/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14904062]

How come the greatest antidote to the modern pseud is marx?

How come marxism is so good and effective at whipping /midwits into shape? How can it be this effective? Doesn't even have to be marx himself, any marxist thinker excluding trotsky forces the midwit to snap out it

[Anonymous No.14904068]

>>14904062
You can tell instantly if someone has actually read marx or not so he filters midwits instantly.

[Anonymous No.14904074]

[Anonymous No.14904080]

>>14904062
midwits are easily fooled by (the jew/the devil)

[Anonymous No.14904083]

>>14904062
This thread is guaranteed to have 200 replies

[Anonymous No.14904084]

>>14904074
he held jobs. for example he wrote for journals and newspapers quite frequently

[Anonymous No.14904091]

>>14904074
T. Midwit

[Anonymous No.14904104]

>>14904068
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.14904113]

>>14904074
>Never ran a company
All companies are ran by petit bourgeois philistines, so based.
>Never held political office
all filled with petit bourgeois philistines, so based
>Never oversaw any accounts
petit bourgeois task. again, based.
>Never even held a job
*points you over to oeuvre which is thousands of pages that you have not read*
>Supported throughout his life by his friend Friedrich Engels
Doing whatever he can to write and BTFO petit bourgeois philistines such as yourself. /lit/ and based.
>All applications of his theories have ended in failure.
Worked/works in China, Vietnam and in the USSR Turned backwater countries among the brinks of disaster into super powers.

[Anonymous No.14904138]

>>14904074
>have ended in failure
like each and every life, at least so far..
Is this why Marx is so vital a writer? Certainly someone, somewhere, some day will get him all right and to the benefit of anons almost everywhere!
I'm rather fond of his sense of humor fwiw; just as Hegel was a rather sweet guy, Marx was funny; he might have been a stand up comic were he alive today. >Pity the fates of even the most interesting people ):
It's okay to cry, anons

[Anonymous No.14904189]

>>14904062
Marx is Jordan Peterson for poor people in south american countries
GTFO

[Anonymous No.14904224]

>>14904113
>Worked/works in China, Vietnam and in the USSR Turned backwater countries among the brinks of disaster into super powers.
beyond retarded

[Anonymous No.14904238]

>>14904113
You haven't met anyone from China, Vietnam, or the USSR.

[Anonymous No.14904240]

>>14904074
Boomer attitude. The fact that he is so well known today is proof that he wasn't doing nothing. Dedicating your time to intellectual pursuits rather than psychical work is perfectly fine if you can get away with it; even admirable. I can't imagine measuring the worth of someone's ideas by their adherence to a system of control.

(btw I actually don't agree with Marx on anything, but this post is foolish)

[Anonymous No.14904245]

>implying marx isn't a midwit magnet

[Anonymous No.14904249]

>>14904113
>Turned backwater countries among the brinks of disaster into super powers.
that was industrialization you brainlet. The same thing happened in capitalist countries

also calling Russia or China backwaters is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.14904258]

>>14904113
also China didn't turn into a superpower into after they gave up and started privatizing, and none of these countries ever managed to have the workers own the means of production.

[Anonymous No.14904260]

>>14904249
>that was industrialization you brainlet
what do you think Marx wrote about?
they were backwaters.

[Anonymous No.14904274]

>>14904258
everything is still overseen by the party. Marxism=/= anti-capitalism also it is more hegelian than that. China is just riding the capitalist wave.

[Anonymous No.14904284]

>>14904260
You don't need to murder your aristocracy and capitalist class and larp as 'socialists'(while of course causing millions of workers to starve and giving them no actual power but hey you put 'workers party' in your name and liquidated the kulaks) to industrialize. Everywhere else managed fine.

Russia especially was not a backwater, it had successfully repelled a French invasion just a century ago, making it on par with some of the great powers. China was always economically prosperous.

[Anonymous No.14904289]

>>14904240
>Marx
>intellectual

[Anonymous No.14904291]

>>14904238
>>14904224
>>14904074
Reminder marxism has literally and unironically worked almost everywhere it has been implemented in such as Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Nasserist Egypt, post-revolution algeria, Venezuela, Albania, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Libya, East Germany.

>but muh some of them fell
>but muh there are so many kinds of marxism!
>but muh they are actually bad, I read it in the wall street journal and pol!

[Anonymous No.14904293]

>>14904274
yeah Ill believe it's all tending toward the classless, stateless society through some complex dialectic when you actually get there. All I see are dictators and oligarchs and I find it fucking absurd you actually buy their line about doing all that for the people.

[Anonymous No.14904295]

The reason why Marx is based at yanking people out of idiocy is because his most fundamental idea is 100% correct. The base of human society is economics, the most powerful force shaping humanity is economics. Understanding the world around you by placing money and material goods as the things which everything else must build up upon is the most lucid, clear sighted and predictive model. Even if he was "wrong" about many other things in his theories and philosophy, if you start with "base-superstructure" theory of sociology things just fall into place.

[Anonymous No.14904298]

>>14904291
Do you live in one of those countries? Why don't you move to one?

[Anonymous No.14904301]

>>14904062
Marx is THE intellectual for no nothings who want to take a positio of pure critique and appeal to authority.

[Anonymous No.14904305]

>>14904295
this

[Anonymous No.14904307]

>>14904295
>if you start with "base-superstructure" theory of sociology things just fall into place.
you can do that with dozens of theories about how society and history function.

[Anonymous No.14904308]

>>14904260
>what do you think Marx wrote about?
Marx predicted the complete opposite; he thought it would be developed countries that would first turn to communism, when in reality it's only been third world retards who have ever fallen for it.

[Anonymous No.14904309]

>>14904062

What? Marxism was constructed to appeal to literal coal miners and factory workers. It's the most midwit framework for interpreting the world out there.

[Anonymous No.14904319]

>>14904249
>The same thing happened in capitalist countries
Lol. No, it did not.

[Anonymous No.14904321]

>>14904113

>Works in China

You mean the country that went through one of the worst revolutions in history, then started turning it around as soon as they dropped the equity part of communism but kept the totalitarian oppression part?

[Anonymous No.14904329]

>>14904319
Yes it did the entire world industrialized rapidly and became insanely more prosperous and powerful.

[Anonymous No.14904336]

>>14904307
And they will be wrong because power comes first from material. The power to feed, clothe, arm, house, heat workers and armies comes before every other consideration in the organization of human beings. No society can accomplish anything or stay together without these things taken care of which is why they form the base. Whatever history has been trying to accomplish cash money was the first principle.

[Anonymous No.14904345]

>>14904336
Power comes just as much from how humans choose to act and why. No amount of material wealth matters if a society decides to stop having children or decides not to defend themselves.

[Anonymous No.14904373]

>>14904345
Any society that appears to be "deciding to not defend itself" is a false analysis of that society. Ask yourself, is it really a society collectively deciding to commit suicide, or is it rather, just one class within that society that is selling the rest of them down the river?

[Anonymous No.14904401]

>>14904329
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14904427]

>>14904062
Marx is probably the most fashionable or socially acceptable critic of the current world order. You can get away with complaining about capitalism or neoliberalism far more than a rightist who rejects modernity or progressivism would. Therefore he's a pipeline from progressivism to radical leftism in the same way that right wing libertarianism has been called a pipeline to the alt-right. I can't think of anyone who introduces you to metapolitics and rejects the contemporary framework but is also hailed within the current framework to the extent Marx is. Maybe someone like Foucalt or Kuhn, but their ideas have been butchered by academia

[Anonymous No.14904439]

>>14904336
It turns out that both people and societies become much more complicated after you manage to take care of the bare necessities, and communists can't even manage that.

[Anonymous No.14904444]

>>14904113
It's hilarious how tankies bitch about the CIA demonizing the ussr but buy into the coldwar bs that they were somehow a super power without a second thought.

[Anonymous No.14904569]

>>14904307
Not without relying on arbitrary and cringe idealist copes.

[Anonymous No.14904602]

>>14904569
like the 'average labor' of a labor pool Marx knows is not homogenous but is going to treat that way anyway, as if it were some fungible resource you can redistribute any way you like?

[Anonymous No.14904727]

>>14904439
>it turns out that
Yup. That's precisely what the superstructure half of "base-superstructure" means. Just that material conditions are the most powerful/consistent/general force governing human behavior is all.

[Anonymous No.14904734]

>>14904074
>t. has never read Marx

You people are like insects. So easy to spot! So easy to squish!

[Anonymous No.14904737]

>>14904602
That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.14904745]

>>14904727
No, only that they're the most basic. They become almost entirely irrelevant when they're met. A guy who's fed doesn't make his primary directive to then acquire as much food as possible.
Not that a communist would know what a full stomach is like.

[Anonymous No.14904752]

>>14904189
>Comparing a self-help grifter with one of the most important thinkers who have ever lived

[Anonymous No.14904756]

>>14904727
How does a structure even exist without the superstructure maintaining it? Why does one country abolish slavery and take up capitalism while another one doesn't? Is this not a primacy of superstructure over economic in some instances? Meaning we are looking at a feedback loop

[Anonymous No.14904781]

>>14904745
>material desires
>every truly met
Not sure about this one. Seems like when economies stop growing, they crash, which completely decimates the production of even basic necessities, and this happens all the time. Thus in a capitalist society, material needs are precarious and therefore never truly met (what good is a full stomach but the energy to earn another if your next meal is not assured?). Further, a capitalist society never could have needs met, elae it would stop growing, and therefore implode, no one invests without higher returns.

[Anonymous No.14904786]

>>14904781
Do you even look at the shit you type

[Anonymous No.14904809]

>>14904062
It's never worked... Ever

[Anonymous No.14904814]

>>14904809
good only in theory, just look at ussr. god bless the usa

[Anonymous No.14904855]

>>14904814
It's actually shit on paper, but somehow manages to be even more hilariously awful in practice.

[Anonymous No.14904870]

>>14904786
no sir, you are the pseud

[Anonymous No.14904881]

>>14904855
>>14904814

It's great both on paper and in practice. The point of philosophy is to change the world. Read more midwitts.

[Anonymous No.14904889]

>>14904881
>The point of philosophy is to change the world.
why are marxists like this bros. The point of philosophy is not to 'change the world', christ are you a 12 year old girl? 'change the world' lmao

[Anonymous No.14904918]

>>14904074
imagine thinking this. imagine walking up to a credited biologist and thinking you know more about bovines because they never milked a cow.

[Anonymous No.14904919]

Because serious engagement with Marx necessarily entails confronting a number of lies about him and his work that are held by our society.
That being said, being able to embrace a materialist viewpoint indicates lacking consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14904946]

because modern communism has absolutely nothing to do with Marx's original vision.

[Anonymous No.14904957]

>>14904918
It's generally a good idea to have experience with the things you claim to be an authority on, yes, and his sophomoric perceptions of "labor" become immediately apparent to anyone who has ever had a real job.

[Anonymous No.14904996]

marx was a communist, communism is not marxism. I repeat, marxism is not communism. Marxism did not begin and end with Karl Marx. Communism defeated Nazism, Coronavirus, the US military, and extremist dictators. Theres your of evidence of it working. Venezuela is the only country in latin america that has been to stabilize and even improve its economy during this crisis. Kinda funny how things work out when the US and friends stop manipulating the global market.

[Anonymous No.14905004]

>>14904957
you don't need to exploit people to understand why exploitation is bad. I can say that police shooting innocent people is bad and child slavery is wrong even though Im not a cop or sweatshop owner.

[Anonymous No.14905013]

>>14905004
Thanks for proving my point, retard.

[Anonymous No.14905021]

>>14905004
why yes, moral arguments translate seamlessly to economic and political frames.

[Anonymous No.14905031]

>>14905004
take a step back and ask yourself why you "know" these things.

[Anonymous No.14905055]

>>14904295
You are 100% right, but you don't even have to study Marxism to come to these conclusions. In my opinion you are just as likely to come to them through the study of "economics" or "philosophy" or "religion".

[Anonymous No.14905281]

>>14904284
It only repeled french because Napoleon overextended. Russian Army wes soon BTFO in crimean war.

[Anonymous No.14905323]

>>14904889
Of cource you would rather argue about whether or not souls exist. If philosophy cannot be put into practice then it's a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.14905340]

>>14905323
If philosophy can be put into practice, its no longer philosophy but policy.

[Anonymous No.14905369]

>>14904113
The USSR was completely paid for by Wall Street. All their technology was copied from the west. The USSR was nothing.

[Anonymous No.14905393]

>>14904074
literally nothing written here is true

[Anonymous No.14905400]

>>14904291

[Anonymous No.14905421]

>>14904996
Nazism was literally a response to the horrific rise of communism, and communists are the ones responsible for the coronavirus outbreak in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14905871]

>>14904091
>>14904084
>>14904113
>>14904138
>>14904240
>>14904291
>>14904734
>>14904918
>t. midwits who didn't recognize that >>14904074 was intended as a proof of ultimate midwittery and pseudism of anti-Marxists

[Anonymous No.14905894]

>>14904224
>Russia
>backwards
This is your peabrain on Marxism. Russia developed so hard and fast it tripped as hard.

[Anonymous No.14906124]

Can we list some contemporary Marxians?

John Smith- Imperialism in the 21st Century
Kalyan Sanyal- Rethinking Capitalist Development
https://www.thetricontinental.org/

[Anonymous No.14906142]

How come Marxists start and end with Marx and act like there hasn't been a century and a half of critique about his work?

Also, he was a shit tier, eurocentric anthropologist.

[Anonymous No.14906530]

>>14904336
Technique (execution of efficiency) allows the acquisition of resource and thus power.

[Anonymous No.14906635]

>>14904062
because the majority of political discourse these days is rather shallow cultural wars.

Marx is still relevant to this day because the basic logic of labour surplus still dominates the capitalist world

[Anonymous No.14906641]

>>14906635
Also, marxism BTFO out of both right wing reactionaries and liberal SJWs.

[Anonymous No.14906642]

>>14906142
Because it's literally a cult.

[Anonymous No.14906647]

>>14904189
At least he (Marx) read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.14906671]

>>14904756
No because abolishing slavery and taking up capitalism is not a choice. It happen when slavery is no longer cost-effective due to the competition of Capitalist competitors using cheap and flexible wagies to produce. Political economy is a result of capitalism, not the other way round.

[Anonymous No.14906699]

>>14904240
The only reason he's well-known today is because a bunch of fucking retards INSIST on trying to put forth his theories despite massive evidence that it just doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.14906702]

>>14906142
I literally just linked to some above>>14906124

Sanyal and others like Hardt and Negri are critical of Marx's teleological view of history and also Sanyal is critical of the way Marx ignored the 'wasteland' that capital creates, that is labour that exists outside of formal capital circuits.

[Anonymous No.14906730]

>>14906699
Why do retards latch on to Marx anyway?
He isn't a good author, reality has since blown the fuck out of all of dumbass hypotheses, and there was never any reason to take him seriously in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14906742]

>>14906730
Disprove the LTV right now. (You cannot).

[Anonymous No.14906747]

>>14906742
It's already been blown the fuck out repeatedly.
Do modern Marxists even still believe in it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value

[Anonymous No.14906758]

>>14906730
Because as someone already pointed here, Marx has a sophomoric interpretation of economics, work relations and societal hierarchies, which is the case for the majority of leftists. Marxist concept of universal equity also gets them high on their inflated sense of morality, making it that much easier for them to dismiss any sort of criticism to their retarded ideology, especially when they get radicalized and start fully believing that the ends justify the means even though the ends are essentially unatainable.

[Anonymous No.14906767]

>>14906747
Marx retroactively refuted all of those criticisms in his Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie

[Anonymous No.14906791]

>>14906767
No he didn't.

[Anonymous No.14906917]

>>14906747
Doesn't understand the concept of average work in quality (example of the bad worker or the one person out of 1 billion who found a diamond), doesn't understand the concept of useful labor (example of the useless hole in the ground), .
About the risk argument for the Capitalist, it's retarded, since the entrepreneur indeed risk his Capital the first time he invest, but once he got back his initial investment, it's all profit for him (all exploitation to be more precise). By the way, the worker also support risk when working in a factory, by loosing his job, sometimes even a greater risk than the Capitalist. Indeed, if a company is liquidated, the Capitalist still got the scaps left after the liquidation, scraps of value which have been built by the workers' work by the way. On the other hand, if a worker loose his jobs, he gets nothing, except welfare. So yeah, i feel that the worker support even greater risks than the Capitalist.

[Anonymous No.14906920]

>>14906791
Yes he did. Go read it and see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.14907155]

i admit i used to talk shit about marx/communism without ever reading a word of the literature or understanding anything about leftist politics but i have a question. if i'm understanding marx correctly, is it human labor that gives commodities value? as in, if there is an item, like a phone or chair, that is manufactured completely by machines, it's not going to be as valuable as a phone or a chair made, at some point, by human hands? that stuff made completely by machines don't turn much of a profit because goods ultimately derive their value from the surplus value exploited from people? does this mean automation is and always has been a meme? i may be overreacting but this worries me that our corporate masters intend to keep us enslaved indefinitely even if it means every person on the planet is working a bullshit job

[Anonymous No.14907168]

>>14904062
i dont know how daddy marx made it so amazing. thats why i would suck his dick nowadays if he was still alive...

[Anonymous No.14907213]

>>14907155
>that stuff made completely by machines don't turn much of a profit because goods ultimately derive their value from the surplus value exploited from people?
That's pretty much it. Either you are a Marxist troll, or you get it.
> does this mean automation is and always has been a meme?
The more automation there is, the less profit can be made. To a point were the system collapse due to the combo of automation combined with market saturation.
> i may be overreacting but this worries me that our corporate masters intend to keep us enslaved indefinitely even if it means every person on the planet is working a bullshit job
With automation the Capitalism class can even less justify their position. Indeed, there is no management of a machine. Justifying that the production is theirs, because somehow they own the machines (which have been made by workers at some point in the past) won't be possible. They'll have to be really creative to justify class based society.

[Anonymous No.14907223]

>>14907155
Almost every job is bullshit already. Yes, work is about enslavement, it has nothing to with profit. It is no difference for the rich to get richer. Keeping us down here and under control is all that matters.

I also never really read Marx because I don't like his stance on religion and Communism in practice just becomes forced bullshit work instead of liberation from bullshit work.

You could critique statism like a reverse ancap meme. Everything they hate about corporations, they permit in the state. No, I find it equally abhorrent, for profit or for ideology.

[Anonymous No.14907224]

>>14906530
based and Ellul-pilled

[Anonymous No.14907237]

>>14907223
>I also never really read Marx because I don't like his stance on religion
If you never read Marx, how do you know about his stance on religion?

[Anonymous No.14907253]

>>14907155
>if i'm understanding marx correctly, is it human labor that gives commodities value?
not exaclty

[Anonymous No.14907309]

>>14906917
>Doesn't understand the concept of average work in quality (example of the bad worker or the one person out of 1 billion who found a diamond)
unobservable quantity, doesn't matter
>It turns out, though, that this elementary particle, the unit on which everything else stands, is deeply problematic. The key difficulty is that this particle – like God or the Ether – is forever beyond our reach. We can observe actual labour, but that still tells us nothing about socially necessary abstract labour. The latter term differs from the former on two counts. First, socially necessary labour time refers not to the specific time a given capitalist enterprise takes to produce the commodity, but to the average time society requires to produce this type of commodity. This is the ‘socially necessary’ aspect of the term. Second, socially necessary labour time is counted not in heterogeneous units of concrete labour, but in homogenous units that can be added up. This is the ‘abstract’ dimension of the concept. The problem is that both conversions – from actual to socially necessary and from concrete to abstract – are difficult if not impossible to perform. As noted, this is a make-or-break predicament – for, if we cannot perform these conversions, we don’t have a basic unit to work with and therefore no theory at all.
from Nitzan and Bichler, "Capital as Power"
>doesn't understand the concept of useful labor (example of the useless hole in the ground)
circular argument. only those commodities that have use value (and are thus products of useful labor) to some people are in circulation and we know that a labor is not useful because its product is not in circulation on a market.
>About the risk argument for the Capitalist, it's retarded, since the entrepreneur indeed risk his Capital the first time he invest, but once he got back his initial investment, it's all profit for him (all exploitation to be more precise)
if that were true, no business ever would fail because "it's all profits" once the initial necessary capital expenditure has been made.
>By the way, the worker also support risk when working in a factory, by loosing his job, sometimes even a greater risk than the Capitalist. Indeed, if a company is liquidated, the Capitalist still got the scaps left after the liquidation, scraps of value which have been built by the workers' work by the way.
liquidation occurs when current market conditions are unfavorable and therefore capital goods will have to be sold at a much lower price than the present value of a loan which supported the initial purchase of those capital goods. as a result capitalists are insolvent. you seem to think that a capitalist is some sort of dragon sleeping on a mountain gold when in reality the vast majority of investments are financed by credit. that's why so many petite bourgeois capitalists joined the lumpenproletariat during the Great Depression

[Anonymous No.14907619]

>>14906142
Not to mention that a ton of those writers ask why Marx's ideas failed post ww2 and offer alternatives for the individual rather than the society.

[Anonymous No.14907633]

Reminder pic related solved Marxism and it is a waste of time to read any Marxist writer besides him.

[Anonymous No.14907701]

>>14907633
>solved marxism

t. never read marx

[Anonymous No.14907791]

>>14907701
t. never read Ellul

[Anonymous No.14907830]

How many people have ever fled capitalist countries to live in communist regimes?

[Anonymous No.14907848]

>>14907830
>At the height of the Depression, several thousand American emigrants left New York on the decks of passenger liners waving goodbye to the Statue of Liberty, bound for Leningrad.
>Over 100,000 Americans had applied for jobs working in brand new factories in Soviet Russia, ironically built for Stalin by famous American industrialists such as Henry Ford.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7537000/7537585.stm

[Anonymous No.14907872]

>>14907791
Okay, where did Marx use the term Marxism to describe a system? Hint: He didn't. If you call something Marxism, let alone say it can be 'solved' you've never read Marx. That's like saying Nietzsche advocated for nihilism.

[Anonymous No.14907923]

>>14907872
>This exchange is the source of Marx's remark, reported by Friedrich Engels: "ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste" ("what is certain is that [if they are Marxists], [then] I myself am not a Marxist")

[Anonymous No.14907952]

>>14907848
meanwhile 3.5million East germans defected to the West before they put up the Berlin wall to prevent them. And that's just one location

[Anonymous No.14907997]

>>14907952
they did so because BRD was less authoritarian than DDR and East Germany has always been less developed than West Germany

[Anonymous No.14908028]

>>14907923
Exactly, even Marx himself denies the existence of Marxism

[Anonymous No.14908149]

>>14907633
Where should I start with Ellul? I tried to read the Technological Society several times but his writing style is dry as fuck. It probably doesn't help that it looks like the book was printed in 1970 (Brand new from Amazon) in a really tiny font. Maybe it's just a crap edition/translation.

[Anonymous No.14908269]

>>14907213
>With automation the Capitalism class can even less justify their position.
"I bought it, therefore it's mine."
Wow, that was hard.

[Anonymous No.14908336]

>>14908269
>"I bought it, therefore it's mine."
That sounds absurd, even today.

[Anonymous No.14908397]

>>14908336
I'm not him but no, that makes sense. Even Marx supported individual property rights

[Anonymous No.14908424]

>>14904062
Marxism is the opium of the economics brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14908596]

>>14908397
>Even Marx supported individual property rights
He didn't support any rights and he didn't support private property, because he was working towards communism.

[Anonymous No.14908628]

>>14908397
True, but money you own =/= work spend to create value.
Practically, you can work little and have a lot of money, and on the other hand work and create lot of material value, but having a shit pay.
Money =/= than the value you created in your life.

[Anonymous No.14909321]

>>14908596
You aren't allowed to post in a thread about Marx unless you have read one of his books

[Anonymous No.14909411]

>>14909321
I've read over 2000 pages of Marx and Engels.

[Anonymous No.14909466]

>>14907633
What's his thesis?

[Anonymous No.14909485]

>>14907155
>that stuff made completely by machines don't turn much of a profit because goods ultimately derive their value from the surplus value exploited from people?


I thought I understood Marx, but I don't get this?


Let's say there's a widget that takes 4 people to make. Let's say another company can make the widget with just 2 people + automation of certain parts of the process. Doesn't that just mean that the capitalist will be able to get more profit? Why would the value of the widget go down?

[Anonymous No.14909558]

>>14904113
literacy rate ist the one that truly shows you what this is about. They managed to reach the 19th century, in the 20th century, after decades. And made most people at least equally miserable. I don't applaud them.

[Anonymous No.14909584]

>>14907872
classic. You win by having read and remembered the shithead more thoroughly and precicely, even though that's completely beside the point. Cunt.

[Anonymous No.14909607]

>>14908336
Trade has always been a fundamental aspect of human interaction; money is just a convenient intermediary.
What would be absurd is if two people reach a consensual exchange, and you, the useless commie faggot, come out of nowhere and start demanding your cut of money, and screaming about how you are owed access to the machine.

[Anonymous No.14909653]

>>14909485
The social value will go down only as the improved process becomes the standard one.

>>14909607
The aim of communists is not a cut of money but abolition of money.

[Anonymous No.14909685]

do you have to have a university level understanding of economics to read marx's capital? i'm tired of being an ignorant wage slavie and want to die at least a self aware wage slave so when i die i go to commie heaven where nobody has to wage slave.

[Anonymous No.14909696]

>>14904074
absolutely fucking based
agenda driven raiders seething

[Anonymous No.14909720]

>>14907830
>communist regimes
name 1

[Anonymous No.14909733]

>>14909720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state#List_of_communist_states

[Anonymous No.14909741]

>>14907213
>They'll have to be really creative to justify class based society.
>>14908269
>"I bought it, therefore it's mine."
>Wow, that was hard.
maybe they won't have to try very hard at all to justify slavery

[Anonymous No.14909764]

>>14909685
It obviously helps to know stuff like Adam Smith and Ricardo but the resources available today are enough for anyone to become educated.

People like David Harvey for example.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0A7FFF28B99C1303
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWvnUfModHP9Ci8M1g39l4AZgK6YLCXd0

[Anonymous No.14909852]

>>14909764
thanks bro i was actually looking for anything on marx or communism from the teaching company torrent lectures but these look good

[Anonymous No.14909869]

>>14909852
No problem. There's no excuse for anyone not to get educated when stuff like youtube and libgen exist. Also check out marxists.org

[Anonymous No.14909897]

>>14908149
In "Perspectives on our Age" he basically gives an introduction to his thought.

[Anonymous No.14909944]

The Marxists believed economics is a battle, a battle between the proletariat and the bourgeois. They believed that economic systems were doomed to enslave people and keep them poor and downtrodden unless there was a radical economic change change, something like equity policy, for example. That was put to the test in the 20th century with the most horribly disastrous results. Marxism was the most destructive political and economic doctrine ever invented by mankind. It was catastrophic, and students are not taught this. Students have no idea what happened when Stalin was in power. Tens of millions of people killed and tortured.

In the 1960s the evidence that Marxism was a catastrophic failure was so overwhelming that even the French intellectuals like Jean Paul Sartre had to admit that Marxism did not work. But then we had the postmodernists, who were all Marxists, but to be a Marxist after WW2 was to be an anti-intellectual, so they did a slight of hand. Instead of pitting the proletariat against the bourgeois, they pit the oppressed against the oppressor. They continued the same philosophy under a slightly different name, except now it wasn't just about economics, it was about power. And since then we've seen the rapid expansion of identity politics, thanks to cultural marxists who are too stupid to admit that their ideas were complete failures responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

[Anonymous No.14909988]

>>14909944
This is what happens when you smoke the JP gangja. Yeah the 20th century attempts of people to get rid of their chains weren't done well but don't tell me the exploitation off the backs of working people for the last 2 centuries isn't just as bad.

Also marxists don't care about identity shit at all, that's just a sideshow to distract from the real problems.

[Anonymous No.14910060]

okay guys, I'm gonna have to stop this thread. I just found my copy of Kapital and I'm gonna read it. Brb. Will let you know what it says when I'm finished.

[Anonymous No.14910062]

>>14904062
marxism turns you into a midair what the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.14910157]

guys I'm back. You didn't tell me it was this long. I'm not even through the introduction, let alone the 12 prefaces to each edition.

[Anonymous No.14910324]

>>14910157
It's not a short work, so it takes determination on the part of the reader.

Quote from one of the prefaces
>There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.

[Anonymous No.14910344]

>>14904113
Was halfway with you but Marx would have predicted the failure of the USSR because they went straight from a peasant economy to an industrial socialist economy without the capitalist phase. It literally was not real communism.

[Anonymous No.14910380]

>>14907155
>>14907213
Marx differentiates between abstract and concrete labor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDIIQG7DjqE

[Anonymous No.14910402]

>>14904062
Marx is the biggest of the pop-pseuds of modernity. It doesn't make things better that he was black, terrible writers, the africans.

[Anonymous No.14910735]

>>14910157
Marx likes to hide his bullshittery under pseudo-complexity, which has since become incredibly popular in non-STEM academic circles.
>>14910324
Marxism is as anti-scientific as it gets. It's nothing but an exercise in trying to argue why his incorrect hypotheses somehow aren't wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.14910777]

>>14904074
You apply reified capitalist notions of success to Marx, a critic of capitalism.
>How can one critique slavery without first owning slaves?

[Anonymous No.14910791]

>>14907633
>Ellul identified himself as a Christian Anarchist. Ellul explained his view in this way: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence."[38] And, "... Jesus was not only a socialist but an anarchist – and I want to stress here that I regard anarchism as the fullest and most serious form of socialism."[
based

[Anonymous No.14910819]

>>14910735
Science was a broader term in German, but his analysis is presented logically and systematically rather than primarily as a moral argument.

[Anonymous No.14910984]

>>14910819
And turned out to be wrong, because it was entirely based on how industry worked in his imagination, and not reality.

[Anonymous No.14910991]

>>14910791
And how are you going to reach any form of stateless anarchy without the process of communism?

[Anonymous No.14910994]

>>14910991
no idea but its a neat idea

[Anonymous No.14911012]

>>14910991
There's many ways to create a failed state, communism just seems the most direct way to ruin everything.

[Anonymous No.14911025]

>>14904439
Most of them do manage that to be fair. The USSR managed to be a superpower through multiple changes of leadership, Venezuela ran quite well until the leader changed, China did all right too. Most of the horrors blamed on communism are blunders that poor monarchs and dictators committed.

[Anonymous No.14911028]

Serious question, why are neo-marxists doing the bidding of international finance?

[Anonymous No.14911033]

>>14911025
>Most of the horrors blamed on communism are blunders that poor monarchs and dictators committed.
You spelled jews wrong, and they were hardly blunders.

[Anonymous No.14911414]

>>14909685
No, you only need to have the ability to read and a genuine interest in communism. University-level understanding of the current incarnation of political economy would probably make it less likely for you to grasp Marx, if anything.

>>14910344
USSR was capitalist throughout it's entire existence.

[Anonymous No.14911452]

Catholicism is good at whipping plebs into shape. Communism is a parasitic lifestyle - it dies when there's nothing left to steal.

[Anonymous No.14911478]

>>14911028
Give me a neo-marxist but don't guve me a trotskyist

>>14910344
My man did lenin just not exist?

[Anonymous No.14911492]

>>14911452
Jesus was an anarcho-communist

[Anonymous No.14911501]

>>14910984
>And turned out to be wrong
It's turning out quite fine.

[Anonymous No.14911574]

>>14904074
>How can you be an oncologist if you've never had cancer?!
Do you know the kind of argument you're using?

[Anonymous No.14911589]

>>14911492
Jesus could also magically create food out of thin air, so it's not really applicable.

[Anonymous No.14911594]

>>14911574
You've already made this post at least 5 times in this thread alone, and already BTFO.

[Anonymous No.14911649]

>>14911414
>USSR was capitalist throughout it's entire existence.
True. https://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr-23032011
>>14911492
Obviously. Those who don't agree either don't understand the definition of anarcho-communism, or are alienated by Capitalism and under it's mystification.

[Anonymous No.14911679]

not even the triumphal announcements of the incorrectness of Marx or Marxism can stop the rising tide of Marxism. notice the panic with which he is denounced, the increasing anxiety, even while, as this very thread demonstrates, people begin to turn to him, to take him seriously, despite the unending avalanche of freaked-out philistine trolls trashing him, who've never read or understood him, but are afraid of what he represents - the complete destruction of the present world-order, in which all their cant and anxiety is socially manufactured. YOU WILL NOT STOP MARXISM LOL

ever

marxism is the final and ultimate gangster philosophy, the intellectual crime par excellence. it is coming for you

[Anonymous No.14911680]

>>14911589
Post-scarcity in practice.

[Anonymous No.14911683]

>>14911649
>lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism
NEP lasted only a few years. Stalin transitioned to socialism.

[Anonymous No.14911689]

>>14911680
A post-scarcity society wouldn't need communism either; in fact, communism would probably just manage to fuck it up, like they do everything else.

[Anonymous No.14911708]

>>14911689
On what priniciple can post-scarcity society run on, if not communism?

[Anonymous No.14911746]

>>14911708
It runs on the principle that since there are no longer limited resources since we live in imaginary magical future land, you don't need any system to run it you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.14913052]

>>14911746
>retard

[Anonymous No.14913692]

>>14904062
Kill yourself.
Read austrian economics.

[Anonymous No.14913852]

>>14911683
Stalin did shit. Soviet agriculture was further from socialism than even the agriculture of more developed capitalist countries. So was industry, where the concentration of capital was lagging behind the West.

[Anonymous No.14914592]

>>14904074
>be Marx
>be a Young Hegelian
>Study the most complex philosophers of all time
>become a journalist
>write for the New York Tribune and other abolitionist newspapers
>make speeches against wage-slavery, capitalism and actual slavery
>become one of the loudest voices for human decency
>get deported from your own country
>live in abject poverty for many years in spite of revolutionary new ideas
>your friend Engels sees the genius in you and uses his father's cash to fund you and your family
>write thousands of letters, journals, articles, books, unpublished manuscripts, poetry, political commentary, philosophy, and revolutionary economic thought, more than most modern-day economists, writers journalists, etc ever write.
>be the key inspiration and lead theoretician for the Paris Commune, the Soviet Union and other socialist states that live on to this day

>some guy on /pol/ who is probably unemployed says you were lazy

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/44161073/#44162727

>>14907309
based

>>14906791
He refuted Bailey's exchange-only view, which is on remarkably similar grounds to marginalism's. Patrick Murray elaborates on this fact pretty well. The criticisms by the likes of Samuelson are mostly just regurgitated points from Bohm-Bawerk that have been refuted time and time again since around the 1950s.

[Anonymous No.14914620]

>>14913852
>Soviet agriculture was further from socialism than even the agriculture of more developed capitalist countries.
Soviet agriculture was fully socialized in 30s.

[Anonymous No.14914689]

>>14906142
>Also, he was a shit tier, eurocentric anthropologist.
This is important critique. Marvin Harris' critique of Marx is pretty good.

[Anonymous No.14914732]

>>14906142
>How come Marxists start and end with Marx and act like there hasn't been a century and a half of critique about his work?
Because they offer new counter-critiques of the existing critiques. You'd only miss this fact if you haven't been following Marxism in any field. Do you really think Marxist economists and historians haven't engaged with criticisms of Marx in the past century?

>>14914689
It's an important critique; it doesn't mean it's an invalid one. It's perfectly fine to criticize Marx's theory on the basis of information he didn't have (and no serious Marxist would find a problem with that), but to ignore post-Marx work (what can generally be called Marxism) because Marx had incomplete knowledge would be silly. There's no modern Marxist anthropologist I know of today who doesn't engage with either the "Marx was a eurocentric" critique or a study of colonialism.

[Anonymous No.14914907]

>>14914620
Soviet agriculture in the 30s was made out of peasants that lived off of their private plots (a pre-capitalist form) as well as the wages and the share of the profit from the enterprise they co-owned (a capitalist form).

[Anonymous No.14915055]

>>14906142
Because Marxism involves agreeing with most of the critique, following the core analyze of Marxism, and see if it still pans out.
And in most cases it won't pan out, because Marxism isn't a stone tablet like most ideologies are. Instead they are a bunch of guidelines that is followed meticulously to create the work of Marx.
The end result is that Marxism post Marx can apply Marxism framework to expand AND defend his theories, unlike most other theories will get debunked when encountering the first chisel of society.

It also means Marx debunked his own works, in his own lifetime, because Marxism is a decent tool.
Which means every single debunk can end with some forms of analyze of the means of production, and how its seize, invalidation it entirely if its not deep enough.

>>14909485
>Doesn't that just mean that the capitalist will be able to get more profit? Why would the value of the widget go down?
The thing is, it only makes sense once you distance yourself from the short term for the people involved.
Short term? There is gain.

Long term?
There is examples of gain and loss in both cases. I.e Industrialization is a very negative case, and so is the Saudi Oil wars.
But there is examples of the opposite, where the surplus free labor can now be used better. Or the cumulative improvements improve profits by improving efficiency trough the entire economy, to the point where you expect a average worker to make years of profit within months.

Essentially if Supply and Demand gets skewed enough to impact national labor, wacky shit happens like compete destabilization of entire economies.
Its one of the biggest problems the third world face: Any economy they can develop, can cease to exist in moments if there is tech improvements in the sector they specialize in.

[Anonymous No.14915772]

Academic and left liberal pseudo-Marxism is the perfect sinkhole for radical impulses. It's essentially progressive and accelerationist - perfectly amenable to capitalism. Labor unions stopped fighting the wage system, and started fighting for a better wage, thus resigning the workers to eternal slavery, exactly when they were infected by the Marxist brain disease. Progressive capitalists love Marx's materialism and historicism. His class analysis may have been useful once, but it has been sublimated into intersectionality and completely drained of power. There is nothing left that is "radical" about Marxism anymore, in theory or in politics. It's a CIA psyop, it's masturbatory excess.