/lit/ - Literature

It's about 20 pages long. Hurry up with that shit and read some criticism.

You're kidding right?
Class separation was imminent since the beginning of civilization. It was something everyone knew about since. Marx made a point of "pointing it out", then going on further to try to apply living in a rural village, to empires and nations. (doesn't work)

Marxism= living as an insect colony

Republicanism=closer to living like mammals

Read it. The world makes so much more sense after you do.

>>1773577
Already did. Agree with some things, disagree greatly with others.

It was a long time ago, I'll surely give it a second go

Marxism is dead. get over it.

the hell with Marx, read some Menger.

>>1773574

Republicanism = Living without a monarch you fucking idiot

>mfw

>>1773563
His surplus value stuff- the whole basis for predicting world revolution- was essentially disproved at the beginning of the 20th century. The real wages and working conditions of the western proletariat simply did not keep getting worse as he predicted- they got better. You can still go 'Marxist', which means including subsequent revisions and critiques of Marx in your thinking, and you can certainly reject capitalism, although workable alternatives have been hard to come by. But Marx himself is not holding the answers.

Also, I'm living in China and the achievements of a free market here are just... unbelievable, man.

>>1773574

Republicanism=caste exploitation OR hypocrisy.

Depends on if you are part of the religious right.

>>1773589

>free market
>china
>mfw

>>1773574

I have no idea what this criticism is supposed to mean. If 'everyone knew about it', why was there no systematic analysis of it? Why is there so little reference to it in the historical record? Why is it so difficult to find people organised according to their 'class' or working together in recognition that they do indeed share the same interests? Are you suggesting that it was so obvious that nobody needed to mention it, or write about it, or act as though it existed at all?

Class consciousness, which is much more important than the objective existence of class, doesn't begin to emerge until the end of the 18th century if we're to believe E.P. Thompson. The shift was one away from vertical categories (the worker identifies with his employer, and against other works and their employers) toward horizontal categories (the worker identifies with his fellow worker, and against their employers). More recently, historians have tended to emphasize that professional consciousness arose before class consciousness, which helps to account for the existence of narrow labour organisations arising out of the guild system.

By the way, "doesn't work" in parentheses isn't a useful comment, let alone a convincing one. Marx's criticism of capitalism has nothing to do with "living in a rural village". You're incredibly confused.

>>1773591

Please tell me that you know the difference between republicanism and Republicanism. Your comment suggests that you don't.

Briefly, republicanism is a political ideology which was at its height in Ancient Greece and in Renaissance Italy. It emphasises that the polity is the responsibility of its members ('res publica' = property of all) and it generally demands an active and engaged citizenry. The particular form of politics is not set in stone, but it is usually associated with some form of democratic participation and with a rejection of monarchy. There are also people who call themselves 'republican' on the sole basis that they are anti-monarchy.

The Republican Party is a political party in the USA. That was easy.

You think the "unskilled workers" of Ancient Egypt didn't know who ruled them?

Do you think medieval peasants were unconscious of the feudal system, and where they stood in it?

You're incredibly confused.

Marx wrote about something everyone knew about. Philosophers have been talking about for a long long long time before him. May not have used the same language, but it essentially meant the same thing.

The distribution of resources. What Marx did was elaborate the complexity of it with the developing industrial world. Yet still, the basic principles have been known for eons prior.

>>1773618
Republicanism never existed in Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece, for a time, practiced direct democracy.

Yikes, your argument is starting to show massive holes.

>>1773611
OK, you got me, much more free market than previously. Don't think anywhere really has 100% free market...

Their faces when.

>>1773619

That diagram is an explicitly Marxist conception of the Ancient Egyptian system, so thanks for illustrating the point.

Who are these philosophers who were writing about the class division in the Middle Ages? I'd love to read them but I fear that they don't really exist. I'm not sure how it could have "essentially meant the same thing" if they weren't discussing class interests as Marx did. Are you just trying to say that some people were more wealthy than others? Well, indeed...

Your slightly dim rhetorical questions about whether people "knew" where they stood was addressed in my first post. Yes, people knew that they owed loyalty to their masters, but that doesn't mean they also felt as though they had any particular interests in common with their fellow peasants (this is what class consciousness means and this is what Marx was elaborating). That is what is meant by a shift from a vertical to a horizontal system of 'class'.

If you want a real socialist view that can actually work with real life you should check out the ideas of Eduard Bernstein. He was a student of Marx's way of thinking and a friend of his. Bernstein has a revisionist view of sociology in the sense that he thought socialism and capitalism could be be fused at the good parts of socialism could be used to ameliorate capitalism. This is a more sensible point of view since it's always been watered down Marxism (read: partial socialism) that has actually been able to work on the real world, while hardline Marxism never has.

Are you an economist OP? If not then "starting to make sense to me" is gay.

Oh also, Marx was a bum who never worked a real job in his entire life and leeched off his family funds and the money that Engels would give to him. Engels actually deserves more credit than he gets, he was the more gifted of the two...

>Should I abandon capitalism?

What the fuck does this even mean?

>Does economic theory have any impact upon meaning of life?

No, none at all, unless you wanna go to some Latin American or Far Eastern country and try and find a socialist revolution you can join, or if you dedicate your time to the study of economics and writing/lecturing about it.

>Should I abandon capitalism? Does economic theory have any impact upon meaning of life?

Having shitty opinions about economics, politics or social issues doesn't define you as an individual, doesn't make you unique and certainly doesn't give your life any meaning.

>>1773627
Marx worked his ass off. How can you have such an influence in the history of man without putting any work into it?

>>1773621

I hope this is a joke. Firstly, 'Ancient Greece' wasn't a country so it's completely meaningless to speak of it as "practicing direct democracy", which was only a feature of one of the Greek city states that I'm aware of. I assume you're just confusing Athens with Ancient Greece because you're not very well read. Of course, Athens was indeed a classical republic, just as Sparta was.

Secondly, democracy is not somehow in opposition to a republic. A polity can be both a republic and a (direct or representative) democracy. Would you like to explain why you think the two concepts are opposed?

Read it. You will get valuable criticism on capitalism and should keep an open mind. The critique on marxism is a lot more religious than what actual marxists criticize about capitalism (the nature of exploitation etc.)

>>1773611
>that nobody needed to mention it, or write about it, or act as though it existed at all?
I'm not that anon, but I'd say yep.

There were those that lived in shit, and did the work, and those that ordered those that lived in shit around - who lived in castles/palaces and places that were less shit.

It's pretty fucking obvious and there was no need to point it out. It never got mentioned because the people who had the time to think wouldn't really have bothered to think about it that much, why would they? The way things were treated them just fine. And the peasants? When have they ever actually had the luxury of free thought?

People knew their place in the world in ages past. If that's not class consciousness, what is?

>inb4 marxist shitstorm

>>1773627
And what, can anyone tell me, is the difference between Marx and his so-called proponents today?

Not a damn thing. Lazy, useless, sons of bitches.

>>1773632
Which simply points out that you have never studied any economic theory whatsoever.

>>1773633
>inb4 marxist shitstorm

Lol, no mate.

>>1773631
>which was only a feature of one of the Greek city states that I'm aware of. I assume you're just confusing Athens with Ancient Greece because you're not very well read.
Nearly all of the city states you'll have heard of practised some form of democracy.

>>1773630

Your concept of work and those of the rest of the world differ greatly.

>>1773619
Ah, I see someone beat me to it TL;DR before.
>>1773633

Like I said, pretty fucking obvious. Perhaps not to retards who need every little itty bitty piece of reality spelled-out for them.

Yes, perhaps not.

>>1773630
>>1773627

It's true that Engels provided the funding both for Marx's work and for his life much of the time -- Marx wasn't well-paid, despite being a prolific writer.

Engels wasn't especially talented though; he knew this, which is why he was happy to let Marx lay all of the theoretical and historical grounding of the theory. To the extent that Engels made a contribution, it was a terrible one: it's Engels we have to thank for the idea of dialectical materialism, which has only served to obscure and damage Marxism.

>>1773635
>Lazy, useless, sons of bitches.

Let's see you lead a revolution and overthrow a US backed dictatorship, faggot.

>>1773637
This thread is troll bait, just you wait, they're circling like sharks.

>People believing in classes
haha oh wow

>>1773630
Uh no he didn't. He published Manifesto years before his death (and the majority of the work was done by Engels). It was also Engels who propagated the term "Marxism" because while Marx wasn't really the smarter of the two, he had a sort of charisma people liked. Neither came from poor families (funny considering the type of social policy they were trying to push forward) and Engels ended up running his fathers company after his death. For years Engels sent money to Marx to fund his lifestyle. (He did this because he thought Marx was hard at work on another book.) In reality Marx didn't do any serious publishing for a matter of years, until the first part of Das Kapital shortly before he expired. When Engels had enough money to retire he still allocated nearly 350 pounds a quarter (4 allotments per year) to be sent to Marx. This was more than 12 times the standard living wage for an individual in Europe at the time, yet somehow Marx managed to have financial troubles due to his mismanagement.

Marx wasn't a hard worker, he simply put down some radical ideas that were taken up by similarly radical people. Let's face it, most of the people who have taken Marx's thoughts to heart without changing them have turned out to be terrible people, and those who have embraced revisionist socialism still have not succeeded.

>>1773640
Well then, I guess everybody that ever worked in academic apartment never does work then. I guess anyone who ever worked in research never did any work then.
I don't see how you could say that Charles Darwin, for example, worked any harder than Marx.

>>1773631
I'm either being trolled, or I am talking to someone who has "never can admit I'm wrong syndrome".

You're wrong. I wasn't talking about Ancient Greece as a country, I was talking about it as a civilization.

Never did there exist republicanism in Ancient Greece. You're wrong.

>>1773639

Really? Why don't you provide a list of all of the Ancient Greek city-states which practiced direct democracy? "Some form of democracy" is of course not what you said initially, but it's reassuring that you're already trying to back away from the idea that direct democracy was a general feature of 'Ancient Greece'. Notably, you did not answer my question or even respond to the comments about republics, so I assume you accept that I was correct.

>>1773648
In my history class, we learned that Charles Darwin got "a lot" of help from Wallace.

>>1773630
Because jumped up university undergrads the world over for the past 150 years who just love the sounds of their own voices keep reading his stuff.

Marx did nothing. Just a fat jew that died in london, plenty of them around, though they at least work for a living instead of taking advantage of a successful friend's generosity.

Disgusting.

>Marx wasn't well-paid, despite being a prolific writer.

Well yeah, that's because he never had a real job.

>>1773646

>shit about Marx not working

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm

>Let's face it, most of the people who have taken Marx's thoughts to heart without changing them have turned out to be terrible people, and those who have embraced revisionist socialism still have not succeeded.
>without changing them

It's practically impossible to read Marx and change what it thought himself into something that has more relevance/sense to you.
Who fucking cares.

>>1773653
'_'

>>1773653
Lol. I've never heard the situation defined so well and in so few words.

>>1773643
>Fidel Castro
>Marxist
>mfw

>>1773643
Last I saw Cuba is a pretty shitty place to be.
Useless. Faggot. And gonna die soon.

>Marx did nothing. Just a fat jew that died in london, plenty of them around, though they at least work for a living instead of taking advantage of a successful friend's generosity.

No, it is literally impossible to be nothing more than "a fat jew who died in London" and have such on influence on the next century of political theory and action.
You are retarded :)

>Marx never had a real job
>Marx was lazy

>my diagram when

>>1773633
>>1773641

OK, so neither of you could name a single philosopher who wrote about these matters, nor could you name any sort of evidence that class was thought about in these terms other than the fact that it's "obvious". I think you're both done here.

>>1773649

Really? How does a civilization with incredibly diverse city-states "practice direct democracy", especially when this only seems to have been a feature of one of those city-states?

Since you apparently won't be cowed by seemingly insignificant things like facts, I will refer you to a page on the esteemed encylopaedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republic

>>1773662
>Last I saw Cuba is a pretty shitty place to be.
>Last I saw
>I saw

No you didn't, lol.

>>1773656
Yeah most of those are short articles and pamphlets. It should also be noted that Marx once got an offer from an American newspaper to be a contributor, but he got Engels to be his ghostwriter for several years since he was not proficient in English. Not only did he have Engels sending him money, he also had him penning his work as well.

Is this, finally, thegreatshitstormofourtime.jpg? It's definitely brewing up out here. I'm calling the kids in and fetching wood in case we need to board up the windows.

>>1773666
It's relevant when what were talking about is work.

>Working class

The only people in this thread defending Marx seem to be the ones who haven't really read into his life.

>>1773650
It is what I said initially because that was my first post. Yes, Anon is not one person, your mind is now blown.

I'd be wary of calling Athenian Democracy direct democracy. In practice, the majority of people were represented by male citizens.

>>1773669
>Yeah most of those are short articles and pamphlets. It should also be noted that Marx once got an offer from an American newspaper to be a contributor, but he got Engels to be his ghostwriter for several years since he was not proficient in English. Not only did he have Engels sending him money, he also had him penning his work as well.

K, let's take your view that Marx was a lazy shit and Engels was responsible for everything attributed to Marx.
What now? All you've done is disparage Marx's character, doesn't make a difference: you've just shifted the legacy of Communism from one guy to another, and nothing else is different.

>>1773667
>OK, so neither of you could name a single philosopher who wrote about these matters, nor could you name any sort of evidence that class was thought about in these terms other than the fact that it's "obvious". I think you're both done here.

So, unless it's writ in stone you don't think it exists?
Things are so obvious that no one bothers to write it because they aren't stupid.

You till the fields, I man the battlements, he sits in the big chair, fucks, drinks, and orders the rest around.

Need anything else be said?

Does it need to have been written down?

>>1773654
He mooched off of Engels a lot.

>>1773668
And how would you know?

>The only people in this thread defending Marx seem to be the ones who haven't really read into his life.
>read into his life.

>implying his life has anything to do with anything.

>>1773671

This doesn't make sense. Marx talked about the proletariat, not about the working class. The proletariat was overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, made up of the working class. However, people who we would think of as 'middle class' also form part of the proletariat: doctors, artisans, shopkeepers, etc. The criterion you require to be considered part of the proletariat is that you are not an owner of the means of production. Of course, if you don't recognise that you share interests in common with your fellow proletariat, you are then a lumpenproletariat. Perhaps you should read less about his life and more of his work, idiot.

>>1773673
Well Marx was slightly more hardcore in his beliefs. But lets pretend the author doesn't matter; Marxism in it's pure form still has never worked in any circumstance.

What's with the adamance of all the anti-marxists in proving that Engels was such a great guy?
Are they just saying that Engels doesn't get enough credit?
They're right.

>>1773680
>The criterion you require to be considered part of the proletariat is that you are not an owner of the means of production.
When will midwives own the means of production?

>>1773672

Perhaps you ought to specify that you're a new person who wasn't previously part of the conversation, otherwise it's natural to assume that you're responding to something I said to you.

It's a direct democracy insofar as people voted on specific issues rather than electing representatives to vote on their behalf. I'm afraid we can't just redefine it as undemocratic because we think women, or slaves, or criminals also ought to have had the vote. Keep your anachronistic feminism to yourself.

>Marxism in it's pure form still has never worked in any circumstance.
>never worked

Dunno man, China is pretty productive and seems to be on its way in becoming the next Superpowa

>>1773671
>The only people in this thread defending Marx seem to be the ones who haven't really read into his life.

And when has that not been the case?
Denial, denial, denial.

It's how these faggots function, otherwise they'd have either started a revolution, or killed themselves.

But no, instead they lounge around, brandishing placards with stale slogans and hurling half-baked philosophical ideas into an uncaring population.

Seriously, no one that matters gives a shit about Marx, academics with dry vagina's don't count, and neither do useless liberal arts undergrads.

Best to forget this 'lazy, fat jew'.

>>1773680
The idea of the proletariat (according to Marxism) was that people could band together in harsh circumstances (specifically revolutionary, violent circumstances) to form a workers paradise; this was an idea that was paramount to the thesis of Marxism. Marx and Engels were also students of Robert Owen, and shared the idea that socialism should work under the premise that all individuals regardless of skill or ability are equal (LOL!). I find it completely hilarious that the majority of all early socialists (with the exception of Bernstein) came from mid to upper class families.

>>1773688
>But no, instead they lounge around, brandishing placards with stale slogans and hurling half-baked philosophical ideas into an uncaring population.

>implying that's not what you do but from the opposite side of the cliff.
>implying that's not what everybodies lives consist of these days: arguing and gossiping about shit that they don't have any real commitment to.

>>1773687
lol nice troll, let us see if anyone takes the bait shall we(fingers crossed)

>Starting to read "Manifesto", and it's starting to make sense to me. Class awareness, labor theory of value, worker exploitation, etc. Should I abandon capitalism? Does economic theory have any impact upon meaning of life?

Firstly op, only speak to the intelligent people who are talking sense, unless you feel it's your duty to try to convince a stubborn moron that they are wrong. I know I don't have time for that.

Getting back on topic.
Yes you should definitely read Marx's ideas, especially modern interpretations. The ideas of capitalism essentially being a system designed to exploit the proletariat are still very true.
Just look at the was the investment banks and the hedge funds exploit the system constantly. This is a result of the commodification of risk as an asset and is inherently advantageous to people with the money to invest, as they can afford to take these risks.

His ideas that capitalism and commodity fetishism are even more relevant today than ever before. In the current society people often put a great deal of value in the valueless and furthermore do so without realizing the irrationality of it. People define themselves by their possessions and spend all their life simply trying to fulfil their roles in the capitalist system effectively being owned by their material goods with little time to spend in being creative and being a free individual.
Can you live without capitalism? I dont see how you can when it is so pervasive everywhere, the best you can hope for is to understand it and find a way to work around it that works for you.

>>1773667

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republic

>The idea of republicanism was a creation of the Renaissance

0/10

Troll harder.

>>1773694
No, it's not a troll: China really is becoming very productive and powerful.

The only slightly trolly part is that i'm waiting for people to come in and say, "hurr China is not real communism, it's actually just authoritarian Capitalism."

>>1773692
Nope.

I go on with my life. I just call them as I see them - I see this all the time when I pass by the university.

When will they get the hint that one one cares anymore?

>>1773695
>just look at how

No. Prove it.

> Marx was a jew who hated jews.

> Hitler liked Marx's ideas, but couldn't trust a jew.

> Hitler thought that Marx's anti-semitism was actually a clever ruse.

>Hitler branded his own socialist ideals to get away from Marx, but were similar enough anyways.

Hitler pwned by jews?

>>1773687
Yes, I'm sure that China is the shining example of preservation of human rights. Also, even if China overtakes America in terms of GDP, we'll still be 5 times richer per person.

>>1773691

That's one part of the proletariat, but my own definition is more germane to this discussion, i.e. about the working class. The extent to which the revolution could ever be successful is not relevant here.

I'm not sure why that should be funny to you, mostly because it's not at all true. What you probably mean is that the majority of socialists whose works survive and endure were well-educated people who were literate and intelligent -- those are not really qualities you necessarily associate with people who received no formal education whatsoever. However, if you read a text like, 'The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes', you'll find that lots of working class socialists, trade union members, etc. were exceptionally intelligent people who were fully and actively engaged in the intellectual debate.

If you're talking about Eduard Bernstein, I have no idea in what sense he would be called an 'early socialist', given that his most important writings came around the time of WWI.

>>1773698
>I go on with my life.
Yeah and what does that life consist of?

It basically consists of:
>I just call them as I see them
Which means arguing and gossiping about shit you have no real commitment to. Doesn't even need to be about politics or economics: it might just be about abortion or the death penalty or pot legalization or what Lindsay Lohan did this week.
And even if you're the type that doesn't watch the news or the TV and just hides from the world and "gets on with his life": all this gossiping shit is all around you and you can't escape it for long.

>>1773701
Trolls trolling trolls.

>>1773705
>Yes, I'm sure that China is the shining example of preservation of human rights
>human rights

Durr, look at communist countries: they always poor and never work.

>Actually China is becoming one of the most productive nations on the planet.

BUT THEY DON'T INTO HUMAN RIGHTS

nicetryfag

>>1773696

Yes, how is that controversial? It's certainly true that Renaissance scholars described the categories which existed in the Classical world, but that doesn't make the categories illegitimate or meaningless. Republicanism, as we talk about it, is an inheritance of the Renaissance thinkers and men-of-action who modeled their polities on the examples of the Ancient World. Still, your record for offering no substantive argument is maintained, so well done.

Whenever I read socialist doctrines I can't help but be overwhelmed by the feeling that said writers are trying to just use the working class to launch themselves into a Bourgeois position. Just look at Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea, (i.e. I'm not gonna give power to the workers, they're too stupid to know what's best for them).

>>1773699
learn to keep up with current affairs

where have you been for the last 5 years?

>>1773712
Just because it's called Plato's Republic in translation doesn't mean Plato called it his Republic. The closest thing to a republic was Rome, and then only sometimes.

>>1773709
I can actually cite books where I've read that. Hitler was skeptical of Marx's totalitarian socialism (the 'because he was a jew' part is actually documented) and only implemented certain parts of true socialism into his government. Some of this was probably influenced by Mussolini's new fascist government that Hitler so adored.

>>1773717

Nobody mentioned Plato. Plato's Republic was a utopian project for his ideal state. Which of the Renaissance thinkers do you suppose was confused by this? Why did you even mention Plato? Do you even understand what's going on?

>>1773719
Ah, so it was Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

Nobody wins in a situation like that.

>>1773695
>>1773695
>>1773695
>>1773695

best reasponse so far, I salute you sir

>>1773721
Plato's republic is a prime example of renaissance thinkers imposing their own thoughts on the past. As Voltaire remarked, history is the trick the living play on the dead.

>>1773725
>>1773721
>Plato's Republic was a utopian project for his ideal state.
No it wasn't.

>>1773695
I agree that commodity fetishism is essentially the blame for a lot that is wrong with the world today.

"The ideas of capitalism essentially being a system designed to exploit the proletariat are still very true."

This is what I'm driving at. Perhaps no human society can overcome the sort of economic natural selection that capitalism so effectively promotes. All forms of government seem to eventually land with a few elite individuals hoarding all essential resources. Is this just an inexorable aspect of the human condition?

In every conversation about Marx, his predictions, and the failure of Marxism pop up. That's fine. His work stands and falls based on its merit alone, I'm more interested in what I can learn from it, and what implications it still holds in modernity. That's the real question we're wrestling with, not what kind of person Marx was. Who cares? Interact with his ideas.

Did Marx simply slap his name on basic ideas that were obvious to everyone? (Class awareness, working class exploitation, theories of value) Maybe, but he articulated them well enough to make himself a household name. That should be enough to accept the brevity of his work.

Lastly, what pushed me towards 'The Manifesto' was my interaction with the definition of economy, and the ideal of personal property and ownership. Can we ever 'own' anything? What is the value of anything, beyond basic biological needs, if it does not give us the power to manipulate others?

TL;DR, I know, but thanks for reading.

>>1773730
>TL;DR, I know, but thanks for reading.

>mfw when unuseful tl;dr

>Can you live without capitalism?

I think it essentially encapsulates human nature. While some aspects of socialism can work if implemented in parts, a complete denial of the capitalist way of thinking would result in abject failure. People naturally compete against each other, and this would happen even in a socialist society (competition over mates, etc). Even if everyone were reduced to the same economic level, the smarter ones would still prevail. The natural order of predator and prey would still prevail.

>>1773734
>I think it essentially encapsulates human nature.
>human nature

No, we're not even gonna pretend.

>>1773734
Human nature is a social phenomena, not something inherent in individuals.

>>1773707
lol

>>1773734
>bring people up in a society where it is necessary to compete with each other and advertise yourself as better than your peers
>surprised when people behave like this and thinks it must be "human nature"

you even trying?

>>1773738
>>1773740

If socialism were a superior social system to the dog-eat-dog system that is capitalism, it would have happened from now. Socialists from Babeuf to Owen to Marx, Lenin and Attlee have all complained that it simply didn't work because they couldn't implement it in totality or that the citizens were not ideal people. The fact of the matter is that it is a system aimed for the weak, and that simply doesn't work. You don't have to take my word for it, we have two centuries worth of proof that says the same thing.

>>1773707
>Yeah and what does that life consist of?

Whatever the hell I want.

Tell me, do you enjoy your life?

I know I enjoy mine.

>>1773734

>implying capitalism = competition

my faith in /lit/ has diminished greatly itt

How about a system which is a mixture of socialism and capitalism? Where there is government intervation and companies are regulated as opposed to the current "free market" model which always fails. LEaving the government to have to bail out the banks on the tax dollars of the normal person? How about companies getting fines for damaging the environment that actually reflect the harm they are doing to the world and future generations? Of course thats too much too ask, lets just say "capitalism derp, no ther way derp" and be done with it.

>>1773726
Then enlighten us, what was it?

(I srsly don't know)

>>1773744
That is how it works. Whether you like it or not we assign higher value to those who have more specialized skills than those who do not. Even if we had fixed income and resources for everyone, certain people would rise over others simple because of mental disposition.

>>1773740
lol

>>1773746
>superior
In what sense? In the dog eat dog capitalist sense?

>>1773750
Yeah that would be revisionist socialism (I cited Bernstein as being one of the original proponents of this). Socialist ideals injected into Capitalists structures have and can work. But that isn't what is really up for debate here it seems.

>>1773750
>my faith in /lit/ has diminished greatly itt
you had faith in /lit/ in the first place?
think about the types that post here in the first place.

Me? I just come here to troll (because it's so damn easy)

>>1773746
I don't care about socialism/communism or the revolution but your logic is shit.

>If socialism were a superior social system to the dog-eat-dog system that is capitalism, it would have happened from now.

No, things don't just happen spontaneously like that. The French Revolution didn;t happen because people suddenely realised it was a "superior system". There was harsh resistance to it and it's victory was extremely violent.
The "lack of success" of communism may just show that the resistance against it is very powerful, not that it doesn't "work."

Pro-tip: systems of power aren't elected based on how well they "work".

>>1773752
there is a word for what you are describing, meritocracy. not capitalism. boy are you a stupid fuckwit who delusionally thinks hes smart.

>>1773752
Fellate this man you knaves for he speaks truth!

>>1773754
In the dog eat dog nature sense. It's not a uniquely human idea. While the socialist idea sounds better than the capitalist one, all the proof of solvency is on the capitalist side and despite two hundred years of attempts, socialism doesn't have a stick to hold, so to speak.

>>1773760
samefag detected

>Even if we had fixed income and resources for everyone, certain people would rise over others simple because of mental disposition.

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the economics of socialism. It's a non-sequitur.

>>1773759
>there is a word for what you are describing, meritocracy. not capitalism. boy are you a stupid fuckwit who delusionally thinks hes smart.

>>1773762
>It's not a uniquely human idea.
You think it's a doggy dog idea? Have the doggy dogs told you this themselves?

You can set it out like it's a competition between two different systems (socialism vs capitalism), but it's really a criticism of capitalism (primarily that it is a system of exploitation) and an attempt to find a solution to those criticisms.

>>1773758
>The "lack of success" of communism may just show that the resistance against it is very powerful, not that it doesn't "work."

It doesn't work. It never has, and never will.
Get on with your life.

>>1773763
lol no, only an idiot would be so obvious.
But it worked anyway didn't it? You all will, for you are all faggots (the real kind)

>>1773767
Like I said:
>I don't care about socialism/communism or the revolution but your logic is shit.

But once again
>your logic is shit.

>>1773766
>You think it's a doggy dog idea? Have the doggy dogs told you this themselves?

lol wut? faggot, speak some sense.

>No, things don't just happen spontaneously like that. The French Revolution didn;t happen because people suddenely realised it was a "superior system".

Even Marx and Engels wrote about the "spontaneity of revolution" because they wanted to rely on the idea of uprisings being key in social reform. If you want to cite the French revolution, how well did that go? If anything the revolution is a glaring example of how the working class isn't one we should trust to be in charge of things, (especially considering that Babeuf, the first true socialist, was really just a hypocrite).

>>1773770
No U

>>1773771
>as if the French Revolution was a single event
lolno

>>1773769
learn2identify anons anon, I'm just another troll flinging feces, baboon like, at the faggotry that is this thread.

>>1773766

Firstly, it's called a euphemism.

Secondly: no one is saying Capitalism is perfect. Capitalism can suck balls sometimes. However, Capitalism seems to also usher in the best living standards and products. It also gives someone who is poor the slight opportunity to rise up.

>>1773775
>Capitalism can suck balls sometimes.

Only for the crappy. Most of us get along just fine.

>>1773771
>Even Marx and Engels wrote about the "spontaneity of revolution"

Different concept entirely. I was saying that system don't just come and go based on how well they "work". Systems and destroyed, made and enforced with violence and authority: revolution doesn't happen because the revolutionaries system is better, it happens because they /think/ it will be better and so they go about brutally making it happen-- and any lack of success doesn't mean that they're system didn't work, it just mean they didn't have the power to enforce it.

>>1773775
No, a euphemism is where you talk about something in such a way to make it sound better than it is.

>However, Capitalism seems to also usher in the best living standards and products. It also gives someone who is poor the slight opportunity to rise up.
Say the bourgeois. However, from the perspective of the proletariat, it's a completely different story. So go tell that to the people who work in sweat shops that contribute to the great capitalist living standards, and ask them if they feel there's any real chance of rising up.

>>1773777
In the first main systems were socialism was largely employed were done with "violence and authority."

>>1773779
All the main socialist writers came from good backgrounds (money). The majority of those people who work in 'sweatshops' come from places like China (you know, socialist places). I'm not a rich person, In fact I'm extraordinarily poor. But I'd rather live somewhere where I could potentially rise up than just lay stagnant.

>>1773786
>I'm not a rich person, In fact I'm extraordinarily poor. But I'd rather live somewhere where I could potentially rise up than just lay stagnant.

>mfw he thinks he can rise up

>>1773779
If the working conditions were that bad, they'd quit and refuse to work there.

>>1773786
>I'm not a rich person, In fact I'm extraordinarily poor. But I'd rather live somewhere where I could potentially rise up than just lay stagnant.
You live in the west, you're the bourgeois.

Also, majority come from outside China. China's pretty well off now they've become awesome at exploiting other countries.

Last point:
>All the main socialist writers came from good backgrounds (money).
Because it's nigh impossible to become a great, well-respected writer or thinker if you don't have money in the capitalist system. Kinda goes against the rising up point.

>>1773792
Oh lol:

> Inserts names of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, almost all Presidents of recent memory who mostly all came from middle class backgrounds, sports idols, list could go on...

>>1773795
>great, well-respected writer or thinker
lol no faggot

>You live in the west, you're the bourgeois.
Uh right, tell that to my 10k a year.

>Also, majority come from outside China. China's pretty well off now they've become awesome at exploiting other countries.

Aw yeah, and they even think we're gonna pay off the bonds we sold them too. Lol. Oh also: Chinadoesnthavegoodhumanrightslaws.jpg

>Because it's nigh impossible to become a great, well-respected writer or thinker if you don't have money in the capitalist system. Kinda goes against the rising up point.

Which proves that they're hypocrites. Lenin wasn't willing to give up power, he just rode the socialist ideal to the top and the abandoned its facets. That's how people work.

>>1773798
>implying they didnt go to harvard and other ivys

niggaplease.gif

>>1773798
>almost all Presidents of recent memory who mostly all came from middle class backgrounds

George Bush Jnr?

Couldnt get more silver spoon now could it?

You're not even trying nigga

>>1773808

Implying all sports idols who have made millions and presidents have gone to ivy league schools. Also implying you need to be rich to go to an ivy league school.

It's called financial aid and scholarships bitches.

>>1773811
>sports idols

>implying that this is "rising up"

>mfw I have no face

>>1773807
>Boohoo, 10k a year, I can waste my time on 4chan, those dollar a day guys have nothing on me
BAHAHAHAHA

>Aw yeah, and they even think we're gonna pay off the bonds we sold them too.
...Oh wait, you're serious? Debase the bond market?

>Which proves that they're hypocrites.
Nobody is aiming for a world where we all ride 3rd class, but where we all ride 1st.

ITT:

People Brainwashed by the mass media, government and corporate propaganda to believe that the current capitalist system is the best system there is and who don't realise that their entire way of reasoning and understanding is based around doctines that support the current system.

TL;DR: ITT people who haven't read 1984

>>1773824
So what?
The system favours me, why the fuck should I care about those that it doesn't favour?

>>1773838
That is a question only you can answer.

>>1773838
Thats what everyone thinks till they get shafted, which will happen to you sooner or later unless you're the true elite.

The only people it benefits are the true elite, that is those that are high up in a large corporation, or those who have over $5million in assets.

voluminous amount of nitwits in this thread

>>1773841
Wasn't a problem til you posted.

>>1773840
My great-grandfather didn't get shafted, neither did my grandfather nor my father - in fact he doubled the successes of the other two.

Likelihood is, I won't get shafted either.

You jelly?

Or just lazy?

>>1773842
It's not a problem for me or anyone else who knows they don't apply to it, and thus aren't offended.

>>1773842
Word.

>>1773844
Being a nitwit is an application free process.

>>1773844
What are you D&E?

>>1773847
I am the lads.

>>1773843
>ITT people who haven't read 1984

>>1773848
You're not Deep&Edgy, your just some retardedly jealous 10 year old.

/lit/ needs a leader, and that leader is no impersonator.

What the fuck is going on in this thread? I already went completely numb after 20 posts.

>>1773860
see
>>1773804

>>1773853
You're not Anon, your just some retardedly jealous 10 year old.

>>1773849
>ITT: people who don't understand 1984

>>1773795
Got to step into this shitstorm for a minute to say
huuuuuuuuuuuuh?
about China.
So China (whose population is, what, 1/4 of the world's total?) is doing well and apparently must be doing so by exploiting other countries. If we add in India, which is doing similarly, and of course the west... I think more than half the world must be 'exploiters' by now.
everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

>>1773880
UH, YOU MEAN BY EXPLOITING THEIR OWN LACK OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH ALLOWS FOR AN ECONOMY BASED ON CHEAP LABOR?

THEY'RE EXPLOITING THEIR OWN PEOPLE TO SERVE THE WORLD. SO IT'S US 'EXPLOITING' THEM IF ANYTHING

>>1773886
Dude, I was pointing out the obvious flaw in the earlier post. You're basically right that it is the majority of the Chinese people that are being exploited. But I'd say relatively exploited rather than absolutely exploited. The number of people who have been lifted out of absolute poverty (starving to death when the weather went bad and the government took your food) is enormous.

>>1773892
WELL, PRIOR TO THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT, CHINA DIDN'T EXIST AS A UNIFIED NATION, SO THERE'S NOT MUCH TO COMPARE IT TO

>>1773895
I'm comparing Deng-and-after era to Mao era. Both unified governments, only one with mass starvation...

A millionaire offers a jobless, homeless man a job and a room if he works twelve hours a day for a wage of one dollar a day. The millionaire benefits through having another worker, the homeless jobless man benefits through having shelter and a wage, however small. This is a non-coercive bargain made under mutual consent (and further, the homeless man has not been put in his position through the workings of the millionaire or the system he lives under) in which both parties make the minimum concession necessary (the millionaire will not offer any better terms for the bargain) while still benefitting and being in a better off position than they were before the bargain. This is not exploitation (which is simply people crying about not getting as much as they want or what they feel they are entitled to due to some ridiculous piece of paper in a UN institute), this is mutually benefitting agreement made by rational parties.

>>1773906
You're hanging off a ledge above a fall that will certainly kill you. You have your wallet in your mouth. I am the only person there who can save you, but before I do I insist that you give me all of the contents of your wallet, your PIN, and, what the hell, I'll take your house as well. We shake on it and I save you. A delightfully mutually beneficial deal.

Lucky exploitation doesn't really exist, or that could have gone badly for you...

>>1773932
assuming that such a compact cannot be renegotiated, you'd rather tell the guy he's a miserable swindler and to fuck off?

>>1773906
>>1773932
>>1773939

Hate the Game not the Playa

¿Qué? ¿La playa?

>>1773939
No. But wouldn't it make you feel a little... exploited?

>>1773906
>>1773939
I'm sure that's D&E's trip, but the contents of the post seem very unlike him.

>>1773959

>>1773963
We care the world, missy.

>>1773963

>>1773963
>>1773970

>>1773957
I'd be angry and buttfrustrated, but I wouldn't have been done wrong by; I would just be in a position where someone had more power over me and exercised it as such.

Now, these sorts of things don't happen IRL because as good clean rational self-interested agents we all gain by accepting conventions which promote tactful restraint in some actions and co-operation and trust for the mutual winz, thereby avoiding zero-sum games and prisoners' dilemma's and other game theory boogeymen. So the likelihood is that if we lived together in a community or if we weren't in a complete and utter state of nature, that man wouldn't be so quick to fleece me.

>>1773989
There is no right and wrong only power, I guess?

The first and possibly only principle of bad guy philosophy...

>>1773989

>>1773994
>bad guy philosophy
>contractarianism, realpolitik

pretty much[/spoiler[

>>1774006
>contractarianism

Sounds pretty Randite, bro.

>>1773880
You still have people exploited within China and India. Go on any train in India and you'll see miles of shanty towns everywhere. Go around any city and you'll see most people live on the streets or similar.

>>1773994

no one man should have all of it

>>1774012
I don't remember 100% whether Rand's stance on ethical egoism is as extreme but it's certainly portrayed as such by the people who rail against it. And if it is as they say it is then by all means they ought to.

Strong Ethical Egoism, holding that it's always right to act in one's self-interest and never right to act against it, is simply too extreme to be tenable, along with its inability to provide an ethical conflict resolution between two conflicting agents.

Most contractarians, etc are not strong ethical egoists; they are ethical rationalists and (the former) is implied in the latter) rational egoists. The difference between your garden variety contractarian and a randian is that the contractarian doesn't say it's never right to act against one's self interest, where as the randian does. As far as I can tell. I could be misrepresenting the randroid.

>>1774020
Rand is exactly like that. In fact, you've mixed up contractarianism and Rand's philosophy.

>>1774020
>ethical conflict resolution
*ethical conflict regulation

>>1774024
>you've mixed up contractarianism and Rand's philosophy
No, because as I've already said, the contractarianism I have been discussing is not one predicated on strong ethical egoism

>>1774020
"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke. . ."

I think the idea that ethics should be based entirely on some sort of "formal agreement" between two parties is too simple and flawed, and is frankly inapplicable to many situations that would be judged ethically:
I get the idea that rape would be considered evil as the victim obviously didn't agree to the sex contract, but what about the guy that detains the rapist? Is he in his right to obstruct the freedom of the rapist when the rapist gives no consent?
Do you need consent to stop a kid who's walking into traffic?
Was The French Revolution necessarily evil because the monarchs that were overthrown didn't agree to it?

>>1774027
Then that's fine.

Some Randites (Ayn Rand Institute lackeys) argue that all positive benefits come from self interest, and where it seems this is not the case those affected simply did not put enough effort into working out what their real self interest was (those damn looters).

The problem here is that people don't seem to realize that they are drawing the moral line arbitarily, which happens to coincidentally be precisely where we are told the line is by society, yet at the same time pertaining that the line has been placed exactly in the objectively correct place.

>>1774042
We better make a religion then so we can live moral lives that aren't arbitrary.

>>1774042
>implying there is a moral line

Im referring to
>>1773906
>>1773932
>>1773989
>>1774034

>>1774047
There is one actually, it's called "within the boundaries of the law"

>>1774034
>I think the idea that ethics should be based entirely on some sort of "formal agreement" between two parties is too simple and flawed, and is frankly inapplicable to many situations that would be judged ethically
It probably is. But let's look at one of the examples anyway

>what about the guy that detains the rapist? Is he in his right to obstruct the freedom of the rapist when the rapist gives no consent?
If we're going to talk about rights (I'd prefer not to but hey), we'd best mark out what sort of rights we have. Let's assume the right libertarian stance that there are no positive rights (rights to do x), "perfectionism" because of the prevalence of negative rights (rights not to x, most importantly the right to non-interference). The rapee has had their right to non-interence violated in the first by the rapist, so we could go the way of rousseau and say that the rapist forfeits his rights or something, but that's barbaric, real ugly frontier stuff.

Instead, we are going to realise that rights generate duties; positive duties (duties to), and negative duties (duties not to). In this case the rapist had a negative duty not to interfere with the rapee. Non-interference generates tons of duties, but the important one here that addresses this issue is the positive duty of the state to detain and interfere with those who violate the negative rights of others. We're not saying the state has a positive right, which would be the issue for right libertarians, we are saying they have a positive duty generated by the negative right of the rapee not to be raped.

>>1774054
The problem with those hypotheticals is less some moral line, and more the structural parts that aren't mentioned but get filled in by us anyway. For example, for the cliff one, let's say dangle man needs the money in the wallet for medical bills to save his hand that's nearly cut off, but the greedy boy wants it for poison so he can kill his mother. Then the moral process changes, more so if the money is necessary to save dangle's life. You can't arbitrarily cut out a situation from the wider social fabric.

In fact, the appraisal was stupid. More power? Change the situation to being in an alleyway where you'll definitely be stabbed if you don't hand over the money. You won't be like "Fair cop, your wille zur macht has beaten mine", you'll still feel wronged.

>>1774061
Begs the question: Who decides what duties we have, both positive and negative?

>For example, for the cliff one, let's say dangle man needs the money in the wallet for medical bills to save his hand that's nearly cut off, but the greedy boy wants it for poison so he can kill his mother.
But that wasn't the situation we were discussing, if we were discussing that we would have. I've already said as much:
>So the likelihood is that if we lived together in a community or if we weren't in a complete and utter state of nature, that man wouldn't be so quick to fleece me.
Emphasis on:
>complete and utter state of nature
We could have discussed a hypothetical situation where more social factors could be taken into account, and then the outcome would be clearly different. But we didn't. So of course the outcome changes if the factors are changed.

>You won't be like "Fair cop, your wille zur macht has beaten mine", you'll still feel wronged.
Of course you will, and as I already said:
>I'd be angry and buttfrustrated, but I wouldn't have been done wrong by; I would just be in a position where someone had more power over me and exercised it as such.
You'll note I said "I wouldn't have been done wrong by", not "I wouldn't have felt done wrong by". Because of course I'd have felt done wrong by, but that's not at all the same claim as saying someone has done you wrong, which is what talk of exploitation amounts to and is what I am concerned with.

>>1774070
The factors aren't changed, they are merely not discussed.

>"I wouldn't have been done wrong by", not "I wouldn't have felt done wrong by"
That's a useless demarcation however you slice it.

>>1774042
>they are drawing the moral line arbitarily
no shit, we stopped leaving to it God quite a long time ago

>which happens to coincidentally be precisely where we are told the line is by society
Yes, because that is the object of ethics. An inquiry into the good. Not for me, not for you, but for all of us. For society.

>yet at the same time pertaining that the line has been placed exactly in the objectively correct place
Who said anything about objectivity here?

>>1774064
see the post about self-interest and convention
>>1773989

mods if you would be so kind as to create a separate board for d&e to have boring arguments with people i will send each and every one of you a commemorative fruit bouquet from edible arrangements

(or just permaban the fucker, whichevskies)

>>1774073
>The factors aren't changed, they are merely not discussed.
Yes. Because they weren't there in the hypotheticals to begin with. You want to talk about your own hypotheticals, all good and well. Just don't make other people's ones into what you want them to be to make sense for your criticisms.

>That's a useless demarcation however you slice it.
No, one is is a statement of emotion that does not necessarily imply any ethical issue
>I feel done wrong by

the other is a statement that implies an ethical misdoing
>I was done wrong by

>>1774062
I'm really referring to the OP that labour markets are biased, and provide a means for some groups to 'exploit' or to put more simply 'use' other groups for their own personal gain. The fact that this can be and is done is an inherent part of the entire economic and political system that we are currently in. That is simply the current state of affairs and there is nothing wrong (or right) about that objectively. However, to attempt to argue the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the system is in itself futile.

The only position one can take is to state an objective or goal that society or an economic system should have and argue whether or not the current capitalist system is headed towards the direction of that goal or not. If the goal is indeed the continued exploitation of the proletariat by the current equivalent of the bourgeois, then the current system is adequate for achieving this goal.

>>1774080
>No, one is is a statement of blah blah blah
>implying objective moral truth
Oh dear...

>Because they weren't there in the hypotheticals to begin with.
There is nothing in the hypotheticals to begin with. The issue is the idea of the event we form from those hypotheticals. The descriptions match a much wider number of events than we imagine.

>>1774086
>implying objective moral truth
Oh dear...
Yes, one of those statements implies objective moral truth, which is what I have a problem with to begin with. So we are agreeing here.

>There is nothing in the hypotheticals to begin with.
I'm sorry you fail to appreciate what a state of nature is

>The issue is the idea of the event we form from those hypotheticals
They're perfectly fine if you don't assume the hypotheticals apply to anything other than the conditions stated. Which is what your problem with them is. I don't have an issue in seeing that such hypotheticals do not accurately reflect in any way the reality of the world we live in, as such I addressed this in a later post about conventions and tragedy of the commons shit. But insofar as we take the hypotheticals for what they were, situations in a state of nature, there is no problem, and you are out of line in directing your criticisms towards them.

>A millionaire offers a jobless, homeless man a job and a room if he works twelve hours a day for a wage of one dollar a day. The millionaire benefits through having another worker, the homeless jobless man benefits through having shelter and a wage, however small. This is a non-coercive bargain made under mutual consent (and further, the homeless man has not been put in his position through the workings of the millionaire or the system he lives under) in which both parties make the minimum concession necessary (the millionaire will not offer any better terms for the bargain) while still benefitting and being in a better off position than they were before the bargain. This is not exploitation (which is simply people crying about not getting as much as they want or what they feel they are entitled to due to some ridiculous piece of paper in a UN institute), this is mutually benefitting agreement made by rational parties.

You claimed here that this was not exploitation. The 'state of nature' argument is irrelevant to this post.

See >>1774084
>>1774042
>>1773824
and there is nothing said since that this does't answer

>>1774100
>I'm sorry you fail to appreciate what a state of nature is
It's outmoded and has no bearing on my criticism anyway.

>>1774108
I quoted this because it is an excellent example of how the current system allows for the same type of exploitation that Marx observed and wrote about.

>>1774108
The state of nature argument would even say it's wrong.

>>1774108
It's also irrelevant to the hypothetical situation I was discussing.

>>1774112
As I've already said, you're not criticising anything I'm saying to begin with.

>>1774147
But it's very relevant to the thread, much more so then your petty squabbling.

The current capitalist economic and political system allows for the same type of exploitation that Marx observed and wrote about.

See >>1774108

Move on folks, nothing more to see here

/Thread

marx couldnt have been completely useless, even if some people knew they were exploited, many really believed they were just truly inferior or they would make it.
Somehow marx became a household name, and marx would rape rand, even if socialism probably would have a hard time working.

also what does /lit think of zizek?

>>1773586
Monarchist detected?

>>1774152
No it's not, because that's a different hypothetical that no-one was interested in addressing.

>The current capitalist economic and political system allows for the same type of exploitation that Marx observed and wrote about.
>exploitation
Your turn begging the question I see

Disregard my posts, I suck cocks and flood /lit/ with unrelated shit.

/Thread

>>1774167
Just admit that my argument is right and move on. Do you really have so much invested in your online identity that you have to always be right? Your name is Deep&Edgy not AlwaysRight&NeverWrong.

>mfw all you do is argue for arguments sake

fine I got a new tripcode I didnt think tripcodes where even necessary but you proved me wrong, well done.

KrazyEyeKillah#azazc was too simple for you trolls not to crack

>>1774171
see
>>1773666

>>1774181
You haven't said anything remotely interesting in this thread. You've simply given one of the many, many stock marxist complaints about how the "system" needs to be examined and how this "system" is so awful and terrible and controlling and reproducing, and all this garbage that everyone here has heard countless times before. Now, instead of espousing this idiotic bullshit, maybe try examining the underlying operations of your OWN glorious system. You will find, among other things, that it is at best dependent upon the very system it critiques. Of course, you don't have anything like that to say, because you are obviously content to sit with your popcorn crying about how we need to look at the "system" and how everything we think comes from this evil evil "system", somehow under the assumption that you have gracefully managed to put yourself outside it. Time-wasting Canaille, canaille of the shittiest order that has nothing to offer anyone.

>>1774193
see >>1773666

I answered op, that is all

I should stop posting now, or my mother will suck cocks, too.

For the tl;dr just read:

"I'm really referring to the OP that labour markets are biased, and provide a means for some groups to 'exploit' or to put more simply 'use' other groups for their own personal gain. The fact that this can be and is done is an inherent part of the entire economic and political system that we are currently in. That is simply the current state of affairs and there is nothing wrong (or right) about that objectively. However, to attempt to argue the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the system is in itself futile.

The only position one can take is to state an objective or goal that society or an economic system should have and argue whether or not the current capitalist system is headed towards the direction of that goal or not. If the goal is indeed the continued exploitation of the proletariat by the current equivalent of the bourgeois, then the current system is adequate for achieving this goal."

and

"A millionaire offers a jobless, homeless man a job and a room if he works twelve hours a day for a wage of one dollar a day. The millionaire benefits through having another worker, the homeless jobless man benefits through having shelter and a wage, however small. This is a non-coercive bargain made under mutual consent (and further, the homeless man has not been put in his position through the workings of the millionaire or the system he lives under) in which both parties make the minimum concession necessary (the millionaire will not offer any better terms for the bargain) while still benefitting and being in a better off position than they were before the bargain. This is not exploitation (which is simply people crying about not getting as much as they want or what they feel they are entitled to due to some ridiculous piece of paper in a UN institute), this is mutually benefitting agreement made by rational parties."

@D&E stop trolling

>>1774193
>>1774211
butthurt, so much butthurt

D&E was a marxist a couple of months ago.

>>1774211
but my mother loves juicy big black cocks!

>>1774193
>You will find, among other things, that it is at best dependent upon the very system it critiques.
What critique isn't?

>>1774212
He's trying to pull a Foucault, but doesn't have a clue what he's doing.

>>1774266
>dep derp

The scariest thing about this thread is that none of you guys are economics majors. Books are one thing, but Economics is a technical and complex subject.

>>1774271
wow that was, like so deep man

>>1774271
The ability to do things like econometrics has little or nothing to do with a critique of capitalism, outside of a few academics who fear their subject useless.

>>1774275
Deep or not (not) it was at least accurate.

>>1774271
>implying you have the necessary understanding to judge who knows about economics and who doesnt

>>1774278
>econometrics

Come back the real world. Mathematics is not the ONLY thing that makes economics hard. What makes you think that you actually understand the concept of capitalism with its implications? By watching Zeitgeist?

>>1774285
>What makes you think that you actually understand the concept of capitalism with its implications? By watching Zeitgeist?

Back at ya bro

>>1774285
>Come back the real world.
An amusing typo.

Anyway, U mad.

>>1774288
Jimmy is going Socratic on yo ass. You can't question his ignorance when he's questioning yours. That's actually quite smart of him.

>>1774296
>Socratic
It's not.
>You can't question his ignorance when he's questioning yours.
Of course you can.

>>1774300
>It's not.
umm but he was right, it was Socratic dialect

>>1774305
>Socratic dialect
You mean like Attic Greek?

>>1774257
I seem to remember so too

>>1774316
Nice pedatics there. I think he meant 'Socratic dialectic.' Google is your friend.

>>1774325
It's not a dialectic any more than it is a dialect. Saying "You are wrong, I will show this by undermining your authority" was criticised by Socrates and ran against the intentions of the dialectic.

>ITT: Usual /lit/ bullshit spouted by liberal arts undergrads and faggotly-precocious highschool students who know nothing about which they verbally vomit

Go back to sleep kiddies, I hear your parents calling you to clean your rooms.

>>1774380
But if my parents are urging me to clean my room, why would I then go back to sleep?

Pic unrelated. Spanish pun.

Finally people seemed to have realized what ad hominem means...

Anyway to add to the topic: one of the strongest arguments against centrally planned economies is the lack of efficient communication which would allow for effective planning - however, with the advent of complex information networks this feedback mechanism may indeed become a viable alternative to the millions of shorter boom-bust feedback loops of supply-demand the world is so used to as "efficient"

Also here's something good to listen to, while commuting on the communist public transport system, for example: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6284079/The_Big_Three_in_Economics__Adam_Smith__Karl_Marx__And_John_
Mayn

The author is gehhay for Adam Smith and spends a whole chapter bashing Marx's life story (kinda like /lit/) but there are alot of good points made and a rather wide overview given of the way economic theories have developed and how successful they were (usually just abit better than the last one which was off by a light year and a half) - but its a very interesting listen non the less.

>>1774386
Good point... I suppose I couldn't make up my mind on which one to use.

Do what you think is best.

My first day on 4chan. Reading this thread Im actually quite impressed.

>>1774529
Srsly?

I hate internet threads about communism
They Contain:

communists who are so ideologically blinded they can't communicate with free-marketers at all
free-marketers so ideologically blinded they can't communicate with communists at all
people who seem to think most modern day communists actually support USSR style Communism even when they tell them many times they don't
people who actually support USSR style Communism
edgy teen communists
edgy teen libertarians
people who simply don't understand what communism is
people who say "it works in theory not in practice lol" WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS MEAN!? IF THE THEORY WAS GOOD, IT WOULD WORK! THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A GOOD THEORY!
people who talk about communists lacking work ethic, even though communism is a worker centered ideology

yes i mad

>>1774940
I hate pussy-footing fence-sitters like you.

You disgust me.

>>1775801
It takes a real fucking pussy not to pick one of two pre-subscribed viewpoints, one of which failed miserably and the other of which is well on its way to failing miserably.

Monarchy = deadly man-power wars between empires
Communism = deadly mechanical wars between alliances
Capitalism = global nuclear war

See how things get out of hand?

>>1775825
Boo hoo faggot, deal with it.
Thread's over already, STFU.
No one cares.

TL;DR:
1) hay guys i'd like to discuss...
2) MARX WAS A FAG
3) but thats ad ho..
4) MARX WAS A FAG
5) arguments about the market
6) arguments about ethics
7) nuclear war
8) TL;DR: