So, what did really he say?

[Anonymous No.13482185]

Can we come to a consensus?
What were his critiques of capitalism?
How did he think it would be solved?

[Anonymous No.13482189]

>>13482185
Oogga booga me want power and free shit
I'm a Jew btw :3

[Anonymous No.13482228]

>>13482185
no, "we" can't because "we" don't read.

[Anonymous No.13482262]

>>13482185

[Anonymous No.13482280]

Marx Fast Facts!

>Hegelian dialectician
>but thinks the deep logic of production relations, whose manifestations are the visible economic functions of a society, is the real dialectic, as opposed to the self-conscious "life of spirit" (e.g. in bourgeois Hegelians like Feuerbach)
>the production relations of a society structure the conditions of possibility of its thought and its forms of life, including (to a great extent) its supposedly self-conscious culture
>supposedly self-conscious culture is therefore based on unconscious structures and conditions for what is possible to think/think about
>and because the logic of certain production relations structurally favors certain classes, those classes will naturally tend to monopolize culture and use it to promote their own ideology (which is invariably the maintenance of their class status)
>but the logic of class relations is dialectical, meaning it contains inner contradictions and is not in equilibrium
>Feuerbach: "The dialectic moves forward as people are able to understand its contradictions. When the existing contradictions are understood, it means that Spirit is moving beyond them." Marx: "No, the point of history is not only to understand the existing contradictions, but to actually move beyond them through concrete action. The bourgeois monopolization of capital and its cultural concomitants (wage-slavery, the unconscious reduction of the whole world to money-value, etc.) can be dissolved and a higher stage of civilization with more rational production relations can be reached through organization and action."
>was not meta-historical, was just interested in describing bourgeois capitalism as it appeared in the west as a real historical phenomenon
>did not presume his "system" had the final say on how reality works, engels writes in a letter that marx was just interested in giving people "tools" for thinking
>hated jews, thought jews were the golems of capitalism
>called people niggers regularly

[Anonymous No.13482501]

>>13482185
Marx thinks that his theory of value implies that capitalism is unsustainable in the long run. The basic idea is that as an economy approaches total automation, there will be intense downward pressure on the rate of profit, which will ultimately lead to a series of increasingly severe economic crises / class antagonism.

[Anonymous No.13482520]

Casual reminder that the discovery of Gobekli Tepe upends the whole theoretical foundations of Marxism by showing that contrary to what is preached by historical materialism, the superstructure precedes the economic base.

The only reason why Marxism wasn't completely destroyed by this discovery the way Christianity was destroyed theologically by heliocentrism and evolution is because they were never intellectual honest in the first place.

[Anonymous No.13482544]

>>13482185

Killing capitalists and the cuckolds that support them.

[Anonymous No.13482988]

He said that marxism is when whxte people end up in gulags and everyone takes fem hormones to become a hot tap

[Anonymous No.13483073]

>>13482185
The good- Wrote his thesis on Epicurus and Hegel. Did his research. All that information filtered through an adept philosophers head is bound to be a fucking hammer.

The bad- Grossly tried to pull a Moses in Europe. Was so excited about what he was thinking about he literally thought he was gonna pull up on a pale white horse and trample the industrial revolution with some books.

The ugly- swindled everybody in his personal life from megalomania. Bankrupted his best friend, had child with his servant while his family was in poverty. Ugliest of all, and most unforgivable, 1.) his misattribution of Fichte idea <thesis-antithesis-synthesis> that was not Hegels, and stripping Hegels dialectic of it’s real markers- Art, Religion and Philosophy. Marx was an ungrateful bastard and a meme

[Anonymous No.13483110]

>>13482501
>The basic idea is that as an economy approaches total automation, there will be intense downward pressure on the rate of profit, which will ultimately lead to a series of increasingly severe economic crises / class antagonism.
So he has been proven wrong for 150+ years running?
As we have seen an enormous increase in automation, but very little class antagonism, the only "major" one being the Russian revolution which lasted 3 generations and collapsed in itself, although the drastic amount of automation should have increased class antagonism world wide.
And neither did their happen any crash meaningful enough to threaten the global order.

Why does anyone take him seriously at all?
He seems to have been empirically disproven.

[Anonymous No.13483134]

>>13483110
>Why does anyone take him seriously at all? He seems to have been empirically disproven.
Read Lukács
>Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders. It is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or ‘improve’ it have led and must lead to over-simplification, triviality and eclecticism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm

[Anonymous No.13483149]

>>13483110
>So he has been proven wrong for 150+ years running?
there's no time-frame for his belief that capitalism will be overthrown. that's why it's not one of the testable predictions generated by the theory, and cannot be empirically falsified.
>Why does anyone take him seriously at all? >He seems to have been empirically disproven.
you'd have to point to one of the specific testable predictions generated by the theory and show how it's been empirically disconfirmed.

[Anonymous No.13484257]

>>13482520
>base
>superstructure
this is just bullshit cultural studies "marxism" ie Gramsci

[Anonymous No.13484295]

>>13482520
also from the first two paragraphs on the wikipedia article for "Base and superstructure"
>While the relation of the two parts is not strictly unidirectional, as the superstructure often affects the base, the influence of the base is predominant. Marx and Engels warned against such economic determinism.[1]
>Marx's "base determines superstructure" axiom, however, requires qualification:
>the base is the whole of productive relationships, not only a given economic element, e.g. the working class
>historically, the superstructure varies and develops unevenly in society's different activities; for example, art, politics, economics, etc.
>the base–superstructure relationship is reciprocal; Engels explains that the base determines the superstructure only in the last instance.[5]
if you don't want to read a book you can at least read a fucking wikipedia page before shitting up the board

[Anonymous No.13485583]

>>13482185
>So, what did really he say?

1) That inequality in outcome comes from pure, unadulterated exploitation and not because of individual differences.
2) Only tangible labor has value (e.g., working with your hands, not your brain).
3) Criminality comes purely from socioeconomic factors and not because of individual psychopathy
4) Property should be distributed based on "need" and work distributed based on "ability", which basically means the most needy and lazy gets the least work and the most property while the hardworking and less needy people get the short end of the stick.
5) Using violence is okay to obtain what you want.

[Anonymous No.13485763]

>>13485583
>1) That inequality in outcome comes from pure, unadulterated exploitation and not because of individual differences.
never said this
>2) Only tangible labor has value (e.g., working with your hands, not your brain).
never said this
>3) Criminality comes purely from socioeconomic factors and not because of individual psychopathy
never said this
>4) Property should be distributed based on "need" and work distributed based on "ability",
suggested this as a lower form of communism, not the end goal
>5) Using violence is okay to obtain what you want.
was amoral in his treatment of revolutionary violence

[Anonymous No.13485782]

>>13482280
Why did communism become so socially liberal, if he was so based?

[Anonymous No.13485805]

>>13485763
>>13485763
>never said this
Marx makes no distinction between individual workers. He only makes distinction between "haves" and "have-nots".

>never said this
Marx only quantifies labor with immediate results and economic benefit (e.g., factory worker making a sellable widgets versus a scientist working for years before making a breakthrough discovery).

>never said this
Marx assumes a utopian communist society is possible while ignoring prevalent factors such as corruption, nepotism, etc.

[Anonymous No.13485824]

>>13485805
>Marx makes no distinction between individual workers. He only makes distinction between "haves" and "have-nots".
in terms of what? skill? this is just incorrect. he explicitly recognizes the distinction between skilled and unskilled laborers.
>Marx only quantifies labor with immediate results and economic benefit (e.g., factory worker making a sellable widgets versus a scientist working for years before making a breakthrough discovery).
yeah, because his theory of value is specifically a theory of *economic value*. it doesn't purport to explain aesthetic, social, etc. value. but that wasn't your original point, anyway. also don't understand what you mean by "immediate results."
>Marx assumes a utopian communist society is possible while ignoring prevalent factors such as corruption, nepotism, etc.
that has nothing to do with my contention to your original point

[Anonymous No.13485886]

>>13482520
Heliocentrism and evolution are wrong so how can they destroy anything?

[Anonymous No.13486999]

>>13482185
>How did he think it would be solved?
Productivity reaching such a point where machines are human's mechanic slaves.

It could have been solved since Marx era, but since most people are greedy cunts, always wanting the latest shit (car, radio, TV...), it wasn't possible except for some exceptions. Catalonia 1936-1937, Israeli Kibboutz, Hutterites...

[Anonymous No.13487015]

>>13483110
How long did feudalism last?
Guess in the 14th century you would have said the same thing about feudalism.

[Anonymous No.13487098]

You guys are making marx sound like a luddite

[Anonymous No.13487104]

do you ever get embarrassed wasting your life arguing about things you don't understand?