/lit/ - Literature

keynes was deeply influenced by karl marx, he just lied when he said he wasnt.

It's true. Pinker even used "Capital" in his title as a nod to Marx, but used orthodox economics for his arguments.

>>17474603
KEK Marx unironically triggers people.

>>17474603
>Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed

"Professional economics" nowadays reduce itself purely to the bureaucracy of capitalism.

>>17474603
>capitalists systematically ignores text that completely undermines their way of viewing the world
wow surprising, yet it doesn't matter. Marx is inevitable through the conclusion of Capitalism, because Capitalism commodification of humanity doesn't end until we're all decomposing on the streets

>>17474603
Quote who? This really sounds like an austrian midwit


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmu_ctCMGbw

>Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed.
>the people who pay for economy faculties don’t like it when economists point out the flaws of the system they maintain their power with
Shocking

>>17474633
>Marx is inevitable through the conclusion of Capitalism

Unfalsifiable claim. Essentially nonsensical.

>>17474656
>Muh Popper
If you take this logic long enough biology is a pseudo science as well

>>17474635
It's Thomas Sowell. You know, the guy who was a Marxist for over a decade and has published several academic papers on Marx.

>>17474619
I don't see any Marxism in Keynes. Keynesianism is through-and-through grounded in the principles of marginalism.

>>17474603
>What is said and done in its name is said and done largely by people who have never read through it
It hurts because it's true

>>17474669
Explain.

>>17474632
No it does not. Econ is applied math

>>17474635
That video is pretty dumb. No aspiring economist has to read anything from more than 40-50 years ago. The field has changed in a lot of ways and is completely different from what it was in the 18th and 19th century.

i took international political economy in undergrad and we spent 4 weeks on marx

>>17474603
Marx was not an economist. Do you not read subtitles ("Critique of Political Economy")? Do you read at all?

>>17474703
political economy =/= economics

>>17474671

>>17474684
The theory of evolution as an origin of mankind is unfalsifiable.

>>17474752
He said he was a marxist when he was young anon

>>17474760 to continue
This is why Kuhn's theory is generally better.

Marx was anti political economy you would have to be a retard to be influenced by him in a capitalist world. He wasn't intending to make a more efficient capitalism at all (although people influenced by him ultimately tried).

>>17474603
how does this stand up in communist states like say, the soviet union? were soviet economists influenced by marx ?

>>17474701
There's a lot to learn about the history of economics from reading Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Malthus. Marx is a bad choice in my opinion, for the reasons put forth by the OP. Keynes is also a bad choice, because his thoughts are so wholly integrated into economics that you won't really learn much new by reading him. Friedman is okay to read because he represents a fringe position that you can learn from.

>>17474767
Anyone who comes with a claim like this has never understood marx

>>17474770
Popper's concept of verisimilitude is still applicable. Marxism is poor, evolution is rich in explanatory power. Marxists are dogs, Monarchists are humans.

>>17474799
Furthermore, its not like there hasn't been done studies with more modern methods substantiating Marx's claims. I'm not saying evolution doesn't have explanatory power either, Kropotkin uses this in his political theory as well. Thirdly, fuck fascist monarchist cunts, monarchists are less human than a piece of shit and deserve as many rights. UGGA BUHHGA SMASH THE PHRENOLOGIST'S SKULL!

>>17474603
I really don't know how anybody could really believe that when so many modern conclusions bare such a resemblance to his work.

You're telling me that Milton Friedman's Natural Rate of Unemployment has nothing in common with The Reserve Army of Labour?

And George Stigler's Theory of Regulatory Capture? James Buchanan's Public Choice Theory? Together these effectively prove Marx's intuitions about the nature of the state under capitalism.

Also Marx's analysis of labour power within the capitalist mode of production? If you go through it and modernize his terminology, out comes Gary Becker's Theory of Human Capital.

That's four Nobel Prizes right there. Of course those four men deserve the credit for actually working out these theories in all their rigorous detail, and I don't mean to imply they all took their ideas from Marx. I'm certain they independently came to those conclusions, it's just a shame the field of economic science needed 100 years to catch up with theses Marx had put forward in the 1860s.

>>17474873
Much of Sowell is just plain propaganda

>>17474781

Sowell has the veneer of understanding Marx because he actually addresses some of Marx's analysis in Das Kapital on its own terms, but he doesn't seem to deeply understand Marx's actual historical theory or general philosophy. He treats Das Kapital as though it is supposed to be an "economic theory" in the sense marginalism is, when it is exactly what the subtitle says. Its an imminent critique of political economy of the time. But within the critique is of course Marx's dialectical method, so he lays out how the capitalism of Ricardo and Smith begets social change, thereby demonstrating his method of critique. That isn't to say Marx thought value theory was bullshit, he just thought sterile applications of such economic theories to describing the ideal form of capitalism (as though capitalism could be perfected) was ignorant of how social change occurred. His project was a step removed, instead of taking market society as an object of study, he was studying how human society in general changed over time, and Das Kapital was just an instance of that larger project. In a sense it doesn't really matter if value theory is "true" or not, Marx basically succeeded in that he made value theory a toxic intellectual subject linked to communism. He effectively critiqued it such that even more sterile models were formed later to study markets that didn't have to deal with the baggage of his critique.

>>17474873
Its because no one here has actually read Marx

>>17474676
What about his concern with the hoarding of wealth?

>>17474624
you mean Pikkety?

>>17474920
Literally what on fucking earth are you trying to communicate.

>>17474920
When i referred to "a claim like this" i meant the image, but thank you for making this long rant instead of me

>>17474920
This. Few people actually understand Marx philosophy. Specially the "economists" who try to critique him

>>17474603
That's totally wrong. Joan Robinson was obviously very influenced by Marx and her work on imperfect competition did have an influence on "professional economics". The real issue is what exactly you mean by "professional economics" because a lot of heterodox stuff influenced by Marx was always going on there it's just you're not going to be getting a noble prize for obvious reasons. Basically if you want to say a lot of big names at Cambridge and such weren't "processional economists" than you're right but that'd be wrong.
>>17474619
Keynes never read Marx.
>>17474671
He never actually published any "academic papers on Marx" (he did write a book on Says law academically published) that I'm aware of, his writings on Marx aren't academically published.
>>17474752
You should notice a problem there. Sowell is a student of Friedman, how can he oppose the Federal Reserve when he accepts Friedmans monetary theories? You can find him shilling gold and talking like an austrian but that just proves he's a political house negro saying anything for money.
>>17474873
Friedmans idea is very different than Marx, Friedman thought the Fed should aim to stabilize prices with monetary policy but that would involve a tradeoff with employment. Marx didn't think labour markets tend to clear or wages would inflate. Buchanan is funny because that IS a bizzaro right-wing inverted doomer form of Marxism in a sense... Buchanan thought welfare capitalism was DOOMED because of public debt and would collapse any day now.
>>17474927
Marx thought capitalism as a way of organizing things was doomed, Keynes thought it could be regulated and was mostly beneficial.

>>17474700
lmao

>>17474920
unfalsifiable garbage.

>>17474700
You, for one, really need some fucking marxism in your life if you actually think this. Marx fx. shows how economists tries to make historical constructions, like capitalism and how it works, into ontological constructions.

>>17474945

Sowell addressed Das Kapital with an accurate understanding of Marx's terms (90% of which is basically Ricardo) but doesn't seem to understand that Das Kapital wasn't simply Marx's attempt at completing value theory, it was Marx criticizing the epistemological frame of political economy and showing how the logic of value theory led to social change. He was trying to reframe the issue using his dialectical method inherited from Hegel.

>>17474969
How do you prove falsifiability is a true criteria for scientific knowledge?

>>17474873
>You're telling me that Milton Friedman's Natural Rate of Unemployment has nothing in common with The Reserve Army of Labour?

Yes.

> And George Stigler's Theory of Regulatory Capture? James Buchanan's Public Choice Theory?

Yes.

> Together these effectively prove Marx's intuitions about the nature of the state under capitalism.

No.

>>17474935
Yeah

>>17474603
>Professional economics

Literally a make work grift.

Well they did the same thing even for Keynes, who literally revolutionized the field.

>>17474718
exactly the opposite
>>17474927
>fucking Aristotle was influenced by KARL MARX

>>17474988
Marx has been debunked. No one takes him seriously.

>>17474676
>>17474950
You're both wrong. Keynes directly repudiated Marx on his time unit of labor in The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.

Keynes was extremely well read, of course he had read Marx, he just didn't agree on all points.

>>17474969

What part? I think Marx definitely claimed value theory for himself, it's now basically just the territory of Marxists and some neo-ricardian socialists. In his actual work he was mostly an egg head that spent time criticizing others for the purpose of dispelling what he felt were falsehoods and obfuscations. His critique of political economy was fairly impactful in that regard, for almost a century afterwords academic economists who used entirely different models still went out of their way to dismantle value theory through Marx. He basically did what he hoped for, turned value theory into a weapon for socialists.

>>17474873
>You're telling me that Milton Friedman's Natural Rate of Unemployment has nothing in common with The Reserve Army of Labour?

What the fuck are you on about
The only thing in common is that it's about unemployment

>>17474603
>the massive volumes of Capital have become a quasi-magic touchstone—a source of assurance that somewhere and somehow a genius "proved" capitalism to be wrong and doomed, even if the specifics of this proof are unknown to those who take their certitude from it.
very accurate.

>>17475045
George Stigler believed that regulatory bodies would come under the control of whatever industry they were established to regulate, and instead promote the the interests of the industry rather than the general public.

He's pretty directly proving an economic theoretic explanation for class struggle at the level of the state, and importantly, when combined with the work of Buchanan how the state becomes functionally a planning committee for the capitalist elites.

They obviously believed entirely different political solutions, but those aren't dissimilar beliefs on economics.

>>17475156
You can trace this idea to Adam Smith. The most important raison d'etre for Wealth of Nations was regulatory capture by merchants. Nothing to do with Marx.

i and many other normies have noticed a pattern.
That rich people just pick the economic theories that suit them at the time.
The only one that theyll never pick is karl marx ofcourse.

>>17474603
the absence of science from wahhabism is not an indictment of science

>>17474752
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Higher_education_and_early_career

>Sowell has said that he was a Marxist "during the decade of my 20s"; accordingly, one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist–Leninist practice.

Marx did NOTHING to advance the philosophy of language, despite writing in a language himself. What a hack!

>>17475001
Have you read Sowell's book on Marxism? He was aware of all this and addresses it. Much of Marx's work actually comes in equal part from Engels. You don't understand Marx if you don't read Engels.

>>17474950
Sowell’s writings on Marx are academically published

"Marx's Capital After One Hundred Years," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, February 1967, pp. 50-74.
"The Shorter Work Week Controversy," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, January 1965, pp. 238-246.
"The General Glut Controversy Reconsidered," Oxford Economic Papers, November 1963, pp. 193-203.
"Marxian Value Reconsidered," Economica, August 1963, pp. 297-308.
"Karl Marx and the Freedom of the Individual," Ethics, January 1963, pp. 119-126.
"Malthus and the Utilitarians," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, May 1962, pp. 268-274.
"Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine," American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120.

http://www.tsowell.com/writings.html

>>17474624
>pinker
lol

heres an interesting video that proves without a doubt that the labor theory of value is correct in five minutes.

https://youtu.be/kJKEfRzTSWI

Marx the economist >>> Marx the understander or historical change

>>17474603
weird, as if we leave in mostly capital-governments ruled world, not a communist one... huh

still, he was an imbecile

>>17475747
Debates over Marx's so called "labor theory of value" are irrelevant and pointless. Why? Because he never had a labor theory of value in the first place he had a value theory of labor. I get this from Diane Elson who asked the very important question “what is Marx's theory a theory of?” and the answer she came to is that when Marx talks about value, he’s not coming up with a theory of prices which locates labor as their prime determinant (a theory-of-value which posits labor as its source/substance, ie, a labor theory-of-value) but instead mostly takes the notion of value itself as it’s found in classical political economy (and this is done through what Sam Chambers highlights as a genealogical critique) in order to consider, in a reversal of the Ricardian problem, what value means for labor (a theory-of-labor which focuses on how it is affected by value, ie, a value theory-of-labor). so instead of the classical concern for the regulation of prices by labor-time, Marx is trying to understand how labor itself is regulated by value via the violence of abstraction, domination by time, etc. If you read the first chapter of capital like this, especially with Holloway’s piece on the way to read the very first sentence in mind, the text becomes wildly different. Socially necessary labor time ceases to be a mere economic term which is arrived at theoretically but a kind of self-asserting average which compels the laborer to keep pace with the rhythm of the machine and the constantly increasing tempo of the market.
>>17475776
Marx wasn't an economist. See>>17474711

>>17474927
Marx wasn't worried at all that consumers' savings rates could be too high or that capitalists might not be buying as many capital goods as they could. Marx's model didn't have the tools to conceptualize the problems Keynes adressed.

>>17475086
show me how marx got debunked

>>17476557
>Marx wasn't worried at all that consumers' savings rates could be too high or that capitalists might not be buying as many capital goods as they could
Marx said that consumers would have too little savings and that capitalists would have to give them credit to make up for it.
And as weve seen thats exactly what has happened with credit cards.
Thats the contradictions of capital. How to make sure you can exploit the worker and ensure they can buy your products at the same time. I think.

>no commie world powers
>almost every time when a leader gets elected with even a slight positive inclination towards leftist economic view they get BTFOed by the US
>tfw some people still think marx has had any effect whatsoever

>village experiences a drought
>everyone is hot and thirsty
>someone spends 1 hour collecting water from a river
>someone else spends 10 hours knitting sweaters
>the 1 hour of water labour is infinitely more valuable than the 10 hours of knitting labour
>LTV btfo

>>17476645
Not related to savings rate of consumers. Savings is that which is not consumed, credit doesn't enter into the picture. Credit just shifts resources between consumers.

>>17476648
The bigger laugh is any American Marxist who thinks the Democratic party isn't the direct antithesis to their ideals

>>17474624
Pikettyliterally admitted he never Das Kapital.

And he didn't have any reason to. It's an irrelevant book. Of historical interest only.

>>17476593
Ralf Dahrendorf, Pete Martin, Karl Popper all BTFO, debunked, and retroactively retrofitted him.

Ownership over capital became differentiated, not accumulated over time. The working class shrank, dismantling marxism forever by disproving its most fundamental prediction. The divergence and emerging class conflict between managers and owners BTFO marx as well. The growth of the welfare state jammed a rod up his ass, completely destroying his argument and embarassing commie-cucks of all countries for all time.

>>17476648
you should add the part where there is straight up several successful communist revolutions and it just ends up with the state controlling all of the means of production and distribution creating totalitarianism that would make the nazis blush, because it turns out there isnt actually any other way to magically redistribute capital and completely reform society while keeping basic needs flowing and suppressing counter revolutionaries

lmao

Marxists have been 100% neutered this century, just like the (primcipled) right. I wonder why?
Replace "ruling class/bourgeoisie" on the average marxist critique with "jew/globalist", and watch the magic happen.

>>17474760
Not, it isn't.

There are literal experiments on evolution.

As for the history of life on Earth, well, science can operate on the basis of the most simple explanation (instead of the inductive reasoning that we usually see), which is what it does when dealing with past events. The picture that we gather from genomics and the fossil record is just too coherent. It's too statistically unlikely that its general lines, as contemporarily understood, are false.
And the existing picture can be falsified. For instance, by finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. It wouldn't be 100% falsification (the rabbit could have been put there by an alien, who knows) but it would pose very serious questions about the existing picture, and render it much less simple.
But in a way it's not really science, though. It's just common sense applied to the data that has been gathered. It explains the past, but doesn't propose any general law.

But when you make experiments on evolution, and the theory of natural selection gives you a prediction, then it is your typical science, in the full meaning of the term, and it is falsifiable. There have been many experiments on evolution. Every breeder knows this.

>>17476789
??? What are you saying? That conservatives and marxists have similar ideals in reality? Cause I agree. Although America has very few marxists at the moment.

>>17476867
Also , I didn’t mean to say they have the same ideals, but that they share some goals and could found common ground

>>17474752
every single part of this screams neocon

>>17476845
You could simply be making assumptions based on bones and rocks that are false, nimrod.

There's no justification for evolution being absolute when quite simply it is as recent as it is, as a theory. Evolution being false is not as ridiculous as you think, it's not like some flat earth theory, there is very little fossil evidence, and they only started being discovered AFTER Lamarck's theories were presented.

>>17476645
>Marx said that consumers would have too little savings and that capitalists would have to give them credit to make up for it.
Keynes didn't point out a lack of savings as the issue that had to be addressed: he realized people were saving too much instead of spending. He figured that if money was slowly but steadily depreciating, people would would consume more in the near term when their savings' were worth and more of those savings would be productively invested in industry instead of stashed under the mattress.

>>17476784
wow I wonder what happened to those countries
>inb4 muh Cuba
the US would literally obliterate Cuba in less than a month flat, power is the priority when it comes to running a country.

>>17477182
You don't even seem to know what evolution is.
You're confusing evolution (biological species modify with time, given certain kinds of pressures and random mutations) with the process of evolution throughout biological history (all species come from the same common ancestor, we descend from apes, monkeys, fish etc.)
You also still think that fossil evidence is the main evidence. Not even close! Nowadays genomic evidence pretty much suffices.

Evolution: verified biological process. It's *already verified by experiment*. Evolution has been, and constantly is, witnessed in the real world. The coronavirus, for instance, evolves.

Biological history: a LOT (really: A LOT) of 100% coherent data, specially genomic data, for which the only common sense explanation is agreed - by pretty much everyone who looks at the data - to be evolution.
Biological history is just like human history: all we have is data, lots and lots of data. Then we're free to draw whatever conclusions we want, but of course some conclusions are going to be common sense and coherent with the data - such as the conclusion that Caesar came before Charlemagne - while others are going to be crazy and will contradict all the data - such as believing that Caesar and Charlemagne were contemporaries. The historic process of evolution is simply the easiest, most comprehensive, and most coherent explanation for all the biological history data that we have gathered - not only fossils, but much, much more than that.

>>17476743
there are no modern marxists. even the people defending marx on 4chan and using marxist imagery and rhetoric aren't really marxists. these are people who care about the plight of niggers and trannies, and the possibility of working less first and foremost. they form their ideological outlook first and then they attach marxism on to it to give it intellectual and philosophical "weight". all the while their actual opinions remain pretty much completely uninfluenced by marx. at least in any non-trivial way.

>>17478248
>we descend from apes and monkeys
nigga this is literally like biology 101 and you still got it wrong, we share a common ancestor with monkeys, we're not directly related to them lmao.

>>17478248
Your problem is actually very simple: you need to learn the difference between artificial selection and natural selection and realize that experiments can never truly observe natural selection.

Jfc... dumb.

>>17479237
Idiot!
The animals we descend from were almost certainly, according to all the available data, apes and monkeys!
Also, we not only descend from apes: we *are* apes!

>>17479243
Nonsense! Natural selection has *also* been observed.
Go read a book! Even Dawkins covers that stuff.

>>17479770
>The animals we descend from were almost certainly, according to all the available data, apes and monkeys!
Prove that we descended from apes, and not that apes descended from us... I'm waiting.

>>17479787
Read my posts above. "Sciences" that study the past are nothing but sets of abductive conclusions based on available data. You're free to draw any conclusion you want from the data, but let me tell you: the vast majority of people agree that the data we have leads us to suppose it as *much more likely* that we descended from apes than apes from us. You can go and check the data (fossils, and more) for yourself. I am not your high school teacher.

But to summarize: there are fossils which seem to show apes becoming more and more similar to us; but *not a single* fossil that seems to show creatures that looked like us becoming more and more similar to apes. When you go back 1 million years, there are fossils that look like us. When you go back 6 million is, there is *not a single* fossil that looks like us.
Now try to guess what the most likely explanation is?
Nothing is definitive. It's all about what makes sense and what doesn't.

Also, there is no such thing as scientific proof. You are simply misunderstanding even the basics of science. Proofs belong to mathematics. Go back to high school.

>>17480011
That's a long way of saying you can't

>>17480106
*There is no such thing as scientific proof*.

>>17480110
exactly, so why try to pretend that we know otherwise?

>>17480181
Go read a basic book on the philosophy of science. Verification is not the same as proof. Induction is not the same as deduction. Abduction is not the same as induction.
Never in a single moment have I proposed otherwise.

Recommended reading: Elliott Sober's introductory book "Core Questions in Philosophy".

Good-bye.

>>17480220
My only point is that scientific knowledge itself suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect. It gains a little bit of knowledge (archaeology, paleontology), and takes it as a great amount because it has no clue how much it is actually lacking

>>17474760
>The theory of evolution as an origin of mankind
I see what you did there.
Evolution hasn't been falsified and the more observations we uncover, the more it is reinforced, but you're asking to falsify the theory of human origin via evolution.

It is by far the best explanation for the observations we have. We have found several "missing links" that explain well our selection into our modern form via evolution.
Finding a modern human skeleton in pre-hominid or transitional era would be good falsification of evolution as a whole, but what we see is transitional snapshots into modern humans.

The burden of proof is on you, in fact, to present the reasons and evidence that we are exempt from the forces of evolution and also explain the transitional skeleton evidence of out ancestors.

>https://youtu.be/UuIwthoLies

>>17480227
>>17480220
You also forget basic facts about ancient human societies, such as the tendency to cremate the dead into ashes rather than bones. If that were the case for most ancient humans, then we would obviously have no (or extremely limited and highly unlikely) fossil records of them for instance. Burial is a relatively recent phenomenon, or at best tied to primitive cultures.

>>17480227
None of that is relevant to any of my points.
"Scientific knowledge" can't suffer from anything because it isn't a living creature. Maybe you're talking about scientists. I don't care about what scientists say. I don't give a shit about them.
Your terminology is all confused. Science is not the scientists.

>>17480291
Occam's razor. But if you wish to make your hypothesis complex by adding crazy stuff, that's up to you. Abductively, I think your reasoning is bad, (and the Occam's razor itself is a very good rule of thumb also inductively), but that's your problem, not mine.
Believe whatever you want. You can also believe the sun won't rise up tomorrow, if you wish. Not my problem.

Your thinking on the subject is confused. Read on the philosophy of science in order to clarify it. Bye-bye and I hope you have enjoyed this conversation.

>>17480312
PS: looking back at my posts, I notice that I said "evolution has been verified".

Sorry, that was perhaps a bit obscure of me. In reality, what I meant to say is that the exact things that natural selection predicts have been verified in real life cases.
That's what I meant by 'verification". It hasn't been verified that natural selection is true, because no scientific hypothesis is ever really verified *in the sense of being verified as true*: all you can do is show that what it predicted has happened precisely as it should, and you can show it countless times, and therefore make a very good, educated guess, that the theory is true - or at least it is the best one we have in order to explain the existing data.
But this is the case for all scientific theories, so it shouldn't be considered a weak point of evolution. The theory of evolution as it is commonly formulated by biologists today is one of the strongest in science, and the biological history of the Earth is also very much agreed upon in its general lines (although of course there are millions of disagreements about the details).

>>17480312
>Occam's razor. But if you wish to make your hypothesis complex by adding crazy stuff, that's up to you.
It's not crazy, it's basic fact that all ancient civilizations, from Rome to India to Japan, have practiced cremation as the main funeral right. If you think that's crazy it's only because of your bias towards what you've been brainwashed to believe.
>None of that is relevant to any of my points.
It is highly relevant. Science only gets miniscule snapshots of history and you think that tiny, tiny amount of knowledge is enough to construct a system of history to any reliable degree. This is what I mean by the Dunning-Kruger effect. It occurs to ALL scientists, because they only work with certain data and lose sight of the overall picture, which I've just remarked upon. I couldn't care less if your own bias prevents you from seeing this.

>>17480381
>It's not crazy, it's basic fact that all ancient civilizations, from Rome to India to Japan, have practiced cremation as the main funeral right. If you think that's crazy it's only because of your bias towards what you've been brainwashed to believe.

If that were the case, we would expect to find at least the traces of the humans who lived before cremation started (which needs mastery of fire), but we don't. You are making the picture unnecessarily complex by postulating the existence of humans at a time when it is completely unnecessary.
Occam's razor!

>knowledge is enough to construct a system of history

It's not a system of history. It's the easiest explanation for the available data. If you have a better one, offer it, and if it really is better, scientists will agree with you - at least the honest ones.

>>17480407
>we would expect to find at least the traces of the humans who lived before cremation started
No, we wouldn't, because they're burnt, and we only find the rarest fragments from that period of history. The things we do find are extremely rare and lucky. Like I said, they are snapshots.
>It's the easiest explanation for the available data
Which is totally absolutely insufficient, hence why there's no point drawing scientific conclusions and theories at all. They're all completely worthless because they are only such a narrow and necessarily snapshotted view of history. Pretending that we have any idea about whether we descend from apes or the other way around is pure Dunning-Kruger bullshit. The fact is, you're not in a position to say, and you probably never will be, because history is history.

>>17480429
>No, we wouldn't, because they're burnt, and we only find the rarest fragments from that period of history. The things we do find are extremely rare and lucky. Like I said, they are snapshots.

So they invented fire instantaneously? That's yet another further fantasy in your bizarre hypothesis.
You're proposing the existence of an entirely new species that is not coherent with the data we have and with what we know about how humans evolved. By the Occam's razor, that is completely unnecessary. Look, I could propose the existence of flying dogs too - but dogs who traveled to mars and died there, so they didn't leave fossils here - and you''ll be 100% unable to disprove it.

That's not how science works. You don't keep proposing the existence of further entities than you need to. The fact that you insist on thinking in this sterile manner suggests to me that you are a hopeless case, that you have never read a good book on evolution, that you know nothing about the philosophy of science; so it is worthless to talk to you. If scientists thought the way you do, they'd be looking for unicorns and yetis - because they're possible and you can't disprove them! -, instead of looking at the data, inferring the simplest explanations, then proceeding to do other works.

>They're all completely worthless because they are only such a narrow and necessarily snapshotted view of history

And yet here you are using a computer which is based on "completely worthless" science.
Science might not be 100% true - we will never know - but it is the closest thing we have to truth. If you wish to be anti-science, feel free, but at least be coherent and drop your computer on the trash bin.

>>17480508
You are genuinely dumb, or just arguing in bad faith. You're legitimately unable to distinguish between the general validity of the theory of human origins and modern computer science, lol

>>17480508
>If scientists thought the way you do, they'd be looking for unicorns and yetis - because they're possible and you can't disprove them! -, instead of looking at the data, inferring the simplest explanations, then proceeding to do other works.
There are vast arrays of evidence to suggest what I've already suggested, but it is selectively ignored by scientists because it is somehow considered less valid than other evidence (large amounts of mythology for instance, which is accepted as valid evidence in the case of Australian aboriginals for their migration theories, but not in the case of Indo-European and Mesoamerican cultures... because it wouldn't suit the evolutionary agenda to investigate what truth is contained within the myth of more advanced cultures, which suggest a devolutioanry past). Cro-Magnons are one example of ancient humans which were physically more evolved (larger brains, fully developed frontal lobes) than modern humans. These are treated as an "outlier" because they don't conform to the "evolutionary" bias already accepted by scientists, even though it appears that modern humans have, at least according to physiological structures, devolved since their time.

>>17480562
I want to point something out(didn't read your whole convo just saw the post while scrolling through the board):
A lot of evolutionists over the course of history had this erroneous idea that evolution has relatively clear direction and that if we can observe the last 5000 years(let's say) we can triangulate the rest of it. Biologists mostly gave that up, but in other places where evolutionary theory has some influence(philosophy, philosophy of history, anthropology) they legitimately try to build theories like "man evolves to be more intelligent and live in bigger societies" etc. The reality meanwhile is that in given place, with the social, technological, political and environmental situation that's particular to it, there's a different "evolutionary optimum" for "human".

So for instance, an example I remember seeing quite recently: cephalic index throughout history in Poland on pic. Something(development of villages proper? wider introduction of serfdom?) prompted selection for brachycephalism(for reasons that are kind of beyond the point), from levels lower than anywhere in Europe today, to one of the higher ones on the continent. Now obviously had for some reason the pressures selecting for it been lifted, we'd probably see the trend reversing.

As such there may have been some archaic humans with bigger brains, or taller(measured using more heritable proxies for height) or something, and you'd think that should be better from your perspective, except in reality there was something that caused it to be less optimal than you'd think. And since a lot of scientists are brains on wheels, they are easily led to believe that brain mass and intelligence are always good and should always be selected for(even though they themselves are often childless).

>>17480652
forgot pic, sorry

Sowell is a right wing shill who pushed Trump in 2016. If you honestly think he's an intellectual man you have no credibility. He's paid by right wing institutions like the Hoover institute to play the role of smart black man who was once a Marxist. Any legitimate person interested in this field without wanting to be biased can see that.

>>17480922
But Sowell is right

>>17474603
Academia can't acknowledge Marx because Marxism is inherently political. That's why you get "schools" of economics, psychology and sociology where you don't in the natural sciences, because atoms don't play a role in politics whereas economics does. While it might be true that modern economics doesn't *credit* Marx, Marx's criticisms and theory is often widely replicated within economics, just given a different name. The fact that recessions are caused by overproduction for example is no longer seriously disputed, but it was Marx who first said that. Marxist ideas are often taken, stripped of their politics and then are allowed to enter academia.

>>17480967
There are no “schools” of economics. There’s only mainstream and heterodox economics.

>>17480963
Yes, if people were more responsible then they wouldn't need big government. Except... wait a minute... the least responsible people are the ones who advocate against government regulation.

Example: Anti-maskers. "Don't tell me what to do" "We need you to be responsible with your spit particles" "COMMUNISM COMMUNISM"

Example: Too big to fail banks

Example. Zero environmental awareness in business procedures.

Literally the exact people he wants to be libertarian for are the EXACT people who need to be regulated most.

>>17480982
They're are a shit ton of schools of mainstream economics, I'm not just about the wacky shit like the Austrian school, I'm talking about the London (Fabian) school, Keynesian school, New institutional school, Neoclassical economics ect.

>>17480985
Lmao. Ask me how I know you’ve never read Sowell. For example, he supports environmental regulations. Read Basic Economics. The rest you said about irresponsible people is pure conjecture, this has nothing to do with Sowell’s work.

>>17481038
It came straight from his mouth. His primary thesis is that if people were more responsible they wouldn't need big government. Regardless of whether or not he supports environmental regulations the people who he would elect into office (Trump) DO NOT

>>17481038
ps. economics is a social science and strict adherence to social theories is what causes financial crises.

>>17474700

Absolute kek.
Ask any economist "how much money there is in the world, how much money could we all withdraw now and get, and how much does that make divided equally between people', and you will see the beads of sweat materializing on their skin out of nowhere. They are fucking afraid of any applied maths that don't directly contribute to this illusion of wealth we have.

>>17481054
You probably got this from some offhand quote by him on Twitter or some news column. This does not represent his work. He has never said that people would collectively be more responsible without government, or anything to that effect. He simply studies the trade offs between government regulations. Saying “but what about anti-maskers” is just some gotcha argument. I don’t even know what his stance on mask wearing is.

And Sowell has always disliked Trump. He only ever considered him the lesser of the evils.

>>17481112
Two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Sowell urged voters to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. In 2018, when asked on his thoughts of Trump's presidency, Sowell replied "I think he's better than the previous president."

Just shut the fuck up jesus christ. I got this from AN INTERVIEW WITH THOMAS SOWELL ON THE HOOVER INSTITUTE YOUTUBE. LITERALLY FROM HIS MOUTH. DOES WHAT HE SAYS NOT REPRESENT HIS WORK LMFAOAOOOOOOOAOAOOOO

>>17474603
I think we are due for a working class revolution...AGAINST the marxists. I like the term 'cultural marxism' because it pisses all the right people off. LGBTSJWTFNPC marxist cattle are mindless purpose engineered biopolitical clientele for multinational corporations any real revolutionary movement, justifying the status quo through their putrid AIDS liturgy, would have to start by bashing their faggy pink haired skulls.

>>17478361
Marxists are undistinguishable from the CIA the state department and the HR and marketing divisions of major capitalist corporatioms. The real division is not left v right but of the pozzed corporate monoculture and those who dare to dissent even on the slightest.

>>17481133
>I think we are due for a working class revolution...AGAINST the marxists

There's a non-negligible number of marxists that have always decried the faggotisation of the left. WSWS.org for example has an entire section of essays on how this is Bezos' ultimate move against them.
I consider myself a marxist (although with a lot of NazBol components) and anyone on the left who doesn't speak exclusively of labor relations, building/reforming unions or setting up worker coop is instantly suspect.

>>17481186
They are negligible, unless you think people like George Galloway represent the left.

>>17475191
when you are an austrian, you can trace evolution theory back to Smith, hell, why not sliced bread too.

>>17481121
Post the interview. I'd like to get the full context of what he's saying.

>>17476763
Karl Popper didn't "debunk him" at all. Popper's claims about "falsifyability" have been panned by scientists who aren't Marxists, let alone Marxists. Also, its funny he lambasted dialectics for tolerating paradoxes and not being "falsifyable" when his paradox of tolerance is literally a dialectical argument.

>>17481121
Sowell said to vote for Trump because he'd be "easier to impeach," and that "his impeachability may be his most important asset in a year of painful choices." https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/10/16/turnout-time

He's also called Trump's trade policies "pathetic" and criticized him for his comments on women. Doesn't seem like Sowell is a fan. He considers him better than Obama because Obama sucked ass.

>>17481121
>all caps
>LMFAOOOOOOO
psued seething

>>17480011
>"Sciences" that study the past are nothing but sets of abductive conclusions based on available data.
So, it cannot produce data, therefore it it not falsifiable

>Now try to guess what the most likely explanation is?
It's almost like Freud and Marx is doing this - which means biology, according to popper's criteria, is a pseudo-science.

I, the original anon who made the introductory statement for this discourse, have proven my point: falsifiability is useful in some fields but not all, and ultimately Kuhn's paradigm theory wins.

>'marx has no influence today'
>the official ideology of the soon to be the most powerful country on earth is marxism-leninism

>>17474603
who gives a shit about 'professional economics' anyway? they're all just simps for capital anyway.
the people who matter (e.g. big conglomerates/monopolists) use economic planning extensively, look at amazon

>>17484286
Did you read the second part of the first sentence in the OP?
Also
>China
>Marxist in any way
are tankies this desperate for a win that theyre licking the boots of fascism now?

>>17484372
>Emphasize that your socialism has to be scientific
>The same science you supposedly love so much then btfo's marx and renders him obsolete
>"w-whatever, this science is just in service of capital anyway!"
The absolute state of marxists

Marxist theory is required reading in schools and for all party members in China
Xi is an expert scholar in Marxist theory and has written books elaborating the theory and goals behind his praxis in great length

>“We commemorate Marx in order to pay tribute to the greatest thinker in the history of mankind,” Xi said, “and also to declare our firm belief in the scientific truth of Marxism.” Party members are required to study selections of Marx’s works, particularly The Communist Manifesto. The public gets its dose as well, among other things via a television talk show, Marx Got It Right (Makesi shi duide). The renewed embrace of Marxism has also been a key element in “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” which was added to China’s constitution following the 19th Communist Party Congress.

>The lessons of Marx, Xi declares, are that Marxism changes with the times, that it must be integrated with local culture in order to be effective, and that it needs a strong party and a great leader in order to succeed. For Xi, Marxism is modern China’s state ideology, part of the national story of redemption from humiliation by foreign powers.

> China “rose up” under Mao Zedong, “got rich” under Deng Xiaoping, and is “becoming powerful” under Xi Jinping in its quest towards evolving through Marx's stages of economic development towards achieving communism. China had to industrialize and progress through the capitalist mode of production to consolidate and advance resources before it could evolve to the socialist mode of production.

> Mao restored the sovereignty necessary to further China’s material progress in a globalized world under Deng. Deng’s reforms are not to be criticized for promoting capitalism; he simply allowed the material base for China’s rejuvenation to develop and progress further. China has succeeded where Stalinism in the twentieth century and neoliberalism today have failed, and thus must lead the world forward. His goal is to shore up state authority, rejuvenate the Chinese people, and progress towards maximizing industrial capabilities on the path to achieving socialism. Marxism’s truths evolve with society and the material conditions, so China applied Marxist theory to the circumstances of China. China required development of its material base above all else, and this was the goal of Dengism.

>Xi's Marxism has merged with traditional Confucianism and seeks inspiration from its spirit of striving, of excellence, of self-perfection. All of this is combined with a defense of China’s cultural and civilizational uniqueness, the notion that, through the continual exercise of theory and praxis, China has finally made socialism both uniquely Chinese and uniquely contemporary to address the challenges of the modern civilization.

>>17484411
all of this for state capitalism

>>17484411
>Marxist theory is required reading in schools and for all party members in China
>Xi is an expert scholar in Marxist theory and has written books elaborating the theory and goals behind his praxis in great length
All the Chinese need be credited with here is skillful cognitive dissonance.

>>17484379
>Three Represents Theory: Our party must always represent the requirements of China's advanced productive forces, represents the orientation of China's advanced culture, and represents the fundamental interests of the majority of the Chinese people. The Three Represents are in light of the ideas proposed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their article “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas”

>First, Marx and Engels argued “to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, … the class making a revolution comes forward from the very start, … not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society, as the whole mass of society confronting the one ruling class”.[12] Following Marx and Engels’ideas, the Chinese Communist Party which took over power from feudalism through revolution does not treat itself as the ruling class, but as the party that represents the interests of the majority of the society.

>Second, from the perspective of the historically organic ideologies, “material forces are the content and ideologies are the form… the material forces would be inconceivable historically without form and the ideologies would be individual fancies without the material forces”.[12] The Chinese Communist Party perceives that the material forces are the same as the productive forces, and the ideologies are another form of cultures. To put it another way, the productive forces are the economic bases and the ideologies are the superstructure. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party represents both the advanced productive forces and the advanced culture.

>Third, “one must bring an order into this rule of ideas, prove a mystical connection among the successive ruling ideas”, as indicated by Marx and Engels. The order of the Three Represents therefore reflects the successive ruling ideas. The Chinese Communist Party believes that the productive forces must come first than the advanced culture. Only when the Chinese people had the advanced productive forces, could they have the advanced culture. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party represents the productive forces and then represents the advanced culture.

>>17484411
>The fact that all they do is capitalism/fascism is ok because he quotes Marx sometimes
Leftcoms were right, tankies really are braindead.
If Mussolini had never stopped calling himself a communist but done everything else the same, then the tankies of today would've praised him as well.

>>17474603
The mistake people make is assuming Das Kapital is an economics book, when it's actually a sociology book

Marx wasn't writing on how best to produce the most amount of shoes, he was writing on how to make sure all the shoe-makers had proper control of their work

Literally everyone makes this mistake (conservatives, communists etc.) and it's annoying as fuck

>>17484457
>>17484470
It is not equivalent to fascism or capitalism, their mode of operation is quite different and China is not a society centered on racism or capitalist profiteering but rather advancing towards socialism and prosperity for the Chinese workers

>>17484495
You can't be serious

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is a theory based on dialectical materialism and Marx's theory of economic development stages.

>>17484512
I have to tell myself it's actual shills because it is simply too sad to imagine someone really thinks that

>>17484512
The socialist construction with Chinese characteristics must be based on history and reality. According to the requirements of liberation and development of productivity, efforts must be made to reform and improve the production relations, as well as continually consolidate the socialist system with Chinese characteristics to properly advance the mode of production towards communism. China is building up her wealth to redistribute it to the people. Jack Ma the billionaire was recently purged and his wealth redistributed to the working classes, while Alibaba is to be nationalized in the hands of the party (who represents and serves the people, meaning the people will get the wealth back)

>>17484565
Ma is still worth 60 billion

>>17482216
Cope
Ask me how I know you know fuck all about science?
Popper's doctrine of Falsifiability is well excepted in the scientific community. There have been some philosophical objections (most radically those of Feyerabend, a retard) which have been raised but it wasn't "panned" because almost everyone agrees that it's a useful tool for separating pseudoscience (like Marxism and damn-near all of economics) from actual science (like physics and chemistry).

>>17484563
The CPC government has not abandoned Marxism, but is simply applying concepts of Marxist theory and accommodating them to the country's material conditions. Socialism is not incompatible with these economic policies. China is in the primary stage of socialism, and this allows CPC to undertake economic policies that attract the capital necessary to develop into an industrialized nation as they progress. The progression from feudalism and agrarianism to the modern modes of production are to advance the material base further in pursuit of the Chinese Dream, generating maximum wealth for the Chinese working classes and advancing the country's capabilities. China is also making inroads in other nations spreading influence, giving it capabilities of advancing world socialist revolution.


In Marxist theory, history progresses through a number of stages from slave society to feudal society to capitalist society to socialist society to communist society. In Maoist theory, the revolution of 1949 was the change from feudalism to socialism. The Communist Party of China argues that therefore China is socialist, in the primary stage of socialism. The theory of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, is the development of the productive forces as its fundamental task on progression to communism.

>Deng Xiaoping: "What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principles of 'from each according to his ability' and 'to each according to his needs' will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism."

>Deng Xiaoping: "Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity"

>>17484648
By your estimation, when will China start to create actual socialism? Give as specific date as possible

Deng on the future of Marx post USSR fall:

> "Don't panic, don't think that Marxism has disappeared, that it's not useful any more and that it has been defeated. Nothing of the sort! Socialism radiates vigor and dynamism in China. China's economy has been developing rapidly and in a healthy manner, the living conditions of the people have been improving and the overall capacity of the country has been strengthened. All these indisputable achievements have been highly appreciated by impartial observers who harbor no prejudice against China. "

>"The great cause of building socialism with Chinese characteristics under the guidance of Deng Xiaoping theory is not only a pioneering undertaking in. China but also of world significance. If we can achieve the strategic goal of reaching the level of moderately developed countries by the middle of the next century, we shall not only have blazed a new path for the peoples of the Third World, who represent three quarters of world's population, but also - and is even more important - we shall have demonstrated to mankind that socialism is the only path and that it is superior to capitalism."

>"Socialism has experience some setbacks and low ebbs, but the general trend towards socialism replacing capitalism has never changed. During the more than 150 years since the appearance of the theory of scientific socialism, it has developed from the conception of revolutionary teachers into the guiding principle of the workers' movement all over the world, from theory into practice, and from the practice in one country into that in many countries, presenting a constantly growing dynamic movement."

>"It is inevitable that there will be localized reversals and temporary set backs during this process. Marxists who keep a clear head with regard to dialectical materialism do not feel puzzled by these outward phenomena, but unswervingly believe in the final victory of socialism and communism, and face the harsh realities with high morale, calmly taking up the gauntlet of praxis."

>>17484700
You can't predict with certainty, but in the next 20-30 years I would predict.

>>17484700
right now

>>17484718
I'm going to screencap this post and save it just to see how accurate it is

social credit points for everyone itt

>>17484793
Social credit system as the West portrays it is largely misleading (surprise surprise) and myth

>>17484860
>Tankayu velly much, 10 cents have been deposited to yo bank account. We rike wat u r doing keep up good work!

>>17474700
kek. no it is not. and I have an econ degree

hail china successor of Marx's mission

>>17484718
>in the next 20-30 years I would predict.
Im not even going to go find a suitable frog picture for this, you know what you've done

>>17484648
trust the plan fellow han race
china will reach socialism soon

>>17478361
this

>>17484401
i'm not making the point that socialism won, it was obviously defeated. i'm making the point that 'professional economics' are just as refuted as atested by the action of the actual most successful capitalist in the world today, as well as others.

>>17484512
maybe this wasn't the case in the era of zemin but xi is literally jailing and executing western profiteers, which is why in the last decade western media has gone from simping for china to 'muh uyghurs'

>>17476648
>no commie world powers
2/3 world powers and i bet it will soon be 3/4 of world powers having communism to thank.

>>17474700
It should be in theory but it's filled with pseuds like Krugman unfortunately.
Walras, Pareto, and Nash, save economics though and make it more mathy. Read them.
>>17481085
>illusion of wealth
>t. faggot on a computer
Macroeconomics is the most pseudy of all sub-disciplines within economics (which struggles to be a real science in general).
The reason why you can't determine how much wealth there is though is because there is no one number you can put to the money supply, it's of a completely indeterminate quantity despite how important it is (M0, MB, M1, M2, etc. are all cope for macrofaggots) and value is determined subjectively (not through labour like commies lie to think). Sure it's true that inflation arises from the money supply and the velocity at which money is introduced into it but pretending like you can control or understand exactly what that means is the biggest of all copes ever.

economics is bullshit we are lucky this frankenstein system created by blind men over generations is enough for technology to progress

>>17474603
It’s just a case of begging the question. To say Marx contributed “nothing to the field of economics” is to specifically deny the validity of Capital as a work of economic theory (among other things). “The field of economics” is not some magical entity, but rather a collection of works published concerning roughly the same topic. By the very fact that he did publish works about this topic, Marx by definition contributed to the field of economics.
It’s like taking a random post in this thread and saying it “contributed nothing to the thread”. That makes no sense. The thread is defined as the collection of all these individual posts. By the very fact that the post exists in the thread it “contributed” to the thread as we know it.

That's cause the economic content of Marx is actually a ripoff of Adams and Ricardo, and all the original "thoughts" boil down to "there will be a proletarian revolution" -- you know, a thing that never ever ever occurred in the known history of the world. No shit nobody takes Capital seriously.

>>17474700
Math is transcendental, it therefore cannot be applied. What it can though is to be used as a tool to further the idiological shitshow that is econ.

marx contributed the theory of commodification, surplus value, dialectical materialism

>>17474603
Why do modern Marxists spend more time analyzing Shrek from a Marxist perspective than doing anything productive?

>>17487942
The film tetralogy Shrek is particularly interesting in this respect as it not only reflects a vast range of political, social, and economic aspects but actively partakes in the construction of the political, social, and economic world. However, while a number of authors have examined the role of gender and sexuality (Unger and Sunderland, 2007; Marshall and Sensoy, 2009) or of identity (Brabham, 2006; Pimentel and Velázquez, A. Lacassagne et al. (eds.), Investigating Shrek 2009) in the Shrek movies, little has been said about the role of class. This chapter wants to address this gap by providing a neo-Marxist reading of Shrek 2 and thereby offering a double perspective on the content as well as the socializing effect of the movie on its (young) audience.

We argue, in the first three parts of the chapter, that neo-Marxist thoughts on bourgeois domination, oppressed proletarian masses, and class struggle permeate the film as it raises revolutionary themes sympathetic to the plights and aspirations of the “fairytale proletariat.” In the movie the capitalist class, personified by the Fairy Godmother, seeks to dominate political decision makers (King Harold). Its power is based on the exploitation of the proletariat (nonhuman fairy-tale characters) and on a consumerist illusion of happiness that is manufactured industrially (potion factory) and reproduced by the media (the Medieval Entertainment Channel). In the film the media is presented as a crucial pillar of capitalist rule. It contributes to bourgeois rule through the recreation of the powerful consumerist ideology of happiness and through its general alignment with the capitalist system. As the final part of the chapter shows, rather than calling for a class revolution in the “real” world, the film ultimately serves to stabilize the capitalist system by falling victim to the capitalist ideology reproduced by the media. Just as the “fairytale proletariat” is blinded and deceived by the glamorous Hollywood-style happy ending of Shrek 2, the audience is tricked by the rebellious anti-Disney appearance as the seemingly revolutionary message is turned into an affirmation of the media as an ideological apparatus of the bourgeois state

>>17474760
It is falsifiable. If you found human DNA on venus it would be falsified.

>>17484379
>not autarkic
>business bows before the state
>aim is to achieve socialism

"China is fascist bro"
This memecope is gotten stale.

>>17488118
>business bows before the state
Thats typical fascism. Under communism there wouldnt be any business
>goal is to achieve socialism
thats the carrot on a stick they use to bait gullible tankies into supporting them.

>>17487970
lol

>>17474603
>sneed

>>17474873
Dumbass none of the things you listed were his original contributions. You REALLY think the reserve army of labor is something Marx was the first to notice?

>>17484286
>soon to be
This meme again. China has absurd resource insecurity.

>>17487942
wdym by doing anything productive?

stop thinking of marx as an economist. yes his influence on modern economics is virtually zero, thats completely missing the point.

Even in the most liberal schools I found that the economics department was mostly right leaning economically (not Marxist). It was power cringe to see the occupy Wall Street hippies and the business faggots debate.

Anyway, OP makes good points, the value of Marx as an economic force is nearly dead. All that is left is the religious aspect

>>17484483
>Marx wasn't writing on how best to produce the most amount of shoes, he was writing on how to make sure all the shoe-makers had proper control of their work
And he was wrong about all that he wrote. Abolishing private property like he wanted produces shit results. This whole excuse of “Marx wasn’t writing about economics, he was critiquing it” is retarded. This is like if someone wrote a “critique” of physics, and when some physicist points out all the shit they got wrong about the field, they revert to their excuse.

>economics
>a hard science

>>17474603

>>17474781
If you are going to read a brown economist, at least choose the right one.

how is this thread still here

im a social democratic capitalist who sympathizes with marx's goals and the left but think that capitalism is ultimately more successful and beneficial for human advancement. marx has some noble ideas and his followers want to help the poor, but communism is not achievable for a very long time. we must be pragmatic. capitalism is required for now.

> Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed.
Yes, lets ignore how SSSR and CCP, fine. If you want to keep the argument west-centric because that's all you know, fine.

Without the threat of Marxism and Socialism, there wouldn't be a need for FDR's new deal. It was a compromise deal that only benefited that specific generation and constructed government supported industry. This lead directly into globalist labor practices by the ruling class in the US. Despite that, there were still millions of card carrying American Communist members in high manual labor areas such as Detroit. This directly shapes ALL OF MODERN ECONOMY.

> Then why are there no modern marxists in Economics?
Richard Woolf, Yanis Varufakis and Immanuel Warestein are the major examples. There is a high material risk being an open Marxist because it does not open any academic or business oportunities because that school of thought does not benefit any benefactor of US or EU academia. No amount of Jacobin articles can feed a family.
If Wolff, a professor that studied at Stanford, Harvard and Yale for almost 20 years not a real economist then I don't know what to tell you.

Capital is not a god written perfect text but it is essential reading as a prelude to major modern works such Manufacturing Consenst, Society of the Spectical and First As Tragedy, Then as Farce.
Go back to PragerU, dipshit.

>>17493622
>capitalism is required for now
Very marxist take

>>17493766
Based and rational pilled

>>17493766
>This lead directly into globalist labor practices by the ruling class in the US.
That wasn't inevitable. Reagan started allowing it when he broke the post-war consensus.

>>17474760
You don't think popper knew that?

>>17493766
lol you faggot

>taking communism serious when they traded hardware for pepsi
So, the Russians did what any country would do in desperate times: They traded Pepsi a fleet of subs and boats for a whole lot of soda. The new agreement included 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer.

>>17480508
>Science might not be 100% true - we will never know - but it is the closest thing we have to truth
"That's yet another further fantasy in your bizarre hypothesis."

>>17474781
Pure ideology

>tendency of profit to fall
>surplus value
>muh material dialectic
Marx really was a fucking moron. How is he so popular?

>>17474700
the absolute state of /lit/

>>17487405
math can be applied, look at computer science