/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1588238]

Anyone else read this book? I personally thought it was a load of bullshit. Opinions?

[Anonymous No.1588242]

You typed that statement and then chose an image at random, didn't you?

[Anonymous No.1588243]

...No, I was actually talking about the book in the pic

[Anonymous No.1588250]

Is it just me or is this cloak really fucking heavy?

Yeah conflict theory jokes.

[Anonymous No.1588266]

>>1588250
The reason why we're assuming that you're full of bullshit is because if you had actually read the Communist Manifesto, you would know it's really an essay, not a full book.

If you have actually read it and were confused by something about the argument, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

[Anonymous No.1588272]

To simply say "it was a load of bullshit" isn't good discussion. Meaningless pontification that isn't supported by anything at all is a waste of space.

[Anonymous No.1588276]

Marx was wrong because he failed to recognize that violent revolutions never produce the intended results.

His ideals are cool, but his methods of achieving them are stupid.

[Anonymous No.1588280]

there's this neighbor who lives on our block. he has a nuclear shelter where spends most of his time. every once in awhile he comes out and starts complaining about communists. a few weeks ago he was criticizing communist manifesto. he would scream random nonsense and then crawl back into his hole.

white trash is funny.

[Anonymous No.1588282]

>>1588250
Die Bart Die.

[Anonymous No.1588286]

>>1588276
Yeah. I mean just look at America!

[Anonymous No.1588294]

>>1588286

The American Revolution wasn't a proper revolution, it was a war of independence. There wasn't anything all that revolutionary about the new form of government, either, it was similar to the British system but lacking a monarch and with minor adjustments.

[Anonymous No.1588295]

>>1588276

Marx........... never realized that revolutions produced unintended results.

Wow. Wow, wow, wow.

Go to college and get back to me when you've read some Marx.

[Anonymous No.1588296]

>>1588276
>His ideals are cool
What the fuck are you talking about?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1588306]

>>1588295
>Marx was wrong because he failed to recognize that violent revolutions never produce the intended results.
>Marx........... never realized that revolutions produced unintended results.

Why did you change what he said

>>1588296
He may be talking about the end of alienation, class differences and so on.

[Anonymous No.1588310]

>>1588238
I'm a Democratic-socialist, (Never to be confused with regular or conservative Dems) so I don't bother with that sort of thing

[Anonymous No.1588311]

>>1588306

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.1588315]

>>1588306

D&E, aren't you some sort of hyper individualist?

[Anonymous No.1588367]

>>1588266

I'm not OP, I just felt like making an "iron cage" joke. I like Marx but I prefer Weber's antipositivist stance.

Kind of a shame Marx has such a bad name in American pop culture, but I can understand in a way; great momentum and ideas about class struggles, alienation, false consciousness... and then it seems to turn into an infomercial.

[Anonymous No.1588368]

>>1588306
"the results of the revolution were unintended" is the same as "the results of the revolution were not intended". It's an axiom of logic, actualy: ~[p] -> ~p

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1588376]

>>1588368
>Marx was wrong because he failed to recognize that violent revolutions never produce the intended results
>>Marx........... never realized that revolutions produced unintended results.

They're not logically equivalent.

>>1588315
>hyper individualist?
Wouldn't that just be self-defeating

[Anonymous No.1588379]

>>1588368

You left out key words, though. Violent and never. There's also a difference between producing unintended results and not producing the intended results. Re-read the sentence and you might see how your post mischaracterized my argument.

[Anonymous No.1588382]

>>1588367

But antipositivism is unscientific, I am yet to see a logical justification of it.

You should just stick to Marx and other scientific socialist if you're serious about the concept.

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588394]

>>1588382
hello

[Anonymous No.1588395]

>>1588376

>Wouldn't that be self defeating

i think he meant just individualist, he's most likely just repeating the same brainwashed jargon they throw around at his local CP meeting in order to cast out anyone who thinks differently than himself as extreme

[Anonymous No.1588401]

>>1588382
>here

>>1588394

Go fuck yourself

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588415]

>>1588401
>mfw i do that on occasion

[Anonymous No.1588425]

>>1588379
Reread anything Marx wrote on revolutions and you'll see that I characterized you just fine.

[Anonymous No.1588428]

>>1588367
my bad, I selected both your post and OP's (trying to think of a stahlhartes Gehäuse joke) and deleted the wrong one.

it's weird to think of Weber as anti-positivist, though. Interpretive =! antipositivist.

[Anonymous No.1588435]

>>1588415

I bet you're the life of that party at your university, bro.

[Anonymous No.1588436]

>>1588382

>sociology
>socialism

>close enough

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588443]

>>1588435
You bet your ass i am

[Anonymous No.1588445]

>>1588436

You know what I meant, don't be a smart ass

Scientific socialism is the only correct way to solve society's many problems anyway.

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588451]

>>1588445

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1588454]

>>1588445
>Scientific socialism
more like geschichtenscheissenschlopff

[Anonymous No.1588456]

MAN you guys sound boring as fuck to talk to IRL.

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588471]

>>1588445
in less than one thousand years everything you deem sacred and scientific will be primitive superstition to the more "modern" folk of the time in the exact same way the paganist agricultural way of life is viewed as a retarded fairy land of lost hopes today.

[Anonymous No.1588474]

>>1588425

Nice argument.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1588479]

>>1588471
Hi aether

[Anonymous No.1588482]

>>1588454

Cool story bro, if you have any real criticisms of scientific socialism, please, join in.

>>1588471

Marxism has been around for over 100 years and is still seen as scientific and extremely relevant. Your argument is invalid.

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588484]

>>1588482
>Marxism is still seen as scientific and extremely relevant.

[Anonymous No.1588490]

>>1588484
>>1588484

Dialectical materialism, how does it work?

[Anonymous No.1588496]

>>1588484

There isn't one mainstream sociologist/economist who hasn't read Marx and Engels, I assure you.

[Anonymous No.1588498]

>>1588482

Scientific Marxism isn't scientific just because they co-opted the word. There are far too many untested and untestable assumptions and the far-fetched utopian (yeah, I know) idea of a future in which scarcity has been eliminated and there is an abundance of all material goods.

[Anonymous No.1588503]

>>1588490

Yeah, it's pseudoscience.

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588508]

>>1588496
cool, i'm sure they've happen to of read mein kampf the bible at some point too. And bathroom graffiti. Shits scientifically relevant, yo.

[Anonymous No.1588515]

>>1588498

It is scientific, the scientific method was applied through revolution, Marxists take note of the failures of the USSR and work to resolve them theoretically before trying again.

[Anonymous No.1588521]

>>1588508

lol

Nice try Bill Hicks.

But certainly you know that modern economics are influenced by Marxism, unless you probably wouldn't have gotten into that university of which you are currently king of.

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588522]

hey kids, just remember, when you want something you have to say tohave a predisposed air of near godlike authority behind, just say 'science'. Doesn't matter where, or when, just that its there. It automatically makes you right.

[Anonymous No.1588525]

The capitalism of Marx's day really was exploitative and abusive to the working class. It's still not great but things have....gotten better.

[Anonymous No.1588527]

>>1588521
inb4 raging anarcho-capitalists

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1588543]

>>1588521
sure, if 'mordern economics' is a field all by its lonesome with absolutely no schools within it divided against each other about how things should get done. I suppose you'd be rigth then.

[Anonymous No.1588547]

>>1588543

-cough-

All schools to the left of the Austrian school (which we both know is total BS) are influenced by Marx.

why u so whiny?

[Anonymous No.1588553]

>>1588515

The failure was twofold. It was in the revolution, and it was in the endgame. It was a weak attempt to reach a prize that was never, and will probably never be, in reach.

[Anonymous No.1588561]

>>1588553

Are you really that dense?

Great gains were made after the Russian and Chinese revolutions, how about you look at some statistics. Socialism doesn't happen overnight.

[Anonymous No.1588564]

>>1588561

Outside of Russia and China they were, and in China only after they abandoned revolutionary and Marxist principles.

[Anonymous No.1588566]

>>1588564

That's just incorrect dude.

[Anonymous No.1588584]

>>1588566

Well, you were pretty vague so forgive me if I interpreted your words to mean there were social or economic gains resultant from the Chinese and Russian revolutions. Perhaps you could tell me what sort of gains you're referring to, where, and what statistics I should be looking at? Unless this is just empty posturing, of course. But I'm sure you're well-versed on the matter since you're arguing so authoritatively and dismissively.

[Anonymous No.1588593]

>>1588584

http://sweetandsoursocialism.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/cia-statistics-show-chinese-revolution-improve
d-workers’-lives-workers-world/

Cuba has the highest doctor per patient ration in the world, Russian industrialization, etc, etc.

Look it up yourself, I'm pretty tired.

[Anonymous No.1588633]

I find it striking that a man who only worked as an editor and author his whole life, and exploited his friend Engels for support for both him and his wife, spoke as if an expert on the exploitation of the working class. For an author, of course there will be an extra element of alienation if they aren't given proper credit for their words. And I am not trying to launch some kind of ad hominem attack on Marx, there was a lot of exploitation going on at the time, but I feel that his words have been misconstrued over the years and given more weight at times, than they deserve

[Anonymous No.1588641]

>>1588593

Wow, so life in China was better after the Communist government secured its power than during the Chinese Civil War? Who would've thought. I guess the Cultural Revolution was a lot better than the Khmer Rouge, too.

Also, doctor per patient ratio means nothing as far as quality of care, is a fairly selective thing to be basing your estimation of quality of life on, and Cuba was a fairly wealthy, if not equitible, society before the revolution. (And many of the gains in Cuba have come in the last 20 years since the State began to loosen its grip.)

And lastly, Russian industrialization? Haha. Russia certainly did build up its industry, but far less than the relatively Capitalist West and not enough to meet its citizens' demands. (See: Levis, Toilet paper.)

[Anonymous No.1588652]

>>1588641
>Cuba was a fairly wealthy, if not equitible, society before the revolution.

And what's the point of wealth if it's concentrated on a few hands?

[Anonymous No.1588655]

>>1588633
I don't think you understand what exploitation means.

[Anonymous No.1588665]

>>1588652

My point is that the same if not better results could have been achieved by a transition to representative government and regulated capitalism. The fact that Cuba's not a shithole isn't creditable to the Communist government, it's creditable to Cuba's wealth of valuable resources that only a complete idiot could squander.

[Isabelle Huppert "Joyless Twat" !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1588663]

>>1588584

w/r/t to socioeconomic gains resultant from the Russian Revolution, at least, you can refer to nearly any of Sheila Fitzpatrick's corpus of scholarly work.

[Anonymous No.1588668]

>>1588663

Ooh, someone I actually like debating with shows up. I'll look into it, thanks.

[Anonymous No.1588672]

>>1588665

And their ability to recycle and maintain the same tech for decades.

[Anonymous No.1588674]

>>1588665
>My point is that the same if not better results could have been achieved by a transition to representative government and regulated capitalism.

The US wouldn't have allowed that. Batista was their lapdog, and they were very happy with cheap resources and beach resorts and casinos for american tourists.

[Anonymous No.1588675]

>>1588655
Oh, I'm sorry, should I have used capitalized upon when speaking of his relation with Engels? Would that make you feel better?

[Isabelle Huppert "Joyless Twat" !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1588679]

>>1588652

I agree with you, and what we agree on is the general deficiency of macroeconomic indicators in terms of gauging the so-called real economy, standards of living, and so forth. Jacking macroeconomic indicators doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than the barest improvement of incredibly skewed abstractions. Concordantly, you can have high macroeconomic indicators in a completely shit country to live in (e.g., the early years in Pinochet's Chile). Ultimately, we should all just probably agree with UCB's Brad Delong and just stop teaching macroecon until some of the nonsense gets sorted out.

[Anonymous No.1588681]

>>1588675
Not, really. It seems you think exploitation means "got money from".

[Anonymous No.1588682]

[Anonymous No.1588685]

>>1588674

It's an irrelevant tangent and I'm not defending the U.S., but you really think the U.S. wouldn't have preferred an open, democratic and capitalist society to Castro? Obviously they would have preferred Batista to slowly reform but if there had to be a revolution, they would have preferred it result in a representative government than in communism.

Again, that's irrelevant, though. It doesn't matter what the U.S. would have allowed, what matters is what would have been the better system for Cuba.

[Anonymous No.1588691]

[Anonymous No.1588697]

>>1588681
not at all
first: I consider any friendship that results in decades of being taken care of by someone else an exploitation, as you are manipulating your bond with someone to your ends
second: my use of exploitation in other instances is using the term as translations of Marx do (I can't remember whether it's in the Manifesto or his earlier works), which is roughly equivalent to capital gain/surplus value idea he speaks of as a major flaw in the system

[Anonymous No.1588694]

>>1588679

Macroeconomic indicators aren't good indicators of the well-being of the people and the society, but they are good indicators of the potential of that society if it were more equitable and well-managed. A high GDP per capita doesn't mean the workers in that country are treated well or that they're happy or that the money is well-spent, but it does mean there is a large base of money/resources to use in whatever form of government.

[Anonymous No.1588699]

[Anonymous No.1588704]

>>1588685
Batista came back to power with a coup d'etat supported by the US, a coup that prevented the cubans from choosing their own president through democratic elections. I mean, it's not like the US was a neutral observer in the whole history of Cuba and suddenly the country chose a communist dictatorship instead of a democratic system. The US actively hindered any democratic development, cause they wanted cheap resources. To no surprise, since that has always been the attitude of the US towards latin america (until recently)

[Anonymous No.1588707]

i think this are all my marx related pictures, i had other marx pimp but i cant find it

i can post other commies if somebody want

[Anonymous No.1588710]

>>1588704

Economics is part of it, but the U.S. did stupid things like that all the time in the Cold War not because of money, but because of fear that democracy in places which had been long oppressed would lead to Communism. They may have been right, but again I'm not defending the U.S. They were wrong to prop up Batista. It's just irrelevant to this argument.

[Isabelle Huppert "Joyless Twat" !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1588711]

>>1588694

Just because, for example, goods and services are produced within a country doesn't necessarily mean that the government has access to or control of those goods and services. Much less the monetary base or money supply.

>they are good indicators of the potential of that society if it were more equitable and well-managed

That's a whole lot of assumption right there. The "potential of that society" is rather vaguely worded, but the real kicker is contained in the last clause there. "[I]f it were more equitable and well-managed." If only, if only. That being said, I think the point against macroeconomic indicators stands.

[Anonymous No.1588712]

Of course it's bullshit, virtually all literature prior to the twentieth century is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1588714]

>>1588697
As I said, I don't think you understand what exploitation means. I mean:

>roughly equivalent to capital gain/surplus value idea

How you apply that to Engels support of Marx while he was writing Das Kapital?

[Anonymous No.1588722]

>>1588714
I was only mentioning Engels in reference to the first explanation
Wow, reading comprehension; get some

[Anonymous No.1588731]

>>1588711

I'm not arguing that they're flawed, but they're still useful. They don't paint a picture of a country's economic situation, but they're better than nothing. Any indicator or statistic you choose is going to paint a limited picture, even if you throw a whole mess of them together into a web that attempts to accurately portray the economic, political, spiritual and individual well-being of a society.

My initial point was that a country with a high GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, will usually be more individually prosperous than a country with a low GDP per capita. Not always, but when that's not the case it's usually because of incompetent or corrupt undemocratic government.

[Anonymous No.1588732]

The Labour Theory of Value is equivalent to believing in homeopathy or creationism. This is why there as the years go by more and more Marxists have retreated from Economics into more bullshit fields like Sociology.

[Anonymous No.1588740]

>>1588722
Then if you agree that you are using two senses of the word with different meanings why do you mention it in relation on Marx's analysis of exploitation? Rephrased, your critique would be something like:

>Hey, look at this guy. He was all day talking about exploitation of the working class but then he conned Engles out of his moneys!

[Isabelle Huppert "Joyless Twat" !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1588746]

>>1588731

>they're better than nothing.

In a sense, yes. At the same time, they're so frequently used to obfuscate socioeconomic realities that's it's frustrating to accede that. I suppose that indicates a deeper problem in the misuse and misunderstanding of statistical data. But still.

>Not always, but when that's not the case it's usually because of incompetent or corrupt undemocratic government.

Eh. You're just externalizing the problem by sloughing it off as "some government's fault." That's problematic.

>>1588732

>The Labour Theory of Value is equivalent to believing in homeopathy or creationism.

That may be what your finance professor told you, but that's bullshit, son. Falling back onto your magic utils and counting them provides no explanatory power whatsoever, only theoretically shady quantifiability. You want to make the hard claim for economics as a science, you show me a motherfucking util in a microscope.

[Lord of City Speak No.1588748]

I agree...its a great product
,look at how fat the North Koreans are today,
how communist, Communism China is now,
not to mention how strong of a government the USSR is today...wait a damn minute !


China has such great human rights,especially during the Culture Revolution,and Great Leap Forward...even today they have such a great record!

[Anonymous No.1588749]

>>1588732
>The Labour Theory of Value is equivalent to believing in homeopathy or creationism.

Believing on the invisible hand of capitalism that would makes all us prosper and happy it's ok, though.

[Isabelle Huppert "Joyless Twat" !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1588756]

>>1588749

He's referring to the marginal revolution, and, more broadly speaking, to the quantified conception of utility that predominates mainstream economics and, particular, finance departments. Yet the non-quantifiable assumptions underlying the quantified conception of utility, not to mention the floating question mark of risk, are rarely acknowledged, much less discussed, because if you just assume all that away, you can do lots of nifty math and sometimes even start hedge funds like LTCM that manage to ruin entire national economies after claiming to have quantified risk.

[Anonymous No.1588766]

>>1588711

Good point. The government isn't the economy - it's a group of administrators and caretakers and maintenance workers. It doesn't have access to everything produced in the country, it's not god, contrary to what some Marxists tend to think.

[Anonymous No.1588773]

Marxism: the government is God

Fascism: the superhero comics of political thought.

[Isabelle Huppert "Joyless Twat" !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1588778]

>>1588766

Even in a planned economy, "the government isn't the economy."

>it's not god, contrary to what some Marxists tend to think

Can't imagine a Marxist who would think that, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.1588779]

>>1588773

Marxism is more like We are the Government

[Anonymous No.1588786]

I can sort of understand why OP might consider The Manifesto bullshit.
Surely, his ideas are outdated.
Though we may take inspiration from Marx, writings that we may better apply in modern society are those of say, Debord and Gorz.

[Anonymous No.1588797]

>>1588746

Sorry, I had to go grab another beer (which may impair my judgment, and tomorrow I may not agree with what I'm about to write). I don't mean to blame all economic inequities and quality-of-life issues on bad government, but to say as I was originally arguing that even a bad government can have a happy, healthy people if it has substantial resources to work with. What I was saying before was that although Cuba's doing moderately well in many aspects, it's not because of the Communist government. I think that the same, if not more, growth would have been seen with a representative government in a regulated capitalist economic system. I think Cuba, because of its large base of resources, would be pretty well off regardless of the form of government, and not just based on macroeconomic indicators. Any Cuban government which treats it people with a modicum of respect would be well-off on an individual level as well.

[Anonymous No.1588905]

>>1588773

[Anonymous No.1589731]

bamp