/lit/ - Literature

Marx gets a lot of shit because his ideology turned out to be a genocide causing war machine to enslave humanity, doesnt help that all his followers were/are: kikes, shitskins, barista leftists, faggots, troons, bourgeoisie and billionaires.
But he was right on certain things, especially how technology would estrange the worker and reduce humanity to a cog in a machine and how bourgie scum would usurp Marxism for their own means.
Wonder how his writings would change if he got the chance to see what they inspired.

>>21888116
Marx is unironically the single most profound and intelligent thinker in the history of Western civilization.

>>21888140
>Marx gets a lot of shit because his ideology turned out to be a genocide causing war machine to enslave humanity
You can't blame him though. He was just a son of his zeitgeist. The industrial revolution impacted the most vulnerable group: the proletariat. By using the framework of Labour Theory of Value by Adam Smith and dialectical materialism (Marx's philosophical negation to dialectical idealism by Hegel), he could identify exploitation, alienation, and historical pattern that could emancipate the workers.

Determinism holds true. Marx didn't have free will. He could just react to the situation because of unjust pre-determined conditions.

>bourgeoisie and billionaires
They are opposing Marx because his books go against their narrow economic self interest.

>>21888215
he could identify exploitation, alienation, and historical pattern that could emancipate the workers.

As a laymen, I would infer this most commonly plays out in education theory and practices. Young people seem to miss that practicable Marxist theory is already applied in Western culture.

stop making the same fucking thread every day you retarded teenager

>>21888215
Marx never cared about the workers.

>>21888254
his actions say otherwise

>>21888149

>>21888116
>For all you Marx haters on this board, have you unironically read this? It totally slaps.
This is the fucking gayest post I've ever seen. Are you fucking 14?

>>21888284
>rich jew getting thanked by rabbis for subverting the goyim so they can take all their land
Ok retard.

>>21888116
He never wrote about death. Why I should give a shit about him?

>>21888215
Bankers literally fund marxist education and promote marxist revolution, you bluepilled retard. Any 15 year old on /pol/ has seen it with their own eyes.

>>21888242
>Young people seem to miss that practicable Marxist theory is already applied in Western culture
Yup, neo-marxist theory has taken over most social "sciences" and is even permeating into the hard/actual sciences.

>>21888284
What actions?

>>21888242
This is why it's so naive to press Marxism as a serious ideology in the west. Western Europe is already largely socialist, and their political ideologies might not be easily applied to multicultural systems of governance. It seems decentralized governance might be the best option for a multicultural society as it allows for the emergence of multiple local systems of governance and education, and it avoids a one-size fits all solution of federal governance.
Tangentially, the European Union may have drawn inspiration from American style federal government and created an even looser confederation of independent states to allow for multiple cultures to flourish.

Is it wise to enforce liberalism at a national or federal level? Or is the act itself anti-liberal?

>>21888116
Someone a few days ago recommended me Narrate or Describe by Luckasz and it was fantastic, despite it being a Marxist critique

I respected that he understood that although naturalism was closer to his own politics, realism was better because the descriptions were not done solely for sociological purposes

REMINDER

Marx:
>Poland has demonstrated in 1863 and further proves every day that it cannot be done to death. Its claim to an independent existence in the European family of nations cannot be refused.
>Wherever the working classes have taken a part of their own in political movements, there, from the very beginning, their foreign policy was expressed in the few words – Restoration of Poland. This was the case with the Chartist movement so long as it existed, this was the case with the French working men long before 1848, as well as during that memorable year, when on the 15th of May they marched on to the National Assembly to the cry of “dive la Pologne!” – Poland for ever! This was the case in Germany, when, in 1848 and ’49, the organs of the working class demanded war with Russia for the restoration of Poland. It is the case even now; – with one exception – of which more anon – the working men of Europe unanimously proclaim the restoration of Poland as a part and parcel of their political programme, as the most comprehensive expression of their foreign policy.

Engels:
>There could, indeed, be no two opinions as to the right of every one of the great national subdivisions of Europe to dispose of itself, independently of its neighbours, in all internal matters, so long as it did not encroach upon the liberty of the others.

Lenin:
>Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of a free union—and a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession—such parties would be committing treachery to socialism.

>Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all the oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede.

Everything you have been told by commies about internationalism is wrong and unorthodox. Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all perfectly fine with individual, highly self-conscious nations continuing to exist through and after the proletarian revolution, and even saw these as necessary vehicles of the revolution.

>>21888215
he didn't have to accuse normal aspects of the human experience for virtually everyone of being nothing but "bourgoise prejudices" that needed to be eliminated, leading to the revolution ultimately turning on average folk including the proletariat its self and eating its self alive. he also didnt have to present an idea that would ultimately create conditions that alienate the new state from the proletariat like never before and say it will totally lead to a classless society bro trust me its scientific

>>21888427
>Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all perfectly fine with individual, highly self-conscious nations continuing to exist through and after the proletarian revolution, and even saw these as necessary vehicles of the revolution
Proof that this was anything more than rhetoric?

>>21888350
nta but I think banks and shit do that to recuperate actual leftist movements

>>21888504
So, to you, Marx's jewish background and Jews being dominant in banking is just a convenient coincidence? Ulyanov, himself, would tell you to follow the money.

>>21888504
personally i think banks and rich people do it because the same methods used by leftist theory to destroy a culture and subvert the human experience and supplant it with class consciousness based ideals can also be used to supplant it with consumerism and commodification, and most leftists living this way ultimately have very little actual revolutionary potential while being the biggest contributors to capitalism and the state in the world as they pursue their libertine commodification of identity and consumerism

>>21888341
what are you talking about?

>>21888370
His work in the IWA

>>21888604
Maybe stop watching TV and marvel flicks.

>>21888116
>barista leftists
Well we're all posting on /lit/ so...

>But he was right on certain things
Marx has this line about "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." You can take that to mean the situation you find yourself in is basically contingent, not essential. Marxism in one way is having the freedom to conceive of the world in terms of processes instead of the static, dead thing of liberalism. And while that analysis might inform you that today there's no way in hell people are gonna rebel, well go read the news. The dollar hegemony is ending.

You just keep doing analysis, and do what you can to be in a position to do something once conditions allow for it, even if you don't have much control over the conditions themselves. The more people have class consciousness, the more organization and solidarity there is, the better positioned everybody here will be, unless you're really filthy rich, while also accepting that you can't will history to move in a particular direction.

>>21888427
>Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all perfectly fine with individual, highly self-conscious nations continuing to exist through and after the proletarian revolution
That's pretty basic stuff. There's also no reason these national socialist (ha ha) republics can't cooperate with each other instead of engaging in zero-sum competition, which is gonna lead eventually to blowing up the world in wars because "your gain is my loss" and vice-versa.

>>21888604
>supplant it with class consciousness based ideals can also be used to supplant it with consumerism and commodification
Tell it to all the guys blasting cartons of Bud Light with rifles in their backyard because they think the color of a brand logo makes them gay. That is some high-intensity alienation if you ask me.

>>21888632
>His work in the IWA
So, just general fartsniffing? Nothing more concrete?

>>21888474
Marx on the necessity of socialist movements focusing always on their "local" national class conflict and on the formation of a social republic, NOT on utopian internationalist liberation theology or "intersectionality":
>Of all countries, England is the one in which the antithesis between proletariat and bourgeoisie is the most developed. For that reason the victory of the English proletarians over the English bourgeoisie is decisive for the victory of all oppressed peoples over their oppressors. Thus Poland is not to be freed in Poland, but rather in England. You Chartists, therefore, have no need to proclaim pious wishes about the liberation of nations. Just strike your own enemies here at home and you will know with pride that you have struck a blow at the entire old society.

Marx glorifying the Paris Commune:
>The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of “social republic,” with which the February [1848] Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic.
> The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents. The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excrescence.
>While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society.
>The Communal Constitution has been mistaken [!] for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins, that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production.

>>21888726
Marx on the peaceful coexistence of the nationalities within an international socialist economic framework, NOT the dissolution of the nationalities, except perhaps over a very long term - certainly not PRIOR to the revolution, or as a condition of it. Note that Marx and Engels continuously speak of the "great nationalities" and the "natural nationalities" - by which they mean the post-feudal, perfectly rational conglomeration of feudal territories into states according to natural ethno-linguistic/cultural differences, carried out by the bourgeoisie:
>The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
Read: Local national revolutions (seizures of states by the proletariat and the transformation of those states into social republics) must obviously precede long-term, international, global socialism. See the above quote about the Chartists and England.
>National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. ... In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
Note nations will not be abolished, differences between them are simply vanishing to the point that conflict is no longer necessary. The proletariat in each country has more in common with its proletarian brothers in other countries than with the bourgeoisie of its own nation. Does that mean the nation is no loner "great" or "natural?" No, although perhaps things will change even more a hundred or a thousand years after communism is the global norm.

The key distinction to understand in the actual thought of Marx/Engels is the distinction between the idea of NATIONALISM, in the sense of bourgeois ideological appeals to "national unity" over proletarian inter-national unity, and the idea of the NATION. Marx and Engels were opposed to the first, because it was a powerful propaganda tool. But they were otherwise (1) INDIFFERENT and (2) ONLY STRATEGICALLY INTERESTED in the latter.

>>21888732
Meaning, they assumed nations would continue to exist for some time, and that revolutions would occur in nations, NOT due to a spontaneous "international workers' revolution." The latter is basically incoherent and incomprehensible to them, because their conception of meaningful revolution necessarily takes place within the concrete context of a nation: an organized workers' movement with very high levels of solidarity wages a meta-political struggle to wrest control of the state away from the bourgeoisie and turn it into a social republic rather than a bourgeois republic - see the plans for the Paris Commune above, and note Marx and Engels are very explicit about debunking bourgeois propaganda claims that the Commune's constitution called for the dissolution of France into an archipelago of communard mini-states. The bourgeois nation-state is to be SUBLATED into the proletarian nation-state; the bourgeois nation-state's tendency toward conflict between bourgeois nation-states is to be sublated into the post-proletarian, communist nation-state's tendency toward cooperation.

Will this lead eventually to more historical developments and mergers in how these "great nationalities" organize and understand themselves? Undoubtedly, since it will be a global transition to communism as the norm in relations of production. Is this really relevant or even interesting from the practical communist's perspective? NO. Even more importantly: Is the merging or dissolving of the "great nationalities" a PRECONDITION of revolution? Absolutely, categorically no. The opposite is true: the existence of highly self-conscious and economically organized bourgeois republics (i.e. non-monarchical nation-states) is the precondition of the proletarian seizure of them and their transformation into social republics.

Does Lenin, the great breaker-upper of the arbitrary, feudal tsarist empire, with its messy conglomeration of subject states and nationalities accumulated over the centuries, move toward a more radical internationalist "let's all fuse together" perspective than Marx/Engels did, because of the practical circumstances of the Russian Revolution? NO, the exact opposite happens. He becomes THE most sophisticated and explicit Marxist theorist in favor of the continued existence of nationalities and nations AFTER the communist revolution in human history. He explicitly criticizes anyone who tries to impose the jackboot of Russian imperialism back on the former Russian Empire's subject states by saying that this would be the surest way to poison the communist revolution. The famed "International" was to be a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION of post-revolutionary national states with LOCAL self-organization according to communist relations of production, voluntarily proving Marx right by joining together in economic harmony - NOT dissolving all their particularities into one great "proletarian culture."

>>21888741
No communist in history has been an "internationalist" in the way this concept is currently pushed, and certainly none of the important ones have. We have been lied to. The New Left of 1968 was internationalist from a (NEO)LIBERAL perspective, not a Marxist one. Just as it was composed mostly of bourgeois and (increasingly) wealthy students from the vague student movement, which instantly supported Marcuse's (known OSS/CIA asset) and Habermas' (probable asset) dilutions of Marxist theory with psychoanalysis and French poststructuralist dog shit (there are CIA documents celebrating this - google "The CIA Reads French Theory"), it also supported deliberately vague hippie (also a movement significantly "shaped" by the CIA, to render it the youth movements harmless) internationalism and "third worldism," of the typical college campus variety: vague talk of racial harmony, vague "anti-conservative" (anti-patriotism) sentiment that is really just a rebellion against daddy, vague rebelliousness in general that is easily turned into hedonism, consumerism, and luxury drug use.

Again, you have been lied to. All meaningful Marxist and socialist movements, all the ones anyone has ever actually been afraid of enough to suppress them with terror and police action, have been nationalist socialist/Marxist movements. Post-war America was not afraid of a spread of "communism," which they knew was a decrepit religion of the dying USSR. They were afraid of the spread of "national communism" in the sense of Ho Chi Minh ("first we must save the nation, then we can worry about the class revolution") or Salvador Allende (collaborating with Juan Peron, and both were targeted in exactly the same way), because national communism was a PROVEN technique of anti-imperialism. The CIA went from suppressing communists in the '50s to promoting New Leftist pseudo-communism in the '60s and onward.

Become a national communist or any other variant of third positionism if you want to actually piss off global capitalism. Or become an "intersectional" internationalist communist, who effectively agrees with US State Department propaganda on all important points, only disagreeing with it on vague notions of vague global socioeconomic harmony that are irrelevant because all your plans require you to "educate" third worlders to "spontaneously" join your international cryptobourgeois workers' movement that you thought up in your elite university for a hundred years before anything else can happen.

The moral of the story is that you can be a nationalist and a Marxist, or a Marxist and a nationalist, as long as you are not the specific stupid kind of nationalist Marx and Engels disdained, who believes the bourgeoisie's calls to patriotism and thus to accept the bourgeoisie as the natural leadership caste. Marx and Engels were not anti-nation or anti-nationality, not opposed to ethnocultural states.

>>21888747
Marxists call for a world revolution which is like the most globalist demand you can make.

>>21888350
Actual marxist revolutionaries to this day either end up as political prisoners or shot by special forces.

>>21888902
Only if they buck the system. If they obey their masters then they will be given free reign.

>>21889013
Free rein

bump

>>21888140
> bourgie scum would usurp Marxism for their own means
>Socialism is for the rich and capitalism is for the poor

>>21888350
Kys retarded paraphrasing racist. He worked as a journalist and Friedrich Engel was also his patron as well as his co-author.

>>21888653
Baristas used to throw me out of coffee shops. If they were true socialists they would realize that their property is legal fiction and it’s the people’s shop. Henceforth, they have to tolerate me taking up space there

>>21888140
>But he was right on certain things, especially how technology would estrange the worker and reduce humanity to a cog in a machine
he never said this. you haven't read Marx. estrangement is a result of private property and capitalist social relations. it's not inherent in technology. in fact technology is what enables overcoming of estrangement, because a communist society is only possible on a sufficiently developed technical basis

it's easy to debunk Marx. the marxist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy and hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money & absolute power corrupt absolutely'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.

so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.

This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ie ''because they say so'' lol.

Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.

This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).

Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how christian monarchies are evil

this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.

>>21888149
Aren't you dead, Marx?

>>21890897
Dont care faggot :)

>>21890972
>Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy and hug each other.
this must be why he described competition between capitalists that reaches its heights in imperialist wars with millions of victims. some hugs these are
>>21890989
I know, you're worthless like 99% of /lit/, you don't care about the truth and you don't even read about the things you talk about

>>21890995
>I know, you're worthless like 99% of /lit/, you don't care about the truth and you don't even read about the things you talk about
Retard the dumbing down of humanity through industrial mass production is totally a Marxist theme fuck off with your bread tube video essay knowledge dumb fag

>>21891156
you're the one spouting bread tube video essay knowledge, while I'm stating what Marx actually said:
>The transposition of the social productivity of labour into the material attributes of capital is so firmly entrenched in people’s minds that the advantages of machinery, the use of science, invention, etc. are necessarily conceived in this alienated form, so that all these things are deemed to be the attributes of capital. The basis for this is (1) the form in which objects appear in the framework of capitalist production and hence in the minds of those caught up in that mode of production; (2) the historical fact that this development first occurs in capitalism, in contrast to earlier modes of production, and so its contradictory character appears to be an integral part of it. (Results of the Direct Production Process)
this is the error made when one says that it is technology that estranges the worker. treating capital and its productive basis as a single whole, the inability to separate them, results in attributing properties of the productive forces to capital (= "if capitalism is abolished we won't have computers and medicine") and, vice versa, attributing properties of capital to the productive forces (= "technology estranges the worker and reduces humanity to a cog in a machine")

>>21888350
You know Karl Marx is about wage labor abolition, right?

>>21891317
and anarchism is about the worldwide disappearance of all states, yet it is very useful to take people who might actually challenge the state and let them fantasize about anarchism in universities while charging them $80,000 a year, curious

>>21891326
I live in western europa, and i don't know a single person like that.
Reminder that LGBT is not anarchism. If you want a notion about anarchism, read about revolutionary catalonia (1936). Nothing to do with the anti-racist or LGBT movement.

>>21891352
>read about revolutionary catalonia (1936).
people have, in college, for three quarters of a century, taught by "radical marxist" professors full of war stories and battle scars of fighting with the establishment to be allowed to teach RADICAL theory to students

sometimes the students..... even BURNED THEIR BRAS!!!!

>>21891352
All anarchism devolves into anarcho-tyranny

>points out many holes on your theory and exposes the failures
psh, nothing personnel, kiddo

>>21891407
>holes and failures
like what?

>>21891382
Except no, it does not. That’s called Marxism or Leninism when their tyranny takes over.

This is just slanderous nonsense from someone who doesn’t read a lick of anarchist theory

>>21891511
>anarchist theory
>"If you get rid of stuff it won't come back"

>>21891448
Class stratification theory (dialectical materialism); class warfare.
Economical class defining the political, social and cultural super structure of a Society, History’s course.
All bullshit.

just grab a .pdf and read your chapter of choice

Marxism was wrong about
>historical philosophy
>economical theory (capitalism's decreasing profit rates leading to the definitive crisis)
>the progressive impoverishing of the proletariat class (biggest sociological mistake: the proletariat class didn't get poorer, it became "more bourgeoisie" - access not only to goods but also to many other "blessings" due to capitalism)

it's been "not true marxism" since Frankfurt school

>>21891516
See? Another example of your lack of any reading.
You probably aren’t even a reader of any kind.

>>21888116
Marx provided the single most coherent, comprehensive, and lucid explanation for how human societies develop and the driving forces of historical change. Communism is not a utopia or a fantasy, but a necessity for achieving human emancipation and liberation. It is the only way to overcome the crisis of capitalism and to allow for human beings to achieve self-actualization. As time has passed since Marx's death, it's only become ever more apparent that his theory was correct. Capitalism has reached its limits and contradictions. It can no longer sustain itself without authoritarian measures imposed by capitalist controlled governments.

>>21891527
Some of the economic concepts like labor theory of value may seem out of date today, but the core theses of Marx's argument and the analytical framework Marx provides remains extremely pertinent and essential when discussing contemporary socioeconomic issues. If Marx were alive in the 20th century, he may have very well refined and updated his economic theories, and this is not inconsistent with the principles of Marxism. Marxism is not a fixed doctrine or set ideology, but a living tradition that can be adapted and developed to suit the changing realities and is constantly evolving. It evolves and adapts to changing conditions and developments through a constant process of critique, revision, and application. It is not a mere ideology, but a science. It offers us a methodology to develop a practical guide for action relative to the times and environment, as it elucidates the root causes of our problems at a core level and how to overcome them through collective struggle.

>>21891679
>

>>21891679
One thing's for certain, you Marxists are really good at talking a lot without saying anything.

>>21891792
And you are using a lot of words to simply say "I don't get it".

>>21888116
I read it but didn't understand most of it, Napolean's nephew is a demagogue, becomes president, outlaws their national assembly? I can't even remember it really. Its where his famous "history repeats first as tragedy; second as farce" quote comes from. I did note another quote I liked from it:
>Thus, whereas the constitution assigns power to the President, it seeks to secure moral power for the National Assembly. Apart from the fact that it is impossible to create a moral power by paragraphs of law, the constitution here abrogates itself once more by having the President elected by all Frenchmen through direct suffrage. While the votes of France are split up among the seven hundred and fifty members of the National Assembly, they are here, on the contrary, concentrated on a single individual. While each separate representative of the people represents only this or that party, this or that town, this or that bridgehead, or even only the mere necessity of electing someone as the seven hundred and fiftieth, without examining too closely either the cause or the man, he is the elect of the nation and the act of his election is the trump that the sovereign people plays once every four years. The elected National Assembly stands in a metaphysical relation, but the elected President in a personal relation, to the nation. The National Assembly, indeed, exhibits in its individual representatives the manifold aspects of the national spirit, but in the President this national spirit finds its incarnation. As against the Assembly, he possesses a sort of divine right; he is President by the grace of the people.

>>21891802
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZENsa4ZvD5Y

>>21891679
I thought Marxists considered that revisionism

>>21891679
Marxism is not a science because science is inherently empiricist, whereas Marxists use a predefined set or rules and apply them to current issues, its a priori reasoning which isnt scientific at all and "scientific Marxism" is a fringe believe with no serious academic or practical influence.
Mainstream economics are micro foundated and microeconomics deal with game theory, market types and Behavioralism, which are all things Marx didnt consider because he predates them, making Marx out to be this colossal pillar of economics is disingenuous because he was no more influential than Smith or Ricardo as a historic predecessor of modern economics. Something like the Pareto principle is still in use and taught at universities whereas surplus value isnt being considered at all.

Faggot

>>21891842
It is. You are replying to either a "western marxist" influenced by critical theory or a Dengist CCP shill. That poster's argument is subtly arguging for reformism and a market economy under the guise of "refining and updating", "evolves and adapts". He fucking says revision and critique in the god damn post.

>advancements in every field, from philosophy to the physical sciences to finance, clearly demonstrate that the dichotomies we attempted to cleanly bifurcate all of reality into, beginning in the 18th century, are completely and irrevocably wrong
>retards still clinging to hegel's dialectics and its bastard children of engels and marx, despite them having been literally demonstrated by history to be a woefully incomplete description of literally anything
No, I haven't bothered to read someone's examination of century-plus-outdated ideology, for the same reason I wouldn't read Cauchy or Cantor to learn analysis or set theory. I definitely wouldn't bother reading something that has been historically demonstrated to not work, like Cantor's set theory or Karl Marx's ideas on economic or social law.

>>21888116
holy shit

>>21891857
Well no shit, it's not the 18th century. Of course we have to adapt to the current circumstances. Ot would be ridiculous to bury your head in the sand and try to adhere 100% to something written about the political situation in the 19th century when deciding 21st century policy. However, the core arguments, assertions, and framework Marx used remain relevant and a useful mode of analysis for contemporary social issues.

>>21890581
>He worked as a journalist
Not a real job. Marx was the son of a wealthy jew lawyer and Engels was the son of a factory owner.

>>21891964
Please check your writing for typos before you submit your post.

>>21891974
I apologize for not adhering to your strict bourgeoise standards on a Japanese pornography website

>>21891983
You make yourself look like an uneducated rube or ESL

>>21891988
Ah, a bigot. Typical anti-marxist

>>21892048
Frankly I don't consider you a serious person.

Refuted by Evola

>>21891641
How can you postulate this much while sucking Marx's dick so well at the same time? You contribute nothing but baseless circular affirmations.

>>21888116
I don't hate Marx. I only read his work and get all the information. As if the author matters. Marx is not a hero but his work is good.

>>21891527
>All bullshit.
because?
>Marxism was wrong about
it's been right about everything you've listed.
>just grab a .pdf and read your chapter of choice
have you read it? you can't even get some basic Marxist claims correct, let alone refute them. so whatever you read doesn't seem very relevant as a criticism
>>21891679
the labour theory of value is correct
>>21891856
>Marxists use a predefined set or rules and apply them to current issues
that's how science works. you derive laws from the study the real world, and then you apply them
>Mainstream economics
lol who cares about your ideology mill

>>21893001
>the labour theory of value is correct
No, it is not.

>>21893040
it is. your entire screenshot is one big non-sequitur: the magnitude of value not being directly measurable doesn't contradict the fact that abstract labour time is the measure of value

>>21893099
>the magnitude of value not being directly measurable doesn't contradict the fact that abstract labour time is the measure of value
translation: non-existent magical thingamabob not being directly measurable doesn't contradict the fact that non-existent magical thingamabob is the measure of value.

Either show me in nature 'atoms' of labor, or this shit is pure 'psychometrician fallacy'. You cannot quantify labor, just as much as you cannot quantify honor, pleasure or insidiousness.

>>21893001
>because?
not that anon, but:
1) "class" implies functionalism/holism, i.e. Durkheimian 'social facts', i.e. some trancendental eldritch entity that somehow causally affects your actions from some magical Platonic World of Ideas fairy land. That's overdetermination at best.
2) Virtual objects of joint attention are only superficially similar, yet interpreted and encoded by each and every individual differently. But dolphins and fish are also superficially similar.
3) Unlike biology (where functional explanations do work) you cannot define any comprehensible societal evolution filtering criteria. As such, 'historical materialism' is merely a 'just-so' story.

Marx was bussin fr fr

>>21888140
>Russians who have always killed each other and their neighbors kill more than ever in an age of mass produceable mechanized weaponry
Yeah man, it’s Marx’s writing that did it.

>>21893131
>non-existent magical thingamabob
but abstract labour is real. a functioning economy based on living individuals performing different concrete labours connected through exchanges of their product reduced to an equivalence relation is a living proof of that
>You cannot quantify labor
you can quantify it, in dollars
>>21893172
gpt-2 can put together more coherent sentences. go back to your sociology department

>>21888805
Ironically, Marxist worldview of humans as material and interchangeable economic units of consumption and production means that the social trust required for the communist utopia to occur is absent from the get-go. Such a transition is possible only in homogeneous, high-trust societies with a common moral lynch-pin. Without this there is no reason for people to give a shit about those around them or their exploitation beside a secret police gun to their back
>>21891601
Western 'anarchism' today is not Catalonia, kid. The CHAZ experiment is probably the best example and it burned out in real time because a) your ideology is made-up bullshit for sheltered kids and b) everyone was too afraid to stand up to a nigger.
I've yet to see you faggots come up with anything better other than squatting in some building, covered in your own filth.

>>21893581
>Marxist worldview of humans as material and interchangeable economic units of consumption and production
because that's how they really are when they're atomized under the rule of capital. however, the proletariat overcomes this by coming together and organizing its activity outside of the purview of capital and working for common goals, gradually extending the scope of unified class activity and the depth of this unification. which is what directly answers your next point:
>Such a transition is possible only in homogeneous, high-trust societies with a common moral lynch-pin

>>21891856
>Mainstream economics

who fucking cares lol

>>21891856
"Mainstream economics" is just apologia and propaganda for the ruling class

>>21892048
NTA but frankly: kys

>>21891842
>I thought Marxists considered that revisionism
I've usually taken "revisionism" to mean overemphasizing the particular at the expense of the general (in Marxism). Or overemphasizing the private at the expense of the common. It's not "not doing what Marx said" which is how some terminally online people use it.

>>21893581
>Such a transition is possible only in homogeneous, high-trust societies with a common moral lynch-pin.
The world is a very complicated and diverse place. Do you think it's possible for countries to cooperate with each other?

>>21891856
>Mainstream economics
https://youtu.be/vT0Y3k32QRE

>>21888116
He's a biggest brainlet unironic faggot in history of mankind who get to force the most jewish bullshit reality contradicted points on humanity.
>muh mindset is formed by environment (((False consciousness)))
>muh (((surplus value/labour)))
>muh (((determinism)))
The fact some faggot retard nigger westoids fell for it is the reason I don't associate with majority of humoids as they are spiritual niggers - plebs by birth, and it's not because of
>muh environment
but their shitty genetics with even shittier soul.

This thread going so slow is precise reason why nobody cares about this kike faggot and his ultra bullshit despite /lit/ is literally hold hostage by bunkercucks.

>>21888149
real and true, aside from maybe hume

>>21894113
True marxian communism is completely and utterly dead.
It will never come back again.

I find Marxists to be so disingenuous and retarded in general. The falling rate of profit is biggest pseud argument they use and it so easy to debunk because they don't even read the papers they cite for its existence.
Pretty much every paper they use is from Marxists economists who basically bullshit a model of what how to measure profit, and use a data set that doesn't even exist and a model that's not even relevant to reality. More so, the data they use only really show profits falling because of major political, economic crises from wars, pandemic or even just bad fiscal policy. Apparently, these retards don't seem to understand the U.S. government doing fiscal contraction with the money supply, which correlates with dips in profits in their graphs, is proof Marx was right about "capitalism." I guess because we saw the profit rate fall in 1945 in Nazi Germany, after being so high in in the years before the war, is proof capitalism is collapsing? Apparently capitalism is responsible for governments doing retarded things like starting wars that kill destroy worker, businesses or devaluing their currency by printing too much money or not minting enough money. Wars, pandemics, bad government policy effect the economy in many different ways and have always done so. How this is some amazing refutation of capitalism again? Stupid people doing stupid things with their political, economic agency isn't really the 120 IQ argument you think it is, retard.

>>21893001
>the labour theory of value is correct
It can't be correct because its contradictory. Use-value doesn't come from labor, but without, a good can not be become a commodity without people exchanging something for it. Labor can't turn a good into a commodity if no one is going to buy it. Marx can't argue the value of a commodity comes from the exploitation of labor if use-values must exist for a commodity to exist. A good can become a commodity without labor because people can find use in its subjective value. Land, stocks, art, water, food - most goods in general are already commodities without any human labor because of their naturally occurring abundance.

>>21891679
You just made a bunch of loaded statements that don't mean anything...
>Marx is true because it gives us talking points!
That doesn't make it valid... that makes it propaganda.

>>21894171
nice understanding of marx which youtube midwit did you get if from? you're misusing his categories marx never claims use value is at all related to abstract labor expended in fact he explicitly points out that use value is independent of labor expenditure i don't believe in the ltv but at least read like a summary of the book

>>21894160
falling rate of profit is for sure cited by some truly annoying midwits but it seems like there's some empirical backing kliman's argument is alright.
i'm agnostic on the actual reality of the tendency or even if marx really adopted the positions that ltrpf attributes to him (i'm a heinrichcel unfortunately) but it seems like there's something there. the japanese engagement has been interesting from the little bits i've read

>>21894189
You have a literal 40 IQ. Nobody is going to do labor if a good has no value in the first place. People wouldn't gather meat, crops, coal, and water if they had no use in the first place. That's why your theory is fucking retarded. Its so simple, but since you have down syndrome, you can't figure out something so simple. You just keep repeating what Marx said, not critically thinking about what you are saying means if you use some basic deductive logic. Use-value can not be independent if labor the good could not be USED in in the first place, dumbass. Think before you post.

>>21891856
you're cresting the midwit curve here, someday you'll actually engage with phil of science and realize how incoherent this position is

>>21894197
>some empirical backing kliman's argument is alright.
Its really not because Kliman's argument still ignores historical decisions impact profits, and saying "capitalism" is responsible for every war, recession, pandemic crashing and destroying economic productivity is really stupid and not a serious argument anyone with brains would make. Saying an argument is "empirical" means nothing if underlining assumptions are just wrong or silly. It just means whatever conclusion you find is ad hoc justification if it fits your beliefs.

>>21891527
you understand neither weber nor marx please god read capital or even the good bits of weber

>>21894212
Its really not when Marxists are so retarded they don't understand your methodology is more important than your results. When a scientific experiment is flawed, your results not going to be accurate. Marxism makes clearly, incorrect apriori assumptions about humanity and economics, therefore can not be seen as anything but non-sense. Its not surprising that the people pushing it the most are just humanities majors with 2.0 GPAs from literal who community colleges.

>>21894217
it's been a bit since i read kliman's paper or the book where he fleshes out this argument but i don't think this is actually an engagement with the argument he makes, he acknowledges the historically contingent reasons for crisis but as i understand his argument its that both his read of the available data (which i agree he absolutely situates in a weird way) and also some system immanent tendencies provide reason to believe in a tendency for a falling rate of profit with the rising organic composition of capital

All I want are the people supporting Marxism here to prove their academic credentials. Post your ACT, LSAT, GPA equivalent score, with actual proof, your highest level of education and field. Literal prove you have a fucking job or even a family. Because there's no way you do with all the time you spend on /his/ and /lit/ making these threads everyday/

>>21894205
To summarize retardmarx theory of cost in the shortest way possible:
>time = value
This is unironically what brainlet marxists believe, that any value can be (((determined))) by the time it's required to make it, doesn't include the rarety of materials being used or how hard/obnoxious the labour really is. These mouth breathing retards unironically think the money would just naturally materialize in their pockets if they go outside and dig hole for 30 hours straight in theor marxist utopia, even if nobody asked them to do that or even would cause environmental damage that you'd be forced to pay to redeem.

>>21894226
>historically contingent reasons for crisis but as i understand his argument its that both his read of the available data
Yeah, no, this doesn't make any sense. The data you're talking about comes from historical events. Literally, wars, pandemics and political policies. This is like arguing GDP growth we saw in 1930s USSR wasn't due to historical reasons and specific policy. Its a really silly argument I can not see how anyone could buy. Where your data comes from, and how it was produced, matters significantly in any analysis, especially sweeping, sociological ones.

>>21894232
Marxist invented Lysenkoism and they want to be taken seriously, kek.

>>21894233
it's possible that i'm really dumb but i still don't think you're engaging with his argument, do you agree that capitalism has some system immanent tendencies? and do you think that when arguing over what is and is not some of these tendencies it's useful to look at long term broad aggregate data? i really don't think kliman is arguing that profit rates are somehow independent of world events like it seems like you're claiming he is. like i said maybe i'm illiterate and don't understand what you're saying cause it is late and i am dumb but i really don't think this is actually addressing kliman's argument

>>21894232
marx explicitly rejects early socialist who promote this sort of thought, there are good critiques of marx out there but you'd have to be able to read to get them so idk how you'll do it

>>21894241
I think you don't understand Kliman's argument because you're just begging the question while ignoring the fact that economic data he uses can be explained by historical events, and not some theoretical model that varies Marxist to Marxist. You can't hold TFRP to be true, but then ignore the historical events that shaped your data. Its making the first mistake of statistics not knowing what confounding variables are.

>>21888116
Every socialists worst enemy

>>21894247
>marx explicitly rejects early socialist who promote this sort of thought
This is what essentially theory of value comes down to as stated in das capital, retard. The only thing he explicitly rejected was market necessity (supply and demand) to determine the value.

>>21894241
>do you agree that capitalism has some system immanent tendencies?
No. Countries have economic policies that vary significantly because of political and geographical conditions. What you call it doesn't matter, what you do, with specific policy matters. An economist looks at policies, events, and incentives - actual things you can measure. Its not a theoretical question you map with a model, or philosophical framework - its one you can actually observe from cases of people doing specific actions. Its a question of a logistical nature, not a philosophical one.

>>21888140
Why not in the world? Who is better than him in the east?

>>21891365
Hahahahahahaha americans see european academics discussing treating brown people on the global south and minorities like they are equal human beings and feel like its a threat to their degenerate lifestyle. Call it "radical marxism"

>>21891527
People here love to discuss and boast about topics and books theyve never read and never will

>>21891601
How can anarchists accuse anyone of not reading when you think Catalonia, under anarchist control, did not have a state? You do realize the CNT-FAI joined the popular front government, right?

>>21890581
>journalist
>actual job
kys

>>21893512
>abstract labour is real. a functioning economy based on living individuals performing different concrete labours
the Maori tribespeople would tell you the same about the Spirit of Hau, and its crucial role in their functioning gift economy.
Its called Good Bad Theory. It might work as a ritual/heuristic, but it has 0 predictive power.

>you can quantify it, in dollars
You can also quantify phlogistons. That doesn't mean they exist.
And the Early Irish Law measured the honor price in wheat/beans. That doesn't mean that honor (as a measurable entity) really exists.
It just means that you are practicing an astrology-like Special Olympics discipline.

>>21894063
>their shitty genetics
>>muh environment
Genotype gets expressed as phenotype via environmental/epigenetical factors. Gene-Culture Coevultion, or why nomadic cultures drink horse milk, and the Chinese are lactose-intolerant.

>>21893512
>gpt-2 can put together more coherent sentences
I'll paraphrase it as simple as possible for you, imbecile:
1. show how your thingamabobs register on other levels, or fuck off. "The Sun arises in the East" doesn't integrate well the Heliocentrical Model of the Solar System, since it is not the Sun that does the movement.
2. show how your shit corresponds to the mirror neurons.
3. show how your shit is supposed to correspond to the Darwin's natural selection (since, as you know, Marx was a huge fan of Charles Darwin and sent him letters)

As such, I have more faith is thermoeconomics, than in Marxism.

>>21894401
You've done him lol

>>21894411
Have you ever heard quote
>Social being determines consciousness
by Marx? That's what this jewish NEET retard meant by environment, the "political/social structure of socium", not the geographical location.

>>21894572
Wait sorry I don't understand.
Can you maybe please rephrase your point?

>>21894572
>the "political/social structure of socium"
Yes, and it is ultimately environmentally constrained. Invention of, say, a writing system fucks over your semantic memory brain modules (good memory traits are not selected for anymore, breeding-wise) and that in turn fucks over your tribal organization structure (experienced elders/storytellers with orality skills no longer needed).

>not the geographical location
Baldwin Effect, not geography.

>>21894160
>it so easy to debunk because they don't even read the papers they cite for its existence
lmao just like look at GDP charts. the rate of profit is tendentially falling even if you include all the financial profits based solely on the expectation of future profits. let alone excluding all that
>Pretty much every paper they use is from Marxists economists
"Marxist economist" is a contradiction in terms. economists are the theoretical representatives of the bourgeoisie, Marxists -- of the proletariat.
>the data they use only really show profits falling because of major political, economic crises from wars, pandemic or even just bad fiscal policy
you're just listing the effects of capitalism
>Apparently capitalism is responsible for governments doing retarded things
yes, the reasons compelling the governments and the goals they have are all inextricably tied to various aspects of capitalist production: things like supporting productive exploitation at home or bolstering the position of national capital in international competition.
capitalism isn't some animated magical entity. its actions are just actions of humans within it, including governments.
>>21894171
>Use-value doesn't come from labor
many use-values do come for labour. calculators don't grow in the wild.
>Marx can't argue the value of a commodity comes from the exploitation of labor if use-values must exist for a commodity to exist.
why not? use-value and value are two different things. stuff has use-value on Robinson's island, but it doesn't have value. that's because it doesn't constitute private property within a system of division of labour.
>most goods in general are already commodities without any human labor
not most. but Marx says this in chapter 1 of Capital. so could you now explain how that's a contradiction for him? you started your post with "it's contradictory" but you haven't presented any actual contradiction.
>>21894205
>That's why your theory is fucking retarded.
how can you call people retarded when you think LTV = "only labour gives things use-value"? have some modesty
>>21894224
>Marxism makes clearly, incorrect apriori assumptions about humanity and economics
like what?
>>21894232
>doesn't include the rarety of materials
that's included because the values of inputs are transferred and rare materials take more labour to obtain
>or how hard/obnoxious the labour
that's also included because people doing harder labour require more sustenance, which is reflected in the value of their labour-power, which goes into the value of the commodity
>>21894271
>Countries have economic policies that vary significantly because of political and geographical conditions.
politics is the extension of the current mode of production, and geographical conditions are relevant in so far as they affect economic production, politics (1st derivative of economic production) and war (1st derivative of politics, 2nd derivative of economic production). so it all comes back to capitalism

>>21894401
>the Maori tribespeople would tell you the same about the Spirit of Hau, and its crucial role in their functioning gift economy.
that's great, but labour is palpably real while spirits are not
>it has 0 predictive power
it has explanatory power
>You can also quantify phlogistons. That doesn't mean they exist.
you said it can't be quantified, I tell you it can, and now you say it doesn't matter. why make the first claim in the first place if it's irrelevant? are you just posting whatever shit pops into your mind without second thought?
>That doesn't mean that honor (as a measurable entity) really exists.
I never said that. it's an argument you made up and then bravely refuted not just once but twice
>>21894443
meds

>>21894702
>that's great, but Christ is palpably the One True God while spirits are not
Okay, boomer.

>>21894702
>while spirits are not
>muh were just a clump of cells
>we don't matter
Ok kys, since you don't matter.

>>21894717
sure, you can deny that the sky is blue and pretend that this is just equivalent to denying invisible unicorns. I can't argue against that. just be mindful that to anyone with half a brain it looks like an obvious concession, so you'd be better off just staying silent
>>21894731
if you can't find meaning in life without magical ghosts then that's a you problem

>>21894744
>sure, you can deny that the sky is blue
You've already been replied what the 'psychometrician fallacy' is.

>>21894744
It's you who will have to do so at the end, you and your pitiful materialistic outview of life.
Your life will end with you sucking the barrel of a shotgun.

>>21894765
I haven't been replied to with anything but obvious false equivalencies, like that between something being real and something being One True God
>>21894769
you sound too way too miserable and coping to be telling people their outview is pitiful or whatever

>>21894779
>Tell people that their life is shit
>"NOOOO YOU ARE PROJECTING!!!!"
Just stfu at this point

>>21894786
you clearly are though. I can't imagine someone who isn't miserable writing this post >>21894769 to some random stranger on an imageboard. and you clearly implied that the only thing you could possibly conceive giving life meaning are invisible fairies. how can your life be any good if you think that?

>>21894792
It's not the only thing but believing that there is nothing beyond our physical world is the biggest cope ever.

>>21894801
>It's not the only thing
wait, so I no longer have to kill myself even if I'm just a clump of cells? thank fairies

>>21894779
>I haven't been replied to with anything but
CTRL + F: 'psychometrician '.

>obvious false equivalencies, like that between something being real and something being One True God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Ah, you have problems with logic, I see. My condolences. Just like dyscalculia, that is incurable.

>I haven't been replied to with anything
For complete dummies:
1. Humans (according to Marx) produce surplus. Animals don't. Machines don't.
2. Labor (according to Marx) can be socially necessary, or not. Only socially necessary labor produces the surplus.
3. Clearly, some intentional component is postulated.
4. What you define to be socially necessary labor is in your head. The very same activity may or may not produce the surplus value, depending on opinions of your glorious Comrade Party Leaders.

Yet you are so mentally retarded to keep insisting that this shit proves anything and is quantifiable. But that would put you on the same rails the mainstream economics is: trying to pretend that some arbitrary ordinary rankings have a quantitative structure. The psychometrician fallacy.

>something being real
>something being One True God
Moreover, you appear to have extremely low IQ, not being able to retort anything but >>21894702 screeching "meds" to a reasonable demand to provide a valid natural science grounding.
When you are asked to prove something being real, either provide something better than "I just knows it, yes-yes!", or stop complaining when you are taken to be a cultist.

>>21894819
>ordinal rankings
typo

>>21894815
I was referring to the fact of how you think I need only non physical stuff in our world to find meaning
I dont only find meaning I only non physical stuff but you do so with the physical world.

>>21893726
Only every major policy/decision maker and their advisors on this planet, the vast majority of academia, all central banks and the entire private sector.

>>21893581
Communist "utopia" doesn't require social trust. But it will bring it about in the end.

>>21894980
>the managers of bourgeois society subscribe to bourgeois ideology
yeah no shit

>>21894819
>CTRL + F: 'psychometrician '.
I did and the post came up where you said that labour isn't quantifiable. but I already told you that it is, and you basically said that it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't. what is there left for me to address?
>Ah, you have problems with logic
if I do then you haven't shown that because you have problems with formulating arguments. dropping fallacy names left and right like a 12 year old who just learned about them for the first time doesn't count as such
>What you define to be socially necessary labor is in your head
no, it's not in my head. it's determined by the objective conditions of production of stuff that people objectively produce and use.
>The very same activity may or may not produce the surplus value, depending on opinions of your glorious Comrade Party Leaders.
no, it depends on whether the activity consists of wage labourers creating/transforming use-values for a capitalist or not.

so premise 4 is wrong, which invalidates any conclusions you want to draw

btw, this shit happens every time: as soon as people like you stop hiding behind non-committal remarks, links to wikipedia logical fallacy pages or other similar devices and clearly state your arguments, it is revealed that those arguments are blatantly incorrect and practically always fail at the preliminary stage of restating Marx's claims correctly before attempting to criticize them

>screeching "meds" to a reasonable demand
if you think schizoposting about "thingamabobs registering on other levels" or random shit like mirror neurons and natural selection is a "reasonable" anything then I might need to recommend the same to you
>When you are asked to prove something being real, either provide something better than "I just knows it, yes-yes!"
I have >>21893512
if you don't accept the fact that a functioning economy exists outside your basement window, where people reduce their disparate labours to equivalence through exchanging the products of those labours, then that's not on me. at that point you might as well be a solipsist. and if this is so then go take those meds and let sane people talk who can at least agree that the sky is blue
>>21894824
>I dont only find meaning I only non physical stuff
which means you find meaning in some physical stuff. which means this was wrong >>21894731, because it assumed physical stuff can't have meaning. unless you could explain how else >>21894731 got from "spirits aren't real" to "we don't matter"

>>21895077
Goalpost moving fucktard

>>21894697
>muh use-value comes from labour
And that value is subjective, no value is determined by abstract meme measurements such as time and workers required. Free market proves that not every labour is equally profitable, useful, demanded and desirable by majority as other labour.
>that's included because the values of inputs are transferred and rare materials take more labour to obtain
Nope, it doesn't included in neither tome of his das capital and nope, rare materials aren't always harder to obtain than more common ones and that includes the time spent to find them.
>that's also included because people doing harder labour require more sustenance
No lol. Also obnoxious, humiliating and work that affect mental health the most isn't always the most "kilojoules consuming by the body", it's the one job that doesn't require much time to learn neither much body strenght to use, rather than very frustrating and hated. The only way to fairly judge which job us most annoying is through free market.
>politics is the extension of the current mode of production
>muh (((societal being determines shit))) fallacy
No it's not retard, politics are politics, economic is economic. Politics can just as easily be subverted by (((outside entities))), outright enemy pupet states do exist.

>>21895297
>And that value is subjective
and?
>no value is determined by abstract meme measurements such as time and workers required
value value is determined by labour time. obviously it's not just subjective in the sense that people make it up arbitrarily. there's an objective reason why airplanes are more expensive than pencils, and that reason has to do with an airplane requiring a larger share of society's labour to produce than a pencil.
>Free market proves that not every labour is equally profitable, useful, demanded and desirable by majority as other labour.
and?
>Nope, it doesn't included in neither tome of his das capital
literally chapter 1:
>The same quantity of labour provides more metal in rich mines than in poor. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour-time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small volume.

>rare materials aren't always harder to obtain
they are harder to obtain on average. what the fuck do you think being rare means.
>Also obnoxious, humiliating and work that affect mental health the most isn't always the most "kilojoules consuming by the body"
mental health care and extended vacation for mental recuperation also have their costs, just like food
>politics are politics, economic is economic
politics are about directing a state, and a state is entirely funded by the economy underlying its territory, its might being dependent on the productivity of that economy. so politics absolutely are an extension of the current mode of production.
>Politics can just as easily be subverted by (((outside entities))), outright enemy pupet states do exist
yes, states can use politics to further extend their economic basis beyond the borders of their territory. but how's that's supposed to show that politics isn't the extension of the current mode of production?

>>21895288
>no, it depends on whether the activity consists of wage labourers creating/transforming use-values for a capitalist or not.
How do we know whether they create the surplus value? Their work is socially necessary.
How do we know whether their work is socially necessary? It, uhm, creates the surplus value.
>which invalidates any conclusions you want to draw
So, Marxist theory is wrong which invalidates any conclusions you want to draw

>so premise 4 is wrong
I repeat. Your theory is circulatory. The 'surplus value' (whatever the hell that means) is defined by arbitrary decision of your party masters.
>consists of wage labourers creating/transforming use-values
Or, I'll clarify for complete cretins: you have no way to measure that. You are literally making a religious claim.

>schizoposting about "thingamabobs registering on other levels"
Which means that you are failing to comprehend the epistemological problems of holism, under-/overdetermination, reductionism vs anti-reductionism, socal facts vs natural kinds. This was as simplest explanation as someone of your intellectual level shall get. Otherwise, get educated.

>random shit like
>natural selection
If darwinism for you is just "random shit", then you clearly have no understanding of what your Marx even wrote.

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2022/04/darwin-evolution-natural-selection-karl-marx-fredrich-engels-on-the-origin-of-species-capital
"Marx described On the Origin of Species as an ‘epoch-making work’.
Some today argue that there is no real connection between Darwinism and Marxism, but anyone who seriously studies the works of Marx, Engels, and Darwin will understand—even if they don’t agree—that Marx was both honest and exceptionally insightful when he wrote that On the Origin of Species ‘contains the basis in natural history for our view’."

>random shit like mirror neurons
Clearly, you are too uneducated to comprehend even the scope of the problem.

>I have
Explanations "because I said so" are not valid. Try harder.

>if you don't accept the fact that a functioning economy exists outside your basement window
Maori gift economy >>21894401 also exists (so it is not me who should get outside the basement). Which means something is wrong with your theory. Falsifiability criterion? Rings any bells? Do you even comprehend the words I am saying to you?

>>21895297
Not that anon, but this wrong

>politics are politics, economic is economic

Spoiler alert: 'economy' (οἰκονομία, house management) and the concept of Invisible Hand was initially stolen by Adam Smith from physiocrats, who in turn have stolen it from medieval theologists.
Who in turn were wedded to the term of Divine Economy to combat gnostics, who laughed at Jesus being called κύριος (house manager, i.e. slave of a house owner). The Word of God (allegedly) cannot be wrong, so the term must say something profound about Father/Son/Spirit Trinity, the Providence and metaphysics of being and action.
Because Aristotle said that mixing oikos and polis is a big no-no. And Aristotle is important, mkay?

>>21894262
Are we still seriously running with the "basic economics just BTFOs Marx, trust me dude"? Like, I assume that a good portion of people here have informed themselves enough that they know this idea is just on its face bullshit and the much of Marxism is either comparable with the basic ideas of 'mainstream' economics or otherwise explicitly addresses the claimed counters, with the remaining points of dispute being active topics of debate and not something that just gets pwned by highschool textbooks.

>>21888116
Have you ever read Marx’s thoughts on the Paris Commune?

> It is an irony of history that at the very moment when the battle between the authoritarians and the anti-authoritarian in the International reached its apogee, Marx should in effect endorse the program of the anti-authoritarian tendency. . . . The Commune of Paris had nothing in common with the state socialism of Marx and was more in accord with the ideas of Proudhon and the federalist theories of Bakunin. Civil War in France is in full contradiction with all Marx's writings on the question of the State.
>— Arthur Miillcr Lehning,

>>21895483
>much of Marxism is either comparable with the basic ideas of 'mainstream' economics
nta, but:
They both assume that the capital is a thing, and therefore they are both susceptible to the Cambridge Controversy (which proves that the mainstream economics' supply and demand curves actually don't mean shit).
If Marxism is comparable to the mainstream basic ideas, it doesn't speak in favor of Marxism.

>>21895493
Marx's admirer and official biographer, Franz Mehring, agrees:

>. . . The opinions of the Communist Manifesto could not be reconciled with the praise lavished by [Civil War in France] for the vigorous fashion in which it began to exterminate the parasitic State . . . Both Marx and Engels were well aware of the contradiction, and in a preface to a new edition of the Communist Manifesto issued in June 1872, they revised their opinions. . . . After the death of Marx, Engels in fighting the Anarchists once again took his stand on the original basis of the Manifesto. . . . if an insurrection was able to abolish the whole oppressive machinery of the State by a few simple decrces, was not that a confirmation of Bakunin's steadfastly maintained standpoint?

>>21895288
I was just making fun of your materialism
I wasn't talking about my personal view on everything that I find meaning, just that I do so with non physical stuff.

>>21895483
You retards don't think inflation, supply and demand is real - of course haven't read any books on basic economics. You couldn't even pass a high school ECON 101 course.
You are Marxists because you don't have jobs from your gender studies degrees. Its not because a capitalist fucked you over, leech.

>>21894697
>many use-values do come for labour. calculators don't grow in the wild.
Labor doesn't create commodities without use-value. You keep proving you're retarded, and don't understand argument being made. Nobody is going to create something for no reason. So intrinsic value must come before labor. Labor is a tool, a means to an end. Labor does not create value because value has to exist before labor is used.
I'm not going to respond to your other posts because you're just spamming and not making an argument.

i am incapable of reading these threads because it's all walls of text and greentext spam

>>21894697
>politics is the extension of the current mode of production, and geographical conditions are relevant in so far as they affect economic production, politics (1st derivative of economic production) and war (1st derivative of politics, 2nd derivative of economic production). so it all comes back to capitalism
It really doesn't because economics is the study of economic policy and optimizing it and "capitalism" is a descriptive, not a measurement of anything. You're getting sociology mixed with economics because you don't understand how economic investigation is done. Its done by measuring the effects of policy through case studies. Instead, all you're doing making claims you can't prove because they are merely normative claims instead of positive claims. Economics tries to find positive claims, you only make normative claims, which is why nothing you say matters - you can't prove anything besides make claims based on your personal feelings and philosophy.

>>21896164
Its because there's this one Marxoid pseud who's always in these threads spamming with broken sentence fragments.

>>21896123
>You are Marxists because you don't have jobs
They are the biggest and weakest losers ever.
I went recently yo lefty/pol/ to shit on their threads and they themselves acknowledge that communism is never coming back and that they are just a bunch of people who don't have any worth. I tried to debate them and they banned me too lol.

>>21896123
>You retards don't think inflation, supply and demand is real
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2021/11/24/the-truth-about-inflation/

"The problem is that it treats inflation as a uniform rise in prices. That’s theoretically convenient, but empirically false. In the real world, inflation is wildly divergent. At the same time that the price of apples rises by 5%, the price of cars could grow by 50%, and the price of clothing might fall by 20%.
To understand inflation as it actually exists, we must look not to economics textbooks, but to real-world data."

"price change is always ‘differential’, meaning there are winners and losers. The consequence is that inflation is not purely a ‘monetary phenomenon’, as Milton Friedman claimed. Inflation restructures the social order."

>>21895493
>>21895782
interesting, why did they support it then and why do leftists continue to valorize the paris commune?

>>21896166
>Economics tries to find positive claims
Psychometrician fallacy. Google it.

>how can you call people retarded when you think LTV = "only labour gives things use-value"? have some modesty
Lmao, you always proves you're illiterate. The argument being made is labor is independent of the value of a commodity because intrinsic value creates labor in the first place. LTV doesn't make any sense, retard, because use-value exists and is not from labor at all because it is intrinsic to a good based on the personal preferences of the subject. You have a double digit IQ because this has been explained to you multiple times, and you still don't understand what is being said. Maybe you're ESL.

>>21896194
>In the real world, inflation is wildly divergent. At the same time that the price of apples rises by 5%, the price of cars could grow by 50%, and the price of clothing might fall by 20%.
Lmao, are you retarded? Inflation is measured commodity, to commodity - no one ever says its uniform. No one would ever argue inflation would be happen at apples and cars just by existing - each have different phenomena that effect its supply. A disease that kills apple crops isn't going to effect the price of cars because cars can't be effected by cellular diseases, retard,

>>21896219
>because use-value exists
>because it is intrinsic to a good based on the personal preferences of the subject
https://evonomics.com/what-do-economists-mean-when-they-talk-about-capital-accumulation/

"But the economists haven’t given up. Instead of measuring utils and SNALT [socially necessary abstract labor time] directly, they go in reverse. God is revealed to us through his miracles, and the same, argue the economists, holds true for the fundamental quantities of economics: they reveal themselves to us through their prices. For a neoclassicist, a 1:2 price ratio between a Toyota factory and a BP oil rig means that the first entity has half the util quantity of the second, while for a classical Marxist this same price ratio is evidence that the SNALT quantity of the first entity is half that of the second.

This reverse solution is the bread and butter of all practical economics. It is a common procedure that all economists use and few, if any, question, let alone critique. It is employed by everyone, from official statisticians and government economists to Wall Street analysts and corporate strategists. And as our reader might by now suspect, it doesn’t work – at least not in the way it is supposed to."

>>21896206
Ontological nihilism isn't a great counter-argument, Anon. Disregarding doing statistics because you don't want to seen as wrong is really bad for your argument.

>>21896239
>A disease that kills apple crops isn't going to effect the price of cars because cars can't be effected by cellular diseases
Because if you are starving, you'd still no matter what spend your last moneys to buy a car. Ok, retard.

>>21896243
Spamming pseud blogs, and not even critically addressing what I'm saying is just proof you're not even worth talking to. You can't even think, and have people do the thinking for you. You're a NPC. No one would use the theories you're seething about if you could actually make better fucking arguments instead of repeating loaded statements over and over again. You're just fucking machine - you're not even sentient because you lack so many critical thinking skills such as inductive and deductive logic.

>>21896248
>Disregarding doing statistics on imaginary astrological entities.

>>21896257
Literally using an example that proves my point. For someone who's starving, there's a person who's not starving. Its *ALMOST AS IF THE VALUE OF A GOOD DIFFERS PERSON TO PERSON BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES IN SUPPLY* of the commodity available which CORRESPONDS with the PRICE they are willing to pay for it. A person who's starving obviously would pay, do more for an apple than one who is not.
Wow! What a DIFFICULT THING to understand if you have level 40 IQ, like you do, because you took the short bus to school instead of the regular one. Do you have any more stupid things to say since were obviously born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Because I have to go soon, and this has been a complete waste of my time.

>>21896267
>Inflation, supply, prices, profit, unemployment, debt, taxes are simply imaginary astrological entities economists shouldn't look at
Yeah, you're mentally ill and/or stupid. The problem isn't economics, its literally because you're too stupid to even be alive and should kill yourself.

>>21888116
i don't know how i should feel about him. like every socialist i've met has just preached the most obvious shit... 'everyone should just be happy.... we need to make sure everyone is happy and equally happy and money isn't a factor...' i hope his philosophy isn't so, like, obvious too, i guess. but at the same time--i guess i don't really care.

>>21896267
Bruh, you proved you're so retarded wouldn't even be able to do basic things such as personal finance, like counting money, because you think quantitative work is equivalent to doing astrology. There's no way you have a job, have ever paid taxes, or paid a bill in yourself.
You're not even old enough to post on 4chan.

>>21896274
>Its *ALMOST AS IF THE VALUE OF A GOOD DIFFERS PERSON TO PERSON
Each brain encodes the same information differently, the similarity of behavior is only superficially similar.

>BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES IN SUPPLY
Each brain encodes the same information differently, therefore "supply" is not a natural kind. It is, as if you defined fish as a 'water animal' and, asking how they breathe, kept bringing up dolphins.
"Supply" is problematic, "value" is problematic, "commodity" is problematic. Dolphins are not fish. Astrology is not science.

>>21896277
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/

"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.

This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real."

>>21896291
>because you think quantitative work is equivalent to doing astrology
https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers
"‘An astrologer’ is, in fact, the Oxford English Dictionary’s second definition of ‘mathematician’."
"In fact, when Adams was arrested in 1914 for violating a New York law against astrology, it was mathematics that eventually exonerated her. During the trial, her lawyer Clark L Jordan emphasised mathematics in order to distinguish his client’s practice from superstition, calling astrology ‘a mathematical or exact science’. Adams herself demonstrated this ‘scientific’ method by reading the astrological chart of the judge’s son. The judge was impressed: the plaintiff, he observed, went through a ‘mathematical process to get at her conclusions… I am satisfied that the element of fraud… is absent here.’"

>>21891527
>class warfare
>All bullshit.
You are the stupidest faggot in this thread. Take your own advice and READ A BOOK. You are on /lit/.

>>21896296
>Each brain encodes the same information differently, therefore "supply" is not a natural kind. This is retarded, everything you said before this was just as retarded, because supply is observable and independent of the human mind. Just because you're mentally ill doesn't mean there's less apples during a famine. We can clearly quantify that in prices. You're trying too hard when you're clearly a pseud lmao

>>21896296
>Each brain encodes the same information differently, therefore "supply" is not a natural kind. This is retarded, everything you said before this was just as retarded, because supply is observable and independent of the human mind. Just because you're mentally ill , have sub-human IQ doesn't mean there's less apples during a famine. We can clearly quantify that in prices. You're trying too hard when you're clearly a pseud lmao

>>21888116
Why do all marxists look like this?

>>21896334
>supply is observable and independent of the human mind
Yeah, sure, and that's why Noble Laureates kept conceding that it is only 'a parable', when pressed hard enough.

>>21896343
>Nobel
*typo

>>21896343
Using your own example, you retard, a starving person apparently is imagining apples don't exist in front of them because its "supply" is a figment of their imagination. You're confidently retarded. Spamming a bunch of unrelated gibberish because you want to pivot from the fact you can't do basic deductive logic doesn't help you. You can't do basic logic, and yet, you want to have a discussion about complex economics? You're even slower than Forrest Gump - we can't even begin talking about other subjects because you don't even have the intelligence to understand the basics.

>Doubling down on supply not being measurable
Apparently there's no way to know if we have less money, goods, less things than before. There would be no way to even measure wages, or wealth inequality, if your logical arguments held true. Buddy, just stop. You're retarded and not intelligent. You are the equivalent of a /pol/tard, but at least a fucking /pol/tard knows you can measure supply. It never ceases to amaze me that leftypol troons end up making Nazis sound sane.

>>21896366
>a starving person apparently is imagining apples don't exist
We can quantify apples. We can't quantify the subjective value of apples, unless you show me some quantifiable 'atom' of subjective value.

>because its "supply" is a figment of their imagination
A starving person does not think in "supplies". A starving person merely submits to somebody's power to forcefully arbitrarily impose a ritual, that involves quantification >>21896300

>>21896392
>Apparently there's no way to know if we have less money, goods
"let us take a step back and consider the following thought experiment. Suppose that one day humans encounter an alien race with advanced technology. However, this technology (and other aspects of their economy) are very different than anything with which we are familiar. Given this situation, how would we measure the “scale” of their economy in order to compare it to our own? As we do not understand their economy, we cannot speak of “output” in any meaningful sense. However, since the laws of physics and chemistry presumably apply the same to these aliens as they do to us, we could quite easily measure the raw material *throughput* of their economy. If we insist on a biophysical measure of scale, then there are really only two ways to measure this material flow—in terms of mass or in terms of energy. Both will yield different results for the “scale” of the economy."

"Biophysical scholars have recently begun to measure economies in biophysical terms. For instance Gierlinger and Krausmann (2012) measure the historical scale of the USA in terms of mass flows. As such, I could use mass flow as my measure of biophysical scale (however, Gierlinger and Krausmann have not, to my knowledge, made their data public). Giampetro et al. (2012) explore the properties of an indicator they call “bio-economic pressure”—the total energy consumption of a society divided by the human activity in the industrial (and agricultural) sector."

>>21895432
>How do we know whether they create the surplus value?
from whether their activity consists of wage labourers creating/transforming use-values for a capitalist or not
>The 'surplus value' (whatever the hell that means) is defined by arbitrary decision of your party masters
no, it's defined by reference to the relations people produce within
>you have no way to measure that
why not? I can identify wage labourers by looking at whether they produce for a wage under a capitalist and I can identify whether they're creating/transforming use-values by examining the starting point and the end result of their activity at work.
>you are failing to comprehend the epistemological problems
no, schizo rambling fails to communicate any problems because it's incoherent. I can't be blamed for failing to comprehend that which isn't properly communicated.
if you want to make an argument, then make an argument. don't hide behind buzzwords.
>If darwinism for you is just "random shit"
it's random shit when it's brought out of the blue without any mention of what its connection is to the subject of the discussion.
>"Marx described On the Origin of Species as an ‘epoch-making work’.
so what? this doesn't mean randomly bringing up natural selection is relevant to any discussion regarding Marxism.
>Clearly, you are too uneducated to comprehend even the scope of the problem.
you don't communicate shit and you blame people for not understanding? are you unironically a schizo who believes in mind reading or something?
>Explanations "because I said so" are not valid
that's why I referred to facts about the economic mode of current society and not to "I said so"
>Maori gift economy also exists
and? where does Marx claim the applicability of the law of value to Maori gift economy? a page number will do
>>21896123
>You retards don't think inflation, supply and demand is real
Marx:
>We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm
Marxists:
>In other words, money losing value is – we claim – what inflation is in a strict sense. https://antinational.org/en/inflation/
>>21896135
>You keep proving you're retarded, and don't understand argument being made.
I understand your argument perfectly well. all it is is an equivocation between use-value and value. you're saying that value can't be created by labour because use-value exists prior to labour. but that just doesn't logically follow, because value (the social relation between private proprietors within a division of labour) is not use-value (roughly the relation between people and things).
you can ask me further questions about this or just read the first chapter of Capital. and then come back with some actual arguments.
>>21896166
how does this even address a single thing I've said? what's your counter to the main task of the state being to sustain its own funding?

>>21896189
it's ironic that people like you spend more time in places like leftypol than actual Marxists (i.e. more than 0 minutes)
>>21896341
imagine still trying this after pic rel

>>21896434
>people like you spend more time in places like leftypol than actual Marxists
Well, I do like to be challenged so that other people can prove to me my own superiority

>>21896197
Marx trips over himself in support of the spontaneity of the working class. He’s proven wrong by demonstration in his own lifetime and he still supports authoritarianism. I suppose Lenin’s feeble thoughts on the subject are all it takes for a tankie to wash the unpleasant facts away.

Why do we valorize the people making a bold attempt at freedom? I don’t understand.