/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10988799]

Why doesnt his work interest me at all?

[Anonymous No.10988853]

>>10988799
cause it's false, pretentious and tedious.

[Anonymous No.10988856]

>>10988799
Do you benefit from the current economic order

[Anonymous No.10988859]

>>10988856
No

[Anonymous No.10988861]

>>10988859
Are you sure

[Anonymous No.10988872]

>>10988861
Well, I do as much as all the people who are interested in his work do
Can you be more specific?

[Anonymous No.10988880]

>>10988872
>all the people
Thats dumb
Some people*
ftfm

[Anonymous No.10988885]

>>10988872
Who built the roads?

[Anonymous No.10988890]

>>10988885
People who were paid to do it

[Anonymous No.10988943]

>>10988799
Probably because you're a retard who watches too much Fox News.

[Anonymous No.10988951]

>>10988943
But I don't

[Anonymous No.10988964]

>>10988861
There are people who actually has a good or at least liveable life, dumb marxist

[Anonymous No.10988988]

>>10988885
The contractors from my local NAP-syndicate.

They had to shoot down a machine gun caravan while doing it, but they held their ground and defended my new road, so I paid them an extra twinkie.

[Anonymous No.10988994]

>>10988799
Why would anyone be interested in something that has been repeatedly proven false at the cost of millions of lives? Only academics divorced from the real world pay Marx any mind.

[Anonymous No.10989005]

>>10988943
durrr

[Anonymous No.10989006]

>>10988994
>Why would anyone be interested in something that has been repeatedly proven false at the cost of millions of lives?
>It's OK when Capitalism does it

[Anonymous No.10989022]

>>10989006
Nice false dichotomy. And no-one lives in a Capitalist state so it's doubly irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10989026]

>Anon makes Marx thread
>i'm not interested hurr
>u must watch fox news durr

This is the state of 4chan's analysis.

[Anonymous No.10989033]

>>10989006

WTF, I'm moving to Venezuela/Cuba/North Korea now!

[Anonymous No.10989039]

Is there any theory that addresses the fact that people don't wanna be saved? I know there's the old expression 'people feel comfortable in their chains', but at this point people are well aware of the insane exploitation occurring across the world. What is the point of dedicating your life to saving the average dickhead would do nothing for you and yet can't even save themselves from capitalist exploitation? Is there any reason why martyrs and doomed men should toil away for their entire existence while the people they are trying to "save" spit on them and renounce them? It seems to me at this point that epic "proletariat" will literally eat shit and still call you a faggot for mentioning the shit.

[Anonymous No.10989041]

>>10988943
I know it's off topic but Fox News is so fucking pathetic. Just reading about them makes me a bit angry. Apparently yesterday instead of reporting about Trump's lawyer's office getting raided by the FBI they were covering some bullshit about pandas. How fucking shitty can this country be? It's infuriating.

[Anonymous No.10989042]

>>10989039
>I've just read Atlas Shrugged and I've gotta do something about it, the post

[Anonymous No.10989049]

>>10989042
Nah fuck you mate, I'm still a leftist and I was asking a genuine question. It just feels like the whole thing is so hopeless sometimes and people are so fucking cruel and terrible. But whatever xD he must read Ayn Rand if he even questions why the proletariat is so fetishised.

[Anonymous No.10989050]

>>10989039
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

[Anonymous No.10989071]

Marx is outdated and it shows, plus he really was a neet and thus didn't know what he was talking about.
If you want a proper understanding of non-capitalist mindset, then read Murray Bookchin.

But to your original question: you're not interested because you're not, there's no reason to BE interested other than curiosity, if you're not curious about it enough to get into it, you're not going to get into it. As long as you are happy to believe whatever you are already believing, which includes "marxism is wrong" then you are never going to get interested, because it's more satisfying to feel correct than it is to actually do work and learn something.

In the end, you'll probably find you don't agree with him.
I don't agree with him. But the difference is, I know WHY I don't agree with him, and all you have is a vague superficial assurance based on social pressure.

[Anonymous No.10989080]

>>10989050
I'm aware of ideology, I've read Althusser. I guess I'm just questioning the futility of it all at a time when the left just seems more concerned with maintaining some sort of puritanical image of who can say the least naughty things meanwhile everyone around them thinks they are straight up retarded. I mean honestly how is the average leftist supposed to inspire a worker's revolution when they probably couldn't talk to the average worker for more than 10 minutes without said worker trying to kill themselves? Why the fuck would you lay down your life because some suburbanite furry with a Lenin fetish talked to you about Judith Butler.

[Anonymous No.10989090]

>>10989033
>Venezuela is socialist
>Cuba is a bad place to live
Why do we allow Americans on this board again?

[Anonymous No.10989092]

>>10989039
>>10989049
>Is there any theory that addresses the fact that people don't wanna be saved?
>Jean Baudrillard
>Jacques Ellul
>Christopher Lasch
>Neil Postman
>Karl Marx
>Rene Guenon
>Julius Evola
>Nick Land
>Rene Girard
Read all of these authors and synthesize your own theory why we are all so irrevocably fucked.

[Anonymous No.10989109]

>>10989090

>tcc un europeo sin idea te quiere sermonear sobre tu gente

jaja

[Anonymous No.10989113]

>>10989092
Thank you this is what I'm looking for. I read Simulacra and Simulation a few years ago and I've read some Marx but the rest of these I haven't delved into.

[Anonymous No.10989124]

>>10989109
La gente que viene de Venezuela a mi país viene con hambre...

[Anonymous No.10989125]

>>10989109
>>10989090

Mestizo...

[Anonymous No.10989129]

>>10989124

Y por supuesto, claro que un gringo retrasado que vive con plata de papi nunca va a entender esas cosas.

[Anonymous No.10989136]

>>10989080
>how is the average leftist supposed to inspire a worker's revolution
You're not, according to Marx. The revolution occurs naturally.

[Anonymous No.10989141]

>>10989136
>...any day now

[Anonymous No.10989152]

>>10989141
You just have to accelerate le capitalism

[Anonymous No.10989171]

>>10989152
*mr burns voice* exceeelleeent

[Anonymous No.10989185]

>>10989129
Por lo menos la plata de papi vale algo acá

[Anonymous No.10989210]

>>10988799
Because you are not retarded

[Anonymous No.10989219]

>>10989033
None of those countries are socialist. Don't be an idiot. What I don't understand is why don't they try? I'm sure the people in power are aware everything is going to shit. Why instead of sinking with the ship don't they try to create an actual socialist country? With the oil money Venezuela could literally turn into a socialist utopia in a few years if they tried.

[Anonymous No.10989220]

>>10988799

He was certifiably insane and there have been better “historical materialists” for decades now. Try Schumpeter, Tainter, etc.

[Anonymous No.10989225]

>>10989219

Meh bait.

[Anonymous No.10989237]

>>10989219
Bait, but because America would rather nuke them before that happening. Not to mention their politicians are corrupt to the core and don't actually know anything about real socialism.

[Anonymous No.10989259]

>>10989219
kek

[Anonymous No.10989262]

>>10989219
Because power corrupts.

[Anonymous No.10989269]

>>10989219
Because people don't want socialism, they think they do, but they really don't

[Anonymous No.10989285]

>>10989269
>Because people don't want socialism, they think they do, but they really don't

didn't trump win because he said he wouldn't touch boomer's medicare and social security

[Anonymous No.10989314]

>>10989285
trump won because he signalled to white people that he was their guy, while everybody else shit on white people

[Anonymous No.10989335]

>>10989285
Maduro doesn't win since 2013

[Anonymous No.10989390]

>>10989219
North Korea might actually be trying, they're so isolated we couldn't really know, Juche is kind of interesting desu, but i can see how it's a recipe for disaster, the region doesn't really have the resources necessary to modernize like the rest of the world has.
Anyway a lot has been written about international socialism vs socialism in one state. The classical position is that global trade has unified the world to such an extent that the workers as a class are essentially nation-less. Capital travels almost seamlessly across borders, whereas workers are confined by their respective states. Im paraphrasing badly, but the argument against socialism in one state follows from that, the engine of global trade would eventually crush you, see North Korea.
Even if you wanted to be a little more pragmatic than that, like in China's case, you still end up as a State Capitalist economy in order to operate on that existing global stage.

[Anonymous No.10989471]

>>10989071
Redpill me on Bookchin. Why should I read this book if I'm interested in politics?

[Anonymous No.10989495]

>>10989006
Except capitalism works in quite a few countries without ending in people dying because of it in those countries. More specifically New Zealand, Iceland, Hong Kong, and Singapore are all very safe and easy to live in unlike non-capitalist countries which are never easy or nice to live in

[Anonymous No.10989499]

>>10988799

You're a capitalist-supporting cuckold who should be gulaged.

[Anonymous No.10989519]

>>10988799
>Why doesn't his work interest me at all?
Because you have been fooled by the idiots whom his philosophy appeals to that it's so simple and crude that you can learn nothing from it, and even trying is a colossal waste of time.

Marx was truly a genius, and precipitated the most destructive cult of ressentiment in human history. Unfortunately, he connects strongly to the vulgar hero complex inside every single person. The Communist Manifesto is a masterful work of rhetoric. His style actually reminds me a lot of Hitler's speeches.

[Anonymous No.10989533]

>>10988799
It's largely garbage that's why, you'll find that while conceptually his arguments hold a value the reality is that they are pointless outside of theorizing.

[Anonymous No.10989534]

>>10989495
>Hong Kong, and Singapore are all very safe and easy to live in
if you're rich maybe lmao
In hong kong for instance you have people living basically as slaves at the dregs of society,

[Anonymous No.10989543]

>>10989219
Unironically because all of those dictators are secretly supported by USA and other imperialist powers to make socialism look bad. The last thing they want is for the workers to realize there's a better alternative to capitalism.

[Anonymous No.10989549]

>>10989495
Pretty sure you're a first worlder to say this, only first worlders would say something like that

[Anonymous No.10989572]

>>10989285
>MUH DRUMPF
There isn't a politician alive that would suggest touching medicare and social security while running for election, you stupid child.

[Anonymous No.10989580]

>>10989519
>5 years in Serbia
failed before it even began

[Anonymous No.10989588]

>Americans confusing socialism with state capitalism and a welfare state

Can you go back to eating your deep fried butter and let adults talk now?

[Anonymous No.10989609]

>>10989580
kek, i didn't make it. I saved it purely for 'epileptic retard brain'

[Anonymous No.10989613]

>>10989495
Holy fuck nigger, go South of Auckland CBD and tell me New Zealand is 'safe and easy to live in'

[Anonymous No.10989617]

"No men does a revolution to liberate"
Orwell

[Anonymous No.10989627]

>>10989609
Fun fact, Dosto had religious visions because of his epilepsy, it can cause powerful hallucinations in rare cases. I'm sort of envious.

[Anonymous No.10989628]

>>10989617
when the revolution comes ill turn 360 degrees and walk away

[Anonymous No.10989640]

>>10988799
You probably have an IQ over 120 or under 80

[Anonymous No.10989645]

>>10988799
>Marx
>work
that works on so many levels, leave it to a faggot who didn't work a day in his life to lecture on what working people ought to dothe second pun is that his philosophy itself doesn't function, it never works

[Anonymous No.10989676]

>>10989471
His writtings have inspired Kurdish leadership and he was very preoccupied with environmentalism which is now more of a mainstream political issue than ever before.

So he has actually been becoming more and more relevant over the last 10 or 20 years, despite being pretty underground during his lifetime.

[Anonymous No.10989685]

>>10988799
He is just Fauerbach brainliticized

[Anonymous No.10989691]

>>10989676
The Kurds are losing tho.

[Anonymous No.10989704]

>>10989390
But why a socialist nation needs to be highly developed? If a country tried real socialism even if it were "poor" or "undeveloped" compared to the neoliberal countries it would still be better than anything that Marx could have dreamed back then.

[Anonymous No.10989721]

>>10989704
Socialism is not economically viable. The economy is built bottom up once the required infrastructure and conditions are given. At the end economics is just the supply and logistics of material needs to a population, and as such it requires a level of specialization that can't be planned throughly. A planned economy can't react to market demands and changes in time and as such a black market will always appear. Don't bring up market socialism. It is just a retarded concept that relies on goverment concessions creating pseudo-guilds

[Anonymous No.10989801]

>>10989041
That's Tucker for you. The guy is a russian shill. I wouldn't be impressed if Putin himself told him what to say. There's a reason why /pol/ likes him so much.

[Anonymous No.10989922]

>>10989627
Sort of related, but have you read anything out of A Writer's Diary? I heard toward the end of his life, his mental problems caused him to publish some pretty extreme religious beliefs.

[Anonymous No.10989956]

>>10989704
>why a socialist nation needs to be highly developed
Again, because global trade is so far advanced, well beyond Marx's time even, it would be crushed by a more advanced capitalist economy. Like, best case scenario there is that it becomes a completely insular state, which is both not great for citizens and not likely to be tolerated by the international community unless you're sitting on no real resources (in which case good luck becoming self-sufficient)
That's why I mentioned North Korea before, because I can't see a situation where it doesn't necessitate some Juche levels of isolationism which needless to say, is unlikely to turn out well

[Anonymous No.10989967]

>>10989022
>capitalism means muh free market
>socialism is when the governement does stuff

[Anonymous No.10990187]

>>10989471
He's fucking BASED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1rvIRtb1AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnj3dObd6do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJHCTfVMadc

[Anonymous No.10990287]

>>10988799
probably because you're not jewish or a faggot (congrats btw)

[Anonymous No.10990346]

>>10989721
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.10990714]

>>10990187
Entry-level. See you on the flip-side, political virgin.

[Anonymous No.10990715]

>>10989071
>Marx was a NEET
So was Bookchin for half of his life as an imaginary professor and wiseman of the bygone picket lines, complaining about how he met all the Situationists, and yelling at Hakim Bey for being a pedo.

[Anonymous No.10990817]

>>10990715
Yeah, well, my grandma was a NEET after she was 62, as well.
What the fuck kind of criticism is "well he didn't do ENOUGH of the right KIND of work"
Last I checked teaching is an actual job too.

My point was that he worked in a Foundry and an Auto factory through the 40s.
I know from experience that this kind of work is super hard on you, I spent many years doing 12 hour shifts in a factory in the 2000s, and you know what man, that shit was even MORE dangerous and shitty back in his day.

[Anonymous No.10990818]

>>10988853
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10990878]

>>10988799
because it's the same shitty concept that he applies to everything. when you read it you're just reading the same thing over and over again.

[Anonymous No.10990891]

Pessimistic communism is a pretty defensible position. I can think that Marxist socioeconomic critique is correct without hoping that the self-abolition of the proletariat will ever actually happen. I think that important movements could happen in the third world, but I'm too cowed by the expert ability of western governments to appropriate and kill radical ideas.

In any case, only a complete retard would deny the great strides in labour rights and political freedoms made as a direct result of the socialist movement. Early USSR was the most progressive state in history, and the unionizing efforts it caused benefitted the material interests of any wage worker in the west. The New Deal was a compromise to hold off communists giving the US burgeoisie a much worse deal. Also, I'm from ex-Yugoslavia and the anti-communist propaganda slides off of me like water, I'd trust my family's experiences far more than some neoliberal puppet today. The proles had an objectively better condition and a better culture.

[Anonymous No.10990900]

>>10990891
This is some high level bait.

[Anonymous No.10990901]

>he was NEET so he's wrong

What is with this dumb argument? You can apply this to most intellectuals. You need ample leisure time to actually produce something of worth intellectually in the first place. Do you think Marx could have written as much as he did if he had to work?

[Anonymous No.10990911]

>>10988799
Probably because you're a fucked up ideologue who doesn't really care about philosophy but is instead obsessed by """politics""".

Try studying his Materialism.

[Anonymous No.10990919]

>>10990900
How about you respond to any particular claim? I came to my position after reading a lot of economic theory, historical research and reflection, it was not at all easy to switch from the comfy position of social democracy to Marxism. It definitely causes me a lot of social conflict whenever I bring it up, and it's lost me some friends. I'd be delighted to retreat to the reformist left, but I just think their cause is hopeless. A socialist economy is more efficient and provides a higher living standard given the same level of technological development - any comparative statistic of socialist countries will prove this.

[Anonymous No.10991113]

>>10989071
>and all you have is a vague superficial assurance based on social pressure.
Everyone in college thinks he is like some sort of ultimate philosopher

[Anonymous No.10991123]

>>10988859
>saying you don't benefit from the current economic world order on your slave made device on the internet

Please reconsider.

[Anonymous No.10991124]

>>10990911
I really don't care about politics at all
I care about the greeks

[Anonymous No.10991125]

>>10991123
See >>10988872

[Anonymous No.10991129]

>>10991125
I gave a specific example desu femme.

You're likely a first world Westener and in the top 10% of wealthy people

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

check it out

[Anonymous No.10991131]

>>10991129
I'm middle class spic

[Anonymous No.10991133]

>>10989041
Two scoops.

[Anonymous No.10991141]

>>10991131
that's still pretty good i'd say, living off of of of the same cheap Chinese tech labour and Bangladeshi t-shirt extravaganzas

I'm a first world welfare neet but profiting nicely from being in the top rich bully countries

[Anonymous No.10991210]

>>10990346
Why does he look like he just got shot in the cock?

[Anonymous No.10991365]

>>10989967
Socialism requires goverment intervention to crush an underground economy that doesn't adhere to its principles

[Anonymous No.10991378]

>>10990919
>social democracy to Marxism.
You went from shit to autistic horseshit. Both theories are brainlet tier and hardly have a grasp on economics. Pick up some ordoliberals and all your meme believes would fall like a house of cards

[Anonymous No.10991382]

>>10990919
>socialist countries
wut? where?

[Anonymous No.10991385]

>>10989039
Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher provides a very solid answer for why many people don't feel as if they have any choice regarding living within a capitalist world

[Anonymous No.10991401]

>>10988799
Leftovers of theology, nonetheless with a redeeming strain of a deep scrutiny of 19 century's economies. Modern people who never read Hegel will never fully understand what it all was about.

[Anonymous No.10991435]

>>10991365
Every sane form of economy requires a government to keep it in check, retard.

[Anonymous No.10991443]

>>10991435
>Every sane form of economy requires a government to keep it in check, retard.
One thing is keeping the economy running and the other one is repressing economic activity so it adheres to your definition of production. Socialism requires the latter, and that is why you always have an undeeground economy in socialist countries

[Anonymous No.10991449]

>>10990891
I feel this heavily anon

[Anonymous No.10991459]

>>10991443
You have black markets in capitalist countries too though.

[Anonymous No.10991467]

>>10991443
That depends on your cute assumption that economic activity is a natural phenomenon in capitalism, but any other form is unnatural/repressed. Not hard to argue from such an axiom. Sorry to burst your bubble though, but public ownership is historically far more prevalent than private ownership.

[Anonymous No.10991475]

>>10991459
>You have black markets in capitalist countries too though
In very undeveloped/undercapitalized economies. In advanced capitalist countries the only black market is related to drugs or prostitution which comes from a ban on those things,not the incapacy of the economy to provide those.
On the other hand in East Germany or Czechoslovakia (highly capitalized regions that turned their economy into a socialist one) you had black markets for practically anything from food,to clothes or books.

[Anonymous No.10991482]

>>10990901
>Do you think Marx could have written as much as he did if he had to work?
No, but some of what he wrote might then have been grounded in reality.

[Anonymous No.10991497]

>>10991467
>That depends on your cute assumption that economic activity is a natural phenomenon in capitalism, but any other form is unnatural/repressed
In a capitalist society any person is allowed to enter any market under his own responsability. In socialism you need the state to give you a grant at best, and at worst you will just have to work in what they tell you to
>Sorry to burst your bubble though, but public ownership is historically far more prevalent than private ownership.
In a primitive economy were the only economic activity is farming such a simple organization makes sense. In a heavily industrial society it is just a wet dream. Bringing up neolithic villages as an example of economic activity is simply put stupid and there is a reason why the most advanced economies were the ones with a thriving bourgouise like England or the Netherlands while countries that supressed those groups of people like France or Spain end up turning up to Colbertism, which is still miles better than socialism from an economic point of view

[Anonymous No.10991511]

>>10988799
How would I know that? Maybe no political or economic writing interests you, how the fuck would I know.

[Anonymous No.10991546]

>>10991497
any person is able to enter any market under his own responsibility
That's precisely why excessive market liberalisation is bad - the arbitrariness of the labour market, your whole livelihood is based on unforeseen forces and movements in the economy. This causes incredible social unrest and insecurity, unless it's softened by public spending, and it's by far the main cause of social dissolution under neoliberal policy. We don't NEED to have an economic system where everyone has to make it or break it individually - even the poorer socialist countries provided full employment, state-subsidised vacation and housing, universal acess to public goods etc. to their citizens. Is finding work a privilege of the current state in the labour market, or a universal right which is managed by rationally distributing socially necessary labour? I pick the latter, I'd rather have the spooky state instead of constant wage insecurity and corporate domination thanks.

[Anonymous No.10991599]

>>10991378
>and hardly have a grasp on economics
how to spot a brainlet

Böhm-Bawerk was BTFO by Bukharin a long time ago btw

[Anonymous No.10991610]

>>10991599
Economics is a science, while also being social philosophy. You need to understand integrating factors to comprehend most economic analysis. And I’m not even talking econometrics, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10991612]

I can't take his work seriously due to how much of an ironic pop culture symbol he's becoming. It's just too sincere for me to deal with.

[Anonymous No.10991619]

>>10991610
>Economics is a science
that's what pomos believe

[Anonymous No.10991635]

>>10991546
>That's precisely why excessive market liberalisation is bad - the arbitrariness of the labour market, your whole livelihood is based on unforeseen forces and movements in the economy. This causes incredible social unrest and insecurity, unless it's softened by public spending, and it's by far the main cause of social dissolution under neoliberal policy
The labour market has to adapt to new capital and the advancement of the economy. This isn't the X century were you knew that you,your son and your great grandson will be peasants. Unless you believe in luddism you simply believe in an utopia. People are not only labour free in capitalist societies, they can save and invest freely which most people usually forget about. You should be able to adapt to market changes if you had been responsible with your wealth
>We don't NEED to have an economic system where everyone has to make it or break it individually - even the poorer socialist countries provided full employment, state-subsidised vacation and housing, universal acess to public goods etc. to their citizens. Is finding work a privilege of the current state in the labour market, or a universal right which is managed by rationally distributing socially necessary labour? I pick the latter, I'd rather have the spooky state instead of constant wage insecurity and corporate domination thanks.
You do if you want to trade and be incorporated in global trade. Socialist economies relied on huge tariffs and USSR subsudies to keep their inneficient economies from collapsing. In the 80's a country like the Czechoslovakia which was as wealthy as Austria when WWII broke out didn't even have a 10% of Austria's GDP per capita and an economy that was worthless for trade making their aquisition of foreign currencies and thus imports extremelly expensive. Socialism is not viable unless it is applied internationally and on a global scale,and even then it would be a really inefficient system of production

[Anonymous No.10991751]

>>10991635
>You should be able to adapt to market changes if you had been responsible with your wealth
I really can't take this argument seriously, you've based your argument off of some weird ass model where the labor market is a bunch of comfortable suburbanites who enter into the model with an excess of wealth and educational opportunity that allows them to pick and choose their education and employment at will like some kind of DnD character.Whereas in reality we've seen time and again that the capitalist mode of production concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands without government intervention

[Anonymous No.10991804]

>>10991751
>I really can't take this argument seriously, you've based your argument off of some weird ass model where the labor market is a bunch of comfortable suburbanites who enter into the model with an excess of wealth and educational opportunity that allows them to pick and choose their education and employment at will like some kind of DnD character.Whereas in reality we've seen time and again that the capitalist mode of production concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands without government intervention
Personal wealth has been increasing steadly since the postwar period and most families in the west can afford holidays abroad,a house of their own, to safe plenty of money monthly and to invest. The accumulation of wealth is mostly a myth. The assets of rich people increasing doesn't really mean that they have more disposable wealth, it means that their companies are doing well and so do their shares. Big companies doing well translates into better paid jobs as you can check in any stadistic. There is a reason why their is a strong correlation between a countries multinationals and the wealth of the country as a whole. Stop reading trash like Piketty and actually try to interpret data, not just put everything in terms of a huge zero-sum game

[Anonymous No.10991940]

>>10991804
>everything in terms of a huge zero-sum game
Did you just imply that resources are infinite?
>More people than ever in a single part of the world can afford to buy houses and take vacations
Hardly means that that wealth didn't come from somewhere else. Besides, do you have a source for this? Because last I checked home ownership amongst younger generations hasn't exactly been exploding. And equity has plummeted in the last generation

[Anonymous No.10991944]

>>10990891
This is true, I'm enjoying these NEETbux because the government was scared to death of communism becoming popular with the proles in Western Europe and started expanding the welfare state to curb revolutionary sentiment.

Thanks based Soviets.

[Anonymous No.10991971]

>>10991940
>Did you just imply that resources are infinite?
Not all wealth comes from natural resources
>Hardly means that that wealth didn't come from somewhere else. Besides, do you have a source for this? Because last I checked home ownership amongst younger generations hasn't exactly been exploding. And equity has plummeted in the last generation
Global poverty has plummeted in the last 50 years. Your argument is based on pure feels. And house ownership amongst the youth is lower because they are flocking big cities thus rising property prices in them. They can still afford a life style much superior to the one of a Belarussian steal worker in the 70's

[Anonymous No.10991984]

>>10990891
I unironically think people don't deserve socialism desu


>>10991971
Why are you conflating relative poverty with absolute poverty?

[Anonymous No.10991991]

>>10988853
>False
Damn Marx btfo by some random internet shit poster

[Anonymous No.10991995]

>>10988799
We're not mind readers faggot how am I supposed to know what you like and don't like do you really need strangers on the internet to tell you everything?

[Anonymous No.10992008]

>>10991991
>not false
damn Marx defended by some random internet shitposter

[Anonymous No.10992035]

>>10991984
>Why are you conflating relative poverty with absolute poverty?
Relative poverty has also decreased globally

[Anonymous No.10992091]

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2014/09/01/great-poverty-reduction-hoax/

Yeah, if you continually redefine the notion of poverty, then poverty has decreased however much it needs to.

[Anonymous No.10992245]

>>10988853
wholesome post

[Anonymous No.10992306]

>>10990891
>Also, I'm from ex-Yugoslavia and the anti-communist propaganda slides off of me like water, I

[Anonymous No.10992313]

>>10989572
Missing the point: the post.

[Anonymous No.10992390]

>>10991984
>Why are you conflating relative poverty with absolute poverty?
I started this discussion by objecting to the notion that the labor market is a happy voluntary system where everyone responsible makes money and doesn't run afoul of shifting demands. I'd argue that the disparity of resources and conflicting interests between employers and laborers creates a very coercive system regardless of wherever or not they both own a refrigerator.
The best predictor of wealth is how rich your parents were, because in the real world you have to be sitting on a sizable amount of wealth to meaningfully negotiate with a guy who could buy out your family with his grocery bill. Your average person born poor doesn't have the leverage

[Anonymous No.10992409]

>>10992390
Meant for
>>10991971

[Anonymous No.10992488]

>>10992035
So then why didn't you say that earlier instead of shifting the topic to absolute poverty? And no relative poverty is on the rise as wealth disparity is increasing.

[Anonymous No.10994530]

>>10989090
>thinking Cuba is a good place to live
sincerely i hope you fucking kill yourself

t. Cuban expat

[Anonymous No.10994558]

>>10991610
>Economics is a science
lmao

[Anonymous No.10994570]

>>10992488
>as wealth disparity is increasing.
that's because the rich are getting richer. the poor aren't getting poorer

[Anonymous No.10994929]

>>10989136
There is no proof of a falling rate of profit, it's basically empirically impossible to calculate. Your whole revolution is contingent on that economic trend, and there's no indication it's happening.

[Anonymous No.10994952]

>>10990901
I mean no one in modern academia really takes Rothbard or Rand seriously. There's this little thing that happened in economics called the neo-classical synthesis and you aspie leftists can't process that other people besides hardcore ancaps and fascists exist. General Theory's much more important/influential than Capital. As for Friedman, he's probably the second most important economist of the 20th century. Engulf a chode

[Anonymous No.10994958]

>>10990901
The point is that no one in the real world gives a shit about what a few larping revolutionaries say about capitalism online.

[Anonymous No.10994959]

>>10994530
>wahhh wahh they didn't let me exploit people on my plantation
Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.10994962]

>>10991141
Wages for sweatshop workers are actually higher than other local jobs lmao.

[Anonymous No.10994969]

>>10988799
>A socialist economy is more efficient and provides a higher living standard given the same level of technological development - any comparative statistic of socialist countries will prove this.

[Anonymous No.10994974]

>>10994969
not meant for OP

[Anonymous No.10994997]

>>10991751
read Burkhauser's paper on inequality little man

[Anonymous No.10995959]

>>10988799
Because it is nothing but ressentiment and you can feel that.

[Anonymous No.10997473]

>>10988943
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.10998750]

>>10988799
Because his work leads to destruction of culture, tradition and eventually civilization

[Anonymous No.10999487]

>>10988799
Your question is ambiguous. Have you tried reading his work but found it dull and boring? Or have you been too uninterested to even try reading it?

He does have a reputation for a dull and wordy writing style, and his conclusions are garbage due to his overreliance on the labour theory of value. But despite all that he had an innovative methodology, so his work's worth reading if you have a professional or historical interest.

[Anonymous No.10999509]

>>10994929
Rate of profit shouldn't be too hard to calculate because taxation law requires profits to be reported to the government.

AIUI it's currently rising.

>>10989136
If it occurs naturally then it's more likely to be evolution than revolution.

[Anonymous No.10999516]

>>10998750

[Anonymous No.10999801]

>>10988799
You probably have a job.

[Anonymous No.10999958]

>>10989645
This.
Also a butthurt faggot NEETjew santa claus that got baited so hard that he even wrote a whole fucking book trying to refute Stirner and failed miserably,truly a pathetic little bitch preaching falsehoods for dumb goys while sucking Engels cock daily for a living smhTBQHWYFAM...

[Anonymous No.11000033]

>>10990187
>That pic with that quote.

Woah! Dude thats deep AF!!! *rips bong*, hell yea! what a visionary "Bookchin"(fucking anime name character) was , truly a gentleman and a scholar of the highest degree! Praise the leftist "thinkers".

[Anonymous No.11000105]

>>10990346
>muh quantum cumpooping
Come back to me when he actually addresses Mises's argument instead of sidestepping it.

[Anonymous No.11000400]

>>10991984
>Why are you conflating relative poverty with absolute poverty?
As a materialist, wouldn't absolute poverty be of greater concern to you as well?