/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14391778]

Are Communists the biggest pseuds possible?
I've talked to many at this point and I've never gotten a good argument against any point I've raised and instead get
>Just ignore human nature and history bro
>You're just too stupid to understand me
>We'll just teach the most uneducated and oppressed class complex Societal and Economic concepts, they'll understand it!
>Just read X cause I can't explain what I believe in
>Real Cumminiesism hasn't been tried
>We such slaves to Capitalism in this first-world country with our dirt-cheap products made by slave labor in a country I don't even care about

Why is it? Is it autism?

[Anonymous No.14391810]

>>14391778
Most of them are complete pseuds. The ones that praise Stalin and Mao are at least pointing towards a real thing that existed, so they get credit for that, unless they're the types who say that all the bad shit those two did is just American propaganda.

[Anonymous No.14391838]

>>14391810
I understand brother Tankies at least have a fucking gameplan that is feasible AnComs are just retards

[Anonymous No.14391862]

>>14391778
This is a /pol/ topic, it has nothing to do with literature. Go back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.14391866]

>>14391778
You don't have any good arguments.

[Anonymous No.14391874]

>i have never read marx
yeah we know

[Anonymous No.14391886]

>>14391874
>Mark
are you even trying?
also
>I can't explain my own fucking ideology
outright slave mentality

[Anonymous No.14391888]

>>14391778
Go read marx you plebe. He's right. "BRO HUMAN NATuUURE" is just code for "I don't know what historical materialism is"

[Anonymous No.14391894]

>>14391886
>marxism is an ideology
read marx

[Anonymous No.14391925]

>Just ignore human nature and history bro
they dont advocate for this at all, in fact historical materialism is at the core of marxism
>You're just too stupid to understand me
this is false, you are probably just too lazy and ignorant to actually read about it
>We'll just teach the most uneducated and oppressed class complex Societal and Economic concepts, they'll understand it!
not sure where you got this, all they want is the profit from their own labor free of exploitation of the upper class
>Just read X cause I can't explain what I believe in
an honest person telling you they are not qualified to explain the material and you hold it against them for not representing themselves with fake confidence and lies
>Real Cumminiesism hasn't been tried
this one is debatable
>We such slaves to Capitalism in this first-world country with our dirt-cheap products made by slave labor in a country I don't even care about
yes we are
our very identities are based around our labor and consumption
beyond what you do to get your income, and what you consume with it, what is a person in the western world? nothing. there is nothing outside our identity as consumers

[Anonymous No.14391935]

>>14391925
>beyond what you do to get your income, and what you consume with it, what is a person in the western world? nothing. there is nothing outside our identity as consumers
sez u

[Anonymous No.14392033]

>>14391925
>historical materialism
Evolution is much stronger than any physical or societal demand, which are only heeded in the preservation and reproduction of the individual.
>they are not qualified to explain the material
Then they cannot understand the material, an explanation is just your understanding directed outwards
>we are defined by our labor and consumption
No you are not ,you are defined by yourself if you are seemingly defined by society that's because you have placed society's view on you as your main priority which wraps around back to you.

[Anonymous No.14392051]

>>14392033
>Evolution is much stronger than any physical or societal demand
Dumb nigger doesn't even know what evolution is. Why are nazis so stupid lol

[Anonymous No.14392081]

>>14392051
Meant in the short term that societal groups exist in, there has been little to know effect on humans by evolution in the entire time that recorded history spans.

[Anonymous No.14392087]

>>14392081
speak english you ape

[Anonymous No.14392100]

>>14392087
Learn to read English nigger

[Anonymous No.14392111]

>>14391778
stop felating shareholders

[Anonymous No.14392266]

>>14392033
>No you are not ,you are defined by yourself if you are seemingly defined by society that's because you have placed society's view on you as your main priority which wraps around back to you.
all identity is description
all description is language
all language is cultural
therefor all identity is cultural
no matter what you choose as your identity, you are selecting from concepts made available to you from historically created ideas only understandable through language given to you by your cultural structure
these identities themselves have become products that you consume as fads
how a young person fluctuates through an array of different fads is all part of their role as consumers of culture, with profiteers positioned at each check point offering products to aid them in their assertion of that identity
even 4chan itself is a product consumed in conjunction with the identity of being a certain type of person, with consumption of video games, pornography, anime, fringe politics, and other products defining them
whichever identity you choose it matters very little to the project at large, which is for you to remain a minimally disruptive consumer of the products of capitalism from birth until death, fluctuating in your consumption driven by your "self determined" identities that come premanufactured for you via culture manufactures

[Anonymous No.14392440]

>>14392266
Good post

[Anonymous No.14392447]

People who believe in something /=/ the actual thing

[Anonymous No.14392464]

Consensual wage labor isn't theft. The Marxist interpretation of "exploitation" is more or less a myth, especially in modern first world countries.

[Anonymous No.14392466]

>>14392464
It's not consensual.

[Anonymous No.14392472]

>>14392266
>the project at large, which is for you to remain a minimally disruptive consumer of the products of capitalism from birth until death
This analysis you have is also subject to being deconstructed as given to you by the society you were brought up in. This is the problem with this line of thought, it just eats itself. You question everything the anon said about his identity and then assert as fact your theory of the structure of society as being capitalist consumption, as though this theory isnt just as socially conditioned.

[Anonymous No.14392475]

>>14392466
lol just starve to death dude

[Anonymous No.14392480]

>>14392466
>no DAD I was FORCED to buy all these funko pops by CAPITALISM

[Anonymous No.14392486]

>>14392466
I have a job.
I agreed to work my job for set pay.
I work.
I get paid.
I literally agreed to work my job and get paid, and I am happy with my pay and work. I literally consented.
Literally how is it not consensual.

[Anonymous No.14392505]

>>14391778

I wonder if people used to talk this way about democracy when we were still living under feudalism

[Anonymous No.14392509]

>>14391778
Because, like modern liberals, they’re belief in their own moral correctness trumps all logical arguments and makes them feel good for doing
Narcissism is one hell of a drug

[Anonymous No.14392520]

>>14392486
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value

[Anonymous No.14392525]

>>14392505
Bro democracy would never work, it's HUMAN NATURE to be ruled by a monarch

[Anonymous No.14392529]

>>14392486
>be me
>living in 1634
>toil the lands for me lord
>only get taxed half the yields of 90% my crops
>literally agreed to this because I am incapable of conceiving a better situation than this because the language and concepts don't even exist
>Literally the absence of ability to advocate for myself is consent

[Anonymous No.14392541]

>>14392509
>moral correctness

[Anonymous No.14392548]

>>14392525
This is unironically true. Well not necessarily ruled by a monarch, in practice democracies end up being ruled by bureaucracies

[Anonymous No.14392553]

>>14392548
>i don't know what bureaucracy means

[Anonymous No.14392562]

>>14392529
There is literally nothing wrong with the feudal system

[Anonymous No.14392565]

>>14392548
Imagine being so fucking retarded you don't understand the concept of representative democracy

[Anonymous No.14392573]

>>14391778
>>Real Cumminiesism hasn't been tried
no. Stalin and Mao got it right.

I'm surprised there aren't more Maoists to tell the truth, since China makes the West look like a homeless crackhead in economics, civics and education.

but then commies are just contrarian kiddies who don't really want to learn civics or economics.

[Anonymous No.14392576]

>>14392573
Economics and "Civics" is pure pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.14392577]

>>14392553
means rule by desks, it's right there in the name

[Anonymous No.14392579]

>>14392565
>Imagine being so fucking retarded you don't understand the concept of representative democracy
hahaha, yea and imagine thinking it works!

[Anonymous No.14392584]

>>14392565
Democracies are ruled by the people who shape public opinion and the permanent unelected civil service

[Anonymous No.14392588]

>>14392562
anon I..

[Anonymous No.14392592]

>>14392505
Thought the left thought "real" democracy has never been a thing either

[Anonymous No.14392597]

>>14392529
>get taxed half the yields of 90% my crops
this is what marxoids actually believe

[Anonymous No.14392600]

>>14392576
uh.. they're scientific disciplines or actualized concepts in 'realpolitik' which we ignore constantly, hence we think it's fine to be trillions in debt and let tourists squat and take jobs in the cities..

e.g. youhave a five year campaign to curb anything or promote anything, this no longer works because the workforce is rotated in and out of the third world, and they don't know/care/understand even the words you use, ergo, civics is bulldozed on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.14392601]

>>14392579
Nice deflection, I'd never imply that since I'm an ancom.
>>14392584
Oh, yeah? Like the representatives? Very insightful, Anon.
>>14392592
Direct democracy has never existed, not even in Greece, no.

[Anonymous No.14392604]

not literature. reminder to report and sage :^)

[Anonymous No.14392612]

>>14392576
i.e. you're calling learning the way crops grow and grow optimally a pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.14392617]

>>14392601
>Like the representatives? V
no lol. Like the press, the school system, and academia, not to mention the various government agencies concerned about manipulating public awareness.

[Anonymous No.14392619]

>>14392601
>>>14392579 (You)
>Nice deflection,
technically that was an interjection, since I wasn't the guy you were talking to.

[Anonymous No.14392621]

>>14392612
That is ecology you buffoon. Speaking of food
>In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40 percent of the food supply. This estimate, based on estimates from USDA's Economic Research Service of 31 percent food loss at the retail and consumer levels, corresponded to approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 2010.

[Anonymous No.14392634]

>>14392621
>That is ecology you buffoon.

aaah, you see? A Contrarian.

probably worships the Sun.

[Anonymous No.14392644]

>>14392621
strange kind of mental illness

behavioral pattern,
contrarian objection non sequitur
insult
random data fact

.... strange. Is that somewhere on the spectrum, anon, or are you just gay? hahaha

[Anonymous No.14392663]

>>14392525

Greece and Rome both tried democracy and look what happened to them

[Anonymous No.14392685]

>>14392520
I wouldn't be able to work my job without utilizing the means that are owned by my boss. Seizing those means would be theft and theft is wrong. The owner worked hard to afford to create the means and has a right to them. Furthermore, neither me or any of my coworkers know how to effectively run the company that in employed at.

That being said I'm not opposed to people going and forming a commune if they want, if they think it would work better than the current model, then surely they could gather some funds, purchase or build their own means and then simply out-compete the capitalists. But you can't because it's not better.

The real question is, even if it were exploitation, do I not have the right as a human being to consensually choose to sell my labour how I see fit? Why should I not be allowed to enter an arrangement such as wage labor if I so desire?

[Anonymous No.14392688]

Anyway, hell fucking yes. Stalin was great. Mao was a God. I say this in all reason and objective analysis.

I'm neither communist nor anarchist but if I were a serious Communist I'd be appalled at how soft sissy faggotry and motorcycle jackets are the mainline diet for Communism in the West, rather than straight up Stalin the Man o Steel, or Mao and his on-going Economic Superpower.

"oh stalin wuz evil and had dur deaf camps"
"oh mao thew people into mechanized tractor blades"

and your point is...

[Anonymous No.14392694]

>>14392529
Feudalism didn't allow the workers to choose how they sold their labour.

[Anonymous No.14392697]

>>14392685
>The owner worked hard to afford to create the means and has a right to them.
he borrowed money, anon.

[Anonymous No.14392698]

>>14392685
>Why should I not be allowed to enter an arrangement such as wage labor if I so desire
Because it gives capitalists power to exploit everyone else. This is really basic anon. How do you think the means of production came to be exclusively owned by capitalists in the first place?

[Anonymous No.14392703]

>>14391778
>Are Communists the biggest pseuds possible?
nope
>Just ignore human nature and history bro
marx based his theories on exactly these two things. like. exactly these two things
you NEED TO FUCKING READ

[Anonymous No.14392713]

>>14392688
>mao thew people into mechanized tractor blades
holy fucking based how do i sign up for nazbol

[Anonymous No.14392720]

>>14392698
But it's not exploitation you silly cow

[Anonymous No.14392722]

>>14392688
to be fair all political movements in the west are filled with bottom of the barrel human waste
>antifa
yikes
>neonazis
lol
>progressives
perhaps the least aesthetic and appealing people possible
>neoliberals
powerful capitalist lizard men with zero authenticity or spirit
>conservatives
drooling traditionalist shills who wouldn't read anything outside fox news and a bible even if it meant execution
>communists
don't even have a grasp of their own material and can't agree on anything

[Anonymous No.14392732]

>>14391778
>Just ignore human nature and history
this is where you fuck up

[Anonymous No.14392735]

>>14392720
Of course it is, just because you agree to it doesn't change anything. I bet many literal slaves were grateful to die for their lord.

[Anonymous No.14392737]

>>14392722
Based

[Anonymous No.14392742]

>>14392694
>Feudalism didn't allow the workers to choose how they sold their labour.
yes it did. There were Guilds first of all, and in the miserable places where Guilds were prevented (i.e. before the renaissances and great wealth creation of every place,which came from guild/artisan networks) they could pick and chose work when there was a labor shortage, i.e. black death.

So today we have a constant stream of wandering tourists to flood the market and prevent any labor shortage from leading to improved working conditions and wages and performance, and we also, essentially, have no powerful guilds anymore and so no way for the citizen to climb any sort of ladder. So we, right now, are in a state of serfdom and our feudal lords are the illegal monopolistic franchise corporations and our democracies mean absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous No.14392747]

>>14392735
there is nothing wrong with slavery either. In fact we need hyper-slavery. The king enslaves the nobles, who enslave the commoners, the man enslaves the woman, who enslaves the oldest child, who enslaves the younger child etc. We can work out ever more intricate webs of slavery

[Anonymous No.14392750]

>>14392529
based

[Anonymous No.14392754]

>>14392735
its literally fucking not. Every time i have this discussion with communists it always comes back to the same shit.
As I have explained earlier, I have consented to sell my labor in the form of working my job for set hourly pay. I consented to this, and if i felt as though I were not getting a good deal, or i was no longer getting a good deal, I could leave. I am under no duress and am not being forced to work this job.
But then the communist just says "hurr durr no it is exploitation!!! its not consensual!!!!!" but gives no actual reasons why my claims are false.

[Anonymous No.14392763]

>>14392754
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
Quit sperging.
>I am under no duress and am not being forced to work this job.
Of course you are.

[Anonymous No.14392769]

>>14392722
>>communists
>don't even have a grasp of their own material and can't agree on anything

I think the Anti-China fear in the western press is conjured up to nip such things in the bud, like the Red Scare was used to harass workers groups and speakers, hell they even went after CONFUCIAN schools a while back.

I think they're as surprised as I am that more Maoists don't exist.

[Anonymous No.14392777]

>>14392769
The antichina stuff is just because the US is terrified of China's growing power. They do the same thing to Russia and they're certainly no longer commies

[Anonymous No.14392781]

>>14392747
>The king enslaves the nobles, who enslave the commoners, the man enslaves the woman, who enslaves the oldest child, who enslaves the younger child etc. We can work out ever more intricate webs of slavery
I ran a calculation on this and drew conclusion that the owner of CNN, Ted Turner, is the most powerful human being in the world, since his news company dictates outright his passing whims to the governments of the west who fear him.

[Anonymous No.14392811]

>>14392763
im literally not. If i wanted to i could quit my job and find another, and if i felt like i was not being fairly compensated i would.
I dont care about surplus labor because I am okay with the business owner taking their cut for allowing me to utilize their means.

Imagine I owned a hotdog cart. My friend wants to use my hotdog cart to make some money. I say, okay, you can use my hotdog cart, but I want a cut of the profits because its my cart. That is current system and it is perfectly fair.
The Marxists propose instead my friend should just steal my hotdog cart.

[Anonymous No.14392878]

>>14392811
>If i wanted to i could quit my job and find another
followed by
>I dont care about surplus labor

I take it you've never graduated and found yourself having to pick between faggots and toddlers for your "employer" and jobs which are all lazy makework. Even for decent salaries,not the point.

>Imagine I owned a hotdog cart.
it's a fair example, but when we're talking 'Civics' and things like oil and roads and public spaces; necessary infrastructure like hospitals and police, all of these things are no longer yours, because that would make you a King or a Duke, which is illegal.

Zuckerberg for instance controls the largest chunk of the 'public space' of the commercial internet, with no restrictions upon him at all because the government is too weak, making him virtually Emperor of the World, he knows it, hence he calls his children Maximia and Augusta.

Don't worry, anon, the Law will catch up with people like this. And godh help you if you wheel that hot dog cart in my neighborhood, because you see I own the roads by virtue of having people to send to beat and take a cut from you in turn.

[Anonymous No.14392883]

>>14392811
the means of production belong to whoever is using them, the cart stopped being your friends the moment you put it to work

[Anonymous No.14392934]

>>14392811
your example falls apart when details are added
>friend makes 1000 dollars in an hour, you charge him 200 dollars for use of the cart for the day
not exploitation, merely a transaction between two people
>worker you hire does 1000 dollars of business in an hour, you pay them 10 dollars for that hour even though you are not there, and the value of the use of your property is 200 a day, yet you still pocket the excess of that profit and not share it with the worker
exploitation

do you see the difference?

[Anonymous No.14392948]

>>14392883
sorry that is the most retarded argument i keep hearing.
>>14392878
>I take it you've never graduated and found yourself having to pick between faggots and toddlers for your "employer" and jobs which are all lazy makework.
Thats because your labor isnt as valuable as you thought it was, despite your qualifications. Much like trying to sell a car for more than its worth and then finding its not selling.

>hospitals and police
In every modern country except the united states these things are owned and operated by the government, and I have no opposition to that.

>Zuckerburg
ultimately, I think people should just not use Facebook. But I see your argument. I have no opposition to regulating companies in order to provide pro-consumer products and services. This is the main failure of capitalism - where what is profitable no longer aligns with the interests of the consumer. Other examples of this include destroying the right to repair, collecting data without consent, overly restrictive licenses and rules about how you can use the product you purchased, planned obsolescence, etc etc. Personally, I would be in favor of regulating companies to provide pro-consumer products/services, and cease anti-consumer practices. But as far as I can tell, that has literally nothing to do with Marxism.

>>14392934
first of all, your example is not realisitc at all. Secondly, it is ultimately up to the worker to decide whether the deal is worth it or not, and if they decide that it is worth it, they are not being exploited because they gave their consent.
Lastly, this is why we have minimum wage laws, which are essentially a government mandated minimum value of labor.

[Anonymous No.14392964]

>>14392948
>sorry that is the most retarded argument i keep hearing.
Lol okay, imagine building a house by yourself from scratch, selling it, then having to pay Black and Decker 30% of the sale because you used their tools.

[Anonymous No.14392970]

>>14392703
>marx based his theories on exactly these two things. like. exactly these two things
yes and he completely misdiagnosed the weak willed faggotry of the proletariat as a base of power for societal change
history has been and always will be directed by strong willed men, no matter what flaccid political narrative you want to ascribe to its events

[Anonymous No.14392977]

>>14392970
You're confusing Marx and Lenin- understandable as you haven't read either.

[Anonymous No.14392982]

>>14392964
Well, If I purchased the tools from Black and Decker and therefore I owned them then yes, that would be abhorrent.
But I did not purchase the means of production, and therefore I do not own them.
If, for some reason, I was using tools that I did not own, then Black and Decker might have some argument as to why I should pay them. But I dont think that is a realistic scenario - how would I be using tools I do not own? Your theoretical makes no sense my friend.

[Anonymous No.14392983]

Read (real)theory

[Anonymous No.14392994]

>>14392977
Meaningless, theres zero evidence that profits are declining

[Anonymous No.14392996]

>>14392948
>first of all, your example is not realisitc at all.
you are incredibly naive if you don't think these sort of profit margins on labor don't happen all the time
even moreso in factory settings

[Anonymous No.14392999]

>>14392994
Uh the graph seems to disagree with you anon...

[Anonymous No.14393000]

>>14392977
>You're confusing Marx and Lenin
no im not

[Anonymous No.14393001]

Where are all the genius Marxists? Why do they seem to hover around 110IQ?

[Anonymous No.14393004]

>>14392996
even if thats true, it doesnt matter for the reasons I have outlined.

[Anonymous No.14393007]

>>14393000
Uh yes you are. Marx wasn't a revolutionary.

[Anonymous No.14393031]

>>14393004
sure if employers gave full disclosure of their profit margins on labor to their employees so they could make an informed decision if they want to consent to that exploitation you could say the employee was making an informed decision
but no employer would ever do that, and what employee have you ever talked to that even has any remote awareness of surplus value theory, exploitation, or marxism in general
virtually none of them do, therefor they are not giving informed consent

[Anonymous No.14393048]

>>14393031
I dont think you actually need to know that In order to consent to selling your labor.
You apply for a job, expecting to be paid X amount of money, and if you feel that amount is fair compensation, you are not being exploited. For example, at my job, I have no idea how much the owners make, im sure its a lot, but ultimately I am content with the amount I get paid for the work I do, and thats good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.14393051]

>>14393007
i never said he was, he still predicted proletariat revolution as far as im aware

[Anonymous No.14393059]

>>14393048
>if you feel that amount is fair compensation, you are not being exploited
It is always exploitation. What you are describing is a cope.

[Anonymous No.14393072]

>>14393007
>Marx wasn't a revolutionary
wtf do you mean? what was the first international?

[Anonymous No.14393107]

>>14393051
He predicted permanent revolution.
>>14393072
One of many socialist organizations, hardly revolutionary in nature.

[Anonymous No.14393155]

>>14393107
>He predicted permanent revolution
even more laughable

[Anonymous No.14393167]

>>14393155
aside from failing to predict the rise of fascism, he has a pretty good track record with regards to predictions

[Anonymous No.14393221]

>>14393167
my issues arent with his capitalism criticism, i hope you arent confusing me with the fags in here who think they are participating in capitalism "of their own free will"
my issue is he is far too optimistic on what comes after

[Anonymous No.14393279]

>>14393167
As businesses grow, profit margins decline, and as markets grow more competitive, profits decline, this is all intro to econ stuff and doesnt prove marx right in the slightest

[Anonymous No.14393314]

>>14393279
you sound like an undergrad

[Anonymous No.14393423]

>>14393314
If the ltv is wrong(it is) then the theory is worthless

[Anonymous No.14393440]

if evolutionary psychology is bullshit how do you explain chads drowning in pussy

[Anonymous No.14393458]

>>14393314

Holy fuck, reading that gave me AIDS. Is this what Marxian "economics" looks like? I have never seen anything more pants on head retarded. No wonder that shit is dead

[Anonymous No.14393516]

>>14393458
No it's capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14393545]

>>14393516
Can commies defend their beliefs with their own words or do you all just throw pages of jargon at people hoping to confuse them

[Anonymous No.14393555]

>>14393545
marxism is a critique of capitalism, not a belief system unto itself you brainlet nigger

[Anonymous No.14393564]

>>14393516

I'll tell you a little secret about surplus value... it's meaningless!

[Anonymous No.14393580]

>>14393555
Keep telling yourself that

[Anonymous No.14393583]

>>14393545

He just throws excerpts at you that use terms defined previously in the text without explaining them or their context, presumably because he doesn't understand it himself either but wants to seem smart

[Anonymous No.14393604]

>>14393583
why don't you just read the book anon? i am not summarizing the ltv for you

[Anonymous No.14393717]

>>14393604

I have, I have a Master's degree in economics and I had to read significant sections of it for an economic history class I took.

The transformation problem is essentially Marxists willing a specific unfalsifiable (read: useless) framework onto basic economics... read Samuelson's takedown of it if you haven't already

The entire notion of Marxian economics boils down to the unfalsifiable idea that exploitation, however ill-defined that term is, is THE necessary driver of all market activity, but it defines it recursively from the idea of capital itself.

Everything within Marxian economics, and I mean everything, boils down to something that's unfalsifiable or otherwise superfluous. Labour theory of value, someone counters with mud pie argument or whatever, marxists counter with 'socially necessary' bullshit, which is then countered with the fact that that is equivalent to the expression of supply and demand, which Marxists counter with the difference between exchange and use value, which ultimately lies in the labour-time within the work, and the entire thing repeats. It's all so tiresome

The constant revision of the theory to bridge irreconcilable gaps and its total lack of predictive power are precisely because Marxism, in its entirety, without the guise of an economic theory, is the imposition of an order onto the world, a mental framework fostered by deep ressentiment. Which is perfect for criticism, it's perfect for cultural theory, it's perfect for sociology. It isn't perfect for economics, or at least any sort of economics that aims to create positive outcomes and not just facilitate discourse

And the natural evolution of economics has realized this, which is why LTV and Marxism lie in the field's dustbin

[Anonymous No.14393737]

>>14393717
>I have, I have a Master's degree in Economics
Didn't even read the thread and don't the the context of this post, I just opened the thread up. But from this phrase I can already tell this post is garbage.

[Anonymous No.14393743]

>>14393737

I raped and choked your whore mother you dumb faggot

[Anonymous No.14393744]

LABOR THEORY OF VALUE IS CORRECT
https://youtu.be/emnYMfjYh1Q

[Anonymous No.14393754]

>>14393717
>Marxists willing a specific unfalsifiable
What do you mean unfalsifiable? Marx outlines in painstaking detail the theory over 1200 pages.
>Marxian economics
Wtf is this?
>THE necessary driver of all market activity
Uh... no.
>it defines it recursively from the idea of capital itself
Uh... no.
>Marxism, in its entirety, without the guise of an economic theory, is the imposition of an order onto the world
Kek Marxist analysis of capitalism is grounded in historical fact.
>It isn't perfect for economics
Your degree is a meme and total pseudoscience.
>economics that aims to create positive outcomes
?
>natural evolution
?
>LTV and Marxism lie in the field's dustbin
Uh not really. Conversely, Keynes and Smith were proven wrong by history. Since you won't read Capital here's a spoonfeeding video for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBdKZddeOk

[Anonymous No.14393766]

>>14391778
>Are Communists the
Using a term like 'communist' without providing a precise empirical definition is the very embodiment of pseudointellectualism.

[Anonymous No.14393774]

>>14393754

I'm not even going to respond to this post with an argument because insofar as we're just putting on a show for the lurking anons here, this reply conclusively shows that you are a pseud retard

[Anonymous No.14393775]

>>14391888
Materialism is trash

[Anonymous No.14393781]

>>14393774
You're the one that said the LTV is unfalsifiable while simultaneously claiming it has been debunked...

[Anonymous No.14393805]

>>14393007
>Marx wasn’t a revolutionary
God I fucking hate communists. I swear you fucking people don’t even read your own authors, and just respond to everything with “uh yeah you didn’t understand it if you disagree”. Marx explicitly belonged to and advocated for revolution of the proletariat in his life time.
See: 1st internationale and Critique of the Gotha program among many other things.

I mean seriously why the fuck is it that you all act like nobody besides you can possibly comprehend Marx unless you agree with Marx. It’s like arguing with fucking Holocaust deniers.

[Anonymous No.14393815]

>>14393781

learn to read dumbass

[Anonymous No.14393831]

>>14393717
>And the natural evolution of economics has realized this, which is why LTV and Marxism lie in the field's dustbin
Let's be clear: LTV is a discovery of Adam Smith. Marx adopted it, but he didn't invent it. What theory of value do you prefer? Keep in mind: If you even gesture toward an STV like marginalism, you have outed yourself as an irredeemable moron.

[Anonymous No.14393867]

>>14393831

An STV like marginalism, but I don't use that kind of meme vocabulary except when dealing with retards. $50 says you're a STEM major who 'picked up' 'economics' as a side interest

[Anonymous No.14393894]

>>14393867
>An STV like marginalism
Fair enough, apologies for being impolite.

>$50 says you're a STEM major who 'picked up' 'economics' as a side interest
Not quite, but you are correct if your instinct tells you I have zero respect for the "discipline" of economics.

In any case, "STV like marginalism" is shite and you know it.

[Anonymous No.14393924]

>>14393894

Ok then. What did you study?

[Anonymous No.14393937]

>>14392505
Democracy only conceals the movement of power.

[Anonymous No.14393956]

>>14393717
Literally can't transform labor hours into prices. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.14393957]

>>14392742
What the fuck do you think guilds did you retard?

[Anonymous No.14393965]

Marxism only makes sense after reading Hegel which not a lot of people you meet on the street do.

[Anonymous No.14393967]

>>14393965
>Marxism only makes sense after reading Hegel
Bullshit, and you know it.

[Anonymous No.14393979]

All you have to do is post the in-store labour hours, Communists.

[Anonymous No.14394032]

>>14393717
>significant sections of it
Yeah exactly - fuck off.

>The entire notion of Marxian economics boils down to the unfalsifiable idea that exploitation, however ill-defined that term is, is THE necessary driver of all market activity
No, not even close.

>Everything within Marxian economics, and I mean everything, boils down to something that's unfalsifiable or otherwise superfluous.
No offense, but it sounds as if you have been thoroughly brainwashed by your "Master's program in Economics".

>its total lack of predictive power
Talking about conventional (((Economics))) in general, or just the aspects that involve the failure of elites?

>Which is perfect for criticism, it's perfect for cultural theory
Dilate, bitch boy.

>any sort of economics that aims to create positive outcomes
I get that you are wedded to the doctrine taught to you in your Master's program. But no, your understanding of the situation is deeply wrong.

[Anonymous No.14394061]

>>14393805
advocating for revolution and being a revolutionary are totally different things, just like marxism is not communism... just kys brainlet retard

[Anonymous No.14394254]

>>14393967
How?

[Anonymous No.14394263]

>>14391778
Caracalla was a shit tier emperor.

[Anonymous No.14394308]

>>14394254
Because I read and understood Das Kapital. You should try it. I'm not a Marxist myself, but the book is required reading if you want to understand capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14394810]

>>14393979
kek

[Anonymous No.14395127]

>>14391778
Top kek
You just know OP has pseud coming out of his every hole

[Anonymous No.14395154]

>>14392565
Democracies make it so the elected leaders optimal play is to grab as much wealth and power for themselves, not improving the country or solving actual problems. In fact actual problems are best seen as being worked on but not being solved so they have something they can get easy votes for to supposedly fix in the next election cycle.

In a monarchy it's in the monarchs interest to fix societal problems and for a strong country with a healthy populace, it directly benefits the monarch.

This is not an argument for monarchy but rather a critique of democracy.

Some basic game theory can show major flaws in most government systems, some are worse than others and the ones for modern democracies spell doom.

[Anonymous No.14395172]

>>14392948
>Thats because your labor isnt as valuable as you thought it was, despite your qualifications. Much like trying to sell a car for more than its worth and then finding its not selling
This is a concept people need to understand more.

The work I do is worth several thousand times the pay I get, yet my pay is about 50k USD/year and not 50000k/month.

Why?
Because I am relatively easily replaceable and a large bureaucracy of unproductives are needed in my industry to make sure all paperwork is in order.

[Anonymous No.14395221]

>>14392754
marx goes into why work for pay isn't consensual in the 1844 manuscripts. the gist is that he has a conception of freedom derived from hegel that is much more demanding in what liberals call "positive freedom" than the liberal conception of freedom. since unfree work is coerced, and work for pay is unfree for marx, work for pay is coerced for marx

[Anonymous No.14395416]

>>14392948
>>>14392878 (You)
>>I take it you've never graduated and found yourself having to pick between faggots and toddlers for your "employer" and jobs which are all lazy makework.
>Thats because your labor isnt as valuable as you thought it was, despite your qualifications. Much like trying to sell a car for more than its worth and then finding its not selling.
That's right, but it's also true that 'some' employers will prefer zombie-drones to real people, so surplus labor lets them whittle off 1000 experienced people for the 1 teenager they can mold in their image; i.e. to have a lapdog, or more often I've noticed, 1000 men passed over for 1 pretty woman because the dirtbag middle-manager really just want to hire a bimbo to flirt with.

It's applicable here: read Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie regarding the use of developing on experienced workers, but hell I always say that hahaha, Ford rules.

>>14392948
>I have no opposition to regulating companies in order to provide pro-consumer products and services.
Right, and none of that or the above makes any economic sense, so it's pure serfdom: the so-called middle 'manager' cretin thinks himself a Duke or a King and conducts himself as such, and the company who employs him: the owner he's never even met, loses ultimately. I run a few small operations now and having learned all of this I'd never dream of hiring anybody to do my work for me, and my mind boggles when owners of companies hire out their hiring to third parties.

>Personally, I would be in favor of regulating companies to provide pro-consumer products/services, and cease anti-consumer practices. But as far as I can tell, that has literally nothing to do with Marxism.
Yeah I keep meaning to actually read Marx one of these days too.. I understand the employee co-op aspect of the 'dictatorship' of the worker, but to be honest I don't see how a council of workers wouldn't just end up like the current shareholder boards in a monopolistic and oligarchic fashion. Other than with state regulation which.. well.. double-edged sword though it is it's obviously necessary with privatization of vital sectors.

>Other examples of this include destroying the right to repair, collecting data without consent, overly restrictive licenses and rules about how you can use the product you purchased, planned obsolescence, etc etc.
Yeah these are all crazy, and not good for the market or the planetary and local resources.

[Anonymous No.14395460]

>>14393717
>not ONE argument against this post but only pure seething of BTFO marxists
how can one anon be so based?

[Anonymous No.14395485]

If Communists hate Capitalist society so much why don't you live in the wilderness people have done it for much less.

[Anonymous No.14395488]

>>14391778
>I've talked to many at this point
Why?
Communists explicitly state they want to kill you, take your stuff and enslave your family.
You talk with them.
Why?

[Anonymous No.14395492]

>>14391778
>Are Communists the biggest pseuds possible?

Yes, they are.

>Why is it? Is it autism?

They blame capitalism and economy for every problem.

[Anonymous No.14395498]

>>14395488
na, ive had communist friends
when they arent discussing communism, they can be knowledgeable in other areas and are often capable on interesting dialogue on various philosophical ideas

[Anonymous No.14395503]

notice since the britbong left got btfo in the election there has been less commie threads here?
must of run out of funds for online propaganda
really joggins the noggin

[Anonymous No.14395508]

>>14395488
And I want anyone found sympathetic to communism or anarchism to be lobotomized and forced into hard labor, but that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy each other’s company in the meantime.

[Anonymous No.14395519]

>>14395508
aristocratpilled

[Anonymous No.14395561]

>>14391778
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.14395573]

>>14392735
So consensual sex is rape to you?

[Anonymous No.14395583]

>>14392763
>surplus value
How do you know you do not know a single thing about economics or business?