/lit/ - Literature

>>6859922
Work in retail for a few years.

>>6859941

Do this op. Then you'll feel alienated from your labor

read pic related

>>6859922
You read Marxist literature

Read Marx

>>6860022
This

Read "socialism" by ludwig von mises

>>6859941
>>6860023
Do this.

>>6860022
Only then do this, so you can have a good laugh.

>>6860061
You realize the image is supposed to be ironic, right? Let me be simpler: you realize you're not supposed to agree with the picture, yeah?

Never read Sowell or Mises

>>6860094
No? It's just a may-may.

>not making fun of your own shit
>being insecure

Marxism is Jewish propaganda to brainwash and subvert Western civilization.

Read Evola, the Culture of Critique Series, and Mein Kampf if you want to be genuinely redpilled

>>6860022
/thread

notice how marxist want you to avoid books that logically dismantle their retarded ideology until you've already been indoctrinated.

>>6860121
Marxism is a mental illness.
Only women buy into it

>>6860103
If you want him to be a marxist telling him "never read" would have sufficed ;^)

Marxism and heterodox economics will appeal to people who (a) don't like math; (b) have a vague idea that there must be something better than contemporary capitalism, but they don't quite know what; (c) believe that superficial description, when suitably enveloped in philosophical jargon, becomes deep (critial realism, ontology, consciousness, human subjectivity, etc.)

>>6860346
This. They're like children or women.

>>6860116
>>6860121
>>6860153
>>6860189
>>6860346
>>6860364
We get it, samefag, you can't think.

>>6860346

>(a) don't like math

This point is rather bizzare. Economics as general theory has nothing to do with mathematics, but with the general structure of basic supply and demand and the organization of the socius with reagards to material means.

>(b) have a vague idea that there must be something better than contemporary capitalism, but they don't quite know what

Is this point meant to dismantle Marx? Marx discribes Capitalism as the stage before Communism, it's that it's better or worse, but an inevitable evolution.

>c) believe that superficial description, when suitably enveloped in philosophical jargon, becomes deep (critial realism, ontology, consciousness, human subjectivity, etc.)

Marxism is philosophically heavily agianst metaphysics and discourses on Subjectivity. Read Adorno's "The Jargon of Authenticity" or Fredric Jameson's "Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" if you want a Marxist deconstruction of late 20th century continental philosophical theories.

>>6859922

In terms of the OP

Don't listen to these retards

>>6860022
>>6860116
>>6860121
>>6860346

And read Marx himself, start with Communist Manifesto and Theses on Feurbach and work towards reading the German ideology and an annotated version of Kapital.

Other obviously interesting Marxists schollars are Lukács,Adorno, Althusser,Jameson, Zizek etc.

>>6860374
I wrote >>6860346

not any of the other posts

>>6860374
Triggered much?

>>6860414
>family income

>>6860414
>This point is rather bizzare. Economics as general theory has nothing to do with mathematics, but with the general structure of basic supply and demand and the organization of the socius with reagards to material means.

Mainstream economics has plenty to do with math. Heterodoxtards attempt to dismantle the current system through critiques of unsubstantiated mathematical models that they deem unable to reflect reality.

>Is this point meant to dismantle Marx? Marx discribes Capitalism as the stage before Communism, it's that it's better or worse, but an inevitable evolution.

This point is meant to dismantle and ridicule heterodoxtards

>Marxism is philosophically heavily agianst metaphysics and discourses on Subjectivity. Read Adorno's "The Jargon of Authenticity" or Fredric Jameson's "Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" if you want a Marxist deconstruction of late 20th century continental philosophical theories.

The point is that heterodoxtards think that reducing economics to a philosophical or sociological discipline like the economics of yesteryear is desirable as opposed to being regressive.

Also what's with the image? Do you think I am opposed against Keynesian and some free market fundamentalist neoliberal?

>>6860414
>>6860414
>This point is rather bizzare. Economics as general theory has nothing to do with mathematics, but with the general structure of basic supply and demand and the organization of the socius with reagards to material means.

Mainstream economics has plenty to do with math. Heterodoxtards attempt to dismantle the current system through critiques of unsubstantiated mathematical models that they deem unable to reflect reality.

>Is this point meant to dismantle Marx? Marx discribes Capitalism as the stage before Communism, it's that it's better or worse, but an inevitable evolution.

This point is meant to dismantle and ridicule heterodoxtards

>Marxism is philosophically heavily agianst metaphysics and discourses on Subjectivity. Read Adorno's "The Jargon of Authenticity" or Fredric Jameson's "Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" if you want a Marxist deconstruction of late 20th century continental philosophical theories.

The point is that heterodoxtards think that reducing economics to a philosophical or sociological discipline like the economics of yesteryear is desirable as opposed to being regressive.

Also what's with the image? Do you think I am opposed to Keynesianism and instead am a free market fundamentalist neoliberal?

>>6860436

>your point

Also, are there really neo-liberals / lolbertarians in here, or are you all /pol/ rejects?

If so what books do you read or enjoy except Atlas Shigged?

just listen to Ronald Reagan speeches, that'll give you everything your need to know

>>6860442
Your comic is stupid.

Managing a company is a lot harder than screwing in bolts all day.

>>6860441

>Mainstream economics has plenty to do with math. Heterodoxtards attempt to dismantle the current system through critiques of unsubstantiated mathematical models that they deem unable to reflect reality.

Are you really so blind and zealous that you think Austrian economics constitute essentially teh Word of God and can mathematically calculate any economic problem? If so we are in deep autism waters and I would like you to explain why lolbertarians are never able to predict when pirces rise or when the next financial crisis hits?

>This point is meant to dismantle and ridicule heterodoxtards

You didn't dismantle anything btw.

>The point is that heterodoxtards think that reducing economics to a philosophical or sociological discipline like the economics of yesteryear is desirable as opposed to being regressive.

I don't understand were you are coming from. either you are a complete retard and you think society does not interefere with supply and demand or how economics influences social classes and how they are structured, or you are just trolling.

>>6860087
Do you have a source for this image?

>>6860452

No it's not, working times are always fewer for the employer (capitalist) than the employed (laborer). Thats basic Adam Smith.

>>6859922
In Western society there exists a subset of young people who had difficult relationships with their family and society growing up. Because of their perceived neglect and abuse, they instinctively refuse all forms of authority and struggle against any system of control. The two most primary systems of control in Western society are the economy and the government, so these are their favorite targets.

Deep down though, these maladjusted adolescents secretly desire an authority figure to inspire and motivate and direct them, like all humans do. They know that their current state of comfort cannot exist without a government and an economy, so instead of turning to religion or family or society or traditional values which have all (in their minds) failed them and others, they now turn to an imaginary, unfalsifiable political and economic system which can never fully be tested in practicality or efficacy. This is perfect because it essentially allows them to complain and rebel forever without ever having to confront the inadequacies of their own ideas.

The young people then isolate themselves from the economy and government and society and form tiny, politically-oriented but ultimately impotent groups which compare insults and complaints about the invisible demons who are ruining their happiness. They assume a sanctimonious self-satisfied air to prematurely dispel anybody who questions their perpetual bitching, and they stage melodramatic protests against the invisible demons and their representatives.

Eventually, and you will see this throughout the course of your life, most will grow up and leave behind their idealist fantasies. A smaller but still significant amount of them do remain trapped inside their faulty ideas, and these ones will spiral into increasingly radical and unrealistic beliefs until finally they are so deluded and bitter that they try to start a commune or a revolution, only to fail miserably and (as always) return to Western capitalist society more bitter and angry and deluded than ever before.

I would compare them to bronies in both their dedication to fantasy which was born out of social rejection and their total inability to acknowledge reality

>>6860456
>Are you really so blind and zealous that you think Austrian economics constitute essentially teh Word of God and can mathematically calculate any economic problem? If so we are in deep autism waters and I would like you to explain why lolbertarians are never able to predict when pirces rise or when the next financial crisis hits?

I'm not an Austrian, and if you knew anything about them you'd realize that they oppose the mathematization of economics just as much as other heterodox schools.

>I don't understand were you are coming from. either you are a complete retard and you think society does not interefere with supply and demand or how economics influences social classes and how they are structured, or you are just trolling.

I am simply stating that heterodoxtards think that pretention philosophical buzzwords infused with writings on economics makes their work deep, when it does not.

>>6859922
Read Capital (honestly, some abridged versions are ok, can cut down on the endless case studies)

also David Harvey's companion is pretty good alongside for when you get stuck.

>>6860447

>>6859922
DO NOT jump right into Walter Benjamin.

Capital is where you start, anon. There are some really good introductions out there too to be read along side it. Might I recommend Ben Fine's Marx's Capital?

>>6860469

I think you have it all backwards m8.

You only have to look in the mirror if you want to see the maladjusted and the outcasts you so easily despise.

What is really your platform? Apart from your bad-faith and resintiment against the jews. What do you have to say about culture and traditions other than you hate blacks for the imagined cucholding they do to you becuase you can't get laid?

Take all that apart and you are parasite that feeds of the shit that Late Capitalism churns out. But instead of the words of the opressed and the exploited working class, we hear the loud minority of lardass /pol/ neckbeards.

At heart your biggest mistake is how insular you are, youa acuse others of idealism , but all neo-conservative nad traditionalist rhetoric boils down to your "front-lawn', your little neighbourhood, your little house. As well as your little numb pleasures and distractions which you enjoy so easily, a Neobarock assemblange of kitch sensibilities and tastes.

But what about the world, the habitual economic crises, the worldwide exploitation of the lower classes, the collection of wealth by the very few? The only thing you have to say is "kikes and niggers" and thats why you are banal and boring.

>>6860491
OH GOD MY SIDES

David Harvey lectures, or Alex konokokif "the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx".

Both are true believers. Enguage seriously with it, but don't drink the cool aid.

>>6860469
I don't know why critiques like this are so popular. I have seen something similar aimed at every single ideology.

Wesley Clark, a retired general even said something similar recently on MSNBC.

>“We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don’t get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn’t feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.

>“But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.

Not to hijack this thread but what's the best collection of Walter Benjamin's essays to start with? He's someone I've wanted to get into for a while.

>>6860469

I think you have it all backwards m8.

You only have to look in the mirror if you want to see the maladjusted and the outcasts you so easily despise.

What is really your platform? Apart from your bad-faith and ressentiment against the jews. What do you have to say about culture and traditions other than you hate blacks for the imagined cucholding they do to you because you can't get laid?

Take all that apart and you are parasite that feeds of the shit that Late Capitalism churns out. But instead of the words of the opressed and the exploited working class, we hear the loud minority of lardass /pol/ neckbeards.

At heart your biggest mistake is how insular you are, youa accuse others of idealism , but all neo-conservative nad traditionalist rhetoric boils down to your "front-lawn', your little neighbourhood, your little house. As well as your little numb pleasures and distractions which you enjoy so easily, a Neobarock assemblange of kitch sensibilities and tastes.

But what about the world, the habitual economic crises, the worldwide exploitation of the lower classes, the collection of wealth by the very few? The only thing you have to say is "kikes and niggers" and thats why you are banal and boring.

>>6860511

This is one of his best essays imo along with Critique of Violence.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

>>6860509
Because ideologies are dangerous. They do tend to come from kids who think they have the world figured out by 20.

>>6860516
Nice, what would be a good collection: 'Illuminations'?

>>6860518

The only philosophy that's against Ideology is Marxism.

>>6860512
By exploitation of the poor you of course mean the greatest reduction in absolute poverty in history, and ever increasing living standards.

>>6860522

yeah, also check out Dialectic of the Enlightenment , it's very similar in vein.

>>6860528

lol how long are you people gonna drag on this meme?

http://www.waterfund.go.ke/safisan/Downloads/Are%20We%20Reducing%20Global%20Poverty.pdf

>>6860529
That I actually own, but haven't worked up the courage to actually pick it up yet.

>>6860518
Ideologies come from adults who think they have the whole world figured out. A majority of youth who consume some ideology do little if anything at all afterwards of importance.

>>6860512
Lol I don't hate the Jews or blacks at all; in fact I'm half-Jewish. I know you tried very hard to hurt my feelings but you didn't describe me or my beliefs at all so your whole post just kind of fell flat. Please stop assuming that everybody who questions your adolescent ideology is a /pol/ stereotype

>>6860524
>there is only one true ideology and its name is Marxism
You guys actually sound like fundamentalist nutbags, how do you not pick up on this?

>>6860545

people who think they are outside ideology are in reality more deeper in ideology than ever before.

I know it's a meme at this point but it's true in practical terms.

>>6860538

> inequality = poverty

Pretty shit meme tbh

>>6860561

Marx wrote an entire book on the critique of ideology and what ideology actually is, you idiot.

Philosophicaly it's a Marxist term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Marxist_view

read into the downfall of the USSR and Communist China

>>6860578

Read the pdf retard, absolute poverty has not lowered.

Also high inequality is a good sign of a rise in poverty in a country.

I remember hearing the amazing stories from my anthropology profs about how Milton Friedman flew over Chile in a jet bought for him by Ronald Reagan, parachuted into the capital, and raged hard throughout the city, indiscriminately snapping the necks of every Chilean woman and child to cross his path of mayhem. Friedman's evil rampage prevented the nascent communist grassroots movement, which was almost as popular with the Chilean people as it was with American humanities professors, from reaching fruition. This was a tragedy of epic proportions because the command and control economy was about to usher in a new golden age of economic and sociopolitical utopia. While Friedman was finishing ripping the beating hearts out of the chests of old women and eating them as he quoted passages from Free to Choose, the Chilean people learned to never question the capitalist overlords from Chicago. They were shocked by the animalistic brutality of this 5 foot shiny headed demon-god. So shocked were they in fact, that from the time of Friedman's visit, legends of "the shock doctrine", the massacre of the innocents at the hands of the deranged Friedman, spread throughout Latin America to American campuses. When news of the story broke among sociology and gender studies departments, there was a collective wail of morning and gnashing of teeth. The critical literary theorists had been unrelenting in their support of the burgeoning Soviet Union at the turn of the century, and they saw what wonders it had worked firsthand for the people of Russia. They felt that they had failed their Chilean brothers. Friedman eventually returned to Chicago from Chile, to return to his Hyde Park throne which was a living chair made from the bodies of welfare recipients, whom were forced to bear their weight of the Libertarian death machine day and night lest their families face the libertarian wrath that had been unleashed in Chile. Now Friedman is lionized by a coalition of Neo nazis, Jewish industrialists, and the religious right, to continue to keep our poor brothers and sisters downtrodden and controlled. Friedman can never die. He is always watching.

And waiting.

>>6860528
>>6860538
Marx said capitalism was the most progressive "movement" in the history of mankind.

>>6860591

The irony being that Friedman "theories" could only be implemented unless a puppet, fascist psychopathic dictator was placed by the US in power...

>>6860480
Not that guy, but:
>heterodoxtards
>implying that disagreeing with a science that is unable to make meaningful predictions is retarded
>implying economics should be given more respect than sociology or psychoanalysis: all "sciences" which pretend at rigor in a field where even the basic elements which apparently drive the objects of study are unknown

>>6860606
>being this delusional

I wish that /pol/tards would address the most pivotal failing of Marx instead of whitewashing him and readers of as brainless ideologues, mainly, that there is no evidence that seems to suggest Communism is the inevitable next step after Capitalism, in any form. Oh yes, there are many thought experiments, and they're quite convincing. But every point at which it seems as though Capitalism's failure is just around the corner inevitably sees its resurgence, often as something more virulent, cruel and unapologetically repressive.

I'm not convinced, essentially, that the natural next step is Communism. I'm concerned it's something far worse than Feudalism, Capitalism, Communism, Third-Alternativism, and so on.

>>6860622
See
>>6860346

>>6860650
i thought it was mostly leftypol that parroted marxism? they have the underage teenager demographic gullible enough to swallow that shite

>>6860646
This isn't really a response to him, now is it?

>>6860441
>Mainstream economics has plenty to do with math. Heterodoxtards attempt to dismantle the current system through critiques of unsubstantiated mathematical models that they deem unable to reflect reality.

"Mainstream economics" has dominated thinking and policy now for over half a century or so. Since they drove out classical and Progressive economics what can the "mainstream" claim as their heritage, their contribution to our well-being? All they have to show is worsening condition of labour, lower returns to saving, high and rising concentration of wealth and income, rising class divisions and social problems, and a fall of national stature.

Mathematics is not itself problematic but inaccurate formulas (which easily arise when dealing with so many abstract symbols) are. Even an acurate formula without properly quantified variables ends up being useless and misleading. Well formulated oral explanations of hypotheses in the tradition of clasical political economy are suppiror over questionable mathy explainations which only "well trained" "experts" can "understand".

>>6860650
The development of human history is biased toward rationality since it is the process of human experience having the pass through the filter of what works and what doesn't. Human economies should in theory ultimately favor free-market capitalism, but I fear we might be stuck in this mediocre state of mixed economies because the public is just irrational enough and the intelligentsia have just enough power. We need some event that will act as a big push toward free-market capitalism.

>>6860670
It's undeniably leftypol and their ilk that parrot Marx incessantly as if he were anything other than a fairly wise observer. But it's also indisputably the other half of /pol/ that comes in and begins shouting that anyone who reads Marx or thinks that his ideas have any credence, ever, is a dithering ideologue.

I would much rather see them address the problem that I have instead of lambaste them on what they claim are non-ideological points which are in fact steeped in ideology. I accept the tentative ideas of the material dialectic, but it seems - to me at least - that Communism is *not* the clear-cut next inevitable step from Capitalism, and I'm concerned, scared even, that whatever instead comes from Late Capitalism will be a beast that neither the oligarchs nor conservatives nor leftists nor third-pathers could possibly imagine.

>>6860346
They are a lot of people who could be considered "mainstream" who don't like contemporary capitalism who would like to see at the least another version of it. Heterodox schools like the post keynesians have no problem with math and mainstream guys like Paul Romer recently criticized "mathiness" for letting academic politics masquerade as science

>>6860688
But as has been discussed, what is, actually, a 'free market'? It cannot be one with a central currency. It cannot be one with a central government. But the proponents - Hayek and (to a less educated extent) Rand and so on - insist there will be some framework of arbitration.

I think there are interesting ideas behind the Somali Xeer, and I don't necessarily consider market socialism a flat betrayal of socialist ideas, but to be honest any attempt to reach those seems optimistic at best. What, then, is the more rational, less idealistic, ultimately more realistic even if more dire end-result of the dialectic?

>>6860689
>but it seems - to me at least - that Communism is *not* the clear-cut next inevitable step from Capitalism, and I'm concerned, scared even, that whatever instead comes from Late Capitalism will be a beast that neither the oligarchs nor conservatives nor leftists nor third-pathers could possibly imagine.

Marxs never claimed Communism came after Capitalism, Socialism is the antithesis to Capitalism and Communism is the antithesis to Socialism.

>>6860463
I'm not talking about working times, I'm talking about how hard the job is.

Any moron can screw in bolts. It takes intellect to successfully run a company.

If you think that your average pleb worker can manage a company you're dulsional.

>>6860702
When most people discuss a free-market they do not mean some idealistically "truly free" market. It means a market where the government intervenes as little as possible (the disagreements being on just how much that is and what exactly the interventions are).

>>6860717
>If you think that your average pleb worker can manage a company you're delusional.
They can, they're called cooperatives.

>>6860580
>"Marx invented ideology because he was so smart and ahead of his time! This means that nobody can criticize Marxism as an ideology!"
meanwhile, in the exact same Wikipedia article, only several paragraphs above the subsection you linked to:
>According to Karl Mannheim's historical reconstruction of the shifts in the meaning of ideology, the modern meaning of the word was born when Napoleon Bonaparte (as a politician) used it in an abusive way against "the ideologues" (a group which included[citation needed] Cabanis, Condorcet, Constant, Daunou, Say, Madame de Staël, and Destutt de Tracy), to express the pettiness of his (liberal republican) political opponents.

>Perhaps the most accessible source for the near-original meaning of ideology is Hippolyte Taine's work on the Ancien Regime (the first volume of "Origins of Contemporary France"). He describes ideology as rather like teaching philosophy by the Socratic method, but without extending the vocabulary beyond what the general reader already possessed, and without the examples from observation that practical science would require. Taine identifies it not just with Destutt De Tracy, but also with his milieu, and includes Condillac as one of its precursors. (Destutt de Tracy read the works of Locke and Condillac while he was imprisoned during the Reign of Terror.)

Thanks for the link, you really proved yourself wrong with it

>there are people on /lit/ who will defend this

>>6860734
>because capitalism is not perfect, we must dismantle it entirely and form a political system which has historically led to genocide and totalitarian oppression

>>6860734
I don't think anyone here would agree with the economic status quo.

>>6860740
>liking the current crony-capitalism mixed economy bullshit

>>6860746
>liking genocide, gulags, and censorship

>>6859922

The following is a selection of writings to obtain a theoretical understanding of Marxism to a complete beginner. Read in order from top two bottom.

''The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'' by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

''Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism'' by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm

''Theses on Feuerbach'' by Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

''Principles of Communism'' by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

''The Communist Manifesto'' by Marx & Engels
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'' by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

"Critique of the Gotha Program" by Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'' by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/

''State and Revolution'' by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

''Wage-Labour and Capital'' by Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

''Three Component Parts'' and ''Exposition of Marxism'' are articles written by Lenin that will give you a rough introduction to Marxist philosophy. ''Principles'' is an early draft of the ''Manifesto''. I recommend reading it first. The MIA pdf for the ''Communist Manifesto'' I linked contains the various prefaces in the various translations; in one, Engels outright concedes that the demands in the''Manifesto'' were outdated a mere 25 years after it was first published! ''Utopian and Scientific'' is taken from chapters within the ''anti-Duhring'' and ''Ludwig Feuerbach'' is inspired by ''The German Ideology''. In the "Critique of the Gotha Program", Marx lays down his vision for a communist society. I recommend reading it early on, then going back to it again after gaining more knowledge on theory. "State and Revolution" details the Marxist conception of the State. Even if you disagree with Lenin, the book is still a must-read for every socialist. ''Wage-Labour and Capital'' (alongside ''Value-Price and Profit", which I haven't linked), Marx introduces key concepts in Marxian economics. You can read the last three in any order, but I recommend the one I gave.

>>6860689
Very few nowadays believes that Communism is inevitable.

>>6860740
>because capitalism is not perfect

That's putting it lightly

>>6860751
I'm a capitalist and I am in great disagreement with the economic status quo.

>>6860760
Do you find acceptable middle-groundage in the ideas of social democracy or market socialism?

>>6860740
>refusing to analyse capitalisms fault in a coherent way because you love to be a shill
>relativizing the term genocide to shit talk an ideology and historical perioid you barely understand
>still believing in totalitarianism theory
I have no love for communist regimes, you're just a retard

>>6860754
>communism is perfect, despite it's every application resulting in failure and often genocide

>>6860740
>>6860767
>every Communist is a tankie
>the Left is the same as it was three decades ago

>>6860767
>it's

>>6860767
There's literally noting wrong with Gulaging the decadent liberal bourgeois

>>6860763
It depends on what you mean by "acceptable". In theory a marxist society might be ultimately less dangerous than a socialist one because it will inevitably collapse. Socialism creates a maze of bureaucracy that is difficult to eliminate.

>>6860414
I don't know if recommending zizek is ever a good idea, he's useful for understanding ideology primarily but also somewhat of a rambler and poor writer.

>>6860788

>>6860483
good advice, also Meaning of Marxism - Paul D'Amato is an amazing primer

>>6860518

>ideologies are dangerous
Misguided child ideologies are fine, and if anything beneficial. They're a radical view--one that we can learn from, reminding us of the dangers of excess--that eventually fades away with their maturity. And like any philosophy, there can be truth found in radical ideals, and one can benefit from said truth without needing to believe in the majority of the philosophy.

>>6860063
This, also read Frédéric Bastiat.

>>6860788
People think their dad who works as a doctor or engineer counts as a "rich family" and they fear they will be thrown into gulag.

In reality they are not even rich.

>>6860414
>d-don't read sowell p-p-please whatever you do
Why are marxists so suppressive of anything that contradicts them?

>>6860844
But the alternative is being murdered by a Stalinist dictator

>>6860850
Because they have a feminine nature. They cannot comprehend rationality and logic.

>>6860852
>Syrzia will lead to Stalinism
Now that is frankly retarded

The Reformist Left can't to jack.

>>6860854
I'm pretty certain revolutionary Terror isn't very effeminate.

>>6860862
>I'm pretty certain revolutionary Terror isn't very effeminate.

>implying a hysterical acting out isn't for the feeble-minded, i.e. women and leftists

>>6860866
Shooting dissidents is so very effeminate, I'm sure.

And so are armed men organized in militias.

>>6860866
Purging your foes after taking power is extremely common throughout history.

>>6860877
>>6860880
Look at leftists and right-wing people. Who have lower testosterone? It's clearly the left. They're practically women, all emotion and no intellect

>>6860890
>right-wing people
>can into intellectual

>intellectuals
>masculine in any way

>political violence
>oh my god so womanlike and without testosterone

kek

Next you'll tell me that crushing your enemy underfoot is for pussies.

>>6860906
When did you last see a ripped leftist?

They're like women, small and frail. They have low levels of testosterone and hence are weak and emotional

>>6860921
>When did you last see a ripped leftist?
kek

>>6860940
exception to the rule

>>6860850

People in general don't want to read propaganda.

>>6860890
>I might be a virgin but at least I'm theoretically more manly than the left

>>6860970
We're surrounded by propaganda every day, anon.

>>6860728

I said used as to describe a state of mind in terms of philosophy, you contrarian cocksucker, Ideology = false consciousness. Get that stick out of your ass and learn to read.

>>6860976
>implying virginity doesn't allow you to sublimate all your libidinal energy into reading about the Jewish conspiracy to subvert Western civilization and redpill people on 4chan
>implying degeneracy is to be encouraged

>>6860970
so they shouldn't read marx

>>6860970
>>6860978

I meant that "le uncle Tom good economist" meme is propagated by neocons, but has little value, since everything neo-liberal kikes write is propaganda.

>>6860022

Daily reminder that the only thing Karl Marx ever excelled at in life was spending other people's money. He is a disgrace to the German philosophical tradition.

>>6860986
erm, no.

Ideology are unconscious assumptions about the political. Sometimes things that are politically charged are portrayed as if they're not, which is ideological.

>>6860346
>(a) don't like math

you're thinking of austrian economics

>>6860854
>>6860921

spotted the cuck.

Are you seriously going to argue against a political thoery by saying it's effeminate? On a 1 to 10 how gay are you?

>>6860682
The mathematization of mainstream economics begins with the neoclassical school in the late 19th century. What can classical economics claim as their heritage, their contribution to our well-being? The poor working conditions of the industrial revolution? The laissez-faire capitalism that stimulated class conflict? Critiquing the methodology of mainstream economics can only go so far, the continued progress and development of economics towards a rigorous science can only be beneficial so long as we resist the implementation of political dogma and stratification.

>>6860717
plenty of people could run a company. its not that hard. firm success is largely dictated by larger market forces. in any given company probably about 40% of all employees could do the job of executives.

the executives want to fool people into thinking it's difficult because it's in fact rather easy, more pleasant than real work, and also of course gives them power.

>>6861001
The problem with mainstream economics is precisely in its resistance to politically dogma it unconsciously bares itself to the common sense of the political sphere, upholding incredibly ideologically dogmatic assumptions about politics without knowing it.

>>6860997

this tbh

>>6861006
Everything is ideology. Ideology is a meaningless buzzword that has no bearing on our existence, only to academics.

>>6861024
And Academia is run by Jews. What does that tell you about who runs ideologies?

>>6861004

>"innocents"

class-cucks and bourgies deserve death.

>>6861024
Er, not everything is 'ideology'. A lot of things have political dimensions that people don't want to accept that are distinctly political.

If ideology is political assumptions, then the assumption that a political something isn't political is the most political of assumptions.

>>6861024

philosophy is not ideology you uneducated cuck.

Ideology means "having wool over your eyes' and following something blindly, rather than having true understanding.

>Mainstream economics" has dominated thinking and policy now for over half a century or so

Hilarious tbh. Politicians have across the board failed to implement most widely agreed upon policies. Where's the carbon tax? Stimulus in an AD slump?

The fucking Euro exists man.
>6860682
>

>>6861042
Your post reeks of ideology.

>>6860734
> all the lines in the graph on the left go up

The horror!

>>6861042
No it's not faggot.

Stop using your outdated conception of the critique of ideology.

>>6861048
this

>>6861043
This guy is right. I think there are still some cities with goddamn rent control.

>Ctrl+F
>No Kolakowski
I am dissapoint /lit/
This is the best way to UNDERSTAND MARXISM.
Traces dialectical materialism all the way back to christian apocalypticism, to the 1970's. From there you'll have to read on your own.

>>6861050
are you blind?

>>6861048

You think that you are outside of ideology but in reality you are enternched into it.

This is a philosophical statement.

Opposed to this thought is the pervert who is perfectly satisfied with the ideological conditions presented to him. He "knows" that what he follows is absurd or wrong, but he nevertheless goes along because he enjoys it, see product fetishism.

>>6861069
Are you? They scaled it funny so the smaller increases in the bottom levels are harder to see.

>>6861059

This butthurt pollack never even bothered to poke holes into Marx's actual economic theory and instead tried the smae tied old route of tying Marxism with Christianity, as if that hasn't been said before a million times by all of Socialism's enemies.

Shitty critique tbh.

>>6861072
You think that you are outside of ideology but in reality you are enternched into it.

Each post of yours is riddled with mindless ideology.

It's sad that you are blind to your own ideology.

>>6861051

I'm using it in the Marxist sense, that is in the sense were the philosophical theory of critiquing ideology (Adorno,Althusser, Zizek et al)

Ideology in essence is false consciousness, so try again.

>>6861080
I doubt you read it. The author is in favor of marxism, what are you even getting at? It isn't a critique, its a genealogical-documentarian history of an idea, that idea being Marxism and its variants and historical counterparts. Lurk/Read more.

>>6861083

I think you need to go back to reddit, you are not smart enough for this board, i'm sorry but that's the harsh truth.

I'm sorry for the brain damage you have suffered over the years.

>>6861087
What's that disgusting smell? Oh, it's pure ideology, and it's coming straight from your post.

>>6861099
No rebuttal I see. The mark of an individual riddled with insecurity and, most importantly, ideology.

>>6861088

>Kolakowski

>Not the most butthurt anti-communist Polack nationalist to ever live.

I think you were taken for a fool if you took this right-wing propaganda seriously m8, try reading some Badiou if you want to find out the origin of Dialectical Materialism.

>>6861100
>>6861104

In reddit you can meme all you want but here it's a sign of how utterly stupid you are.

You are samefagging and repeating yourself, aren't you embrashed for your utter intelectual demolition, so much so that you are behaving like a pre-school child.

You need to call the anal-devestation police, urgently.

>>6861119
I can hear past all ideological drivel you just spout out. Just because your world view of ideology is on the level of a pre-school child doesn't validate your ignorance you pitiful jobbernowl

>>6861119
I can't hear past all ideological drivel you just spout out. Just because your world view of ideology is on the level of a pre-school child doesn't validate your ignorance you pitiful jobbernowl.

>>6861012

>top 1%
>stable income bracket

Pick one m8

>>6861035
that's pretty edgy my friend.

>>6861119
>>6861137
I see that I've won.

>>6860688
>>6860720
you might find this interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY

>>6861339
add another tally my boy.

>>6861380
Yet another meme I see.

>>6861278
No it's true.

>>6860460
late reply, but I don't m8, picked it up off of /lit/

>>6859922
>implying there is anything worthy of understanding

>>6860414
>>6860734
>>6860752
Good posts, this is what you were looking for OP.

>>6861420
BTFO
T
F
O
(but fuck makhno, look up a real biography on him, his regime was a disaster and he was a personal wreck)

>>6861426
they were all disasters. It's a meme to prove how dumb marxists are.

>>6861426
True, would've been better to put Castro on there tbh.

>>6861432
They're like worthless women. They can't see reason and rationality

>>6861448
You're not banned yet?

>>6861463
What u mean?

>>6861042
>philosophy is not ideology you uneducated cuck.

Stop memeing

>Ideology means "having wool over your eyes' and following something blindly, rather than having true understanding.

That guy is right. Ideology is becoming an increasingly meaningless word. It's so ambiguous that it can be applied to anything.

>>6859922
All there is to know, in practical terms, is that Marxists believe that in one way or another the capitalist system will break and the little people will rearrange the distribution of capital by some means.

Do you wish to hasten the beginning of this event?
Do you believe it is inevitable?
Do you beieve it is desirable?

There ya go.

Personally I believe the average person is way too stupid to behave responsibly without overlords so my elitism precludes being a proactive marxist. I also don't believe that marxist revolution is inevitable, but it can easily be brought about by self-interested public figures.

>>6861420
The delusion is strong with this one. Sorry fuckwad but socialism has failed. Hell Venezuala now is proof of that.

>>6861395
But those are not the actions of capitalism though, those actions were of the state. But when you look at the history of communist nations, it's like a horrid, morbid black comedy. Sorry red, but your ideal is a dead (literally) end.

>pic is communism in action

Watch pic related

>>6861982
We're failing though.

>>6860689
Seriously, what are you still doing on cuckchan though?

>>6862003
the congo free state was a private company though.

youll need to start with Hegal first.
Actually Kant.
Actually Hume
Actually just begin with the hellenes

>>6860346
There's marxist schools that have much more advanced mathematization than neoclassical economics. Also, your point c shows you have absolutely no idea about what marxism is.

>>6860646
Name one country where Friedman's theories weren't implemented under autocratic or authoritarian forms - and where the impoverished and working class (hell, even the middle-class) welcomed it.

Hint: you can't.

>>6863038
Not him, but the irony of saying that, is that capitalism is not and will never be monolithic. Capitalism is like a chimera, and can operate perfectly fine in the most heinous and oppressive society, where the state knows no bound to it's invasiveness, and it can also exist in societies where there is more or less political and social liberty.

It's pretty clear that all the South-American countries that gleefully accepted Mr.Friedman's economic policies, did so with the almost Machiavellian pretense, that they could create a society where the State could tax and control the economic prosperity that is garnered by increased economic liberalization.

>>6860087
Really like this image.

Doesn't have important pieces of modern Marxist economic theory like Temporal Single System Interpretation but is pretty good to show the processes in Kapital.

>>6862029
Are we?

>>6862984
But it wasn't, it was essentially a private kingdom under the rule of a monarchist.

>>6859922
You read up on basic economics first and his critics. Then you read Marx and find out how much of a fucking retard he was.

>>6862987
Start with Descartes or Hume. Then read the one you didn't start with. Then Spinoza. Then Kant. Then Hegel. Then Stirner. Then Nietzsche. Then Freud. Then back to Hegel. Then Marx. Then Nietzsche. Then back to Hegel. Then Lacan. Then Zizek. Then scrap all that shit and just read Aristotle lol

>>6862003
Your image predates the non-genocidal famine called Holodomor.

>>6862003
Maybe you're an AnCap and unable to understand, but capitalism necessitates the state (be it a constitutional monarchy, a liberal republic, or fascist dictatorship) and the actions of that state are the actions of capitalists.

>>6863148
You're the reason we're all going to die.

I love when /lit/ has discussions about econ because the only other place to discuss econ is /pol/ and they have absolutely no idea how to read statistics.

They think a single linear regression with no other factors to account for multicolinearity is proof of anything.


Anyway, more to the crux of the issue. Marxism is an excellent critique of the capitalist system but has failed to produce a functioning long term state. >>6861420 is right however that each time an actual marxist state arises, some more powerful group interferes with the process and destroys that state leaving the possibility of a marxists society open to debate.

There is however, one solid example of a large scale marxist state working perfectly. During WWII in the leadup to the battle of britain, capital flows to workers ceased and everyone was given rations. Working hours increased significantly as plane, bullet and tank production reached new highs. The market economy essentially could not operate because there were too few goods available to the public for the average citizen to afford anything.

The system worked like clockwork and is honestly proof that a marxist, or rather state socialist system can indeed work but it should be noted that there are several extenuating circumstances that made this possible

1. There was a clearly defined and universally appreciated national goal: Everyone knew that if they didn't defeat the Nazis, they would become a nazi satellite state. Believe it or not, almost no one in england wanted that to happen.

2. There was a unified national identity: I know this part goes against general marxist theories but people do not care about people that they don't see as part of their tribal group. No one in england cares about working conditions in china. Everyone understood that they were making a sacrifice for the good of all the english and were willing to make that sacrifice.

3. There was significant state trust: The english are or rather were, one of the most trusting groups of people toward their state and when a program like this is being implemented, people need to believe it will be in their best interests.

None of these factors are likely to exist for an indefinite period of time however unless the state is presented with an Orwellian forever war.

>>6863204
You don't ever read Nietzsche before reading Schopenhauer. And you dont read him before Kant. And it's better not to read Kant without being familliar with Plato. Start with the greeks basically.

>>6861005
try to build a company, fucking pleb

>>6861420
>durruti
>successful

>>6863331
>There is however, one solid example of a large scale marxist state working perfectly.
Central planning had been done long before England was even a "thing". See http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/8/13/central-planning-in-history-the-greek-bronze-age.html

I simply think that central planning in incompatible with the idea of a worker's state.

>>6863357
>durruti
>not murdered by fascist swine-fuckers

>>6863363
Every large multinational corporation is centrally planned, numbnuts.

(And there are plenty of those that are more complex than many sovereign nations.)

>>6863395
>Every large multinational corporation is centrally planned, numbnuts.
Which is totally different than a state doing central planning.

>(And there are plenty of those that are more complex than many sovereign nations.)
They are less complex because they don't have to deal in all the functions the modern state does.

>>6863363
I'm not talking just about central planning and I'm also speaking on a scale much larger than a bronze age era city state. It also needs to be noted that this administration did not include an entire society, rather just the elite of that society. It's the same reason why ancient Athens isn't really a good example of democracy in the way we think about it today.

>>6863395
This>>6863407
Also read
https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company

>>6863001
>There's marxist schools that have much more advanced mathematization than neoclassical economics

'no'

>>6863331
>I love when /lit/ has discussions about econ
get out
>the only other place to discuss econ is /pol/
what is /biz/?

>Anyway, more to the crux of the issue. Marxism is an excellent critique of the capitalist system but has failed to produce a functioning long term state
are you a dilettante by chance?

>>6863407
>Which is totally different than a state doing central planning.
Really? Says who?
>They are less complex because they don't have to deal in all the functions the modern state does.
Really? I dare you to name just one such function, motherfucker.

>all the marxists ITT getting BTFO

It is a mark of how pathetic and narrow minded his disciples are that reflects the lack of depth typical to Marx ideas

>Everyone talking about economics
>Not even a single discussion of Marx's most relevant contributions in his lifetime.

Historical materialism and the later reaction against it (annales school) had a way more important impact than any of Marx's economic theory. Marx was always a better historian and social observer than economist. 18th Brumaire is one of his most engaging works. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

Also I've always wondered why /pol/acks never realized that orthodox Marxism is one of the easiest ways to troll contemporary bourgeoisie identity politics that they rage at. It's quite easy to do and can be done without any ideological commitment. You could just throw the critiques out there to gum everything up.

>>6863851
>/biz/
biz does not have discussions about econ. They have no clue about any macroeconomic system. Most of their threads are get rich quick schemes and aspirational luxury good threads where they talk about shit they want to own to fill the crushingly empty sadness in their hearts.

>>6863856
>Really? Says who?
When a corporation experiences corruption at the top with the managers lining their pockets at the company's expense people can just simply walk away after counting their losses when it falls from bad debt or some other reason. When a centrally planned State experiences corruption at the top with the managers lining their pockets at everyone's expense they can just arrest dissenters and use force to prevent people from leaving.

>Really? I dare you to name just one such function, motherfucker.
They don't have to worry about things like solving unemployment.

>>6860022
>the historical occurrence of an event is justification for that event.
>Marx made ethical claims about capitalism.

Ignore this scared clown.

>>6864268
You're probably right, /pol/ has very little knowledge of politcal theory and many of them are only semi literate. This is no excuse to bring off topic stuff to /lit/ just because the board you have sucks.

Why should I have to suffer because you can't be bothered to clean up your board? you decide to shit up mine.

>>6860022
That part where he tries to make Marx into a liberal in the first chapter.

>>6860622
>implying that disagreeing with a science that is unable to make meaningful predictions is retarded
A few days ago NECSI published a paper which tested their co-movement based market panic predictor against a 25-year data set with 100% success predicting one-day crashes.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131871
>In summary, we compared the predictive utility of our signature of panic to other indicators of systemic risk: volatility, correlations and covariance. For each, we calculated the annual change of each indicator relative to their standard deviation, from 1985 to 2010. We found that they all have some predictive utility with respect to the largest percentage drops of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. However, the four indicators were found to behave differently; only for our model parameter U the prediction generated all cases correctly, i.e. no false positives or false negatives.

>>6863363
>Central planning had been done long before England was even a "thing". See http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/8/13/central-planning-in-history-the-greek-bronze-age.html
Central planning works fine for coordinating large and simple activities. For example, it's great if you want to build some pyramids. To say that it was successful in ancient times is irrelevant to its viability in the modern era. It's like bringing up chariots in a discussion of modern traffic systems.

>>6859922
By understanding that the unemployable and broke Marx had to live with his in-laws in England, or die of starvation.

>>6864355
How?

>>6863904
>being a liberal this BTFO

>>6864347
>announcing you haven't read it

>>6860986
>ur just stoopid xD
This is why people hate leftists. Even when called out on their blatantly illogical standpoints that bear no relation to reality, they'll STILL insist that their opponent is just too dumb to understand their inherently broken philosophy.

>>6864367
Taking some early Stirner-y stuff out of context and trying to wring it for all it's worth.

>>6864344
>people can just simply walk away
Not really. Monopolies and oligopolies are a thing. Example: theoretically, yes, you could exit society and live in the woods and subsist on raw squirrel meat. Realistically, though, Google is a fact of life just like gravity or weather, and you have to deal with it whether you like it or not.

>>6864344
>They don't have to worry about things like solving unemployment.
Bullshit. "Company towns" are inevitable in many industries. E.g., coal mining.

Rest assured that coal mining companies are forced to solve their unemployment problems or collapse.

>>6864394
>Bullshit. "Company towns" are inevitable in many industries. E.g., coal mining.
Managing a town is a lot simpler than managing a country.

>>6864380
incest, dude. All that incest.

>>6864394
>Not really. Monopolies and oligopolies are a thing
And they don't control the entire economy like a centrally planned state would.

>Google is a fact of life just like gravity or weather
You could always use bing or duckduckgo.

>Bullshit. "Company towns" are inevitable in many industries. E.g., coal mining.
They don't care amount solving unemployment for the entire economy nor have to worry about things like some part of them declaring independence followed by a brutal civil war.

It is right to rebel.

You now understand Marxism.

>>6860346
>They went there.
I knew those comics were shit, but...

>>6864403
Managing Microsoft is a lot harder than managing Tuvalu.

The fact is that our corporations are centrally planned while our countries are not, but this is a historical accident, not something immanent to reality. There's no reason why it couldn't be the other way around.

>>6864441
Would it have been right to rebel against Mao, since he was responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of his own countrymen?
>Marxism, not even once

>>6864403
And some company towns, such as the one built by the Pullman company, are (or were) better than most anywhere else to live.

>>6864447
>Managing Microsoft is a lot harder than managing Tuvalu.
Yes because it is a extremely tiny island.

>And some company towns, such as the one built by the Pullman company, are (or were) better than most anywhere else to live.
That doesn't disprove what he said.

>>6860524
No, dipshit. There's no escaping ideology. it's about refining it.

>>6863834
Yes, actually
Your pic is not even very advanced math...
Are you some kind of retarded student that thinks long formulas equates advanced math? Lel.
You should have posted a system of differential equations or optimal control in an intertemporal problem, which is as far as neoclassical economics usually goes.

Not only did analytical marxism use more advanced tools, but a marxist (goodwin) made a model of endogenous cicles with differential equations in the 60's, which is basically more advanced than what neoclassics do today(!).

In any case, the discussion itself is pretty stupid. Formalization grants consistency but often makes you lose pertinence by forcing simplifications.

>>6864447
>Managing Microsoft is a lot harder than managing Tuvalu.
Great, you found a country the size of a town.

>There's no reason why it couldn't be the other way around.
But that's wrong.

>>6864467
I was not attempting to disprove it--only add to it. I'm advocating for smaller, well-planned, highly regulated cities.

>>6864456
Which should signify the relative ease of planning out a town using a control structure built for more complex enterprises.

>>6864516
So something like Singapore?

>>6860788
The funny thing is if a revolution comes, it will be people like you put on the firing wall.

>>6860491
How about someone who remembers Marx and Lenin?

>>6864503
economics BTFO

>>6864527
Singapore is a rather large city-state, in my mind. Conceptually, I'm talking about Coral Gables, Florida (in its initial development up through the 1950s, but not afterwards), Washington, DC (during its City Beautiful-esque revival through the Great Depression), and others that are generally designed around Garden City/City Beautiful principles with some regard given to the ideas of Frederick Olmsted and Ebenezer Howard. Madison, Wisconsin gives me a bit of the impression of a Garden City. Just as well, Portland and Seattle have instituted many of the above principles in their process of urban renewal. I still don't know all that goes into it, I'm still a bit of a pleb when it comes to city planning and design. These are just my impressions.

Attached is my current reading. I'm working on the Jane Jacobs book currently.

>>6864542
Thats a low blow son. I do doubt he understood them or read them as I have heard from a variety of sources including those who served him that he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

>>6864450
How can you rebel against someone who tells you it's right to rebel?

...and the dude who ended famine in China no less.

>>6864552
If you are interested in city planning you may want to check out "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York".

Oppressed poorfag workers exploited by the bourgeoisie (richfags) get angry ad want to throw shit at them in a revolution to establish a new order where equality will be restored.The two have been fighting for a long time

Thats all you need to know

>>6861042

What crap. Even Lenin writes about the positives of ideology, not that there's any escaping it anyway

>>6864555
You know what's a low blow? Financing the Khmer Rouge.

>>6864562

Mao was an incredible character, reading a up-close account of his actions during the great leap forward. The crops were rotting in the fields and people were melting their pots and pans into useless iron because Mao didn't understand how to make steel, but everywhere he travelled peasants would be singing his name and the few viable crops would be transported and lined across his route

>>6864568
I've heard and read a bit about Robert Moses. That book you mentioned is actually on my next purchase list when I will start to narrow down my focus.

>>6864570
Communism isn't the triumph of one class over another. It's the destruction of class by a self-destructing class. The proletariat's final overcoming is over itself.

The failure of workers movements has been this fundamental misconception. Work is something to be abolished (alienated work that produces Value). The value form is what is to be destroyed, the genetic material for social relations between labor and capital.

>>6864604
They continued to finance it in through 80's? For what reason?

>>6864503
Are you retarded? Your pic is hardly complex kek. Do you seriously believe that mainstream economics doesn't deal with endogeneity with differential equations?

>>6864756
>Are you retarded? Your pic is hardly complex kek.
The math used by Roemer is easily more advanced than those used by neoclassics, which was what the discussion was about.

>Do you seriously believe that mainstream economics doesn't deal with endogeneity with differential equations?
It doesn't really. Neoclassical models typically feature dynamic equilibrium, sometimes with stochastic shocks.

>>6863148
If "we" is any of the following countries:
USA
Canada
UK

then no.

>>6864778
>It doesn't really

It does. Look at many of the macroeconomics papers published in journals.

>>6864881
If you are talking about DSGE models, then they certainly don't have endogenous cicles. If you are saying that there's neoclassical models that feature real endogenous cicles outside of the equilibrium, post a link.

>>6864919
Okay, so Goodwin's model has endogenous cycles. One model doesn't make an entire fringe school (analytical Marxism) more complex.

>>6864635
So why produce anything then?

>>6864986
Goodwin isn't an analytical marxist. Analytical marxism is a school from the 80s, this predates them. I mentioned goodwin because it's fucking ridiculous that 50 years later neoclassical economics hasn't been able to incorporate endogenous cicles yet, one of the most important characteristics of the economy in the real world. Only postkeynesians seem to have advanced in that sense. But i guess that incoporating cicles would be admitting we don't live in the panglossian neoclassical world. And analytical marxism uses more advanced math, deal with it. Sorry if it hurts your neoclassical student pride.

>>6865028
You mean one paper uses more advanced math. Analytical Marxism does not.

http://de.arxiv.org/pdf/math/0112213.pdf

http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~rstarr/201/Aumann%20Econometrica%201966.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1911782?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Just a few. I can't be bothered to find more.

>>6860717
You know how hard it is to be a king? Any moron can be a peasant, but it takes intellect to successfully run a nation. If you think your average pleb nation can manage itself youre dulsional.
(those jobs are only "hard" because the work that the citizens/workers could be doing in directing their own lives and work places is all thrown upon a small group of men)

>>6865030
1) I don't think you read my post.
2) Those papers are about social choice theory and game theory, which exist outside of economics (and aren't exclusive to neoclassics anyway, your post is especially ridiculous since analytical marxism actually uses both rational choice and game theory). I'm discussing economic models and theory.

>>6860561
>people who mix up marxian ideology with the term 'ideology' used to define a certain way of thinking, usually political
this has to stop

>>6860995
An marxists have been the ones to write most extensively about it, to a point where they have their own version of it, you could say.
you are confusing unconscious assumptions about the political with the ideas of the ruling class, mostly being fed into every class, so that they support them.

>>6860578
thats retarded
even if you wer living "comftorably" (which you arent) inequality would still be up as a moral dilemma since why should billy get a spaceship while im stuck with an old car from the 50's?

>>6865099
1.) I did
2.) Completely irrelevant. We are discussing the level of mathematics in schools of economic thought. And mainstream economics uses more advanced math, deal with it. Sorry if it hurts your analytical Marxist student pride.

>>6865152
>And mainstream economics uses more advanced math
Are you legit retarded?
>neoclassical economics uses X theories from social sciences
>analytical marxism happens to use X theories from social sciences too
>this proves one has more advanced math than the other.
Analytical marxism uses more advanced math simply because it doesn't limit itself to equilibrium, to continuous functions, or any of the other limiting factors neoclassical ideology carries.

Anyway, i think you've given up rational discussion at this point, and this discussion was stupid to begin with.

Game theory is the cancer of economics and the best example of why formalization can be hurtful to pertinence, and shouldn't have been adopted by either school.

>>6865205
Using different axioms or making less assumptions doesn't make the math more complex. They utilize the same mathematical concepts to derive different conclusions. They are ~equal in regards to mathematical rigor. The cancer of economics is the tendency towards inductive reasoning.

>>6865230
>Using different axioms or making less assumptions doesn't make the math more complex.
Not necessarity but it often does. For example, limiting yourself to equilibrium models rules out nonlinear differential equations. Which is why chaos theory is only used in heterodox economics.

>>6865263
It's all semantics. None of this truly matters. Life is meaningless, and so is this debate. Economics is a fundamentally flawed social science.

>>6860689
>I accept the tentative ideas of the material dialectic
Why?
It becomes blatantly absurd when you take two people groups from vastly different parts of the world with similar economic circumstances. It's lacking recognition of all other factors in historical development are apparent even to children.

>reading the written jew

>>6865139
Not a moral dilemma.