/lit/ - Literature

>>21320110
Yes. He's insightful and a great polemicist. Even if you disagree with him you may as well gain some understanding of his ideas.

If you like fantasy. Otherwise yours better off reading Friedman or Peterson

>>21320110
Yeah but to truly appreciate him read Hegel first. Dialectics changed my life.

>>21320129
>Dialectics changed my life.

Oh, so you're a big Socrates fan?

>>21320129
Wait…so basically Scientology, like fascism, ultimately comes from Marx? Yikes. Just when I thought he couldn’t be responsible for any more poisonous ideologies

>>21320129
this. In fact, only Hegel is worth reading. Marx only vulgarized his beautiful idealism

>>21320117
Kek. I can't tell if this is satire. I already read Friedman though.

>>21320110
>Be a literal Jew
>Insult other people for being Jews
What did he mean by this?

>>21320180
self-exposure, like Kevin Spacey

>>21320110
Absolutely. If capital is to much economics for your taste go with The German Ideology first to get as taste of his writing. You can skip Communist Manifesto btw it's basically him dumbing himself down for idiots to understand his basic ideas which doesn't really work well considering the complex nature of his analysis.

>>21320154
Sounds like someone who hasn't read either of them desu. As a man of culture one should absolutely have read both of them. Even if I agree that reading Hegel will help you understand and find some flaws in Marx body of work which will otherwise go under the radar.

>>21320180
He isn't insult him for being a jew.
He is insulting him for being a jewish nigger.
It's actually a big difference.

>>21320165
It's either trolling or idiocy.

>>21320143
kek

>>21320110
He has great insights and great theories. I recommend picking some of his stuff up.

>>21320235
So is it bad to be a nigger or just specifically a Jewish one in Marx's mind?

>>21320180
>>21320235

yup

>>21320110
>>21320180
>>21320235
>>21320251
marx's antisemitism makes a lot more sense when you realize he basically hated his parents
he attacks jews in general for the traits he hated about them, specifically being greedy (read: not leaving enough to him in the will)

>>21320225
not saying one shouldn't read Marx, but his materialist approach is primitive compared to Hegels near-mystical vision. from its head on its feet my ass...

>>21320110
No. He's a massive pseud who never worked a day in his life. Very much like the people who shill him here to appear intelligent.

>>21320110
Yes. He's insightful and a great polemicist. Even if you disagree with him you may as well gain some understanding of his ideas.

>>21320285
You’re right, literally only Marx’s parents have ever been accused of being greedy as far as Jews go.

>>21320110
>marries a Rothschild
>ascribes Capitalist class to bourgeoisie and not the nanoscopic money printing class
He didn't finish the fourth book because of justifiable imposter syndrome. Lenin and Stalin are at least honest by comparison. Skip to the end.

>>21320466
>nanoscopic money printing class
Marx lived during the gold standard. Americans are fucking retarded and should be banned from posting and eugenized.

>>21320225
Absolutely nobody should ever read Marx

>>21320822
t. has never read Marx

>>21320832
I've read about 5 pages and that told me all I needed to know. Actually that's not true, I read several chapters from the end of volume 1 about the transition from serfdom to capitalism. Those were ok I guess but not particularly good. The beginning of the book is incomprehensible gibberish

>>21320285
Marx wasn't antisemitic he just disliked jews.
>inb4 not possible hurr durr
Him not liking jews isn't very surprising considering it's coming from the religion is opium for the masses guy. His economic analysis and critique of capitalism are absolutely free of ony type of antisemitism.
That being said conspiracy antisemitism that uses ze jews as a scapegoat is the only form of antisemitism that really matters. Everything else is just personal preference. Philosemitism isn't and was never an obligation.

>>21320841
At least finish capital man. Come back here after you read it and I'll consider taking your opinion serious.

>>21320841
>The beginning of the book is incomprehensible gibberish
>Filtered by math

>>21320880
It lterally doesnt make sense.

>Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary.
Why is he homogenizing the labor right after stating that it's not actually homogeneous at all

>>21320887
It's not the math which is difficult to understand, in fact Marx could not even into differential calculus so it is all extremely simple. It's the definition and usage of terms, and the arbitrary manner in which he relates them.

>>21320251
If you had actually read 'on the jewish question' you'd realize how much of an idiot you really are for quotemining this paragraph. Also it's a pretty shorts essay so there's literally no excuse for your illiteracy.

>>21320896
>Some people might think
Have you even read the paragraph you just posted? Because that's not at all what he's saying.

>>21320896
>Why is he homogenizing the labor right after stating that it's not actually homogeneous at all
It's the only way to make theory work.

>>21320921
Yes hes disagreeing with what the opposing view says(that labor is massively heterogeneous) but he doesn't say why. In fact he doesnt really disagree so much as bizarrely sidestep it and just state the opposite

>>21320921
>Because that's not at all what he's saying.
Of course it is. The only thing he meant by "some people might think" is that more non-homogenous labor = higher value is wrong. He goes on to state that homogenous ("socially necessary") labor = higher value.

So are you proposing that unskilled labor should be valued more because it takes longer? Becaue it sounds like that's what you are implying. I don't really get what's there to be explained about this. It's pretty straight forward. He's laying out the basis for his later analysis as anyone bothering with a materialist economic analysis would.

>>21320981
I'm saying that labor cant be added together into a homogeneous, fungible mass. Apart from skill there is the entire matter of labor being embedded in systems: industry, commerce, government, and of course people's lives in general. It has to slot into this very complex machine. You cant just move it around like money or (most)goods.

>>21320995
Well you aren't to first one to critize Marx's labour theory of value. It's a fair criticism.
I'd still advise you to read the actual text instead of starting with second sources interpreting it since that's quite obviously what you are doing. It's right here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
german
http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_000.htm

>>21321023
What are you talking about I copy pasted a section from the first 5 pages of the book and gave my thoughts about why I dont get it. That's not secondary source. I was explaining why I never got beyond the beginning because it doesnt make sense to me.

>>21321037
Sure pal.

>>21321051
How the fuck do you think that's unlikely? You can't even reply to what I said either, you're a brainlet

>>21320995
>You cant just move it around like money or (most)goods.
That's not what he's saying. The reason he is homogenizing labor is so that it can be measured and collectivized and used in the simplistic math that he writes up. Labor can't be shifted around simply, but the idea is it can be abstractly measured, in the most simplistic sense by taking "skill" or "specific demand" as a coefficient of the labor hours so that all qualitative aspects of labor are reduced to a quantity (which is ultimately unreal).

>>21321072
But you literally cant do that. It wont account for all sorts of hidden factors affecting how and why work gets done.

>>21321065
I think the fact that you just accidentally picked that specific paragraph just totaly at random is pretty unlikely since it's somewhat notorious with marx critics.

>>21321079
You're just trying really hard to justify not reading Marx right now anon. Let's be real here.

>>21321079
>It wont account for all sorts of hidden factors affecting how and why work gets done.
Correct

>>21321084
>marxist literally cant conceptualize the idea of forming your own opinions rather than parroting other sources
Pottery. Maybe it's notorious because it's a)right at the beginning of the book, b)clearly foundational, and c)patently retarded.

>>21321130
Well if you are genuine I'll apologize and say I'm sorry but you should still read the rest of the book before forming such a strong opinion.

>>21321132
I genuinely did not know it was commonly cited but it doesnt surprise me now that you say it. I haven't read any criticism of Marx anyway, because I havent read him in the first place so I wouldnt know what they were talking about. I dont see the point in reading further if I cant understand what hes saying. That paragraph is the worst of those first pages but the entire way he writes in general is like that to a lesser degree. I have no idea how you guys read hundreds of pages of this

>>21320110
He's worth reading to know how much of a dumbass his followers were. Reading him won't actually convert you if you have basic sense and have read other philosophers and economists. Reading him will give you ammunition to deal with all of his brain dead followers, whose only real argument is: "You haven't read Marx"

>>21321153
Well can't say reading Capital was especially entertaining but there are some insights to be gained. Most of the analysis holds up pretty well and much of it has proven to be true to this day. If you get too bored reading it halfway trough honestly just try the audiobook.

>>21321155
>Reading him will give you ammunition to deal with all of his brain dead followers
I don't consider myself a "follower" but please go ahead and prove that you've actually read him beyond communist manifesto and not just talking from out of your ass.

>>21321163
I am not a fan of audiobooks tbqh, cant concentrate on them. Had the same problem in school, much easier to absorb information through text/visually for me. Normally when I read philosophy I make little diagrams of the concepts on paper so i understand them but i could not do this at all with Marx. Even hegel or Deleuze are easier to understand for me than Marx. To be fair I feel this way about every economic text I have ever read. I suspect the entire field to be some kind of practical joke being played on me

>>21321185
I guess that's because capital is mainly just economics instead of philosophy. I also enjoy reading Hegel more and found myself dealing with the same problem. Read capital back in college in a "Lesekreis" (don't know a good english word for it lit. translates to "reading circle"). Talking about the text afterwards was what kept me motivated. Well not having read capital isn't a tragedy. Lot's of it is just public consciousness at this point. Hell few leftists that I know have ever read it. Maybe try another less dry text from him. Outside of economics he can be quite entertaining.
Marx and Engels correspondence via letters for example is pretty hilarious at times.

>>21321209
I'm not a leftist though. I assumed I would be a libertarian based on my sensibilities, but as I said above their books dont make sense to me either. I tried Rothbard, Mises, and Bohm-Bahwerk but it just doesnt compute for me. They at least write in a more sensible way than Marx, but it's like they're autistically reducing the complexity of human society to this little rube goldberg machine. And they end up endorsing utterly bizarre shit. They're right about the federal reserve though, that I believe.

The person who said the things that were the most comprehensible to me regarding economics was Caroll Quigley, who is a historian. He tried to describe how various different economic modes of production interacted with many other dynamics of society in extremely complicated feedback loops and causal webs. I still dont really grasp how things like the stock market or all the tariffs and taxes and stuff function though. Let alone have some concept of an "ideal" system. That's another subject which is a giant mystery to me, ethics/morality. They all sound insane to me

>>21321165
>I don't consider myself a "follower"
You are a follower, that's why you believe in gymnastics such as this:
>A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.
>Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.

>>21321235
>I'm not a leftist though.
I'm not either. I was just giving it as an example for why I don't feel that it's not s absolutely vital to have read it.
That being said you should have read it if you want to make claims about it or talk about details of Marx' analysis in detail. Otherwise chances are high you are making a fool out of yourself.

>>21321259
I only make claims about the small bit I read. If you're not a leftist why do you recommend reading Marx? What are you

>>21321257
>Jumping to conclusions about what and what not I believe
Nice strawman. So are you just going to post textblock quotes or actually give some sort of actual critique to it?

>>21321261
Because that's what OP was asking and it's an essential read no matter if you are a communist a fascist or something in between.

>>21321268
If you're a lolbertarian or fascist or whatever it's just incorrect gibberish. Why would you read it? And if you arent leftist what are you?

>>21320939
No he doesn't, he abstracts from particular workers to grasp the system in itself. If you've got 10k employees and three of them work faster, it does almost nothing to productivity (all other things remaining equal). The point there is that it is the average work per employee is what will prevail in the market as for exchange value. That's why relative or extraordinary surplus can (and is) extracted via development of technology or intensification of work rate.

The thing with friedman and co readers is that they try to approach Marx from a capitalist pov. This is not intended. You will gain insights in capitalism this way but he isn't interested in researching how to improve profit in a particular enterprise, but rather showcase the system's contradictions and essence. His pov is therefore aimed at understanding the productive apparatus not in a particular basis but a general one. There are small variations due to offer & demand but they'll even out if you again average it in a reasonable way.


For OP: I used to be an avid reader of Marx. I would disregard his first stuff. His best is hands down 18 Brumaire, read it ASAP. Grundrisse is cool too. Don't read das capital unless you are particularly autistic. If you insist, have a group read or check out some YouTuber. David Harvey is pretty ok for it.
Seriously Brumaire is THAT good.


Finally, I believe reading Marx without Hegel is shallow. Reading Hegel without Spinoza (another great semi autistic author) is also kinda pointless if you ask me.

>>21321275
>it's just incorrect gibberish
It's not anon. It's one of the most influental books of all time for a reason. You don't have to agree with any of it (personally I disagree with parts of it aswell) but you should have read it. Capital is for the most part a purely economic analysis. Unlike Marx other workd it's actually not that idiological. What are you? Someone that likes to reads books but if you want me to wear one of those political identity badges for some reason I guess you could call me a neocon.

>>21321262
x corn = y iron. y iron = A = z copper. x corn = B = w copper. So y iron = w copper = B != A = z copper. A and B here are the reducible third value. There is no reducible third thing that y iron is equal to in relation to copper. It could be A or B. It is a contradiction. Marx uses strict math, which carries assumptions in its equations, to derive this third object. Yet other exchange rates means that no hidden third value can be derived, unless one arbitrarily chooses one exchange over another.

>>21321289
Btfoe'd marx epic time

>>21321288
Again I can't pick an economic-political identity due to doubts about all existing economic and moral theories. My instincts are libertarian in the sense of "let people do what they want as long as it doesnt affect others" but there is the matter of finite resources, especially land, and there is the problem of "consent" not really being all that all real, as in abuse can easily appear as consent; and there is the pragmatic question of power struggles seemingly being a game of mafias rather than any kind of clean contract oriented scenario; then there are massive ethical ambiguities about the legitimacy of various types of authority...it goes on and on. I cant help but see human society like a fever dream version of an ecosystem moreso than some structured thing based on ideology.

>neocon
Why on earth would you be a neocon, are you an Israeli? That's literally the only reason anyone should be one. The neocons incidentally were formed by ex-Trotskyists so there is still a leftist connection there.

>>21321298
>Why on earth would you be a neocon, are you an Israeli? That's literally the only reason anyone should be one. The neocons incidentally were formed by ex-Trotskyists so there is still a leftist connection there.
See that is the exact reason I was reluctant to put myself into a political category. I won't elaborate further.

>>21321308
You could just state why you're a neocon instead of acting like a small child. You don't need to inhabit the label; you can just say what you think about the ideas involved.

To be blunt though, you are extremely reluctant to explain anything about what you think or believe, which is an almost comically persistent feature of Marxists.

>>21321289
The whole point of the book is that the thing you just wrote is a wrong judgement. Yes there are variations in prices, as in there isn't an obligatory table to refer to permanently. What Marx tries to show is how different prices for the same commodity can happen beyond offer and demand... His point being that those two can have an impact occasionally but as long as competition in the market is allowed capitalists with a higher average social labour per employee will (other things remaining constant) outperform and eventually absorb other capitalists. This is because of the labor theory he supports.

I don't mean to say that the guy nailed it cause I don't think so. I usually interpret das kapital more like a what if. It is, in the end, pure abstraction. It does however describe relation forms that do happen under capitalism, so while not the end of the story his contributions are not to be discarded.


Also for anyone who liked Marx, Luxemburg and Trotsky (mostly the Russian revolution and the revolution betrayed but also his last years' articles) are a pretty dope reading with a similar tone.

>>21321329
That is one small dynamic constrained by a multitude of others. It is not the "base" of everything

>>21320934
He’s saying that this heterogeneity is neutralized if you view labor from the standpoint that his theory relates to. Sure, there is a great degree of variance for how labor is done, but on a societal level, the characteristics of this labor are averaged out between many different agents. He’s simply rebutting the possible refutation that labor is non-standard by showing how it averages out across many agents and how this average is what Marxism recognizes and harnesses.

>>21320110
Yes. Next question.

>>21321329
Just a few paragraphs down from Marx's math gymnastics:
>If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour.
>We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production
Marx's math was there to establish the existence of the Value, capital V, of a commodity. The existence of this Value is critical to establish labor as being an actual property of a product (a commodity). This is all absurd at a fundamental (elementary school math) level.

>>21321337
No offense dude but the three volumes are pretty long to summarize. If you've got an honest doubt I can try to lend you my insights but if you want to know the extension of his nuance you have to actually read the books.

Although Marx foresaw lots of stuff, he did make mistakes (theoretical as well as political). Fetishizing him is sad and I get the feeling many adore him without being critic of him which is what the dude advocated actively for during his life. His political writings if read lightly at a moment of existential crisis are often used as starting points for weird stuff, but I think they're pretty nifty if contextualized historically (which I would recommend for any reading desu).

Really das kapital isn't as interesting as the 18 Brumaire of Bonaparte. It's short too, and though the reading you get the insight on how the dude interpreted stuff, kinda like reading Foucault.

Also his critique of the Gotha program is nice too.

>>21321385
Zero arguments in this post. Just "read marx" as usual. Reffering to other texts but not saying shit.

I'm tired of you faggots

>>21321400
Read Marx already

>>21321376
You're referring to the exchange value. Marx points out that commodities have certain physical characteristics (later on many Marxists would argue there are metaphysical ones too, such as social or cultural relations or whatever). He asserts that these commodities have different qualities and possible uses (only truly subjected to the user and it's concrete usage when used, sort of like superposition and collapsing in quantum physics). He calls all these potentialities hidden in its materiality "use value". With industrial production and the sale of these commodities in a market, we now have a relatively new situation, economically; namely, people creating commodities for sale in s market for other people to consume it as the basis of the economy. This (along with competition among capitalists to sell their commodities to get the profit they made them for) eventually reveals a second value: it had nothing to do with it's immediate use (it's not important if the commodity is a PC, a flower, or a massage) but with the amount of other commodities it can be exchanged for. The exchange value (not to be mixed up with price: price varies with offer and demand, while exchange value has more to do with minimal costs) of a commodity exists insofar as there is a price no capitalist will be able to sell with a profit (and therefore, even if he could he would eventually go bankrupt if no other thing intervenes).
I hope this makes it clearer.

>>21320110
Personally like his poetry.

>Heaven I would comprehend
>I would draw the world to me;
>Living, hating, I intend
>That my star shine brilliantly,

>Worlds I would destroy forever,
>Since I can create no world;
>Since my call they notice never.

>>21321410
Yes, the paragraphs I mentioned was where Marx uses exchange value to derive the true value of a commodity in relation to another. And I'm familiar with his definitions for exchange and use value as well as his overall program. Its the math magic he uses to derive the true value (the reducible third value) within an exchange that I was pointing out as retarded. But this is in fact a critical element to his case, since without a 'true' value to a commodity, labor as value has no existence in the product one produces.

>Till heart's bewitched, till senses reel:
>With Satan I have struck my deal.
>He chalks the signs, beats time for me,
>I play the death march fast and free.

>Invocation of One in Despair

>So a god has snatched from me my all
>In the curse and rack of Destiny.
>All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
>Nothing but revenge is left to me!

>On myself revenge I'll proudly wreak,
>On that being, that enthroned Lord,
>Make my strength a patchwork of what's weak,
>Leave my better self without reward!

>I shall build my throne high overhead,
>Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
>For its bulwark-- superstitious dread,
>For its Marshall--blackest agony.

>Who looks on it with a healthy eye,
>Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb;
>Clutched by blind and chill Mortality
>May his happiness prepare its tomb.

>And the Almighty's lightning shall rebound
>From that massive iron giant.
>If he bring my walls and towers down,
>Eternity shall raise them up, defiant.

>>21320129
Do you radically believe in dialectics?

>>21321427
Sorry, I thought you didn't get that part.

I'd reduce then the argument to more basic ones.
1. In capitalism, commodities are sold in the market.
2. Most people sell their labor for money (again, usually. This is all a material reading of the system so it's heavily based on what allegedly "happens" in the economy). This makes labor a common commodity in capitalism.
3. For this to happen some people need to buy the labor. This makes labor a commodity with a price.

I'd say it's important to remember that this is discussed in the context of a real economy, the real economy. Marx argues that in a capitalist economy where labor has a price, each amount of labor added to a commodity raise its minimal profitable price. This price will vary for a number or reasons (a cartel, supply and demand, etc) but has a clear tendency to show. One example is that nobody considers a car to be as valuable as a package of 1kg of rice.

Maybe if you still think there is something unclear you can point it out to me. This exercise is interesting. I will however go to sleep now, but I'll be back in hours. Gnite!

>>21320401
That's most of the writers and thinkers of history. Who do you think has the fucking time and money to sit on their ass writing shit all day? Upper Middle Classers, aka lower nobility, reasonably successful capitalists.

>>21320110
Yes. Next question!

>>21320401
>writing isn't work
The absolute state of /lit/

>>21320466
>ascribes Capitalist class to bourgeoisie and not the nanoscopic money printing class
Wow.

>>21321792
Did Marx receive a wage in exchange for labour, that wage comprising the reproduction of his capacity to supply labour power?

>>21321899
>labor and work are the same thing
Further proving my point.

>>21320110
It depends. Are you trying to intellectually justify your latent incel rage against a system you feel victimized by? Yes. Otherwise, no. If you were genuinely interested in economics per se you'd start with the modern economics literature which does not have any significant ideological agenda to push.

>>21321899
>Did Marx receive a wage in exchange for labour, that wage comprising the reproduction of his capacity to supply labour power?
Actually yes - when he wrote for newspapers, which he did a lot.

>>21321408
>marxists once again argue anything and just say "read marx"
It's like you are from a comic strip

>>21321993
>modern economics literature which does not have any significant ideological agenda to push.
lmao

>>21322764
Read him

>>21321993
>modern economics literature which does not have any significant ideological agenda to push.
ayyy lmao

>>21322764
"read marx" is perfectly good advice for most people in these threads

Marxists are such unbelievably retarded and dishonest faggots I always am surprised all over again every time I talk to them. I think "surely they arent that bad, everyone has some reason they believe what they do" but no, they're actually just repulsive lying maggots that seem to lack even the ability to analyze their own thoughts. You should all be shot in the face

>>21322826
Watch out we have a badass over here.

Also I have never seen a Marxist that wasnt some kind of frail, ugly mutant. You always look like complete shit and seem afraid of the idea of physical activity. There are liberals and even tranny fags who can play sports but I have never seen a commie sack of shit who can coordinate his body and mind enough to play at even a basic level. You're diseased garbage

Hey look it's another episode of
>People who haven't read marx criticising marx
>vs.
>People who havent read marx defending marx
Sweet!

>>21322845

I want to take Nick Land's hand as I force his selected works soaked with LSD-25 into his mouth. I wear nitrile gloves to avoid contact high. I inject ketamine into his penis and put the popper gas mask onto his face. That's when I get the bolt cutters out. The big fire brigades sized ones. I start from his feet upwards. When the bolt cutters fail I get out the power cutter.

>>21321414
was this translated from latin?

>>21322903
german obviously

Kapital is pretty good. The rest is only valuable as a way of understanding Marxist desires.

>>21322925
Fragment on Machines.
Contribution to a Critique.
Grundriesse generally (lesser and greater).
Some bits of 18 Brumaire if you want to understand why he was a cunt to organise with.

Prefer Engels desu.

>>21322764
It's honestly good advice. There's no point in discussing Marx with someone who hasn't read him. Neither is trying to spoonfeed his theory to someone who isn't interested beyond the superfical.

>>21320143
Retard. Ron Hubbard was an 90 IQ smooth brain that hated Marxism so badly he felt the need to invent "dianetics" which is a painfully retarded attempt to refute dialectics, which pretty much posits there is no causality or reaction, which is like denying reality. You're the dummy who replied to the post dabbing on clinical psychologists and took it as a pro-scientology post, aren't you?

>>21322985
Common man he was clearly joking.

>>21322959
Ideas that aren't actually gibberish can be communicated in your own words and freely discussed. Marxists act like cultists citing bits of scripture without being able to analyze any of it. Ask a libertarian about economics and they will immediately divulge the entire worldview in their own words. Ask a Marxist and you get "read Marx", over and over to the point it is a literal joke because you are utterly incapable of explaining what any of it means.

>>21323011
Libertarians tend to believe that ideas cause social change. Marxists don't. They're not going to waste their fucking time on you.

>>21323011
Capital compels the proletariat to combine if they are to meet their immediate needs. At some point these combinations will be powerful enough to take political power directly which they will use to turn all property into common property and produce based on needs.

>>21320110
No. Irrelevant jewish hack who is only relevant today because the bankers want him to be.

>>21323143
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>21322985
Marx was a low IQ inbred kike literally working for rabbis and ripping off 100 year old jesuit ideas, stop kidding yourself

>>21323161
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrograd_Soviet

>>21322865
How is he projecting? He's completely correct. Marxists are nearly all noodle-armed soyy cucks or obese pinkhaired bulldykes. Were you born yesterday?

>>21322826
They're usually extremely stupid, incapable of thinking for themselves. They are just liberals, evertything they believe is shilled by the WEF.

>>21323184
When has WEF argued for a proletarian dictatorship?

>>21323178
Most Party members are workers; you live in an internet bubble.

>>21323170
False, youve never read Marx except maybe Manifestó which is cringe. You are cringe. Owned.

>>21320110
Yes

>>21321280
>Seriously Brumaire is THAT good.
What do you like about it?
>>21321280
>Marx without Hegel is shallow. Reading Hegel without Spinoza (another great semi autistic author) is also kinda pointless
Why do you think that?
>>21320129
>Dialectics changed my life.
How did it?

>>21320110
Yes, he was a genius unironically. If you don't think so, you're just coping. The guy was a tour de force and truly grasped the essence of modernity.

>>21323178
Go ahead and suck his dick lol

>>21326454
Correct.

>>21320117
>Peterson
PLEASE tell me this is a joke, anon

>>21320110
>Is Marx actually worth reading?
For economics, yes.

>>21326454
based. your hatred of modernity is really a hatred for liberal capitalism. any other account of such will only make you worse and more confused