Automation will simply lower the cost of capital goods creating a service sector economy, and lowering the cost of consumer goods so workers could consume them and work less.
Automation isn't the reason living standards for the working class in the US economy have been stagnating.

>>14440776
You want to play that game? lol
Read ALL of Rothbard and Mises' works BEFORE responding to me.
If you don't, you are completely wrong.

>>14440779
It hasn't though.
You people don't even know what purchasing power parity means and are just coping at reality.

>>14440560
by this line of reasoning we should behave -exactly- like our hunter/gatherer ancestors, and we clearly don't.

>>14440784
I have read both of them actually; von Bawerk is better than Mises imo

>>14440767
>read Piketty
>So you don't have an argument. gotcha
I've read Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" and it is very clear and lucidly written. Did you have a problem with understanding it?

>>14440784
>>14440798
also I didn't say you had to read all his work, just read his position on inequality. read like one paper lmao

Never read any Marx so I wonder
In this ideal communist society how would they defend against an army

>>14440784
>don't even know what purchasing power parity means
That's just the problem, anon. Those who understand how the metric is constructed disagree with you.

>>14440785
I already explained how the material conditions and society itself influence human behavior but we still have hard wired instincts
>>14440798
*doubt*
Bawerk demolished marx btw

>>14440804
No, stupid, I'm just not going to stop everything and read an entire book when there's a thread going on.
>>14440811
You still dont have a fucking argument ahaha

THE SUN RISETH
AND THE SUN SETTEH
ALL BECAUSE A BUNCH OF DUMB MONKEYS LIKE PLAYING WITH MONEY

>>14440780
>Not really. The workers wouldn't benefit or get anything from stopping this "exploitation" so to claim it exists is a big stretch.
yeah the problem is you think he's using exploitation in the ethical sense. it's not a normative theory. whether or not workers would benefit from replacing a mode of production built on it is irrelevant.
>indeed it is
well that's different from saying it's pseudoscience. that's all my point is.
>Automation will simply lower the cost of capital goods creating a service sector economy, and lowering the cost of consumer goods so workers could consume them and work less.
yeah that's the whole point. Marx doesn't deny this.

>>14440813
>Those who understand how the metric is constructed disagree with you.
They're still incredibly wrong, living standards have been slowly increasing worldwide, this isn't going to stop any time soon.

>>14440821
>yeah that's the whole point. Marx doesn't deny this.
So the automation would cause a benefit for the workers?
Why would there be a revolution if they are benefiting from the automation?

>>14440753

I can't explain why you are so stupid because to engage with what you're saying here would be so beneath me and my education in economics and the humanities, I would be humiliating myself by doing so. Yet at the same time it is this very impotent aggression that reveals the femininity in your soul, a soul castrated from birth and reduced to a ball of needless aggression to affirm the self. To someone like myself, you see, this feminine nature cries out for its natural conclusion - you need to be pacified with a cock in your cunt, a nice fat one to shut you up and put you in your place, such that your sexuality may regain its proper function and you may express your femininity in more natural and subservient ways

>>14440818
>Bawerk demolished marx btw
kek I mean he certainly did a better job at it than Mises for what it's worth. so this is your position? you don't know how inequality can be bad and you refuse to read the leading experts opinion on the matter?

>>14440752
>I'm a libertarian socialist
Mutualist?
If so you guys are based, I have many mutualist friends.

>I can't explain why you are so stupid because to engage with what you're saying here would be so beneath me and my education in economics and the humanities, I would be humiliating myself by doing so. Yet at the same time it is this very impotent aggression that reveals the femininity in your soul, a soul castrated from birth and reduced to a ball of needless aggression to affirm the self. To someone like myself, you see, this feminine nature cries out for its natural conclusion - you need to be pacified with a cock in your cunt, a nice fat one to shut you up and put you in your place, such that your sexuality may regain its proper function and you may express your femininity in more natural and subservient ways

>>14440831
>So the automation would cause a benefit for the workers?
>Why would there be a revolution if they are benefiting from the automation?
I touched on that here: >>14440749. Marx thinks automation is effectively expelling that which creates value from the production process, which will ultimately result in these crises.

>>14440831
>They're still incredibly wrong, living standards have been slowly increasing worldwide, this isn't going to stop any time soon.
We all get that you're a globohomo advocate of nonstop global industrial capitalism. What we don't get is why we in the West should be impoverished for the sake of some sketchy metric of "third-world-well-being" that even the experts in the field dispute.

>>14440848
>I mean he certainly did a better job at it than Mises
Mises didn't go after many of marx's theories, he went after them on a practical level with the economic calculation problem(which marxists and socialists still haven't refuted >MUH SUPERCOMPUTERS!!)

>you don't know how inequality can be bad
It can be bad if it's the result of statism, if they can influence the government of course it can be bad.
A bit of inequality is an extremely good thing because it allows for more capital investment and thus increases in living standards.

>>14440859
>Marx thinks automation is effectively expelling that which creates value from the production process, which will ultimately result in these crises.
Wow that's a dumb theory.
The crises come from central banking and government intervention. Marxists rarely talk about those things.
Also are you saying the crises themselves will result in a socialist revolution? Really?
Why would that be the case? In times of panic and economic uncertainty people won't necessarily go towards more socialism.

>>14440862
>globohomo advocate of nonstop global industrial capitalism
I'm trans so yes, yes I am. :)

>What we don't get is why we in the West should be impoverished
I don't want us impovershed stupid.
I'm against the central banks and interventions causing our stagnation.
The US government has the largest debt of any entity in HISTORY and you people just ignore this and call it neoliberalism lmao

>>14440879
you could have just said "yes that is my position" rather than demonstrate how undereducated you are on the topic

>>14440886
>I'm trans
don't let butterfly know shes a huge terf

>>14440891
>no argument
I feel bad for you people.
The next 50 years of your predictions not coming true is going to be rough on you.

>>14440899
I've debated with her before. She is a terf.

>>14440767
Racism is not "recognizing other racial groups". Also animals know nothing of "race".
e.g. Dogs are not racist against different breeds, and there is a huge dymorphism between dog breeds, way more than human "races".

>>14440879
>Also are you saying the crises themselves will result in a socialist revolution? Really?
Marx thought so. I'm not sure. I was just trying to clear up some other aspects of the theory. bye

>>14440901
funny thing is I'm not a socialist and I don't believe in revolution. I've just been giving you a basic outline of Marx's theory and why you are misinterpreting it but you haven't wrapped your brain around much itt

>>14440915
>Also animals know nothing of "race".
dude, different animals who look slightly different fucking kill each other
Differentiating your biological group from others is a strongly innate part of biology

>Dogs are not racist against different breeds
yes only because the instincts to hate the outgroup have been bred out of them and they have been domesticated

>>14440931

help me get this girl (male) to post pics. dont actually waste time debating her shitty rhetoric

>>14440916
>Marx thought so. I'm not sure.
Okay? It's a pretty weak theory in that case.
>>14440931
>funny thing is I'm not a socialist
You're probably some succdem bordering on socialist.
Either way I dont care, I'm going to sleep now desu
>>14440935
You leftcels don't even know what you're talking about and your predictions will never come true.
Imagine being this ignorant about central banking as well.

>>14440886
>The US government has the largest debt of any entity in HISTORY
In my opinion you're not totally stupid (in fact, I think you're quite smart), but you have to admit you are [a] rather OCD, and [b] just starting your intellectual journey, and so [c] due to (a) you lock onto various 'truths' recently provided by (b). The fact that you are worried about US debt tells me you have much to learn about the monetary system and indeed 'central banking'. Don't reply to this anon, the best revenge is just to read more widely and blow us all away with your magnum opus.

>>14440965
>The fact that you are worried about US debt tells me you have much to learn about the monetary system
oh my poor anon,
you people are going to be in a world of hurt the next few years.
defending the status quo won't save you

>>14440038
>The fact that material reality is non-deterministic implies that there is a missing piece of the puzzle.
Could you elaborate this fact please?

Ontology is dependent on epistomology.
We don't know how much there is to be explored, nor what is true.
It's all in relation to what man can explore.
Marx created historical materialism deeply influenced of hegels dialectical idealism, it's a revolt against his teacher, trying to create something new.
We can not disprove the historical materialism, as it poses truth as selfexplanetory, something coming in virtue of itself, therefore being a quasi religion.

>>14440978
Thanks for your concern, but I don't expect anything other than hurt to inflict all living things in the years ahead, nor obviously am I a defender of the status quo.

>>14440038
>Marx's dialectical materialism was reductive.
Marx never used that phrase.

>Determinism is a property not of a system, but of knowledge of a system.
False. Determinism is a metaphysical thesis -- viz., the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

>The fact that material reality is non-deterministic implies that there is a missing piece of the puzzle.
There is zero evidence that reality is non-deterministic.

>The more we poke and prod and fiddle with the atomics of the material, the less sure we become of longstanding beliefs about the nature of the material. The fact that we are running out of road with regards to new scales to make observations in would further imply that we're not going to find that missing puzzle piece by assuming that the material is only affected by itself. This is not a case of merely where the line falls between complexity and randomness, but rather the complete and total incapability of the actual systems that drive the material realm to be understood to their finality.
Wow, what a load of poppycock. Stop talking about shit you don't understand, pseud.

>>14441065
>There is zero evidence that reality is non-deterministic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

>>14441130
oh nononono

>>14441130
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
Etc.

>>14441065
Everyone here believes in materialism, just not marx's specific dumb flavor of materialism.
Marxists like to pretend that all liberals are idealists or something.

>>14441146
how does this disprove the fact that reality is non deterministic.
cope

>>14441156
QM is 100% deterministic.

>>14441130
Just because WE can't determine it doesn't mean it isn't determined

>>14439851
Not necessarily, but that our economic relationships have a much greater impact on social life and our view on the world than we'd initially believe.

For instance slavery looks alot better to me if it's the basis for my whole region's economy which I happen to be near the top of.

>>14439851
Marxism views all of history as the result of underlying material conditions, each economic form is a historical inevitability of the previous one and is given rise to as a result of class struggle. I guess if you wanted to talk about "instinct" you'd basically be talking about "human nature" which is stunted by the process of alienation, however in Marxism this nature isn't a constant but rather is itself heavily molded by social and historical forces beyond mere biology.

>>14439851
As for the Marxist claim that racism, sexism, transphobia, etc are a result of Capitalism, it's useful to consider that in the Marxist dynamic of class warfare a strategy of the ruling class is to turn the proletariat against itself by dividing it along lines of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc...

>>14441156
on the macroscopic level reality is sufficiently deterministic, especially in the short term(which on a universal scale is for humans a very long fucking time,) that all matters of quantum mechanical non-determinism are sort of irrelevant.

>>14439851
>Isn't this wrong due to the fact humans have hardwired biological instincts that determine a great deal of their behavior?
"A great deal" is meaningless. Do you mean "majority"? Then you'd have a real argument. But then you'd be factually wrong, too.

>Neuroscience shows instincts are hard wired though.
That's the literally the definition of an instinct, what the fuck are you appealing to neuroscience for? Do you even know any neuroscience?

>Does dialectical materialism imply that all human behavior is the result of economic forces and classes etc?
No, believe it or not Marx does recognize the existence of a natural world, and does not believe that humans determined themselves into existence from spontaneous society.

>I've seen marxists claim that racism, sexism, transphobia are the result of capitalism. This doesn't make sense.
That's because you're stupid and don't think your thoughts through

>>14441160
nope.

>>14441322
None of this is a refuation of the op

>>14441249
>it's useful to consider that in the Marxist dynamic of class warfare a strategy of the ruling class is to turn the proletariat against itself by dividing it along lines of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc...
but this isn't happening, and isn't the result of capitalism
People naturally feel racist and homophobic and have done so for a long time.
You're a fucking moron holy shit

>>14441239
>Marxism views all of history as the result of underlying material conditions, each economic form is a historical inevitability of the previous one and is given rise to as a result of class struggle.
So basically it's bullshit?
Gotcha
>"human nature" which is stunted by the process of alienation
No, it's not. Instincts still exist regardless of whatever marxist construct has to say.

To claim that the material conditions are somehow resulting in massive changes in human behavior in spite of their instincts is wrong.

>in Marxism this nature isn't a constant but rather is itself heavily molded by social and historical forces beyond mere biology.
None of this can be proven.

>>14441249
This. (Obviously. Yet most /pol/tards here are thoroughly brainwashed and clueless on how the economy works, and hence are in need of a refresher).

Why do pseudo intellectual marxists still believe in this horseshit?

>>14441370
Ever hear of SJWism, dipshit?

>>14441379
Leftists are just as brainwashed as /pol/tards.
Imagine being stupid enough to think capitalism is somehow magically responsible for all of these horrible things as if racism and homophobia is a capitalist conspiracy.

You people are authoritarian religious cultists and I hope you just go away.

>>14441391
No idea what the fuck you're talking about, sorry.

>>14441390
I never said ideology can't quiet down some instincts, they're still fucking there though lol.
Read pinker you pseud.

>>14441397
>I can't read and I'm an indoctrinated marxist teen
You're fucking lost, you people are just as dumb as /pol/tards.
Go away.

>>14441391
It sorta depends on the leftist. An easy postmodern critique of Marxism is to point out that, in America, immense capital will not deliver a black person from their second-class status.

>>14441399
>Read pinker
I read his early, good books. What point are you trying to make?

>>14441322
>But then you'd be factually wrong, too.
What? lol
Are you implying human instincts aren't the main driving force behind human action?
You people don't understand biology/neuroscience/instincts whatsoever and think humans are endlessly plastic.

Are you proud of denying biology and being dumb?

>>14441402
No offense, but maybe it's time for you to stop drinking.

>>14441407
Black people have lower IQs and smaller brains which explains the gap, though. :^)

>>14441420
You still don't have an argument hehe.

>>14441425
Whereas 'Go away' is an argument?

Even if racism is produced by our instincts that dosen't mean that it is good. Instincts also tell us to eat in the times of stress and we know how that turns out.
>>14440466
Maybe for you, paleocortex.
>>14440473
>>14440485
Glow more.
>>14440767
You don't have to dehumanise other groups to recognize yours.
>>14440812
There would not be an army because there would be no need to struggle for resources.

>>14441441
see:
>>14441391

>>14441415
Yes, human beings are incredibly plastic in nature relative to other animals. That's why people are different in different places.

>You people don't understand biology/neuroscience/instincts whatsoever and think humans are endlessly plastic.
No one said "endlessly". That wouldn't make sense, for the basic fact of instincts existing, which I acknowledged. So that's not a valid response.

>Are you proud of denying biology and being dumb?
I'm confident in my scientific literacy, and I don't think you're speaking from any actual knowledge of biology or neuroscience as you're making yourself out to be.

>>14441366
Sure it is. It's just a step further than the usual, which would be answering his questions, which would be validating the questions, which wouldn't be appropriate considering the questions are invalid. So I'm here to point out that the questions are invalid.

To be fair I may have been a little too enigmatic, I'll simplify it:
1. Marx's theory does NOT "imply" that all human behavior is the result of social forces.
2. The majority of human behavior is not determined by hardwired biological instincts. (Hence why people behave differently in different places)
3. Marx does not deny the existence of instinct
4. Instinct is hardwired by definition, so it's not really about neuroscience, it's about dictionaries

>>14439851
The biological instincts don't dictate behavior but inform it. Otherwise it would be impossible to starve yourself, kill yourself, and Coomers would have a valid excuse. You are not a victim of biology you are a victim of your own lack of self control.

>>14440852
"Mutualism" can be an ambiguous term but yes -- I embrace that general perspective. Check out Proudhon first, then his American disciples: Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Lysander Spooner, et. al.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism_in_the_United_States

>>14441480
Read it and it doesn't address shit, neolib.

Are there actually people here that think the economic system is what determines everyone's beliefs, desires, emotions, etc?

How do people unironically believe something so fucking stupid?

>>14441515
>neolib
ah i love this childish uninformed leftist strawman
Do you actually believe the "material conditions" are what determines people's thoughts, desires and emotions?

Do you not believe in human instincts or something?
You people are stupid as rocks.

>>14440038
based

>>14441482
>Yes, human beings are incredibly plastic in nature relative to other animals.
So? We're still not infinitely plastic. We have hard wired emotions.

>No one said "endlessly".
So what portion of human action is determined by instincts and which is determined by "economic forces"?

>I'm confident in my scientific literacy
Is that why marxists are constantly laughed out of /sci/?

>1. Marx's theory does NOT "imply" that all human behavior is the result of social forces.
Okay so how much of human behavior does he claim is the result of social forces?
>The majority of human behavior is not determined by hardwired biological instincts.
This is empirically false. Please read pinker.
>why people behave differently
They may behave slightly differently but the underlying instincts are still there determining their core behavior.
>Marx does not deny the existence of instinct
I doubt that.

>>14441504
I will as long as you read some rothbard and stop being so scared of the capitalist as an economic actor.

>>14441492
>victim of your own lack of self control.
which it itself biologically determined

>>14441527
>uninformed leftist strawman
Speaking of which...

>Do you actually believe the "material conditions" are what determines people's thoughts, desires and emotions?
No, do you?

>Do you not believe in human instincts or something?
What makes you say that, con man?

>You people are stupid as rocks.
Prove it, bitch.

>>14441540
>No, do you?
Oh, okay good, I was mistaken and assumed countless marxists constantly make this argument on a daily basis, silly me.

>>14441539
>I will as long as you read some rothbard
I did, which (as explained) is the reason for this poignant olive branch moment....

>stop being so scared of the capitalist as an economic actor
I'm not, given that I am one myself. Logically, though, capital should be owned those who create it and use it.

>>14441557
>I did, which (as explained)
I doubt it, or else you would realize the capitalist benefits the worker, picrelated.

>capital should be owned those who create it and use it.
Yes, so the capitalist, should own the it.

>>14441567
I get that you're into Mises. But no, that's not how it works.

>>14441579
>But no, that's not how it works.
Explain why?

>>14440318
learn to read

>>14441586
Learn to understand basic neuroscience and genetics.

>>14441519
no, people don't believe this. you think Marx said
>economic system is what determines everyone's beliefs, desires, emotions, etc
which means you never read him. this is why people say read Marx. you don't know Marx, so all I can do is try and spoonfeed you like a sputtering autistic child determined to starve. this is closer to what Marx was talking about
>everything is material, therefore, all things are the result of material processes
>humans are formed by material processes
>this means that it is material conditions which determine human beliefs, desires, emotions, etc
>there is a process by which humans change the material conditions of their society called economics
>therefore changes in beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. are the result of changes in material conditions
>changes in the material conditions of society can also produce these changes
>therefore economics determines changes in beliefs, desires, emotions, etc
note that no where in here are the material conditions of society conflated with material conditions in a broad sense (i.e. there is plenty of room for instincts)

>>14441555
Props for at least admitting you fucked up.

>>14441601
>>humans are formed by material processes
Instincts being one of the major ones.
>>this means that it is material conditions which determine human beliefs, desires, emotions, etc
First off biological instincts ARE one of these major material conditions.
Secondly if we ignore this, then we are left with social forces being the material conditions, meaning marx thought social forces determine human beliefs, desires, emotions, etc
>>there is a process by which humans change the material conditions of their society called economics
That's not even close to what the word economics means, especially in the modern sense.
>>therefore changes in beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. are the result of changes in material conditions
Again, are you referring to economic conditions, social conditions, instincts? What?
>>changes in the material conditions of society can also produce these changes
It cannot change the underlying instincts, it can shape SOME aspects of human behavior though.
Base and superstructure are fucking bullshit.

Holy fuck, you just redpilled me hard on marxism, it's actually dumber than I once thought it was.
Why the fuck do you people still believe in this 1800s depreciated theory?

>>14441617
But seriously,
Countless marxists constantly make this argument on a daily basis.
and you're still wrong.

>>14441628
>First off biological instincts ARE one of these major material conditions.
yes, I know, I even explained that do you at the end of the argument because I thought you would treat this in bad faith and you still did lmao, no one is fucking ignoring this but you
>Again, are you referring to economic conditions, social conditions, instincts?
yes, those are all material conditions anon
>It cannot change the underlying instincts
again, literally no one, not even Marx, is making this claim. you are just reading into the argument what you already want to be there, this is the definition of bad faith

>>14441629
>Countless marxists constantly make this argument on a daily basis.
And countless m2f people (AKA 'trannies') constantly make the argument on a daily basis that they are legit 'women'. What you are saying is that self-identification as [X] is all it takes for you to acknowledge someone as legitimately [X]; is that correct?

>>14441643
>yes, I know
But you said that changes in the material conditions(which you include instincts AND economics) can somehow magically change human action, desires, beliefs etc etc.
You're actually saying that changing the economy can change people's actions, desires, beliefs etc but you're ignoring the fact instincts are also part of the material conditions and they are UNCHANGEABLE and HARD WIRED.
I'm aware that changing economic systems or elements of society can change SOME aspects of human behavior, but so can MANY different things like the weather, disease, random chance etc.
Why does marx specifically focus on economics and pretend that it's the most important thing(he's basically making it seem like it's the only thing).
The marxist idea of base and superstructure is also childish nonsense.

>again, literally no one, not even Marx, is making this claim.
You literally did though.

>>14441656
>And countless m2f people (AKA 'trannies') constantly make the argument on a daily basis that they are legit 'women'.
We are though.
GTFO

>>14441667
Relax and read a book outside your comfort zone, dear anon.

>>14441676
Relax and read a book outside your comfort zone, dear anon.

>>14441665
>You literally did though.
no, I didn't. economics cannot change instincts; you are making that claim up. economic changes the material conditions of SOCIETY. we have both agreed that instinct are hardwired and therefore cannot be material conditions of SOCIETY. this is my last post because you are either trolling or a literal double digit IQ retard unable to be rescued from their impairment
>magically
name one thing about the material conditions we have talked about that require magic. are you a fucking wiccan or something?
>Why does marx specifically focus on economics and pretend that it's the most important thing(he's basically making it seem like it's the only thing).
well if you read his books on economics that's what he's talking about, but that's not all he talked about at all. I already brought up his theory of nature that he expounds in the German Ideology, but his early work (the "humanist" Marx) he wrote about so many other things than economics; you just haven't actually read him. he wrote his PhD thesis was called "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature".

>>14441678
I've read it, and many of his others. From 'What Has Government Done to Our Money' to 'The Mystery of Banking' etc. His points about the inherent fraud of banking are undeniable. My general anticapitalism is only reinforced, though.

>>14441706
Read the austrian criticisms of mutualism. I mean even respond to that image I posted.

The capitalist benefits the worker, you don't understand how this works.

>>14440842
I hope this is copypasta

>communists are trying to pretend they are smart again
begone faggots

>>14441703
>economics cannot change instincts
You claimed instincts are part of "material conditions" and these material conditions can be changed through economics.
>economic changes the material conditions of SOCIETY.
But that society is strongly determined by instincts.
>this is my last post because
Because you got btfo and realized there are contradictions in your ideology?
>name one thing about the material conditions we have talked about that require magic
The idea that changing economics changes human action(while also simultaneously agreeing that instincts are hard wired, dictate behavior and cannot be changed) It cant be both

>well if you read his books on economics that's what he's talking about, but that's not all he talked about at all. I already brought up his theory of nature that he expounds in the German Ideology
All of this doesn't matter because economics isnt the main source of human actions and there are many other variables that determine it.

>>14441725
>The capitalist benefits the worker
"no"

>>14441730
>>communists are trying to pretend they are smart again
Let's be honest, they're pretty good at that.

>>14441744
see:
>>14441567

>>14441730
Marxists favorite words:

YOU HAVEN'T READ MARX!!!

>>14441703
O pinkerite, would you believe that all human behaviour are simply a direct result of our base biological instincts, or that it is plausible the many of our behaviours are rooted in material conditions, and that it isn't all or nothing between the Marxists and your biological reductionism

>>14441747
they are indeed very good at being smug and full of air with no understanding of basic human nature and economics

>>14441730
>>14441747
People with IQs above 60 understand that there exist economic systems other than Western capitalistic plutocracy (AKA oligarchic private ownership of the MoP) and centralized-state-capitalism (AKA, authoritarian bureaucratic ownership of the MoP). Of course, this is obviously not the best board for examining such systems.

>>14441767
>that there exist economic systems other than Western capitalistic plutocracy
Yeah, it's called free markets with free banking, the only thing that will actually save us from this neo-keynesian nightmare.

>private ownership of the MoP
Nothing wrong with letting people privately own the means of production.

Marxists are irrelevant losers, their time will come, trust me.

>>14441767
see there they go again pretending

>>14441763
It's definitely a mixture, even Pinker believes so.
Pinker isn't a biological determinist, I don't think anyone is.

Marxists however are dumb economic determinists.

>>14441775
>>14441776
Shut the fuck up

>>14441782

>>14441782
>Shut the fuck up

>>14441775
>free banking
Sorry, but banking in general is fraud. Read your Rothbard and have a think.

>>14441787
>banking in general is fraud
>he legitimately believes this

>>14441787
No it's not.
Fractional reserve banking is a fraud though.

>>14441740
>You claimed instincts are part of "material conditions"
they are
>these material conditions can be changed through economics
nope, a fabrication, read the argument again, and pay attention to the word society and how it's used
>But that society is strongly determined by instincts
yes this isn't an argument against Marx
>changing economics changes human action
lmao no, read the argument again, economics changes the material conditions of society, which are a part of material conditions (including instincts) which determine action
>It cant be both
wait, do you think all human action is a result of instinct? do you think that there is a singlar material condition which creates us? that's even dumber than your strawman for Marxism lmao. okay, night anon, have fun coping

>>14441790
Banking in general is fraud. Sorry you have trouble grasping this concept.

>>14441792
>No it's not. Fractional reserve banking is a fraud though.
Creating money out of nothing by lending money into existence is fraud: do we agree on that?

>>14441807
>nope, a fabrication, read the argument again, and pay attention to the word society and how it's used
lol marxist dogma is so fucking stupid

This is what you said:
>there is a process by which humans change the material conditions of their society called economics
>therefore changes in beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. are the result of changes in material conditions

You legitimately saying that economic factors change the material conditions of society(which you include instincts).
I mean it's pretty much black and white, you're just wrong.

>yes this isn't an argument against Marx
But it is. If society is strongly determined by instincts and not economic factors(which marx states) then marx is wrong.

>economics changes the material conditions of society
You just said instincts are part of these material conditions you fucking retard lmao

>which are a part of material conditions (including instincts) which determine action
Are you claiming economics can only change a portion of human action?
If so what percentage? This doesn't seem scientific at all.

>do you think all human action is a result of instinct?
No, I must have worded my point poorly.
When you say changing material conditions changes human action, this is false because changing material conditions can only change a PORTION of human action.

>have fun coping
have fun projecting after you got btfo

>>14441810
>Creating money out of nothing by lending money into existence is fraud: do we agree on that?
That's literally what fractional reserve banking is, and yes.

Stop pretending all banking is fractional reserve banking.
Free banking works by people depositing their money there and storing it for a fee.
Nothing fraudulent about that.

>>14441775
>Yeah, it's called free markets with free banking, the only thing that will actually save us from this neo-keynesian nightmare.

If there is private ownership of the means of production and competition, this leads inevitably to capital exploitation, which leads inevitably to profit driving the market, which leads to all of the idiotic disasters that got us to this shit world in the first place. Private owners of the means of production will do all of the same things all over again in the world you have imagined. Why wouldn't they?

At least Marxists are intelligent enough to say "the only way forward is literal revolution" Somehow your whole ideology is LESS realistic than the Marxist one, because at least theirs is internally consistent.

>>14441838
>If there is private ownership of the means of production and competition, this leads inevitably to capital exploitation
No it doesn't you religious fundie.
It leads to increased living standards for the working class. See the past 150 years of economic development.
inb4 muh unions and other non arguments

>which leads inevitably to profit driving the market, which leads to all of the idiotic disasters that got us to this shit world in the first place.
Profit didn't cause those things, central banking and government interventions did.

>Private owners of the means of production will do all of the same things all over again in the world you have imagined.
Why did eras of actual free banking in history result in an extremely stable economy?
You're just wrong.

>At least Marxists are intelligent
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
Confusing correlation with causation and claiming extremely vague general things caused unrelated problems isn't intelligent.

>because at least theirs is internally consistent.
But it's not lmao, you're just an indoctrinated sperg

>>14441838
A socialist economy is just a massive economic depression the entire time lmao

>>14440694

I agree that it is fraudulent, but maintain that it is only so because money itself is fraudulent, only tied to anything "real", i.e. grossly Phenomenal, by public opinion alone.

>>14441537
>So? We're still not infinitely plastic.
lol what we just went over this, and there's literally no reason for you to have interpreted that in the first place. I said "incredibly plastic relative to other animals". You're coming back at me with "infinite". That's obviously incompatible with the existence of instincts, and I acknowledged the existence of instincts, so that's incompatible with my argument.

>So what portion of human action is determined by instincts and which is determined by "economic forces"?
Before I answer that question, are you seriously doubting the fact that economic forces can determine a human action?

>Okay so how much of human behavior does he claim is the result of social forces?
I doubt there's an answer to that, nor do I see why there would need to be. Let us say... "A great deal"

>This is empirically false. Please read pinker.
Don't be coy, if you know something then enlighten us.

>They may behave slightly differently but the underlying instincts are still there determining their core behavior.
Vague language, you're not really making a point.
>I doubt that.
Here's a passage from Marx that I looked up for you on the internet.
"Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers – he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities – as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs – essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers"

>>14441834
>That's literally what fractional reserve banking is
No, it isn't .

>, and yes.
Good.

>Stop pretending all banking is fractional reserve banking.
Sorry, but all banking involves creating money via the extension of credit.

>Free banking works by people depositing their money there and storing it for a fee.
No. That's not 'free banking'.

>Nothing fraudulent about that.
Nothing *would* be fraudulent about that. That's just not the world we live in.

>>14441857
OK. Where do we go from here?

>>14441882

To God.

>>14441859
>I said "incredibly plastic relative to other animals".
So what? Leftists like to pretend that all human behavior is socially constructed.
>are you seriously doubting the fact that economic forces can determine a human action?
They certainly do but they're much less a factor than instincts.
>I doubt there's an answer to that
Then your theory isn't scientific.
Marxism wasn't very scientific in the first place.
>"A great deal"
Great, more unfalsifiable garbage. Come to /sci/ so we can laugh at you.
>if you know something then enlighten us.
You are completely ignorant on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology. Please read a book.
>Vague language, you're not really making a point.
I'm not being vague, read it again.
>Here's a passage from Marx
Who gives a shit? He may have believed in basic survival type instincts but none of the more important higher level instincts.

>>14441870
>No, it isn't .
Yes it is.
>Sorry, but all banking involves creating money via the extension of credit.
NO IT DOESNT LMAO
Doing what you are talking about is illegal in a free market, it's called fraud.

>>14441843
my friend capital invents central banking to further its own expansion, it incestuously grants itself these government interventions to save itself. How many hundreds of millions of government dollars did the executives of capital firms get away as a result of the 2008 finanical crisis? Capital controls government. Who writes these laws but the senators and congressmen? Do you really think they are not simple pawns of capitalist institutions? If not, then why does the government intervene to keep them alive, to inject immense amounts of cash into their own personal pockets?

Also, your fabled improved living conditions are nothing but a sham. Look at where your products are made next time you buy one, idiot. China, Vietnam, Bangladesh.. the slaves just went overseas. Out of sight, out of mind right? Well how about Amazon warehouse employees in your own country who are worked like fucking dogs? Oh they're just a lower class right and you're well off right? Capital will come for you too.

>>14441900
>my friend capital invents central banking to further its own expansion, it incestuously grants itself these government interventions to save itself. How many hundreds of millions of government dollars did the executives of capital firms get away as a result of the 2008 finanical crisis? Capital controls government. Who writes these laws but the senators and congressmen? Do you really think they are not simple pawns of capitalist institutions? If not, then why does the government intervene to keep them alive, to inject immense amounts of cash into their own personal pockets?
Holy shit you're stupid.
Libertarians have been talking about capitalist control of state institutions for over 100 years.
People let this happen because they're fucking stupid.
If we had the political will to stop this it would be stopped in a second.
We just need a free market.

>your fabled improved living conditions are nothing but a sham
Really? I work 40 hours a week and have much more consumption and longer life expectancy when 150 years ago I would have worked a lot longer and had less consumption

>China, Vietnam, Bangladesh..
It's not my fault these countries are too stupid to free their markets and allow their currencies to rise.

>Well how about Amazon warehouse employees in your own country who are worked like fucking dogs?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Based.
I love seething amazon employee complaining while they get higher wages than others in their industry.
Give me my programming socks and cosplay uniforms you lazy scum.

>>14441911
Anon.. I don't think the capitalists who make hundreds of millions of dollars from government bailouts are stupid! They get pretty rich doing it!

>>14441918
and we've been against those things while the vast majority of liberals/leftists supported it

>>14439851
>Neuroscience shows instincts are hard wired though.
Do you mean SYNTHETHIC A PRIORI

>>14441941
well, I'm pretty sure that private property necessitates a government (who enforces whose property is whose but the government?), and if there's a government, then it would be controlled by capital, which would again get us back to square one (capitalists inventing central banking for themselves, bailing themselves out, etc).

Seems like we need to get rid of private property! some kind of communistic society, where everyone owns the means of production.

>>14441959
>well, I'm pretty sure that private property necessitates a government
you'd be wrong and it's always funny when indoctrinated leftists make this childish mistake
private property was enforced on a market many times in history
just one example
https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west

>Seems like we need to get rid of private property!
No, we need to abolish socialism and excess statism.
The people can easily overtake the capitalists, people are just stupid, we need the political will.
If people were informed about this shit, businesses wouldnt get away with manipulating the state.
>everyone owns the means of production.
impossible because everyone cannot own everything at once, you would only symbolically own it

>>14441890
>So what? Leftists like to pretend that all human behavior is socially constructed.
Oh is that what this is about? I don't really care about your political feelings, I'm not here to defend the left or even Marx, I'm just keeping the facts straight.

>They certainly do but they're much less a factor than instincts.
Maybe, if we're distinguishing them from "social" factors.
>Then your theory isn't scientific.
Bullshit

>Marxism wasn't very scientific in the first place.
Sure, I agree. It is different.

>Great, more unfalsifiable garbage. Come to /sci/ so we can laugh at you.
Why would I care about /sci/'s opinion on Marx

>You are completely ignorant on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology. Please read a book.
In other words, you don't have anything, and have been pretending.

>Who gives a shit? He may have believed in basic survival type instincts but none of the more important higher level instincts.
LOL that's an interesting way of handling being wrong. You made the point, now it's "who cares".
> basic survival type instincts but none of the more important higher level instincts
Please explain to me the distinction with examples.

>>14441963
>if everyone were brainwashed like me we'd have a utopia

>>14439851
>Does dialectical materialism imply that all human behavior is the result of economic forces and classes etc?
No
>Doesn't it say that humans are solely the product of their "material conditions"?
Did you even read anything you retarded waste of space pseud?

>>14441963
Read Hegel. Read Plato.

>>14441969
>>if everyone were brainwashed like me we'd have a utopia
but this is what marxists believe

>>14441972
>Read Hegel.
If I could go back in time and shoot Hegel I would.

>>14440753
lol no they're not
it's all just conservative incels talking on imaginary leftists, calling them incels

>>14441973
This is what all ideologues believe

>>14441975
the only way to kill a book is with another book. and the first step to that is to read him. Try living in the real world not fantasy time travel world.

>>14441991
>Try living in the real world
>from the brain damaged hegel reader
I feel sorry for you.

>>14441973
>marxist explains his argument logically of (if x, then y, therefore we must do z) in the form of (if private ownership exists, then they control the government and therefore us, so we must abolish it via revolution)
>it's just brainwashing!
>>14441996
>reading a book makes you brain damaged
silly anon! you're smarter than that! You can read a book not believe all of its ideas!

>>14441978
Look at this seething leftist projecting hard.
I'm a trans female that has sex regularly and yes. the left is filled with incels.
If you're irrationally angry and support violence and totalitarianism, you're most likely an incel.

>>14442003
>>reading a book makes you brain damaged
reading a book filled with garbage and contradiction does, yes

>>14442006
how do you know that it's filled with these things when you haven't read it?

>>14442003
>>marxist explains his argument logically of (if x, then y, therefore we must do z) in the form of (if private ownership exists, then they control the government and therefore us, so we must abolish it via revolution)
>>it's just brainwashing!
There's nothing rational about what you dogmatic shit eating manchildren believe.
A VERY large percentage of you believe totalitarian dictatorships that enslave millions are totally fine as long as they call themselves the working class.
They actually believe if everyone was brainwashed like them, they would have a utopia.

>>14439851
I would make this consistent by saying that racism, sexism, transphobia etc are the social expression of what (for arguments sake) are "natural" prejudices.
If I don't like black people, that's a prejudice. But it's not that socially meaningful. If I refuse to rent to black people, now we've made my prejudice into something notable - I'm leveraging my economic power over them. If private property was abolished (i.e. I only owned the house I live in, not 5 other houses that I rent out but would never live in.) that wouldn't be possible.

i.e. racism, sexism, etc are social forces rather than character traits of individuals. what matters isn't that some people are prejudiced, but that some people have the power to use their prejudices to harm others or to encourage others to share those prejudices. furthermore, some people who aren't prejudiced nonetheless see the value in exploiting or encouraging prejudices (either directly to benefit them - like discouraging a mixed sex workforce from unionizing - or indirectly, like realizing that racism is a great marketing tool for your nazi flag factory.)

>>14442010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Criticism

>>14442010
>The physicist and philosopher Ludwig Boltzmann also criticized the obscure complexity of Hegel's works, referring to Hegel's writing as an "unclear thoughtless flow of words"

>>14440011
Our instincts are hardwired to care about ingroups and outgroups. Those groups themselves can be socially conditioned.
Look at Singapore for an example of how you can whip a multicultural society and in-group identity into existence. People may naturally be distrustful of those who look different to them, but you can definitely alter those loyalties so that something else replaces it - such as nationality.
The racial issue takes such prominence because the US fucked up the nation building process when it came to being a multiracial state since it didn't want to be one in the first place. Not all countries make that mistake.

>>14442045
>Our instincts are hardwired to care about ingroups
You coming on to me?

>>14442062
maybe :3

>>14442064
Well, I've spent a good number of days in Singapore, and I've leave it at that.

How do we physically remove all of the marxists?

>>14442088
>and I've leave
*meant: "and I'll leave"

>>14442011
anon, you haven't explained to me how we can have private capital with it leading to becoming too powerful and dominating the government and therefore the laws, and therefore the people! Why wouldn't private property owners do that as long as they exist? They make out like bandits, it's not like they hurt themselves doing it, only others!
>>14442016
That's nice. Have you tried being able to put things into your own words? I think that's how discussions between people work.

>>14442064
not me

>>14442164
>you haven't explained to me how we can have private capital with it leading to becoming too powerful and dominating the government
yes I did, the will of the people.
Restructure the government and the constitution, make lobbying punishable by death.
Have actual politicians that are against such things and support free markets.
If the public knew what was going on they would vote for free market politicians.

>hy wouldn't private property owners do that as long as they exist?
Why do you assume once private property is outlawed, the people and the state wouldn't be JUST as corrupt, as if the working class is infallible.

>>14439896
>so basically you think that racism is something that you are born with, apparently neuroscience 'shows' this (it doesn't)
Explain in group bias then nigger

>>14439851
>Does dialectical materialism imply that all human behavior is the result of economic forces and classes etc?
Yes, in the last instance.

>Isn't this wrong due to the fact humans have hardwired biological instincts that determine a great deal of their behavior?
Genes express themselves based on the environment. Genes somehow responsible for racism, sexism and transphobia might express themselves differently / not express themselves at all, depending on the social environment the inidivual lives within.

>>14441963
Fresh colonies have unique circumstances -- there's an abundance of land and everyone who comes along can become a self-sufficient small framer. As long as those conditions last, there's no class conflict and almost no need for a state. But this is only an exception from very particular places at very particular times.
Marx writes about this in the last chapter of vol. I of Capital btw.

>impossible because everyone cannot own everything at once, you would only symbolically own it
That's right. The concept of ownership disappears in socialism.

>>14442209
>Genes express themselves based on the environment.
Not all genes, you don't understand what epigenetics even means.
Dumb marxists denying basic science as usual.
People like you are what created Lysenkoism

>Genes somehow responsible for racism, sexism and transphobia might express themselves differently / not express themselves at all, depending on the social environment the inidivual lives within.
It's not that simple at all, it's much more complex.

>there's an abundance of land and everyone who comes along can become a self-sufficient small framer.
desu, anti statist polycentric law societies existed in places with massively used up land

>The concept of ownership disappears in socialism.
That fucking sucks then. Who the fuck would support such a fucking thing?
You symbolically "own" the means of production but you cannot modify it in any way because millions of other people also own it?
Also you can't own your own means of production personally either.
You people are retarded, no wonder your theories don't work.

Why the fuck do you people still exist? Is it brain damage?

>>14442209
>Genes somehow responsible for racism, sexism and transphobia might express themselves differently / not express themselves at all, depending on the social environment the inidivual lives within.
This isn't even the marxist position on the topic though.

>>14442234
>Not all genes, you don't understand what epigenetics even means.
All genes.

>It's not that simple at all, it's much more complex.
Of course it's not, In response to a simplification you're going to get a simplification. The important point is that genes don't determine "you're going to be racist no matter what", and therefore there's no contradiction between genes determining behaviour and the environment determining behaviour.

>That fucking sucks then. Who the fuck would support such a fucking thing?
People who will be living in a socialist society.

>>14442253
Marxism doesn't have a position on genetics, because it isn't a study of genetics.

>statist polycentric law societies existed in places with massively used up land
Such as?

>You symbolically "own" the means of production but you cannot modify it in any way because millions of other people also own it?
Nobody owns it, I just explained that.

>>14442259
>All genes.
Not even true.
>The important point is that genes don't determine "you're going to be racist no matter what"
They definitely influence the brain and make it much more likely that you're going to be racist than if you didn't have those genes.
Upbringing is much more important than epigentics you fucking idiot.
There's no evidence that social conditioning "turns off" racism genes.

>People who will be living in a socialist society.
so nobody?
everyone would fight against such an authoritarian and stupid system

>Nobody owns it,
What if people wanted to own it? Who's stopping them? People like to own things to better their lives.

>>14442272
>They definitely influence the brain and make it much more likely that you're going to be racist than if you didn't have those genes.
Means nothing until you can show that the initial probability is substantial.
>Upbringing is much more important than epigentics you fucking idiot.
Ok? I don't know what that has to do with what I wrote. I include upbringing under environment.
>There's no evidence that social conditioning "turns off" racism genes.
There's no evidence people are racist regardless of the environment in the first place.
>everyone would fight against such an authoritarian and stupid system
How do you know?
>What if people wanted to own it? Who's stopping them?
The police.
>People like to own things to better their lives.
No, they like to use things to better their lives, and they still can do that under socialism.

>>14442317
>Means nothing until you can show
You're the one that started making wild claims about genetics that aren't even true.
Prove your claims.
>There's no evidence people are racist regardless of the environment in the first place.
Except you know, all of human history and even in the animal kingdom.
>How do you know?
People don't enjoy being enslaved.
>The police.
The people would rise up and shoot the police.
I find the ACAB stuff hilarious actually because leftists LOVE police.
>they like to use things to better their lives, and they still can do that under socialism.
No, they want to OWN things and they will fight to do so. A socialist state is preventing them from doing this.
The people would rise up to kill you people.

>>14442352
>You're the one that started making wild claims about genetics that aren't even true.
First, it was OP who made the first claim: that genetic determination is incompatible with economic determination.
Secondly, my claim that all genes depend upon the environment for the expression is analytically true and needs no empirical proof, since there's no genetic expression at all outside of an environment -- humans never live in a vacuum.
>People don't enjoy being enslaved.
They wouldn't be enslaved. Slavery requires a differentiation with regards to the means of production -- a class society. There have to be those able to enslave and those enslaved.
There's no longer a class society in socialism.
>The people would rise up and shoot the police.
Ok, if you say so.
>I find the ACAB stuff hilarious actually because leftists LOVE police.
I'm not a leftist.
>No, they want to OWN things and they will fight to do so.
Only because today they have to own things first in order to be able to use them.

>>14442394
>slavery requires a class society
More marxist religious dogma, you can have slavery in a socialist society. The entire fucking society is enslaved if its state socialism, you aren't allowed to own property or trade with people.

>Ok, if you say so.
True and it happened when the ussr fell.

>Only because today they have to own things first in order to be able to use them.
Wrong, people want to own things regardless.

>>14442411
There's no "state socialism". The political state is absent in socialism, because there's no class domination left to be enforced.
>you aren't allowed to own property or trade with people.
So what?
>True and it happened when the ussr fell.
USSR had private property.
>Wrong, people want to own things regardless.
Now they do, because they live under the regime of private property where they need to own property if they want to get to live and use things.

>>14442471
>There's no "state socialism".
Oh, you're another one of those "not real socialism" people.
Sorry about your loss of brain cells.

>The political state is absent in socialism, because there's no class domination
What? Why wouldn't there be a state to enforce rules like property norms? What if someone steals from you? What if people get raped or killed? Who is going to manage production or environmental regulations etc? Would drugs be banned?
How is this not a state? You people are naive religious fundamentalists.

>So what?
Your right to freely associate and trade with others is restricted by other people, its authoritarian.
>USSR had private property.
tiny amount, it was a socialist state that people rebelled against me,
look retard, I got people in another thread telling me the USSR was a socialist state and a great thing
you socialists all contradict each other
>because they live under the regime of private property where they need to own property if they want to get to live and use things.
This isn't a fact of private property, it's a fact of reality.
I want to own things, if someone tries to steal my shit I will use force to stop them from doing so.

Communists like yourself aren't even human, you don't deserve rights.

>>14442487
>Why wouldn't there be a state to enforce rules like property norms?
There's no property in socialism.
>What if someone steals from you?
Then you get the thing replaced and they get punished.
>What if people get raped or killed?
The perpetrators get caught by the organ of society responsible for dealing with criminals.
>Who is going to manage production or environmental regulations etc?
The administrative social organs that get tasked with that.
>Would drugs be banned?
I don't know.
>How is this not a state?
A state has a political function of sustaining class society. Pure administration is apolitical.
>Your right to freely associate and trade with others is restricted by other people, its authoritarian.
It's not restricted by anyone. It's simply not granted, just like the the right to go out naked and take a shit in the middle of the street is not granted for you today.
>it was a socialist state
No it wasn't, a socialist society is stateless and classless.
>I got people in another thread telling me the USSR was a socialist state and a great thing you socialists all contradict each other
People who don't understand socialism can't be socialists. If your issue is that people often misidentify themselves, then this is true of everyone and everything, and not at all limited to supposed socialists.
>This isn't a fact of private property, it's a fact of reality.
No, it isn't. It's not necessary under all social configurations that you need legally binding pieces of paper recognizing your property in things in order to be able to live. You only need to be able to use things.
>I want to own things, if someone tries to steal my shit I will use force to stop them from doing so.
Ok.
>you don't deserve rights.
I don't want rights.

>>14442566
Braindead tankie

>>14439851
A lion also has great biological instincts. If he is born inside a cage, he won't be such a proud killer. He'll be tamed.
You do not escape the mode of production. Perhaps you can move away from it a little.

>>14439851
>I've seen marxists claim that racism, sexism, transphobia are the result of capitalism. This doesn't make sense.
I'm Marxist, and those "Marxists" are, as usual, probably "Marxists" who haven't read Marx.
Capitalism is totally in favor of anti-racism, feminism, LGBT. It is used to break class struggle (LGBTs don't give a shit about factory workers), and put more worker on the labor market (women, immigrants), in order to dump the wages, and thus make more profit.

Wouldnt racism still exist just based on culture and history. Seems wishful that once le ebic communism happens people wont bitch about whites, blacks or whatever

>>14441843
>Profit didn't cause those things, central banking and government interventions did.
Okay an other guy who thinks "central banks are responsible for everything" fag.
Like it was not Capitalism which created central banking in the first place. Why did central banks emerge with the develpment of Capitalism? Why not in antiquity, or under feudalism? Why the more a country is Capitalist, the more probability he has a central bank? Okay Rotschild conspiracy. But why is it everywhere, and why it leads to more profit thorough monetary regulation? By the way, no, the economy wasn't "extremely stable" before central banking". That's a lie, or most likely pure ignorance. There was a lot of massive inflation situations already before central banking. And the gold standard, if it is stable indeed, undeniably slow down economic growth. Banks already had fractional reserve before the US federal reserve (1913). What's more, before central banking, before 1913, the private banks which created money where already owned by the same oligarchs. So even without a gigantic central bank named the federal reserve, they could have organized themselves in order to have the money creation they wanted, even without a central bank. Suppress central bank, and there would still be huge monopolistic abuse like google, facebook or intel. Wage slave exploitation to the bone. Mass immigration. 3rd wave feminism. LGBT culture, and most especially, massive destruction of nature. Those are driven by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, not by "central banks". Central banks are only a part of the problem. Absolutely not the problem as a whole.

>>14440767
>Racism wasn't "invented".

Racism was invented though. By a fella named Charles Darwin

>>14442797
Elements of culture can't persist on their own for long. If the base social relations change then culture has to adapt. If some elements can't adapt because they're no longer compatible with the base, then the culture dies out. Look at what happened with Christianity in Western Europe during the last century.
Racism is ultimately incompatible with a unitary society without class and national distinctions, but it won't disappear immediately and without effort directed against it.

>>14439851
YES! Yes he was, is and will always be wrong.
Marxism the is reason for everything bad that happened in europe for the last 100 years.

>>14442797
>>14442886
To be clear, the example of Christianity is just an analogy that doesn't go all the way, since Christianity is still compatible with capitalism.

>>14442886
So when is this new soviet man going to appear?

>>14442906
I've always found this blank slate bollocks to be just that

>>14440785
You don't seem to understand the difference between instinct and behavior...
Instinct is: I am hungry, need food.
Bavior is: Club animal to death/ Go in store buy clubbed animal.

>>14442922
People still hunt though.

>>14440915
yes because dogs are stupid. dogs fuck white women because they can't distinguish dog pussy from white female pussy.

>>14442886
I dont think you can ever avoid geographic distinctions though, people will settle certain areas and new identities will arise eventually, hell even more of these will probably happen since there isnt supposed to be a state that kind of reigns people in. We can race mix all day but eventually it will just make new distinctions, will people hate each other over them? Hard to say but I dont find it likely

>>14442930
and? what that fuck are you trying to say?

>>14442947
just that I don't think it has a massive effect on behavior either. hunting might not be needed for food anymore but people still do it.

>>14442910
Soviet is a form of political organization. Socialism appears only after politics has died. The Social Man is going to fully constitute himself in a higher stage of socialism. That's pretty much a tautology, but you'll have to do with that since I don't have a date to give you, obviously.

>>14442941
Sure, but that will be much less pronounced than ever due to the fact that society will be unified instead of being parceled into antagonistic nation-states. Such incidental distinctions won't be nearly strong enough to support racism.

>racism is instinct
All ideology and a weak reading of history.

lmao not a Marxist but OP is an illiterate retard who can't even process the most basic readings of Marx. I thought trannys were supposed to be intelligent

>>14441740
Instincs dictate behaviour, but they are not the only thing that dictate behaviour.
>>14441567
>what is monopoly
>>14441911
Reminder that USSR was first country to limit work hours to 8 per day.

>>14439851
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is an obligatory read

>>14443815
Fuck wrong thread. Also marxist leninism is correct in every way