/lit/ - Literature

>>18095479
I like Marx as much as the next non-rightoid, but he's not more discussed than Plato or Jesus.

>>18095479
Unironically forever deboonked by Jordan Beterson

>>18095483
it's a good thing you put on your trip for this important post, if we didn't know this was posted by tripfagretard2000 we would have lost so much

>>18095516
tripfagging goes well with a marx thread because they're both stupid

what are the common misconceptions?

No, he was not a genius. He wasn't unique enough to warrant such a title.

>>18095479
I hope you realise what a colossal joke you are to everyone around you. No one takes you seriously! Dialectics? More like Diatwatics! Get a Life! Read a book! learn some math! Make something useful, build something! OMG actually contribute to society instead of brown-nosing this retarded Hegelian nonsense. Get your head out of the theory and take a walk in the countryside! I promise you it'll do some good. Did you know that earth is a natural anti-depressant? HAHAHA my goodness why do you still insist on pursuing this lineage of thought? What utter rubbish! My god! Murderous, unforgivably destructive gibberish. Do you not know you share a close common ancestor with fascism? If it was AT LEAST interesting, but it's not even that! Did you send me to sleep? Sorry I just woke up and all I can see are a bunch of fucking stupid faggots LARPing on a dead fucking horse. WOW get a load of this guy! You silly bloody fool.

>>18095479
Yes he was a genius, never will there ever be a greater grifter. Based moocher.

>>18095508
I like both Marx and Jordon Peterson to some degree, but that debate with Zizek was embarrassing. He literally didn't even read Marx

>>18095479
>whenever someone hates him it's always because they haven't understood him.
No it's because they haven't read him or have heard strawman anecdotes against him.
Marx was right about a bunch of shit, but communism is gay and fake.

>>18095758
If Marx decided to be a cuck for capitalism, he could have got the highest positions in academia if he wanted. This little snarky argument that is pushed by Mises. org-ites is so fucking disingenuous. It's only applied to him as well, the same people won't go after capitalists for the same things.

>>18095967
That's not what I meant, I meant him mooching off of his parents who did actually work

Unironically it's because he was the only smart person to be foolish enough to critique a system that would make him piss off everyone. If you do and you're halfway competent, and if the system sucks and the people pushing it are lying to themselves, by being one of the first ones you can be hugely impactful and write like a superhuman. You still need some genius of course.

>>18095689
He was absolutely unique. Never before him did anyone write a solid, integrated critique of political economy and ideology starting from a non-idealist base.

>>18095960
It doesn't help that Marx was extremely vague about what communism actually would be like. Understandably because no one can know, if you want to replace capitalism all you can start with are some large guidelines and then you have to try and fail until you figure something out.

It's why I dislike the idiot revolutionaries and the Stalin's of the worth so much, it's so intellectually dishonest to pretend to know what the next step is exactly with any degree of confidence. At least Lenin recognized this which is why he set up the NEP, but I digress.

>>18095996
He worked as a journalist and as a university professor for years until he was literally banned from working for his subversive ideas.

>>18095998
>solid, integrated critique of political economy and ideology starting from a non-idealist base.
It's actually just sophistry though, entirely pointless and useless. The Commie states didn't even base anything they did on Marx and nobody ever will

>>18095998
>It's why I dislike the idiot revolutionaries and the Stalin's of the worth so much, it's so intellectually dishonest to pretend to know what the next step is exactly with any degree of confidence.

Yeah but these people are inevitable precisely BECAUSE Marx was so vague about what would happen after capitalism was abolished. It's by far the biggest flaw in Marxism. Every single Marxist project has this big, inevitable "We overthrew the established order, now what?" moment, and every single time, without fail, the "now what" moment is followed by some ambitious, conniving strongman who worms his way into the party elite, amasses absolute power, and proceeds to stab all his fellow party members in the back to assume total control of the State.

It happened in Russia, it happened in China, it happened in Cuba, it happened in Vietnam, it happened in Cambodia--it keeps happening, over and over. Marxists need to realize that this is a very critical design flaw in Marxism and they have not managed to fix it.

>>18096036
but thats not a valid criticism because thats not how real communism is supposed to work. try actually criticizing communism not stalinism or maoism or whatever.

>>18096072
>thats not how real communism is supposed to work
As if you can give an actual explanation of how it's supposed to work lmao.

>>18096087
the capitalist order is overthrown and worker directly seize the means of production so that the workers are the only class that can exist, no rich bitch leeches?

>>18096108
Doesn't explain how the workers will structure their society, make decisions, etc. In fact it is kind of a comical thing to say, are they all going to grab a piece of factory machinery lol

>>18095479
Evil genius

>>18096123
what is democracy?

>>18096008
He didn't do shit, there's letters of him and Engels working out plans how to manipulate Marx's parents to get even more money off of them so they wouldn't have to work.

>>18096025
It's far from sophistry. You can critique ML states as you wish but it's really not pointless nor useless.

>>18096036
Well sure, but Marx himself was aware of this issue and said as much. The core of Marxism is that it's only through a material process that intellectual development in this domain can be achieved.

That said, a lot can be learned from all of those states.

And your last critique that "it keeps happening again" is stupid. The USSR, China, Cuba and North Vietnam were all part of the same generation and were built on the same ideology. You're not describing a cycle, you're describing a single step.

Cambodia was never Marxist. Pol Pot himself admitted to never having understood Marx.

As for what is to be done right now? The answer is pretty obvious. We need more unions and cooperative ownership of companies. Meanwhile, we can experiment with cybernetic planning and decentralized planning until a pilot project can be implemented and expanded. This was Lenin's plan, but he died before the shit political system he implemented could prevent Stalin from scrapping it. The solution is to be more careful in the political system that is implemented.
>>18096123
>>18096087
>>18096108

How communism itself is supposed to work is something Marx himself says is unknowable until socialism can be implemented. How socialism is supoosed to work is that either through électoral or revolutionary means a government which is controlled democratically by the proletariat is established and a process to replace the bourgeoisie is put in place

>>18096154
He worked as a professor and journalist as a matter of fact until the authorities banned him from working. If he did or did not manipulate his parents into giving him money doesn't change the fact that he did in fact work until he was legally not allowed to do so. Even then I'd be interested in a source.

>>18096152
Does the entire society vote on every decision made in every industry and regulatory function? Do only people in an industry vote on every decision? Does the society vote on who is allowed what positions in which industries? Are there inalienable rights that voting can't take away, if so which, and are they voted on?

>>18096162
>How communism itself is supposed to work is something Marx himself says is unknowable until socialism can be implemented.
Yeah I'm aware which is why I find it so funny people buy into this shit. "oh i can't even define it but it's definitely coming and it will have no oppression!''. Just lol

Socialism as it has existed is just varyingly tyrannical dictatorship, oscillating between rule by inner Party and rule by individual despot.

>>18096164
Democracy is orthogonal to voting. Democracy is the measure in which the people hold the democratic power. That can be done via votes for representatives to a lesser extent, via referendums, via economic means, and so on. It's not a binary or a single organization, it's just a measure of the extent at which political power is wielded by the masses.

>>18095479
Most who hate him haven't even read him, much less understood him

>>18096187
>via referendums, via economic means,
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on how these things, and whatever else you have in mind actually translate to the masses wielding power, that is to say some random worker actually having influence on the way society is structured and policy is conducted and so on.

>>18096182
No one thinks that it will have "no oppression", whatever that means. It's a system in which the employer-employee relation of production is no longer dominant. Much like democracy there are many possible implementations and many more ways to arrive to it.

Socialism as defined in the Marxist sense is a DotP focused on building communism. If you think that a society was or wasn't socialism by that criteria doesn't change the fact that either you've misremembered reading Marx or came up with your own definition.

>>18095998
>solid
Ha. Marx's critique is full of holes hot air. There's nothing solid about an unfinished work, and the part that is finished is vague and inconsistent. As for materialist/idealist, Marx could never properly separate the two.

>>18095479
Hungry Santa

>>18095996
He worked as a journalist, did a PhD, worked in academia, then he was LITERALLY banned for being too radical. But he still worked 15 hours per day doing intellectual work while being funded by Engels.

>>18096223
>Ha. Marx's critique is full of holes hot air.
NAME 3.

>>18096205
That's not the question I was answering. I was answering "what is democracy". The masses may yield power by directly voting on decision which is by referenda, or by their dual role as producers and consumers in an economy, where they may decide what is produced by relations of consumption and how it is produced by relations of production. In the real world this may means workers councils and co-ops that federate through markets or cybernetically planned economies, for example.

But that's just one example. If that works in real life or not is something we can only know in practice which is why we need to have social democracy while experimenting with methods for socialism and setting up pilot programs. I can't tell you exactly what will end up working before anything is tried, that's unreasonable.
>>18096223
You can try to elaborate. No economic theory is fully complete, but the Marxist critique of capitalism is something no one has been able to refute, only temper, and his predictions ended up becoming correct hundreds of years when the conditions for them were correct.

>>18096251
Nah I'm gonna go back to reading about Roman history. This thread sucks like every Marx thread and the guy I'm replying doesn't even seem like a particularly well-read Marxist.

>>18096210
>DotP
Which is a completely vague definition, what does that even mean? The socialist states were dictatorship of a small party or individual.
>focused on building communism
How can you focus on building something you can't even describe?

>>18096257
>by directly voting on decision
That is what i was addressing when I asked about the structure of this voting process here>>18096164

>or by their dual role as producers and consumers in an economy, where they may decide what is produced by relations of consumption and how it is produced by relations of production
Are you just describing a capitalist market?

>>18095479
I dont get this impression at all. To me, everything he has written feels like dry and boring economics textbook, except outdated.

>>18096268
This is some nice cope. If you had rational critiques you'd be able to easily state them, but so far all you've been able to do is state that criticisms exist.

>>18096278
DotP is not any vaguer than "democracy". It's a society where the government is ran by the proletariat. If indeed it was only ran by an individual or a small group then it can't have been a DotP.

I can't describe exactly how communism would work. But the goal itself is clear, it's a classless society.

>>18096295
I never said this was the only way, I said that was one way.

And no, the last is not a capitalist market because in capitalism only capitalists have the power to dictate the relations of production.

>>18096242
So much for advocate for the working class huh. But no that's incorrect, he worked incidentally as a journalist, and he was kicked out of academia because he was a hack. He was funded by Engels and Engels was funded by his own and Marx's parents. True moochers.

>>18095726
Can you be any more presumptuous? You do realise that if you aren't a manifest retard it is perfectly possible to BOTH think AND enjoy life and nature? Fucking retard

>>18096332
I already asked for a source, all available data backs what the other said and not you.

>>18096324
>DotP is not any vaguer than "democracy".
Democracy is indeed bullshit, but at least representative democracy has an actual structure that has actually existed. It is obviously in no way a system where the people actually hold the power though.
>I never said this was the only way, I said that was one way.
If it is one possible way why can't you elaborate on how it actually functions?
>And no, the last is not a capitalist market because in capitalism only capitalists have the power to dictate the relations of production.
How do workers have power to dictate the relations of production in this market you are imagining?

>>18096349
Marx and Engels' private letters. I remember reading the reply of his father ,something along the lines of "But we've already given you so much, when will you start working for yourself? We can barely feed the rest of the family." And Marx ignoring it and just telling them to send the money.
I mean it's no surprise really if you know how he treated his own family. Being a decent thinker/writer doesn't automatically mean being a decent person.

>>18096355
It's by definition a system where most people hold power. If they don't then it doesn't fit the definition.

I mentioned referenda. How these actually work is very simple, you can look it up. The actual implementation details of referenda have been varied and I see no point in explaining how a direct vote works.

Workers have the power to dictate the relations by either in a market cooperatively owning the enterprise or, in a workers council, by directly voting on how production should work in the context of a cybernetic planning system that sets up orders and compares different production possibilities automatically.

>>18096390
Give a link or proper citation.

>>18095479
> the man whose ideology hasn't properly worked even once, and genocided hundreds of millions of poor people over the course of just 80 years in less than 10 countries
>superhuman genius, if you hate him you must have misunderstood him
Fuck off

>>18096332
>So much for advocate for the working class huh.
What does that mean? Are you saying if you're not part of the generic working class you cannot support the working class?
>But no that's incorrect, he worked incidentally as a journalist
He worked as one because he was disgusted with the world and being a journalist was the best way to share his opinions.
>and he was kicked out of academia because he was a hack.
He was kicked out for being too radical. Nobody refuted his arguments.
>He was funded by Engels and Engels was funded by his own and Marx's parents.
Engels inherited his parents business like all good capitalists do.
Notice how you have made no arguments, American mises.org reader.
You would not apply the same standards to Ayn Rand, Von Mises, or any other "capitalist" figure. You are a fraud and a hack.

>>18096402
You can look them up yourself, you don't have to believe me. I have nothing to prove, once you look you'll find I'm right lmao. Surely no problem for a Marxist scholar like yourself to do some research.

>>18096402
>It's by definition a system where most people hold power. If they don't then it doesn't fit the definition.
It is a definition that does not refer to anything that actually exists in reality, it's just words strung together
>How these actually work is very simple,
then you can address the specific questions I asked about voting processes in that post above.
>t cooperatively owning the enterprise
There we go, finally a concrete suggestion. If the entire society were made up of worker owned corporations that would be interesting. It still wouldn't explain how inter-corporation policy was decided though, I assume again voting, which means we are back to what exactly is the structure of the voting processes.
>by directly voting on how production should work in the context of a cybernetic planning system that sets up orders and compares different production possibilities automatically.
this is pretty much a deus ex, what do you mean by 'cybernetic planning system', an AI?

It doesn't matter if he was or was not a genius. He was a loser whose entire life was bankrolled by his friends. Freeloaders like him get the noose.

>>18096421
>What does that mean? Are you saying if you're not part of the generic working class you cannot support the working class?
You'd assume he would at least have some experience with working in their conditions but no, he was just like a king in his ivory tower, preaching to the peasants.
>He worked as one because he was disgusted with the world and being a journalist was the best way to share his opinions.
Yes it was obvious he was a depressed pessimist. He only worked incidentally like I said though because he wasn't a good one.
>He was kicked out for being too radical. Nobody refuted his arguments.
I'm sure you disagree with nazis being kicked out of academia for being too radical as well?
And sure they did, you just don't accept those refutations.
>Engels inherited his parents business like all good capitalists do.
And still mooched off of Marx's parents. What a horrible person.
>Notice how you have made no arguments, American mises.org reader.
Not a burger nor a Mises fan. And I'm only here to rag on their characters (rightfully so, they were scum), I couldn't care less about their ideas. I just don't like hypocrites.
>You would not apply the same standards to Ayn Rand, Von Mises, or any other "capitalist" figure. You are a fraud and a hack.
Yes I would but this is not their thread, me being against hypocritical commies doesn't make me a fan of hedonist capitalists. Your black and white thinking says it all. You commies are retarded.

>>18096454
What difference does it make it if a private company, government, or a personal friend bank roles you to produce intellectual work?
Notice how you no actual argument, but a very hypocritical smear, precisely used because you have no arguments, this forces you to attack and use tricks. You are an American.

>>18096459
Not going to bother replying to your nonsense.
You have no actual arguments to refute Marx.
That's why you are so desperate to play games about personal attacks. American Von Mises reader.

>>18096072
Hope this was a meme post, otherwise you're a fucking retard

>>18095479
>More discussed than Jesus
>More discussed than Jesus + Plato put together
That's highly debatable and impossible to quantify.
I will say he was kind of a dick and I think his ideas were poorly thought out because was a dick, but I would still say he's a genius in that he developed something no one had thought of before that when parts of it are dismantled and used in a certain way, are useful in social politics to this day. Though I'm uncertain if this is because of him, or because he was in the right place at the right time... I never actually read his work nor have any historical insight of how few people would imagine such a thing that he imagined at the time (nor am I political, social, law, psychological, or economics student), so I don't know to what degree he influenced any actual practicalities of socialism/communism or if he boils down to a crazy man going "everyone should get money REEEEEE".

That said, communism as presented by him, does not work and before I even KNEW anything about communist Russia (thanks to my shit education) and had some social sciences teacher explain in very simple terms what communism and capitalism are, I IMMEDIATELY KNEW that it was a fucking a shitty idea. His ideas are debunkable without any historical knowledge.

But his writing, I dunno. I don't have the patience to seek out and read his work, which I imagine I would find tiring even if it was written well, much like how I can't stand Mary Shelley's heavily alluded religious luddism in Frankenstein. God I can't stand that shit... I like what she wrote, but its just... so fucking stupid... and Marx worse, I imagine, would be even worse than that because it can't even be taken as entertainment. Its just a pure discourse on a really dumb idea.
Even if you consider how Shelley's idea might have evolved or is present today, its retarded and his forming massive obstacles that I feel like no one fucking understands because they're too busy thinking with emotion, and not acknowledging that REASON is the map we use to navigate the winds of our desires, not the emotional fucking winds themselves that just blow you all over the goddamn place.

Atlas Shrugged, Frankenstein, and Marxism all have that in common for me. They're fucking dumb.

Although of these three novels which represent the basic antonyms of all mentalities I most hate, I might give Marx props in that, while I expect he wouldn't be at all better than Shelley, I doubt anyone could write WORSE than that Ann Rand sleep fest.

>>18096483
Look at this commie, dodging the anons arguments. Have you had an honest discussion in your life?

>>18095726
Bless this post.

>>18095508
kek nice bait

>>18095479
His ideas are stupid and appeal to our most base and pathetic instincts, but his writing is good. Hence his disproportionate popularity

>>18095726
People get nade at people who have stuoid political ideas because politics is something that affects everyone, so it is frustrating when their ideologies differ. This doesn't invalidate any of the more substantial things they say, however, and basically applies to see fucking everyone.

Interestingly and paradoxically, this also explains the commonplace hypocrisy of mocking that mentality and becoming, in turn, the same as the mocker.

Most political "discussion" that is easily visible to most people whittles down to an infinite cycle of "no u". Yet, that point in itself is kinda a "no u" polemic so I guess there is no escape.

Regardless, you are the pot calling the kettle black.

>>18096840
that's a lot of words to convey absolutely nothing coherent to that anon. Communist/Marxist will forever being the dunces of the internet.

>>18096347
>it is perfectly possible to BOTH think AND enjoy life and nature?
NOT possible to BOTH think AND be a Marxist! Whoopie-pie! Look at this guy!!

>>18096840
>there is no escape.
u escape by being a nice guy :)
(I am totally incapable of this but theoretically it would work)

>>18096840
Well here's the ticket, son; The frustration you feel AT the political belief IS a sign of YOUR incapability. That's why you need to buck the trend on this one, m80. Marx said it himself, and you should follow suit. Why do you you ask me? Yeah that's right!!! WOW And there is was thinking you were on to something but now I can see you for what you really are; a colossal faggot. You know why? The paradox you speak of isn't something you're going to resolve here. The trouble with YOUR lineage of thought is that the root of your problems lie in an even deeper cycle. In the first cycle you see a move from the structuralist forms of negotiation to a dialectics one, where the processes of deterritorialisation undergo a rapid transformation by a new set a strategies which are contingent on a radicalised reticulation the human, the human in relation the The Other, and to God, through which a theoretical totality of self undermines the collective powers of a transformative class transformation of class by the transformation of the new continent possibilities of new social relations by the reduction of Mean-of-power, in opposition to Ends-ofPower. In other words, you should take a good long hard look at your stupid dialectic twist (yes that WAS a popular dance in soviet Russia) and give up on these ridiculous fantasies of emancipation by dumb-dumb theory. WOW! LOL! You're never gunna get a girl this way!! Don't you know they're all after those AnCap VC dollar dollar tick tock mania hyperreal hypernormalised Sino-futerist schizoanalytic radically UN-human super fast bio-mechanical orgasm inducing Hyper Cock? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA What a fucking fool!!!! You're so out the loop its MENTAL. Get a Life! Fuck a PUSSY! Never say never and never give up. I promise you it'll be Okay, chap! Chin Up! it's not that bad! Love and spread Love, Foster Joy in your life, that's what Kierkegaard tells us! Not Marx! Sad!!!

>>18096775
I agree, but I though we were discussing Marx and not Solzhenitsyn?

>>18096936
Yeah. I don't even know why i ended it with that "regardless" bit. It would be better if I left that sentence out. After all, I wasn't really trying because I see the futility of debates on 4chan.

I probably should've made it longer and focused in on that "neutral" idea, but I'm too lazy and should probably be doing my lab.

>>18097379
>my lab.
*my lab paper for college.

>>18097379
Not him but, if you really are a marxist/communist, don't feel bad, there is a whole site for people like you: https://leftypol.org/leftypol/catalog.html and they love discussion! STAY THERE

>>18095479
>Was he a genius?
Fuck no

>>18097413
Huh? Just because I kinda sorta appealed that poster doesn't mean I'm a marxist.

I also wrote this overly long and awful post >>18096657 which really just boils down (when you know what I was thinking in my head when I wrote it at least) to

>I hate Frankenstein and Atlas Shrugged because I generally don't believe in restricting science and I'm a moderate, secular, Scandinavian-style liberal boi who wants healthcare, but hates SJWs and emotions-above-logic ideology. Thus, I'll probably hate Marxist's writing too, because I similarly disdain true socialism and he was kinda a cunt in life with ideas that are easily debunked. I don't know whether or not he's smart, but here's a long rambling post about it anyway.

>>18095680
>still no response

>>18095479
IDK
Communist Manifesto literally includes every single aspect of sales training within its text
If he figured that out on his own, genius
If he learned it from sales people, just really fucking smart

t. psuedo ancap

>>18097616
My bad then, I misinterpreted this >>18096840

>>18095479
He was the Darwin of history :^)

>>18097413
>>18097616
Also, anon, while I think its OK to participate in communities with like-minded people and that people probably should do a *little bit* of that, they most certainly shouldn't "stay there" all the time unless they're, like, discussing ideas specific to the interior concepts of communism or something. That's not healthy... even if you disagree with someone, even if you have beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with something someone else believes, there is still the possibility of learning something from them. But then that's hard because I think in that case, its also important that you know them a little better...

There should be a rule that any time someone engages in debate with another person, they first have to go on a platonic bisexual date.

>>18095479
>Everything he's ever written feels superhuman.
More like Hegel than him.
>whenever someone hates him it's always because they haven't understood him.
Of course. It's easier to watch bitchute vids about a jewish conspiracy than to understand the complexity of Capitalism. It takes at least hundreds of hours of study. It's easier to watch vids on Bitchute.

>>18095726
>this retarded Hegelian nonsense.
Don't know if it's troll or not. Don't care actually at night. Anyway, dialectics goes way back to Heraclites, Parmenides, Plato, Aristote, the hermetic philosophy, and even Lao tsu. So yeah...

>>18095479
>because they haven't understood him.

so when you read his book about Jews, you think he was correct?

>>18097748
(Not OP)
Yes, he is correct. Every Hitlerian should read On the jewish question. It's a short read, so they can do it.

>>18097699
I thought you were a shitposter b/c >>18096840 made no sense at all

>>18096257
Democracy is just rule by Public Opinion.

>>18095726
Based

>>18097850
Correct

>>18095726
>I hope you realise what a colossal joke you are to everyone around you. No one takes you seriously! Dialectics? More like Diatwatics! Get a Life! Read a book! learn some math! Make something useful, build something!
The man who said that?

Karl Marx

https://youtu.be/ovAoo4sMK0Y

>>18097910
Uh oh... he's just powering up anons...

Leftism has been thoroughly refuted and is completely irrelevant

>>18097965
>communism has been thoroughly refuted and is completely irrelevant
FTFY

>>18095479
kys stupid shill

>>18097826
Eh. I was typing on a phone. There were spelling and grammatical issues.

I don't know what's wrong with my post, but I can try to rewrite it.
>[I assume the post is "serious"]. Anon, you should call down, but I understand why you would react this way and I understand what you are parodying: because politics involve important topics that affect people broadly and in serious ways, people are naturally very emotional about their political beliefs. So, when people disagree with each other politically, there is a lot of frustration, especially if they want more people to adopt their ideas.
>However, just because someone mocks it doesn't mean that every thing they say is wrong and it certainly doesn't mean that entire "side of the debate" is, entirely and in all ways, wrong.
>Furthermore, and almost paradoxically, when you mock peoples' frustrated mocking of your beliefs, you become the same sort of mocker yourself.
>A lot of political "discussion" comes from loud, highly visible groups and whittles down to back and forth shit-flinging that is similar, in ways, to what you have posted. Discussing politics in such a way is no better than an infinite cycle of "no u" posts.

...And that last part I typed doesn't make any sense in retrospect. It sounded better in my head. But I guess maybe if I rewrote it, it would like something like this:

>Anyway, pot calls the kettle black: you infer a hatred of being mocked and oversimplified, yet you engage in inferred mocking and oversimplification of your opponents.

>But I don't know why I'm even responding because I feel like you're not going to listen anyway and I'm not really proving anything to you nor do I have the patience, or any idea how I would do that to begin. Also, this is clearly a troll, so whyamieventypinganythispleasegodhelpme...

>>18098173
>or any idea how I would do that to begin.
*or any idea how I would do that to begin with.

>>18097965
>leftism is completely irrelevant
what? You say this buzzword, yet I don't think this word means what you think it means.

>>18096840
If this post doesn't make sense, read this one instead, I guess >>18098173

>>18097024
You know what's said is I just found out I'm a fucking pseud when I tried to look up some words from this shitpost just to see if what the anon was saying even makes sense.

Although, what I found out is that Marxists really are as pretentious as people seem to think; I look up any other concept in science or soft science, I get simple examples and explanations that don't require further knowledge of a particular topic to understand this one thing I'm trying to learn presently. I look up the words dialectic or structuralist, I receive back walls boring, wordy bullshit that have something to do with Marxism, but so little people even care about Marxism or Marxist thought that they don't even try, and instead use their papers as a form of vernacular auto-fellatio.

Still kinda sad I looked up this shitpost thinking "m-maybe if I can debunk this in my head, it will be good intellectual exercise", though. Apparently, being unable to read something is my form of kryptonite.

I concede. The shitposter wins again.

>>18097024
You know what's sad? I just found out I'm a fucking pseud when I tried to look up some words from this shitpost just to see if any of this anon's post even makes sense.

I found out that, apparently, many Marxists really are as pretentious as people think;
>I look up any other subject in science or soft science or even politics sometimes, I get at least attempts at simple examples and explanations that don't require further knowledge of a particular topic to understand the one thing I'm trying to learn presently.
>I look up the words dialectic or structuralist, I receive back walls boring, wordy bullshit that have something to do with Marxism, but so little people even care about Marxism or Marxist thought that they don't even try, and instead use their papers as a form of vernacular auto-fellatio.

Still kinda sad I looked up this shitpost thinking "m-maybe if I can debunk this in my head, it will be good intellectual exercise", though. Apparently, being unable to read something is my form of kryptonite.

Also I just said "vernacular auto-fellatio", so I concede. Shitposter wins again.

lol 666 NEWF4G XD

>>18096210
>It's a system in which the employer-employee relation of production is no longer dominant
something that i've been wondering.. how can this even be guaranteed? why wouldn't it just create a new parasite class that camouflages itself as fulfilling this? i don't get how it isn't dissimulation.

>>18095479
No he was clearly delusional.
>communist regimes have been in decline since the 1950's
>the remaining 'communist' nations are all super revisionist
And yet he insisted that communism is an inevitable global result of the contradictions in capitalism.

>>18095479
Reddit: the post

>>18095516
>>18095543
>>18095689
>>18095726
/thread

>>18095479
He was unironically the second coming of Christ, except this time God learned his lesson of not being an attention whore and showing off his powers to mortals.

>>18097920
Oh, so THIS is why he's gearing up to invade Taiwan even though it's a suicide mission that will probably end with modern China collapsing and entering another Warring States period. He's literally a fucking One Piece/Gurren Lagann tier retard. "If I believe hard enough, it will happen!" KEK, good luck with that, Comrade Xi. Maybe you'll be able to channel some Spiral Power to stop the US Navy and the Japanese Navy from sinking every ship the PLA has.

>>18095479
he only exists to be a rebuttal to jesus
https://www.brighteon.com/afe51282-7d21-4cf2-bbfc-b187516ab8dc

>>18096840
>Regardless, you are the pot calling the kettle black.
Ironic considering thats exactly what you just did.

>>18095516
based

>>18099055
>decadent westerner criticizes foreign power for daring to have actual ideals and principles instead of treating his country like an economic zone staffed by human cattle
i wish him the best of luck desu

>>18099041
Karl Marx was a Jewish prophet who was at odds with the rabbinical establishment and the Roman authorities and transferred the messianic mission of the Chosen people to the proletariat as a class? Interesting theory.

>>18099055
lmao that would be taking a big risk but I think his idealism is counterbalanced by a sense of caution. It might've been Hu Jintao who was the reckless one. Well, we'll find out and it'll be up to history to judge.

>>18099041
Christ came only once, though His Sacrifice lives forevermore.

>>18098955
>And yet he insisted that communism is an inevitable global result of the contradictions in capitalism.
Yeah, well, what if... and hear me out here... it's true. It's like spirals, dude. It's tortuous shaped, like a cyclone. You know like how a hurricane will power up and then power back down, and then power back up again, or it'll make landfall and lose a lot of energy and then corkscrew back out to sea and then power up again and come back.

That's dialectics.

https://youtu.be/WtTgsu_JtNU?t=73

>>18095479
His critique of capitalism at the time was obviously spot on and had huge influence on labor reforms in subsequent decades but his utopian solutions were too clouded by him being an outsider jew to ever work in real life. If he was ethnic German I feel like he would've been a proto-nazi instead

How do ya'll folx explain china if marxism and communism always fail? China lifted more out of poverty than any other nation in history, quicker too. It proves that marxists and communist understand capitalism better than capitalists and that strong central government and a mixed planned economy is better than the "free market."

>>18099174
>If he was ethnic German I feel like he would've been a proto-nazi instead
Not sure about that one... chief

>>18099124
>Karl Marx was a Jewish prophet who was at odds with the rabbinical establishment and the Roman authorities and transferred the messianic mission of the Chosen people to the proletariat as a class? Interesting theory.
Yes.

>>18099124
>>18099216
Oh, so Marxism is quite literally demonic, then, that's good to know.

>>18099241
That's the Nazis. Never liked those demons.

https://youtu.be/IjnqR_gOXh4

>>18095479
>He's more discussed than Plato
Maybe. And that’s a bad thing.
>and Jesus
Absolutely not.

>>18099265
Fascism and Marxism are both anti-Christian.

>>18099265
make sure to include some harry potter scenes next time

>>18099199
I think so, it's just a lot more alligned with human nature than his utopia and him not seeing that was due to his own misaligned subjective experience of being a jew during the height of German nationalism. The chinese are the first communist country who figured that out on their own

>>18099280
Spielberg can be maudlin but I think he got the vibe of it. Fascism is not about peace or stability, it's like a maelstrom of destruction and self-destruction. One of the TrueAnon co-hosts entered into ISIS territory while fighting on the side of the YPG and said it was the most surreal experience of his life, everything had been looted and all iconography had been blotted out with black ink, like walking into a void. I think the Eastern Front would've been like that in Nazi territory. There's no salvation to be found there.

When I think of a future American fascism I think of this:

https://youtu.be/G7EtOYAIXto

There's talk of "ecofascism" but a real-existing ecofascism would say solar panels are causing the planet to heat up and then burn them in big bonfires because the fires excite the demonic fascist gaze. They'll say it's "common sense," and if you believe in that means you'll believe anything.

>>18099286
I think the Chinese made Karl Marx their god which is pretty wild to think about. Marx's Jewishness did put him out of sync, it's true, but IMO authentic Judaism has never been about the past, its pure immanence:

https://youtu.be/lfBIEWChWZM?t=84

All this stuff about Jewish heritage is Zionist bullshit. From the Torah to the Talmud to Marxism, Judaism has always been about dialectical progression, only when the state of Israel arrived did all this heritage nonsense emerge, and then the Zionists tore down most of the Old City and rebuilt it in pseudo-Biblical style... invented history. Zionists and anti-Semites really are the same people.

>>18097965
Unfortunately no, leftism is absolutely everywhere today, especially noticeable if you live in America. Whether leftism today has anything to do with Marx is an entirely different subject

>>18095998
kek, nice try atheist

>>18095479
King of the pseuds.

>>18096072
>try actually criticizing communism
Ok. Communism cannot even work in theory because the idea of post-scarcity is, in Kantian terms, a transcendent ideal and not at all real in any possible sense. Post-scarcity, and by extension communism, is quite literally as imaginary as the Christian Kingdom of Heaven.
>Marxists will conveniently ignore this post, or respond with incoherent ree-ing.

What is the difference between communism and an oppressive capitalist system?

Being a wageslave is almost unbearable for most people. Many live in depression. How is this better than whatever communism is?

I think any form of economical system can be evil. We just live under one or another. Different name same bullshit.

>>18099488
This does disservice to the Christian idea of the Kingdom of Heaven, though, because it at least has an esoteric dimension which is not meant literally as a physical place or any such thing. Marxism lacks any esoteric dimension; it is a true religion of the masses.

>>18099488
>the idea of post-scarcity is, in Kantian terms
Superb bait.

>>18095479
He's not discussed more than Jesus, are you a fucking retard?

>>18099733
>>Marxists will conveniently ignore this post, or respond with incoherent ree-ing.

>>18096072
WHERE'S THE EMERGENCE, DINGLEBERRY?

Mods should IPban all Marxists and Petersonfags.

>>18095479
fuck off /bunkertranny/
/lit/ is impregnable
but you are too stupid to know why

>>18100097
>prebuttal that states you lose whether you ignore or reply
exquisite bait indeed

>>18100318
You win if you reply by showing that post-scarcity is even possible in theory, without screeching like a subhuman.

>>18100323
anything is possible in theory, so theoretically, if you do not have scarcity or to a point where it is irrelevant, then post-scarcity is present. I win.

>>18100317
Greetings newfriend, it is most unfortunate for the recipient of this message that /lit/ is now a postmodern cultural Marxist-Leninist board. I do declare this parley to be finalized.

>>18100338
>anything is possible in theory
Nope.

>>18095917
>He literally didn't even read Marx
Did Zizek call him out on it?

>>18095479
Unironically there are mostly unknown political and economic writers who get discussed more in the proper setting then Marx. OP just hasnt the political cloud to be aware of it.

>>18100356
that is a statement, not an argument. given that you have no valid counter argument to make, you signal defeat. I have now left this thread permanently while you remain to seethe and cope like an effeminate man. good day

>>18095483
Go to hell tripfag dialectician, with the other liars and fags

Imagine BTFO'd by a fucking turtle called Ludwig Von Mises. Marx sought materialist dialectics from the swamp of emperical data to justify his homoerotic theories. He's a total fag. Yes I've read his homoerotic literature (and his buttbuddy engels). Both total fags.

What's with it in this board and projecting idealistic bullshit anyway "muh nazi kant basedbois"?

Get fucked.

If you are reading this you are a faggot.

>>18100382
sorry for the trippple post but I realized the answer to my own question, you're all total fags.

>>18099544
there is no difference for retards like you who can't tell the difference. Just go on posting fucking azns you weaboo.

>>18100323
Not a Marxist, (Marx is absolutely a dingleberry (and anyone who buys into that silly silly is double the dingleberry he is (and Hegel? TRIPPLE the dingleberry the double dingleberry of those that read Marx and take the dingleberry nonsense seriously))).

But you can imagine a future where we have (yes, yawn (yes, kill me (please!!))) astroid mining and fusion power and automation ... some of the steps required for 'post-scarcity' (my god!) But could a bunch of dingleberries walking-off-into-theory-books really help us get there? Probably not! (sad!!) It'll be the engineers, working under shady partnerships of private business and military, that'll do anything close to that.

But you have to wonder where a 'post-scarcity' society would go from there? What kind of incentives would such a society have? Maybe if you had space vampires and freaky spider aliens to keep us within some kind of conflict ... Harmony begets sedation begets stagnation begets collapse. Oh you destroyed all private business, annihilated the profit motive? HAHAHA Sorry! Chap! All you have to conquer now is a confounding ream of internally justified, endlessly self-referential bureaucratic fugue. (Kill me already!!!). Close the loop! let HR metastasise! Oh yes we must call a meeting on that. No no we need to confab with the relevant departments before we can confab with that department regarding the confab on that departments decision to discuss the confab with our department and this department about the decision to set the date for the confab between us and the department of confab. QUADRUPLE DINGLEBERRIES!!! You're playing QUANTUM 11th dimension DINGLEBERRY CHESS! Mother of GUD! I think I died and went to heaven! :-) But is heaven just a VR-brain-in-a-jar hyper sexual pepe-foot-fetish WW2 simulation fantasy of my own design??? I can't tell!!! Who cares?! Pass the chips! BIGGINS' HAHAHAHAHAHAAH

>>18095726
Is this pasta?

>>18095479
Aahh so more discussion about the structure of the world and more navel gazing while the rest of the world keeps moving.
Marx is truly a genius in that he achieved his purpose of directing dissatisfaction of the lower classes to philosophy and endless discussion.

>>18095516
Thread should've ended here

>>18100410
>But you have to wonder where a 'post-scarcity' society would go from there? What kind of incentives would such a society have? Maybe if you had space vampires and freaky spider aliens to keep us within some kind of conflict ... Harmony begets sedation begets stagnation begets collapse. Oh you destroyed all private business, annihilated the profit motive? HAHAHA Sorry! Chap! All you have to conquer now is a confounding ream of internally justified, endlessly self-referential bureaucratic fugue. (Kill me already!!!). Close the loop! let HR metastasise! Oh yes we must call a meeting on that. No no we need to confab with the relevant departments before we can confab with that department regarding the confab on that departments decision to discuss the confab with our department and this department about the decision to set the date for the confab between us and the department of confab. QUADRUPLE DINGLEBERRIES!!! You're playing QUANTUM 11th dimension DINGLEBERRY CHESS! Mother of GUD! I think I died and went to heaven! :-) But is heaven just a VR-brain-in-a-jar hyper sexual pepe-foot-fetish WW2 simulation fantasy of my own design??? I can't tell!!! Who cares?! Pass the chips! BIGGINS' HAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Go to sleep Peter Watts

>>18095479
He was a NEET

>>18095479
I have a long list of things to read before I get to marx but I did watch a lecture video explaining some of his main points and this guy seems to have some false axioms he is drawing from which make everything he says wrong


1) he says that before the distribution of labour there were no hierarchies
what a spastic take

2) In the absence (in his mind) of god, and given the anti-racist stance taken by him (anti group selection)
give me one single reason why I should give a fuck about other people
social contract is not good enough

3) alienation
the most alienated people are all middle class leftists (that's all of them, there are approximately 0 working class leftists) l m a o have you ever tried to talk to these people

>>18100395
Marx is about abolishing wage labor and classes.

>>18099544
(...)

>>18096483
My point wasn't to refute Marx you triggered brainlet, it was to show he was a hypocrite and a despicable human being. His ideas have some merits (though much is overblown).
>American Von Mises reader.
Again, retard, I'm not a burger, nor a Mises reader. You seem to be incapable of though that goes beyond black and white extreme oppositions. Not everyone who shits on Marx is a capitalist. You just keep proving what scum commies are though.

>blocks your path

>>18101238
You know that you cannot not be a Capitalist, and still want commodity and wage labor, right?
Hitlerians are weak. They are Capital reformists.

In the end, i don't despise you because you are anti-judaic, but because you are economically unread, and an hypocrite, who pretend to fight against Capitalism, when your ideal is to create a society which keeps commodity and wage labor. You are a weak willed, hypocrite piece of shit.
In the end, you are a jew rat. A jew who doesn't go to the synagogue, but who worship money.

(...)
Seize power, do your Hitlerian shit, and it would still be a jewish world, you jewish hitlerian rat.

>>18095479
Everything besides his analysis of class is one giant meme that has no place in the 21st century.

>>18100382
Based Ancap.

>>18101426
Capitalism already is anarchic. Production is social and very organized, but the circulation of goods is totally anarchic.

>>18101358
Your post reeks of ressentiment.
>Hitlerians are weak. They are Capital reformists.
So are commies.
> pretend to fight against Capitalism, when your ideal is to create a society which keeps commodity and wage labor.
That's because I'm not an absolutist like yourself. Just like I don't want to exterminate all jews, I don't want to exterminate commodity and wage labour. Those just need to be in service of the people and restricted.
>In the end, you are a jew rat. A jew who doesn't go to the synagogue, but who worship money.
Total projection. You're the one who worships money but pretends to hate it. All you do is out of jealousy because you don't have it but want it. All you do is out of materialistic reasons, totally ignoring that humans need spiritual nourishment more than material.
You commies are even worse excuses for human beings than capitalists, even though your ideas are slightly less bad.

>claim to have predicted historical pattern.
>none of it ever comes true
Marx, like all Hegelians, appeals to idiots who think they are smart.

>>18101582
>>Hitlerians are weak. They are Capital reformists.
>So are commies.
>Abolish commodity and wage labor
>Reformists

>I don't want to exterminate commodity and wage labour. Those just need to be in service of the people and restricted.
You dumb fuck you cannot tame commodity. It's totally impossible. 55 IQ.
>Total projection. You're the one who worships money but pretends to hate it.
I want to abolish totally money and commodity, but for you i worship it. You know piece of shit Hitlerian, at one point, it's not divergence of opinion between us, it's your 55 IQ.
>All you do is out of jealousy because you don't have it but want it.
Who the fuck are you to know how much i have?
>totally ignoring that humans need spiritual nourishment more than material.
That's right thought, and that's why you want to keep commodity and wage labor, which are the opposite of spirituality. Read (for the first time you unread) the new testament. It's constant ranting against money, the rich. "To each according to his needs." It's not even from Marx, but comes from the new testament, acts of the Apostles, end of Chapter 4. Go see you unread.
Here you dimwit, i'll help you, gum up your work, like an unread dimwit that you are:
New Testament, acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4:
"The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common."
"None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them,
to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need."

>He's more discussed than Plato and Jesus together
This is your brain of Marxism

>>18100911
1) before distribution of labour there really could not have been any economic hierarchy. There were other kinds of hierarchy, but even they were much weaker than in modern times. This has been one of the findings of modern anthropology.

Marx is not against group selection. He simply believes group selection is better done with the basis of economic function and class than race, so race is a distraction from the main group. This is how Marxist explain this. But Marxism is not an omni-theory and it is not that useful at hyper-individual scales, though this is why Marxists are for group selection but against racism.

By the definition of Marx for the working class, approximately 99% of the society is working class. The exception is people that have no boss. But even then the Marxian concept of alienation doesn't predict that working people would he more alienated than anyone else, it's a whole society phenomenon.

He just sat down and tried to be himself.

>>18102218
>By the definition of Marx for the working class, approximately 99% of the society is working class.
Wrong. Having a boss doesn't make you "working class." Socialism was always about organizing industrial labor, something that was superseded by the service and finance economy. You work retail and read commie theory and assume all that stuff about revolution was written for you, but in reality you are the first on the list of people to be killed lol.

>>18095479
Yes, nothing attests to a man's genius more than a string of failed states who followed his advice.

>>18102218
>before distribution of labour there really could not have been any economic hierarchy.
You can reverse the arrow in this statement and see why the whole project is doomed

>>18102250
I don't work retail. I'm trying to explain to you how class division arise as a result of wage labour. Read a book and stop being a pseud

It's not just a Marxist thing either, it's exactly the same definition you'd find if you read any anarchist literature as well as the working definition of a class in anthropology.

>>18102293
That's an invalid argument. Just because economic hierarchy arose with division of labour does not mean that economic hierarchy is a necessary consequence of the division of labour.

Beyond that, the exact nature of that division is important too.

Put simply, division of labour is a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic classes to arise. Indeed, economic classes clearly do not follow the division of labour yet they are impossible without some division of labour.

>>18102250
>Socialism was always about organizing industrial labor,
Who said Marx is about socialism? Who said Marx is about organizing political economy? Also, when do you intend to read Marx, once and for all? (communist manifesto doesn't count).

>>18102369
The division of labor implies the creation of different classes to carry out these different forms of labor, especially since governing itself is a necessary form of 'labor'.

>>18102377
>Who said Marx is about socialism? Who said Marx is about organizing political economy?
Marx and every Marxist after did. Feel free to post something that contradicts this.

>>18102369
I'm telling you that your understanding of class division is wrong. If you seriously think whatever job you have, and the people doing actual manual labor have the same interests you're in for a rude surprise when those people actually start getting violent.

>>18102382
No, this is not what division of labour means. Division of labour is as simple as someone going to hunt while someone else makes weapons.

And no, this doesn't require the creation of classes. Classes must have different relations of production, but in the example above the relations are the same.

Early human societies did not have a governing class either, they had rule by consensus, social norms, and violence, which was not exclusive to any member or function.

>>18102400
I've worked both manual and intellectual jobs, and largely yes the interests are the same. Less profit for the owner, more of a stake in the direction of the enterprises, shorter work hours, better benefits.

This is especially ironic because in 2021 a large amount of industrial production is no longer physical labour anyways, a lot of physical labour in developped economies is now in the services and primary sector such as gardening, agriculture, being a plumber or a mechanic, etc...

We're no longer in Victorian England. Production is now mechanized. The imagined idealized romantic discussion between manual and intellectual worker is shrinking every day. When I worked as a sysadmin I would remote into trucks to fix and diagnose mechanical problems, and when I worked as a mechanics assistant we would spend quite a bit of time fixing computer issues with controllers and doing some basic electronics.

Anyways, it's too much to ask to request from a pseud such as yourself to actually move beyond TV stereotypes and inquire in how stuff is actually made nowadays. Probably also because you have no experience in modern industry.

>>18102461
>And no, this doesn't require the creation of classes.
It does in every actual example of it in reality. Hunter gatherer tribes had one main class division, men and women, which was related to their division of labor. There were also shaman types and whatnot, but the male/female one is the most obvious. Complex society requires more stringent division of labor and many new forms of labor, the resulting classes are never equal, and a governing class or several always emerges to coordinate and regulate the society.

>>18102498
Man and woman is not a class in the Marxian sense, no. Certainly not an economic class. And the idea that they were inherently unequal is stupid as well.

"Shaman" is not something there was in primitive hunter gatherer societies. It came later.

Additionally, the number of classes did not change from 1940 to now even as the division of labour became vastly more complex.

That is the to say, at the core of your argument is a logical fallacy. It is not because division of labour is necessary to economic classes that it necessarily leads to economic classes. You have to show that the introduction of a division of labour must necessarily introduce new classes, and the stagnant class system since the beginning of capitalism despite huge changes to the division of labour is a gigantic empirical argument against this.

>>18102461
>I've worked both manual and intellectual jobs, and largely yes the interests are the same. Less profit for the owner, more of a stake in the direction of the enterprises, shorter work hours, better benefits.
As someone with the opportunity to work both, naturally you think this. The real working class do not share the sentiment. In Russia or in China you'd have been shot or sent to do forced labor.

>>18102461
>>18102558
You literally say you're a fucking sysadmin (no surprise). You have to be very obtuse not to realize that the tech profession is the most viciously hated by the lower strata, at this point in history.

>>18102530
>You have to show that the introduction of a division of labour must necessarily introduce new classes,
My argument was that the division of labor will produce classes, and every complex society in history does have classes of unequal power. The class system since the beginning of capitalism has changed anyway, the power of various elite groups has altered and we have seen the middle class, the managerial class, the welfare class etc. emerge.

>>18102530
And men and women were different classes, they had different rights and status, and different roles. The shaman types are present in primitive hunter gatherer society also.

>>18102571
>>18102558
I'm not a sysadmin anymore. But for a long time I didn't have the opportunity to do anything else than a manual job. I didn't even get paid that much more to be a sysadmin either.

Also you definitely didn't get shot for being a technical worker in the USSR nor in China, otherwise my friends whose parents were engineers and technicians would never have been alive.

But anyways, you're very good at missing the point. In 2021, no one is actually hired for doing manual labour. Manual labourers are doing jobs that require a level of mental flexibility that machines do not have. In reality the most valuable skill of a mechanic or an assembly line worker is no longer their force or even agility but their mental flexibility and psychomotor abilities. True manual workers in the secondary sector are a dying breed.

Also, the hate of tech-bros is a mostly US phenomenon. Where I live a sysadmin or even many programmers are paid worse than ""manual workers"". My welder friend makes more than me, for example.

>>18102605
You have stated that the division of labour necessarily produce classes and never made an argument for it.

The middle class, the managerial class and the welfare class existed since the very beginning of capitalism. They certainly are not new.

>>18102613
There were no rights in those early societies. The different roles existed sure but that doesn't a class make, assembly line worker #5 and #23 have different roles but no one thinks they're in a different class.

As for status, that depends on the society. In some they had a higher status, in some lower, and in others the society was too small for this to be significant.

The "shaman" types came later, they were in late primitive societies and not in the earliest ones.

>>18102627
>You have stated that the division of labour necessarily produce classes and never made an argument for it.
My argument, which I have stated several times, is that every single example in human history of a complex society with division of labor has produced classes of unequal power.

>>18102638
Yes, and I stated multiple times that this is the causal fallacy. Division of labour is necessary to a class system, but not sufficient.

Societies without a class system just got killed by societies that did have a class system, because the class system is necessary for the production of surplus value that can feed an army.

>>18102698
>Societies without a class system
Did these even exist after a basic level of complexity? again you need a set of people who govern, calling this division of labor anything but a ruling class is just kind of weak.

>class system necessary for production of surplus value that can feed an army
But then you're just agreeing with me, you can't have a society without an army

>>18102627
>Also you definitely didn't get shot for being a technical worker in the USSR nor in China, otherwise my friends whose parents were engineers and technicians would never have been alive.
It depends on the decade. The point is that the intellectual professions were seen as counter-revolutionary. Many people were shot or worked to death but skilled labor was necessary to compete with the west so gradually the political situation changed.
>But anyways, you're very good at missing the point. In 2021, no one is actually hired for doing manual labour. Manual labourers are doing jobs that require a level of mental flexibility that machines do not have. In reality the most valuable skill of a mechanic or an assembly line worker is no longer their force or even agility but their mental flexibility and psychomotor abilities. True manual workers in the secondary sector are a dying breed.
True, I'm talking as if this were 1921 but the world has changed and that's a problem for Marxist theory that Marxists prefer to ignore. There is no longer a working class that can revolt. You, or someone, said it's the 99% of people that have a boss but that's a made up image in your mind. There is no one-class unity that can be achieved in reality and if you have a boss, your boss is likely in that 99% himself. Good luck convincing your boss to go on strike with you.
>Also, the hate of tech-bros is a mostly US phenomenon. Where I live a sysadmin or even many programmers are paid worse than ""manual workers"". My welder friend makes more than me, for example.
That's fair. I am too US-centric.

>>18102716
You can definitely have a society without an army, you just need everyone to also be a fighter.

And sure, you can't have more than ~200 people in a society without needing people to govern.

But technology changes things a lot. The mechanization of the military made it so that the army is no longer an economic class as their base of power can now be controlled by civilians, making the military nowadays a social but not economic classm

>>18102748
I certainly agree, but if you read some of what Stalin wrote this came much more from a fear from those that had power than from a Marxist analysis that decided they were class enemies.

Marxist economic theory predicts that eventually the working class ends up becoming 99% of people during the process of proletarianization.

And actually in Marxist analysis your boss is not part of the worker class unless most of his work is directly productive. Of course you will never get him to strike with you in that case.

In empirical reality, Marxist unions never allowed bosses to join and it's not an issue that they cannot strike. The managerial class accounts for around 5-10% of the US economy if I remember correctly. Obviously 99% was hyperbole, but even in 1870 industrial workers were only around 40% of the population or thereabouts because of peasants, and this did not prevent revolutions from working. Not that I believe that revolution is the best tool nowadays.

I agree that particularities about Das Kapital did not hold up. But by and large there is still a dominant class in modern society which is defined by wage labour and by and large they have similar class interests. The distinctions we perceive do exist but ultimately they are way to small to actually define a class.

>>18102820
>in 1870 industrial workers were only around 40% of the population or thereabouts because of peasants
Yes, I was thinking this too. That even in the times of revolutions, there wasn't a one-class unity. There was a big enough industrial base that Bolsheviks were able to appeal to and they used that to terrorize peasants and the higher strata. Certainly we could see revolutions form a class that is less than 99% but it would have to be very large and essential like the industrial class in that time.

Clearly you have to exclude the bosses from your union, bosses that are themselves may be dependent on paychecks to survive, and the problems of forming your class start adding up from there. It ties into the larger point how the Marxist idea of the Working Class as one unity by virtue of having to sell their labor is fictitious. The distinctions are too small to define a class but clearly the point of similarity is also too small to define a class. So where is the class?

>>18099216
>>18099241
Marxism is a Jewish philosophy, and that's why it's so good. It's pure immanence.

https://youtu.be/FEbE6uw2DSU?t=197

https://youtu.be/lfBIEWChWZM?t=81

the materialist messiah, also a jew coincidentally

>>18102884
The main issue with trying to use managers to highlight the problem with the wage labour construction of a class is that the label manager is too large. Most managers actually also do productive labour in addition to managing people, and the few that don't are few in number.

In practice, in many countries, labour unions are powerful enough to wield significant political power. I think that pretty clearly wage labour is a pretty significant class.

Marx doesn't assume that the class is perfectly united either. But as a whole it clearly is a significant component of the society if and when it decides to organize.

>>18095479
He had some good points about capitalism. The top needs to have some type of regulatory mechanism, but his theory of labor is absolute nonsense.

>>18103612
Color me shocked.

>>18096416
Cope rightoid

>>18095479
He was just a loser whose wife paid for him. He felt guilty of it so said that it shouldnt be that way. All the other jealous losers who cant compete in the market agree with him. Again cause they are also losers.

Blows my mind people admit to being socialists. Thats equal to admitting you are a hopeless loser with no chance unless the government steals from others and gives to you and tells you what to do. Ypure basically asking to become someones pet dog.

>>18100410
>Not a Marxist, (Marx is absolutely a dingleberry (and anyone who buys into that silly silly is double the dingleberry he is (and Hegel? TRIPPLE the dingleberry the double dingleberry of those that read Marx and take the dingleberry nonsense seriously))).
wtf

>>18102638
What is power really? In Capitalism, it is to be able to buy a vastly superior quantity of goods than the working class. Absorbing they work, in the form of profit, money, even if one didn't work himself. Also having some privilege most billionaires have. Power, in Capitalism, it totally independent of the amount of work you give to society, it's quality, the usefulness of your work, your talent. Capitalism is a big Casino. Not much to do with real talent, intelligence. People with the ability to make money, gamblers, speculators, are favored.
Classless society is about organizing production independently of owners of the means of production, and their subsequent profit, which is surplus labor.
So in inferior communism, both the engineer and the cleaning technician would have their basic needs covered according to the amount of work they work. The principle is "To each according to his contribution". It is unequal, sure, but is it more unequal than Capitalism?
In the Critique of the Gotha program, Marx said that only in superior communism, will the division of labor, and the distinction between intellectual and manual labor, be abolished, and the principle will be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

>>18104376
>What is power really?
There are many forms of power, they do not reduce to having money.

>>18103491
>>18103612
A good thing that Capitalism isn't jewish.

OH, LOOK, ANOTHER THREAD ATTEMPTING DISCUSSING "MARX", IN THE YEAR TWOTHOUSAND TWELVE.

>>18103661
Reminder that in developed countries, small companies, and their bosses, represent only less than 10% of the GDP.
>Most managers actually also do productive labour in addition to managing people, and the few that don't are few in number.
Few in number, but the large corporations in developed countries today represent most of the GDP of the country. Usually 2/3 of the country's GDP.
So enough with the myth of the working class boss.
Also, many of those boss of small companies are in unproductive labor sectors. So mostly service industry, which doesn't create value (at least not directly).

>>18104392
Today, the Capitalist class is the class managing society, and exerting power. Military are today the lackeys of the Capital. Religious power doesn't exist anymore.
Without really thinking about it, i only see seductive power, which isn't about money.

>>18104483
>seductive power
you are playing too much that shitty indie game. I don't remember its name.

>>18104483
>Today, the Capitalist class is the class managing society, and exerting power. Military are today the lackeys of the Capital.
I don't agree, there are government agencies and central banks

>>18104517
The logic of profit, Capital accumulation, determines what has to be done.

>>18104517
who control central banks?

>>18104579
I don't see any proof of this, I don't understand why marxists think power is reducible to money rather than money being one form of power.

>>18104610
Capital accumulation is immanent. You cannot stop it. They will always be assholes, always, who will take over the role of Capitalists. Whether jewish or not. Thinking their could be a country with 100 millions of people, without anyone wanting to play the Capitalist, is retarded. Until the social relation Capitalist exist, there will be Capitalists. Only way for Capitalists to disappear, is to abolish the Capital.
The whole production of needs today is based on Capitalism anyway. We don't even have a rational alternative, we are too retarded for that.

>>18104700
Chinese emperors used to let some capitalist guys to exist, lend money and so on. But they cut the balls of them.
Eventually their sons could have so much power to take the emperor down.

>>18104700
I dont disagree with anything you said, I just don't think accumulating capital is the only form of power, which is why I mentioned the banks and government agencies.

>>18104726
Capitalists were indeed less powerful than nobility until around the 1700s, with the English and french revolution. Then the Capitalists took over.

>>18104738
For all i know, government agencies are to act in favor of the Capital. They don't act against Capital accumulation, but in favor to it.

>>18104738
central banks are controlled by politicians right?
Political power in 97% of the world is controlled by capital.
same thing about gov agencies.

>>18104746
they have their own goals, they are separate networks of power that interface with the capitalist network of power

(...)
Alphabet soup little schemes, is to better the conditions for american Capital accumulation.

>>18104752
I don't think alphabet soup have their own goals. They are mostly a part of the Capitalistic machine.

>>18104763
You know this how? I'll also note that 'serving capital' does not really mean anything. Government corruption benefits specific capitalists who make deals with them, not capital in some abstract sense.

>>18104781
>Government corruption benefits specific capitalists who make deals with them, not capital in some abstract sense.
Capitalists are perfectly interchangeable. Capital has to grow has a whole in order for global accumulation to exist. Production is interconnected. Think suppliers and clients.

>>18104810
But this is not how it works, a capitalist might benefit by bribing a politician to institute a policy that lowers overall GDP by sabotaging his competitors.

>>18104820
There are contradictions in Capitalism. But globally, they are in the same boat, and want value creation and Capital accumulation.
In very simple terms, the growth in an economical sector, favor growth in an other one.

>>18104893
Capitalists want power, so do politicians. Amassing capital is not the only way to get power

>>18104903
POwer only exist if there is a space where to exert power.

>>18104933
There are many such spaces

>>18099181
China starved million through its great leap forward, it was still a poor country until about the 90s where the government ditches any semblance of communism to grow its GDP.

>>18104459
Small companies are the ones where this problem exist, though. Large companies ten to have very few real managers, often they have a fake manager that is in fact a technical lead and then really only one manager per 30-100 workers.

I agree that the working class boss is really a myth. But the issue of management is really quite minor when you nail it down, and even then in practical terms managers are either workers in all terms or incarnate the interests of Capital fully.

I don't disagree with your outlook at all. I just don't think it's anywhere near fatal. In practical terms as long as the material interests are shared you really only need 20-30% of the population, though in practice once you get there you can get many more on-board.

>>18104610
The basis of power is being able to effect material change. Material change is facilitated by capital accumulation.

And people that do have the power to effect material change invariably command large amounts of capital, because capital is necessary to organize the social relations that allow material change (and thus the expression of power).

>>18104953
And all of them require capital.

>>18095479
Was Jesus or Mohammed? Or is it not rather that they simply sparked a fire?

>>18105117
>>18105123
Yeah but capitalist profit does not account for eg taxation, printing money, or using military

>>18100410
Do you need an ambulance or something? Are you okay?

>>18104610
Marx's poorly structured argumentation ossifies into dogma in the heads of Marxists, who want to believe that the outcome of history is predetermined because the laws of capital will drive capitalism to a crisis it cannot recover from. I don't know if Marx himself believe in the predetermination, but he certainly did not believe that power is reducible to money. On the contrary he wrote that market exchanges really mask relations between people. Power ultimately rests not in money, but in all the institutions that the powerful have at their disposal. The progression to socialism would require a consciousness in the working class that the capitalist's money is nothing that can actually restrain them, and the organized take over of the real mechanisms of power.

>>18095479
A prophet.