/lit/ - Literature

If you are interested in philosophy the entire 20th century revolves around him even if its to refute him

>>14450833
>Why should *we read this guy

>>14450833
It depends what mental illness you have

>>14450833
You should read him if you're interested in understanding the world as a whole.

>>14450833
because he's among the top 10 most important people in human history

>>14450833
He's the origin of a lot of social theories.
Theories that seem pretty self evident now but had never been articulated before him
You don't have to agree with him but actually understanding his ideas and hearing them from the source (instead of a /pol/ thread or subreddit or buzzfeed article) will greatly help you communicate your own social theories and understand others' as well.
Even my conservative econ professors made us read him.

He's the most influential political philosopher of the last 150 years

You shouldn't.

All of his theories have been debunked by Mises, Bohm Bawerk and others.

None of marx's predictions have come true or will come true.
Marxists confuse correlation with causation.
Dialectical Materialism is pseudoscience.

They're going to keep getting btfo for the next 100 years and it's going to be glorious.

Imagine being dumb enough to believe in historical materialism.

Imagine being dumb enough to believe in the labour theory of value.

Imagine being dumb enough to believe in marxist "alienation".

Imagine being dumb enough to believe in the marxist doctrine of "ideology".

Imagine being dumb enough to believe in class struggle.

Imagine being dumb enough to believe in late stage capitalism.

>>14450833
The guy's naive. The purpose of literally every human culture in the history of mankind was to create an underclass of laborers you could treat like livestock. That's honest to god the entire point of culture in the first place, to dupe stupid people into doing shitty jobs. This guy thinks we're going to just suddenly change fundamental human nature and start being genuine and nice.

If Marx was so dumb, how come his ideas inspire every single modern revolutionary movement in the world?

>>14450833
If you like reading autistic screeching from angry journalists and you’ve run out of blue checks to read

>>14451509
>>14451502
>>14451497
>>14451490
>>14451483
>>14451478
delet this

>>14451525
Because humans are dumb.

>>14451526
>revolutionaries
>smart

Anon, pls.

Why do marxists still exist?

>>14451478
>>14451483
>>14451490
>>14451497
>>14451502
>>14451509
The motivated reasoning here is off the charts.

>>14451475
Terrible bait. I can tell this isn't your home board

>>14451669
>no argument
okay then

>>14451478
>>14451483
>>14451490
>>14451497
Wow you sure disproved him with all these pop philosophy blog posts

>>14451673
You are arguing in bad faith, there is no need to take you seriously.

>>14451675
>disproved him
Marxism is a joke, sorry.
>pop philosophy blog posts
That you cannot refute?

friendly reminder to all commies that there will never be a classless stateless society that isn't a small group of hunter gatherers.

>>14451682
>no argument

>>14451682
how convenient for the commies lmao. you dont have to defend your arguments because the other side are simply acting in 'bad faith'.

Do marxists actually believe ALL of marxist ideology?
Certain marx was wrong about some things, no?

Why do they take everything he said as gospel?
He couldn't even finish capital vol 3 because I guessed he realized there were flaws in his theories.

>>14451483
This is some heavy stuff that I'm too stupid to read.

>>14451697
The point is that you are going to reject it no matter what based on your ideology. It doesn't matter what Marx wrote to you

>>14451727
>The point is that you are going to reject it no matter what based on your ideology.
Marxists do this all the time.

>>14451698
Marxism is not an ideology.
>He couldn't even finish capital vol 3 because I guessed he realized there were flaws in his theories.
He was busy learning Russian and studying the Russian question.

>>14451766
>Marxism is not an ideology.
Yes, it is.

>He was busy learning Russian and studying the Russian question.
nigga, when he died they found a bunch of books of economic statistics in his room, he was trying to figure out vol3 for years and couldnt do it

>>14451727
You sound like a scientologist talking about 'negative people' kek

>>14451735
So you came here to get in a screaming match?

>>14451777
Marxism is the economic equivalent of scientology.
Dianetical Materialism lmao

>>14451687
honest question: who exactly did the communists allegedly murder? were they targeting people based on their ethnicity? race? religion? wealth? if commies were going after wealthy landlords and corporate elite, then killing millions of them would be fucking based

>>14451801
>he thinks killing people with more money than him will increase his living standards whatsover

>>14451801
A bit from each catergory

so you can understand why marxists are retarded and why he's grossly misunderstood

>>14451478
>On the other hand, we are also faced with the term "mode of production," which seems to be the same thing as material productive forces, or the sum of, or systems of, technological methods.
Wrong. The mode of production is the totality of the relations of production and the superstructure.
>These "relations of production," also extremely vaguely defined, seems to be essentially legal and property relations.
No, laws forms part of the superstructure.
>the "superstructure," which includes natural science
Natural science forms part of the productive forces and therefore is in the base.

This garbage gets everything backwards. Unbelievable. Is this some sort of an elaborate false flag to make anti-Marxists seem retarded? Because it does the job.

>>14451774
>nigga, when he died they found a bunch of books of economic statistics in his room
No shit it was, he obviously wasn't finished with his work. What else would you expect to find in his office? That doesn't mean he "couldn't figure it out" though. He was instead busy with the Russian question, which was a much more immediate issue for the revolutionary movement than polishing Vols 2 & 3, and that's why he prioritized that.

>>14451804
>doesn't think killing your enemies is good
i'm sure it's the blacks and mexicans who are raising my rent and depressing my wages, not the parasite trustfundies in new york

>>14451690
>Hutterites

>>14451848
>he unironically believes in base and superstructure
not even all marxists believe in it, it's more religious dogma than anything

>>14451848
>No shit it was, he obviously wasn't finished with his work.
phhtt, he had plenty of time, over a decade

Imagine actually being a marxist

>>14451848
>Natural science forms part of the productive forces and therefore is in the base.
Do marxists include human instincts within the base?
If so why do they think changing the economic system will also change the superstructure if a part of the base(instincts) cannot be changed by changing the economy or mode of production?

>>14451859
Central banking is stagnating your wages, not the capitalists. If you took all of the capitalists money, it wouldn't allow you to buy more stuff or work less hours, it would just raise prices.

>>14451690
Yeah sure

>>14451932
The only thing more cringe than the "but you use capitalist products, checkmate commies" argument is the commies autistic "muh feudalism" refutation to this argument.
Kill yourself.

>>14451932
No socialist country has ever even come close to disbanding the state

>>14451954
But I thought the state would wither away lol

>>14451916
Humans will stay humans. Nothing will be perfect under a classless society, but it will be a society without systematical exploitation from one class to another.
>>14451922
Capitalism has a great output. There no denying this. However, production output =/= quality of life.

>>14451954
Get back to me in 1,000 years

>>14451945
Explain. Feudalism obviously wasn't the last societal structure and there is no reason to think Capitalism will be either.

>>14451848
>>14451478
To be clear: the mode of production obviously also includes the productive forces.
And it turns out I didn't have to say that laws form part of the superstructure, because the author does it himself in the same paragraph. But earlier he writes that legal relations form part of the relations of production. The possible explanations are:
1) He is retarded and forgot what he wrote 2 sentences earlier.
2) He is retarded and doesn't understand that legal relations and laws are the same thing.
3) He is retarded and doesn't understand that the relations of production are according to Marxism in the base.

>>14451903
That's really not a lot, considering how much work was before him and also the fact that he was a dying old man. Here's an example of what he was doing:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-social-history/article/marx-and-world-history/8F33AEDD61A0997182DFA1EAC88B9714
>In 1881–1882, Marx undertook extensive historical studies, covering a large part of what was then known as “world history”. The four large notebooks with excerpts from the works of (mainly) two leading historian of his time, Schlosser and Botta, have remained largely unpublished.… The range and scope of his notes is astoundingly broad, going far beyond European history and actually covering many other parts of the world. Marx’s focus in these studies supports the interpretation offered in the article: that the author of “Capital” was fascinated by the long process of the making of the modern states and the European states system, one of the crucial prerequisites of the rise of modern capitalism in Europe.

>>14451916
What are "human instincts"?
>If so why do they think changing the economic system will also change the superstructure
Because it's an empirically fact that the superstructure changes with the base. Compare the ideology of democratic liberalism with the ideology of feudalism.

>>14451968
It won't wither away if the political power is captured by counter-revoutionaries and the revolution is destroyed.

>>14451972
>Nothing will be perfect under a classless society, but it will be a society without systematical exploitation from one class to another.
The idea that the state would wither away though is extremely stupid, you would still need a state to stop people's primal urges, murder, rape, theft etc

>However, production output =/= quality of life.
Sure, but quality of life has definitely increased. I don't see how socialism would increase output or quality of life.
I see the capitalists as a necessity and beneficial to the working class by planning the structure of production and taking risk.

>>14451980
>It won't wither away if the political power is captured by counter-revoutionaries and the revolution is destroyed.
It won't wither away anyway. Stateless socialism/communism is a myth.
Human nature is actually real, despite what the communists would have you believe.

>>14451980
>Because it's an empirically fact that the superstructure changes with the base.
There is nothing empirical about this whatsover.
>Compare the ideology of democratic liberalism with the ideology of feudalism.
All this means is that government/economic systems can change society and culture.
I mean no shit, tons of things can change society and culture, you don't need base and superstructure just-so stories to explain this.

Don't

>>14452000
>There is nothing empirical about this whatsover.
Empirical means based on experience rather than on pure logical deduction.
>All this means is that government/economic systems can change society and culture.
Yes, that pretty much it. Transformations in ideology correspond to transformations in relations of production. That's all it means. I don't know what your point is in asking the question and what "just-so" stories you're talking about, because you literally just repeated pretty much what I meant, except using a little more vague langue.

>>14452012
epic based btfo upvoted

>>14452031
he's right though, marxists think they have secret knowledge or something when you really have no idea what you're talking about

>>14452020
>Empirical means based on experience rather than on pure logical deduction.
Sure but most of the time you're just confirming your bias. Christians think they are empirical too.
>That's all it means.
It certainly means more than that and makes a lot of mistakes.
>Transformations in ideology correspond to transformations in relations of production.
But MANY different things also do this, it's not just confined to these things.
This isn't profound or anything.
Also many aspects of ideology cannot be changed as they are part of human instincts.

>>14451570
Because it's basically correct even though it says things many people, especially the most powerful in current society, do not want to hear. Marxism is akin to Darwinism, if the Darwinists had "lost" the early debate among sympathizers and the more religious.

It's hard to truly kill something which logic supports, no matter how taboo.

>>14451698
>He couldn't even finish capital vol 3 because I guessed he realized there were flaws in his theories.
the manuscript for vol. 3 was written before vol. 1 was completed.

>>14451972
The State will wither away even without communism.
We entered the IT era a few decades ago. This will probably replace the State.

>>14451801
They placed incredibly fucking incompetent people into power and shot anyone who said "this nigga's retarded".

Look up Trofim Lysenko, and how he directly and indirectly killed millions by insisting that vague pseudoscience that didn't even align with the basic, common understanding of agriculture BEFORE genetics, due to his hatred of the field, was the gospel truth, and that anyone who disagreed or could prove empirically that planting weeds and corn in the same field would not produce corn that grew like weeds was a counter-revolutionary.

The Soviets were fucking stupid.

>>14452113
Communism want authoritarianism though. Look at every single time its been tried

>>14452093
Marxism is illogical though, it's an OLD theory that was given many chances.
Academia and scientists think it's illogical garbage.
Darwinism WON because it actually made sense.

>>14452115
>Lysenko
This is the type of this marxism produces, these people are totally fine with a dictatorship and speech being suppressed because they think anything their leaders don't like is "bourgioise".

It's essentially a cult.

>>14452174
the social sciences have largely ignored Darwin and any attempt to make sense of human behavior as having evolved for various reasons is considered pretty much pseudoscience by them. The entire field of evolutionary psychology and also sociobiology are thrown out wholesale. The only exception I've seen is some of them using our ancestral tribal structure as an argument that we evolved to want to live in egalitarian social conditions.

They really do not like the concept of 'human nature' for whatever reason, they don't want humans to have evolved like other animals to have certain dispositions and patterns of behavior, or they say that such questions are too complex and impossible to falsify so there's no point thinking about it.

>>14452183
Every ideology is

>mfw I see a communist society
>mfw we invade and conquer it because they have no army

>>14452209
nah, fascism and marxism do this though

>>14452174
>Marxism is illogical though
Uh huh. And you know this because you're intimately familiar with what Marxism is and is not and have thought carefully through it. Definitely not because you feel threatened by what you think it means, the political tribal affiliations of it, because you were told it was bad by others, right? That's a rhetorical question, you and I both know the real answer.

>Academia and scientists think it's illogical garbage.
Case in point. "I THINK other people are saying it's wrong." During Darwin's day plenty of the world's foremost naturalists were hostile to him.

>The book aroused international interest[201] and a widespread debate, with no sharp line between scientific issues and ideological, social and religious implications.[202] Much of the initial reaction was hostile, in a large part because very few reviewers actually understood his theory

>The leading naturalist in Britain was the anatomist Richard Owen, an idealist who had shifted to the view in the 1850s that the history of life was the gradual unfolding of a divine plan.[221] Owen's review of the Origin in the April 1860 Edinburgh Review bitterly attacked Huxley, Hooker and Darwin, but also signalled acceptance of a kind of evolution as a teleological plan in a continuous "ordained becoming", with new species appearing by natural birth. Others that rejected natural selection, but supported "creation by birth", included the Duke of Argyll who explained beauty in plumage by design

>By the mid-1870s, most scientists accepted evolution, but relegated natural selection to a minor role as they believed evolution was purposeful and progressive. The range of evolutionary theories during "the eclipse of Darwinism" included forms of "saltationism" in which new species were thought to arise through "jumps" rather than gradual adaptation, forms of orthogenesis claiming that species had an inherent tendency to change in a particular direction, and forms of neo-Lamarckism in which inheritance of acquired characteristics led to progress. ... It was thought that the rediscovery of Mendelian inheritance invalidated Darwin's views.

>Darwinism WON because it actually made sense.
Naive. Good guys do not always win. Ultimately Darwin has been a death blow to long term Church authority, as the Church first suspected. But Church authority was always second place to secular noble authority. Marx straight up calls into question the top most secular authority and demonstrates that the manner in which someone becomes wealthy is through illegitimate theft. A far greater political threat for the rich and powerful than even Darwin was.

>>14452223

>>14452229
>Uh huh.
Yes. The fact you can't refute the images posted in this thread is quite telling.
>intimately familiar with what Marxism is
I'm am familiar, but okay.
>"I THINK other people are saying it's wrong."
They literally are though.
Marxism has been refuted many times.
Sorry kid, your revolution will not happen, it's going to be great seeing marx's predictions not coming true in the next 50-100 years leaving you people utterly confused.
>Marx straight up calls into question the top most secular authority
Then offers his own authoritarianism to replace it. The 10 planks of the communist party seem atrociously bad and harmful to workers, but okay.

Darwin was right, marx was wrong, deal.

>>14452244
Are you trying to prove my point with your image?

>>14452252
If your point is that people will have a bias toward their own ideology then yes

>>14451478
I am not even a Marxist but this guy sounds like he is refuting wikipedia.
OP, you should read Marx and you'll see that he is just wrong. And you will not even need some blog posts to see it.

Reminder not to trust anyone on Marx if they haven't read at least the Phenomenology of Spirit and Philosophy of Right

>>14452247
>The fact you can't refute the images posted in this thread is quite telling.
What images? The wordy ones blathering on in jargon trying to address things like "historical materialism?" I took one look at one and saw that they appeared to be written by a very emotional person that did not understand the subject he was trying to argue about and proceeded not waste my time reading anymore.

"Historical materialism" is not a super complicated or particularly necessary thing. It's basically just the presumption that material scientific realities and therefore economics are the prime first mover of society and therefore historical movements. As apposed to ideology or feelings. People are shaped by their economic conditions then build an ideology within the environmental walls they've been given. I don't know how you could disagree with this unless you're a time traveler from the early 1800s that's big into German idealism. Modern mainstream economics has the same view, as demonstrated by the ideal of "incentives matter."

It's either right or wrong, but it's not very technical. You don't need to use words like "Marxian schema" or mention socialism at all to have an opinion. The fact a person thinks otherwise is ridiculous. As someone else says, it screams of someone having a conclusion first and then trying to reason backwards.

>I'm am familiar, but okay.
Politics sure is easy when you're willing to just straight up fucking lie.

>Marxism has been refuted many times.
If that were so, I would be sympathetic to Marxism.

>Sorry kid, your revolution will not happen
I don't give a fuck about revolution. The fact you think Marxism is all about a promised revolution, or "marx's predictions," or authoritarianism demonstrate how little you really know, and how much you're relying on blog posts.

It's a lens of analysis, a way of looking at the world. It's right or wrong. Kind of like Darwinism. No lack of a "Darwininst" government will disprove the observation of gene flow.

Something like alienation is not going to be more or less of a real thing depending some mythological revolution or "authoritarianism very bad!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3eOb6Yl1s

> The 10 planks of the communist party seem atrociously bad and harmful to workers, but okay.
Ooh the 10 "planks" (more anti-leftist blog language). So you've read the Communist manifesto, or read someone that has, and think you know it all now. The 10 "planks" are 160+ year old half assed sketched out political propaganda that aren't particularly indicative of the breadth of Marxist/left wing analysis - even when they were written.

>>14452353
>People are shaped by their economic conditions then build an ideology within the environmental walls they've been given
Isn't it like incredibly obvious that economic conditions and ideology/culture are involved in a complex feedback loop and it's not one causing the other.

Because if his works were truly "refuted" then there wouldn't be thousands of people who have dedicated their lifes to "debunking" him and have all been forgotten. He's the most important economist and philosopher of the past centuries.

>>14452353
>blathering on in jargon
Dude literally all you did was post a few objections to a few small things in ONE of the images.
Also the images are from different authors on different topics, did you know that?

>Something like alienation is not going to be more or less of a real thing depending some mythological revolution or "authoritarianism very bad!"
Alienation isn't even real, one of the images talks about it. I really wish marxism would just go away, it's poisons people's minds.

>Ooh the 10 "planks" (more anti-leftist blog language). So you've read the Communist manifesto, or read someone that has, and think you know it all now. The 10 "planks" are 160+ year old half assed sketched out political propaganda that aren't particularly indicative of the breadth of Marxist/left wing analysis - even when they were written.
So what dummy?
I know marxism is more complex than that but when marx actually put his theories into practical use THIS GARBAGE is what he came up with.

>>14452416
Stupid terrible things are often popular, marxism is one of those things.
His theories have been refuted though.

>>14452353
>The fact you think Marxism is all about a promised revolution
It's not?
I'm pretty sure that's wrong.

Reminder that the marxian "classes" don't exist in the real world.

>>14452439
He quite literally hasn't been.

>>14452416
You're right dude, mcdonalds is good and important because it's popular.

>>14452461
Imagine comparing addictive fast food to economics. Nice false equivalence.

>>14452459
>an extremely manipulated and biased interpretation of the data by some marxist
This isn't objective data.

>>14452468
So what? My point still stands, just because something is popular doesn't make it good or correct.

>>14452459
Read some of the critiques to the falling rate of profit in this thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/dcqqmu/what_is_the_austrian_critique_of_marxs_falling/

>>14452445
One should distinguish Marxism the system analysis from the political activism that surrounds the word Marx. Marx himself did both, as he was both fairly non political activist in his formal theorizing and a dedicated activist because he though you should live your own philosophy. One should also not mistake old Marxism for "Marxism-Leninism" which is really just Leninism and further extensions post Lenin. Lenin was all about how to do a revolution. That was his big concern and "contribution."

In all honesty most that would call themselves Marxist would probably be gaming for a revolution, but it's theoretically not necessary. I can, and do, believe in economic (Marxian) exploitation as the ultimate origin of profit in a capitalist economy without having any faith in a coming revolution. They're near totally orthogonal to each other.

>>14452416
>Justin Bieber makes good music because everybody calls it bad

>>14452370
>Isn't it like incredibly obvious that economic conditions and ideology/culture are involved in a complex feedback loop and it's not one causing the other.
Yes, the relation between them is dialectical, the influence goes both ways. This is literally Wikipedia-tier knowledge. And by "literally" I mean literally: the wiki article on base and superstructure has a diagram with the arrows pointing both ways.
>>14452416
He's neither an economist nor a philosopher.

>>14450833
To cure insomnia

Because he's right.

>>14452695
>article on base and superstructure has a diagram with the arrows pointing both ways.
Then how is it 'materialism'? It's not like marx invented looking at how the economy and culture influence one another

>>14452012
You still have stuff with communism, though? What do people think the means of production are? I always assumed the toothbrush foolishness was either burger ignorance or just trolling. I didn't think anyone (with a brain so Americans not included) took it for truth.

>>14450833
Marx is a bore but Engles can be a pretty funny lad
>>14452115
>Look up Trofim Lysenko, and how he directly and indirectly killed millions by insisting that vague pseudoscience
Ya, Lysenko wasn't the primary issue behind food production/distribution. His methods didn't HELP but people weren't getting food for more reasons than bad breeding practices. Saying Lysenko killed millions of people is letting a lot of people a lot more guilty off the hook.
>>14452459
Not even most Marxists defend, the retards who do focus on stupid things like the rate of return on industrial machinery or something lol
>>14452585
>r/austrian_economics/
Congratulations, you found something even more retarded than Marxism. Reading this shit is mind boggling:
>Post-war profitability was very high because of massive deregulation and because the US became the world's manufacturer as Europe recovered from massive destruction. Virtually all of FDRs New Deal was repealed in 1946/47, and 46-48 were the most profitable years in US history as a result of that (and providing manufacturing support for Europe).
This is extremely weird revisionism because you can go back and read what Austrotards were saying in this era and they were doing the same doomsdays predicting about hyperinflation and such from "socialist policies". The right definitely didn't think the New Deal had been rolled back... look at the top marginal tax rates in the late 40s and stuff like Glass-Steagall wasn't repealed until the Clinton administration. Business was strong because of the massive amount of debt the government took on during WWII allowing corporations and individuals to deleverage and build up their private savings and spend, spend, spend.
>The 1970s were marked by massive inflation as a result of closing the gold window and the Fed's response to correcting that. Since then, profits have accrued to the financial sector and the Federal government at the expense of other capital sectors
Yes ignore all the other factors like the oil crisis and wage/price controls, etc, etc... only a austrotard could think all the stagflationary problems boiled down to the government not fixing the price of gold... lol
>The last 30 years or so has seen relatively stable regulatory structures and tax rates, combined with much better control of the currency by the Fed. You can see the cyclic boom/busts in these graphs, which are largely explained by the ABCT.
The Fed has no real control over the money supply today and basically 2008-2019 falsifies the "ABCT" if it could be [it's unfalsifiable however].

>>14452719
He did invent it. The idealism he was responding to considered human emancipation basically as a mere change in perspective. Marx was the first to understand that it requires the material social relations to be modified.

>>14452783
>This is extremely weird revisionism because you can go back and read what Austrotards were saying in this era and they were doing the same doomsdays predicting about hyperinflation and such from "socialist policies". The right definitely didn't think the New Deal had been rolled back... look at the top marginal tax rates in the late 40s and stuff like Glass-Steagall wasn't repealed until the Clinton administration. Business was strong because of the massive amount of debt the government took on during WWII allowing corporations and individuals to deleverage and build up their private savings and spend, spend, spend.
Tax rates in the 40s-60s were actually quite low as there were many deductions.
>Business was strong because of the massive amount of debt the government took on during WWII allowing corporations and individuals to deleverage and build up their private savings and spend, spend, spend.
Wrong, we had the freest markets in the world back then, the federal reserve didn't inflate as much as it is now.
>wage/price controls
Actually austrians factor those in as well and say they're damaging.
>only a austrotard could think all the stagflationary problems boiled down to the government not fixing the price of gold
But it legitimately was the main fucking problem lmao
>The Fed has no real control over the money supply today
Alright, so you basically just deny reality.
If we had free banking, there would be ZERO increase in the money supply and our wages and savings would actually increase.

>>14452791
You can be a materialist without being a marxist.
Almost all scientists are materialists. Pinker is a materialist.
Marx's materialist version of history is stupid.

>>14450964
>>Why should *we read this guy
Upvoted

>>14452725
No. You aren't allowed to own anything under communism. Someone could literally just walk into your house and shit in your toilet and you can't do nothing

>>14452814
>Tax rates in the 40s-60s were actually quite low as there were many deductions.
Dude, Kennedy like campaigned on tax rates being to hard on business (the original supply sider) lol

>Wrong, we had the freest markets in the world back then, the federal reserve didn't inflate as much as it is now.
You can insist this but like I said all the Austrokooks from back then didn't think this and were warning of "creeping socialism" nonetheless

>Actually austrians factor those in as well and say they're damaging.
Actually most Austrians promote price fixing otherwise they would be cool with the price of gold freely floating (well maybe some like Hayek were ok with this but most aren't).

>But it legitimately was the main fucking problem lmao
It wasn't. The real costs of business increased for a variety of very complex reasons beyond the government rightly abandoning artificially managing the price of gold.

>Alright, so you basically just deny reality.
The Fed experimented with monetarism and it couldn't control the money supply for obvious reasons. The Fed doesn't really get to decide how much money's out there, the private sector (or a fiscally assertive government) can force their hand. If the government wanted to spend 2 trillion dollars tomorrow the Fed isn't going to bounce any checks.

>If we had free banking, there would be ZERO increase in the money supply and our wages and savings would actually increase.
Real "free banking" means the money supply would expand more rapidly and arbitrarily even. As crypto should have thought you money can be invented by fiat by the private sector and be accepted by millions of retards.

>>14452818
>You can be a materialist without being a marxist.
You can be a vulgar/primitive materialist, but this kind of materialism is distinct from the materialism discovered by Marx.

>We will try to identify the distinction between vulgar materialism and Marxist materialism in a more linear manner. Let us assume that in both, the substructure and material facts are foundational, and that one wants to derive from the dynamics thereof the science of human actions and behaviors as well as the explanation of human opinions and ideologies. The myopia of vulgar materialism consists in placing this relation within the narrow scope of the human individual.
>For our historical materialism, a term Marx considered equivalent to economic determinism, the question expands its scope to the whole society and its history, and the research is no longer concerned with the behavior and thought of the individual, but with the predispositions and ideology of social classes and social forms that succeed one another throughout the course of history.
>The determinism of the positivists reduces to a causation between physiology and psychology; the determinism of Marxist materialists takes the social economy as its point of departure in order to construct the explanation of the law, the religion, the morality, and also the philosophy of successive epochs....
>The difference between the two materialisms does not lie in the fabrication that Marx decamped from the terrain of monism to establish an empty dignified parity between nature and man, a type of neo-dualism, but in the fundamental criterion that we do not chase that slippery determination which plays itself out within the individual organism and the personal brain, we do not search for the vacuous phantasma of "personality", but rather base the relation on the material conditions of a social community and the entire series of its manifestations and historical developments.
>On these grounds we firmly believe, with wealth of historical evidence, that the influence of a personality on social events is nil, and that the history of human sociology must be treated as one of the fields of description into which the knowledge of nature can be rightfully considered to be partitioned, without such a distinction and separation having any preeminent value over all others. Consequently, it is quite right to say that according to the Marxist doctrine, the science of human society is contained within the science of material nature; indeed, the latter must in its construction inevitably precede the former.

>Marx's materialist version of history is stupid.
deep thought

>>14452877
You can call the police.

>>14452877
>Someone could literally just walk into your house and shit in your toilet and you can't do nothing
like my landlord

>>14452920
>discovered by Marx.
It wasn't "discovered" by him because it isn't accurate or true whatsoever.
It has no predictive validity, it's garbage.

>deep thought
True.

>>14452906
Tax rates in the 50s were actually quite low for the vast majority of the populaton. The high rates only applied if you made like 10+ million dollars equivalent in todays money.even then there were massive deductions

>>14452906
>Real "free banking" means the money supply would expand more rapidly and arbitrarily even.
You're thinking of fractional reserve banking, which is NOT free banking.
If you tried to do FRB in a free market, you would be arrested and your bank shut down.

>>14451475
Based and libertypilled

Marxists tend to manipulate language and lie a lot.
They're basically sociopaths, bootlickers or both.

Marxism has caused nothing but massive human suffering.

>>14451478
>>14451483
>>14451490
>>14451497
>>14451502
>>14451509
Commies ITT cannot refute this shit lmao

>>14452093
Most of your post is naive but your comparison of Marxism and Darwinism is a good start. Both Marxism and Darwinism have a way to view the world. Marxism explains the world in terms of class conflict. Darwinism explains the world in terms of species survival. When you look for these things, you will see them everywhere you look. It's easy then to conclude that it is simply logical that the world works that way, and there is evidence for it all around you. But it's not the case. It's only an interpretation. A story, or pattern.

How do marxists cope with the fact that the countries with the highest gdp per capita(living standards for workers) are the countries with the FREEST markets.

>>14452153
LIke private property of the means of production enforcement isn't authoritarianism. In Capitalism, material things have more value than humans.

>>14452877
Your double negative makes me think you're a burger. Your ignorance makes me know you're one.

>>14453299
Darwinism doesn't represent biology as species survival, his main idea was natural selection, wich makes the entire concept of a species kind of arbitrary. Species change and bifurcate, based on the pressures that exist against individual organisms. This was later amended to include the pressures acting on specific genes since that is how life started and still in a way the real replication that is going on.

>>14453300
>Monaco/Liechtenstein/Luxembourg

no blue collar workers there buddy

>>14453300
>gdp=living standards

>>14453388
They definitely have a working class, and real wages for the working class are extremely high in these countries.

>>14453391
In this case it is though.
Also, it's GDP, PER CAPITA!!

>>14450833
>Why should I read this guy?
You read it in order to fling the shit right back into the supporters faces because they don't know what they are talking about.

>>14451675
The second excerpt is from Karl Marx and the Close of His System.

>>14453391
I'd give her the DICtatorship of the proletariat

>>14451932
>But they di-di-didn’t wear rags!
>They were all VERY happy

>>14451978
>Feudalism obviously wasn't the last societal structure and there is no reason to think Capitalism will be either.
The mistake is thinking that the only alternative to capitalism is communism.

>>14450833
so that you can realize anarcho communism is better than m*rxism

>>14450833
Necassary to understand any socio-economic piece after him

He's one of the most influential people who have ever lived

>>14453702
Is that just communism that skips the state part?

>>14452056
This applies to every ideology.
>hey /pol/, I'm redpilled now
>hey twitter, I'm woke
>I'm smarter than those dumb statists, wake up sheeple
>I've seen the light of christ

>>14452056
What does that have to do with the Zappa quote about liking to own stuff?

>>14452202
Evopsych isn't just dismissed for PC reasons, although that is a factor. But evopsych has real problems from an empirical POV; we have very little direct evidence regarding the mental state of hominins from hundreds of thousands of years ago, which makes evopsych conjecture highly speculative and hard to verify, often prone to ideological confirmation bias. Look at extreme psychological constructivism like Jaynes' bicameralism - it's dismissed for the same reasons, so don't just play the victim card for the biodeterminist end of the scale.

Human nature exists, but some people exaggerate how fixed it is. The basis of evolution is that species are mutable, and culture/technology is even more so, whuch can both influence the former.

>>14451698
We don't. Socialists have disagreed with various aspects of Marx since the beginning. Why else would there be a billikn Trotskyist microsects and people like Crockshott or Zizek?

>>14453787
All marxists need helicopter rides.

>>14453814
epic post! mind if I screencap this to post it on r/the_donald?

>>14452247
>Darwin was right, marx was wrong, deal.
This is extra special because Marx was a Darwinist and now I know you haven't read either.

>>14451727
>marx is a prophet

>>14453914
No because they deserve helicopter rides too.

Marxists deserve to fucking die. I mean it's true.

>>14453980
>Marx was a Darwinist
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>he once said something praising darwin so he understood instincts and neuroscience

no, he denied them, he really did

>>14450833

hes important because he helped to popularize a lot of important concepts in the past couple of centuries.

A lot of people on /lit/ dislike marxism tho because it's filled with middle class suburbinites rejecting material analysis for new age guenon. The thing with marxist analysis is that it completely de mystifies a lot of their super structures.

>>14453980
Ikek

>>14453742
No, it's the denial of communism.

>>14452202
I don't see you fags point about human nature and Marxism. Marx was admirative of Darwin.
What's more, it's more than obvious that hunter gatherers are classless. Those who say otherwise are in denial.
We never say that humans are happy kind creatures. We said they are classless in nature. That's not the same thing.

>>14450833
Reminder to not take seriously anyone who doesnt know the difference between Communist Manifesto and Kapital.
Also anyone who doesnt actually say anything about the books itself but directly tell you how communism is bad.

>>14453050
>Tax rates in the 50s were actually quite low for the vast majority of the populaton.
Relative to what? 50 years before or 50 years later? The dreaded income tax didn't even exist at one point. You seem to be citing some "dailycaller.com" article (sub-breitbart lol) attacking Paul Krugman (who sucks but for other reasons). Whoever wrote that firstly doesn't seem to understand that "charitable contributions" are a form of self-aggrandizement by the super-wealthy. Being able to freely give big donations to private foundations to push your agenda isn't "soaking the rich", it allows them massive power over society. Also corporate taxation is regressive since it's a flat tax on big and small shareholders (you) and/or wages (you). When there were higher marginal income tax rates there was also decreasing inequality, when they went down inequality increased. That's just a statistical fact. I can't click the links in your image so I can't further look into the claims.
>The high rates only applied if you made like 10+ million dollars equivalent in todays money.even then there were massive deductions
Explain these deductions please. They got even more sweat after the 1960s didn't they?

>>14453059
>You're thinking of fractional reserve banking, which is NOT free banking.
Free banking to me simply means the government isn't involved in regulating banking. Free banking would mean "full reserve banks" (presumably holding all kinds of "reserves" of gold/crypto/foreign currency/whatever and probably lying about their actual assets on hand) would have to compete with "fractional reserve banks" (who would lend cheaper and have more operational freedom). Who's going to forbid people from having access to cheaper money?

>If you tried to do FRB in a free market, you would be arrested and your bank shut down.
lolbertarians are literally the worst statists, they want the government to mandate only gold is legal tender and arrest anyone clearing transactions without physical bullion or IOU's convertible into a fixed sum of physical bullion on demand. The business community aren't interested in your schemes and consumers aren't.

>>14450833
Single most influential thinker of the last 200 years

>>14453300
>gdp per capita(living standards for workers)
Don't know if bait.

>the countries with the FREEST markets.
GDP measures transactions, if you make it easier to buy and sell GDP will explode but it doesn't mean people are necessarily better off i.e. people buy and pay more for healthcare services in America but that doesn't necessarily translate into everyone having more/better healthcare. In a commie utopia the GDP would be 0 and everyone would be happy. Really GDP going up could just be inflation and meaningless speculation.
In a socialist society transactions are important and ups and downs in GDP would mean something but there would be also much non-marketed services so it would be a less relevant measure than where everything is only bought and sold.

>>14454527
>Marx was admirative of Darwin.
Yes but he wasn't a "Darwinist". He was admirative of Smith/Ricardo but didn't "believe" in their ideas. He flirted with non-Darwinian notions of natural evolution (which was common even among respectable biologists in the day since pure Darwinian notions weren't widely accepted until the physical mechanisms of inheritance were understood in the 20th century).

>>14453300
Australia is a fucking Shit hole.

Most of those countries are only rich because of how small and protected they don't have spend much on on an army or infrastructure because of their small size.

Half of them make their money from Banking the other half get it from producing lots of oil.

GDP =/= living standards you fucking idiot!

>>14453702
IMO, Marx was anarcho communist. He clearly state in the Critique of the Gotha program that the State should survive for a BRIEF period, during the transitional phase.

>>14454212
Marx was fond of phrenology. You really are ignorant.

>>14454940
>>gdp per capita(living standards for workers)
>Don't know if bait.
It's true though, living standards in those countries for workers are EXTREMELY high, they have strong currencies so people there can buy things from the rest of the world for cheap.

>>14454912
Taxes in the 50s were about the same as today, government tax receipts weren't any different than they are today.

You're an idiot.

>>14455072
Australia is much better than USA, dummy

>>14456155
>living standards in those countries for workers are EXTREMELY high
GDP isn't a measure of "living standards". It's a bad metric for that even if there's a correlation.
>they have strong currencies so people there can buy things from the rest of the world for cheap.
Lets say you can afford a bunch of consumer goods but are priced out of essentials like housing and healthcare. GDP in America is higher than in other first world countries but if you live in some fly over state and your neighbors are junkies and your house might get broken into and robbed and you're paying crazy for insurance and so on and on saying GDP is high doesn't signify "standard of living". You can have a lower GDP and higher general real consumption and living standard or vice versa depending on non-priced factors.

>>14456162
>Taxes in the 50s were about the same as today
You're chart says otherwise. What's the "problem" you're chart there is referring to? Notice what happens starting in the 1980s? This idea called supply side economics came into existence. The government started cutting top rates because they thought it'd lead to investment and growth and the wealth kept by the rich would trickle down. What followed was unemployment stabilized at higher levels and lower growth rates became the norm.
The amount of dollars the government brings in isn't the point. The government works in its own monopoly currency and is therefor always solvent and doesn't need to worry about income. You got to look at tax rates differently.

>>14456401
>This idea called supply side economics came into existence.
Supply side wasn't even tried you dumb brainlet.
We got off the gold standard in 1970 allowing central banks to print a massive amount of money and the government to spend a massive amount of money.
Imagine thinking slight decreases in taxes are to blame when shit like this is occuring

>>14456450
>We got off the gold standard in 1970 allowing central banks to print a massive amount of money and the government to spend a massive amount of money.
No shit. You taught us Marxists something. Like we weren't thinking like you years back. I mean exactly like you. Lol.

>>14456450
>Supply side wasn't even tried you dumb brainlet.
It depends what you mean. Tax cuts to spur growth became the generally accepted idea, that agenda was put into action but ya the Reagan administration wasn't stupid enough to actually decrease aggregate government spending and offset any decrease in public welfare by increasing defense spending.

>We got off the gold standard in 1970 allowing central banks to print a massive amount of money and the government to spend a massive amount of money.
Lets say the Nixon administration decided they were going to go all in on artificially trying to keep the price of gold where it was at... what would of happen was the Eurotards would of drained all of Americas gold reserves until the dollar would of had to be floated nonetheless down the road. All pegs fail in the long run.

>Imagine thinking slight decreases in taxes are to blame when shit like this is occuring
I'm not "blaming" tax cuts for anything per se (beyond rising inequality).

>>14456720
Yes orthodox Marxtards have basically the same retarded take on gold as Austrotards. Soviet propaganda from the 70s was predicting a breakdown of the international monetary system, what happened was the exact opposite lol

>>14451993
>risk
If you understand this concept you are smarter than all Marxists combined

To overthrow capitalism.

>>14454940
>He flirted with non-Darwinian notions of natural evolution (which was common even among respectable biologists in the day since pure Darwinian notions weren't widely accepted until the physical mechanisms of inheritance were understood in the 20th century).
Lmao what is even your point with this self refuting cope? Go read Origin of the Species. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>14450833
To see how much of a retard he is

>>14451478
>>14451483
>>14451490
>>14451497
>>14451502
>>14451509
i read none of this, also marx and commies btfo ITT