/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17351135]

This book seems like itll never end.
I on chapter 15,apparently it has 33 chapters.
Ive yet to see anything that stands out yet.
Just the appaling working conditions of 19th century england, something about guilds under feudalism and machinery.
Ill get there.
After i finish these books if somebody tells me to read marx ill type in all caps.

[Anonymous No.17351145]

>>17351135
what do you think about the theory so far?

[Anonymous No.17351158]

>>17351145
well im assuming ill get to the meat and potatoes later on so far it mostly feels like im reading a history book.

[Anonymous No.17351164]

>>17351135
bro, you can't just start reading "das kapital"
you need supplementary literature to get the most value out of it
>Ive yet to see anything that stands out yet.
Just the appaling working conditions of 19th century england, something about guilds under feudalism and machinery.
This is exactly what I always hear from people who read it without preparation. don't torture yourself with it, start with the "Cambridge companion" for Marx and work yourself up, philosophy can sometimes be like math in that regard.

[Anonymous No.17351368]

>>17351135
It litteraly contradicts itself with its own footnotes.
>>17351164
>bro, you can't just start reading "das kapital"
you need supplementary literature to get the most value out of it
if can't stand by itself it can't standperiod.

[Anonymous No.17351414]

>>17351368
Imagine reading solely one book of the bible to get "the message" or the cultural and historical significance of the document.
If you have intellectual integrity you cannot study "Das Kapital" in a vacuum. You need at least the historical context to get some understanding.
To give one example: "Das Kapital" is primarily a critique of political economy (Smith, Ricardo, etc), without knowledge about this historical school of thought, a lot of the arguments and topics of "Das Kapital" make no sense.

[Anonymous No.17351454]

Yeah it's pretty worthless
If you want to read about the working class in the industrial revolution, Mayhew is much better and if fiction suits your fancy, Dickens and Thackeray
If you want history read an actual history book

[Anonymous No.17351466]

>>17351454
Even if it would be worthless (which it is not, Marxism is an outdated but useful tool of societal analysis) it would be worthy of study solely judging by his influence on history and philosophy, contemporary politics etc

[Anonymous No.17351472]

You're reading but not understanding the underlying principles
may I ask why you're wasting your time?

[Anonymous No.17351502]

>>17351466
Marx himself has a near zero influence on history and politics, Marxism is the negation of his retarded ideas while modern leftism only pays lip service
By this logic you should drop Marx and go back to Gilgamesh and Homer because their influence on history and culture is incalculably higher than Marx's time in the spotlight
>Muh societal analysis
Even accepting that something like "societal analysis" is of any utilitarian or aesthetic value, which it isn't, Marx could barely understand his own society, much less other societies
Reading Marx, after reading Mayhew who actually walked the twenty minutes to see the poor for himself, is a laughable experience

[Anonymous No.17351513]

>>17351414
>a collection of books thousands of years old by myriad different authors all across the ancient world is the equivalent of the butthurt blogpostings of a fat retarded jewish NEET

I hate this fucking board so much.

[Anonymous No.17351519]

>>17351414
my bad, meant
>>17351513
for this guy
>>17351164

[Anonymous No.17351533]

>>17351502
>Marx himself has a near zero influence on history and politics
what? so if you do not do it exactly with your own hands? you do realize that Marxism-Lenism was almost the predominant ideology during most of the 20th century?

[Anonymous No.17351535]

>>17351519
no worries, same guy, me ;)

[Anonymous No.17351545]

>>17351414
no fuck you.
you're not asking me to read the whole bible, you're asking me to read Luther too because else I'm not a true catholic.
the argument makes 0 sense on its face.

[Anonymous No.17351567]

>>17351545
I am not asking you to do shit

I am simply telling you that if you want to deal with "Das Kapital" productively you cannot just jump in. Either read an overview work on marxism provided by a scholar of your (ideological) choice or read the complete literature. Because soly from jumping into "Das Kapital" you will not gain the insights you desire.

[Anonymous No.17351587]

>>17351567
Youre right

>>17351545
Its the same with most other paradigm shifting literature. To you it will seem boring, banal and like its not important, but its because you dont look at it in the context it was written. Today some of Marx shit seems basic, but during his time it was revolutionary stuff and sparked one of the most influential movements worldwide. People today are still building upon the stepping stones he laid out.
Most philosophy is grasped through secondary sources, because you need to have companions and reading guides to fully grasp the importance of a lot of the material, and how it translates to today.

[Anonymous No.17351594]

>>17351567
>>17351587
and genetic fallacy.
Enjoy your baby boomer tankie cult.

[Anonymous No.17351649]

>>17351594
historical context is a genetic fallacy for you? ironic, that you need apparently most. If I were a "tankie" I would be in a cult much older than your baby boomer generation. But that is the problem for less fortunate/less-educated Americans, their historical and cultural memory does not stretch further back then the boomers.

[Anonymous No.17351664]

>>17351594
You dont know what literally any philosophy or general humanity departments around the world do, or how they teach. This is literally how they teach you, by having secondary literature next to the original. It helps brainlets like you understand major works and the ideas therein, so you can move on to newer contemporary stuff that builds upon those ideas.
But no, you replied with a meme fallacy that doesnt require any comprehension beyond googling fallacies and searching for whatever you seem fitting.

[Anonymous No.17351684]

Now hold on now op here.
Im at the part in which argues that more efficient machinery does not lead to more leisure time.
This is relevant because everyone us wondering why wages havent caught up with increases in productivity.

[Anonymous No.17351715]

>>17351684
And why automation is seen as a disaster and not a blessing today. It should lead to more leisure time, but all its doing is laying people off.

[Anonymous No.17351852]

>>17351684
>>17351715
>And why automation is seen as a disaster and not a blessing today. It should lead to more leisure time, but all its doing is laying people off.
>t. an anon who probably doesn't chop down trees for kindling, drives, theoretically has access to airplanes to get to anywhere he wants to be, can get food easily, has access to instant knowledge on pretty much any topic, can message virtually anyone on Earth instantly, generally enjoys instant gratification, and can have pretty much anything he wants shipped to him within a couple of days or hours, and so on and so on and so on.
Why are zoomers like this?
Stop worrying about automation, humans aren't going to become obsolete. New jobs will appear to replace old ones, Jesus Christ.
When will humans ever get used to not being able to work on the same farm their father worked on, and his father, and his father, and his father...?

[Anonymous No.17351902]

>>17351414

communist logic is so fucking funny. publish essentially a pyramid scheme of books that you "need" to get in order to understand each of the books, some poor prole is spending his hard earned cash on this trash thinking it'll improve his life, meanwhile Marx is raking in the cash in booksales.

[Anonymous No.17351945]

>>17351902
>incoherent babbling

>>17351852
We are becoming obsolete. We outsourced the role of worker to 3rd world countries, and now the primary function of western citizens is to be consumers. Thats literally it.
There are fewer and fewer jobs, and a growing number of citizens. A lot of people have been made obsolete in the modern economy and more will be.
Automation isnt a win for the general populace, its only a win for those owning the machines.
Only problem is we still expect people to work and labor for money, but with fewer jobs and it taking longer to get these new joba due to training and specialization, we're creating a class of obsolete consumers.
They will be looked at as unworthy and met with replies such as "learn to code bro lmao", but they cannot consume without any funds to do so.
This is the inevitable end of capitalism, many non marxists even think capitalism is starting to enter into end spiral.
Yes I have a big quality of life, because all the shit has been exported to the countries where the laborers male my clothes, my phone and everything else. Automatiln wouldn't y liberate these people either, it would make them obsolete as well.

[Anonymous No.17351965]

>>17351664
>it's what all the cucks do
and they are all wrong.

[Anonymous No.17351990]

>>17351852
>Stop worrying about automation, humans aren't going to become obsolete. New jobs will appear to replace old ones, Jesus Christ.
LITTERAL boomer.
No, we can't sustain an economy turning 7 billion people into YouTubers.
Machines can do art too anyway, allready on par with 80% of musicians.
It's called the Death of Mediocres, ask Marinetti about it and listen to Blue Jeans Bloody Eyes.
80% of mankind is condemned to uselessness.

[Anonymous No.17351993]

>>17351852
To add on to this, many forums about python programming talk abput how they coded a script that saves them 3 hourd of work or more every day in their office jobs. These people literally browse reddit for half their day sometimes, and its a sign of bloated companies with a lot of bullshit jobs. If we removed all pseudo work from modern corporations, over half of their employees would be gone.
We should be talking about only working 5 hours a day or less, and hire more people since the economy is primarily based on consumption and more money in the population's hands means more consumption. Not eco friendly, but its the best that could happen to the economy. It wont though, since too many people think like you and believe 50's economic theories that has become part of contemporary ideology.

[Anonymous No.17352001]

>>17351945
100% correct except it's socialism's fault.

[Anonymous No.17352013]

>>17351993
no the only one true solution is tilling the soil.

[Anonymous No.17352112]

>>17351852
soulless.

[Anonymous No.17352134]

>>17351945
First of all, there are obvious limits to computation which will prevent any sort of full automation and general AI isn't even possible yet and it's not obvious that it really ever will be.
Why do you think capitalism is going to end now though? Why not in the 19th century or the 20th century?
Those centuries saw rapid innovation, which Marx himself noticed, and yet they didn't lose all their jobs, in fact they created new ones. Whats so different about our age? We are literally striving towards space right now.
Also I don't know where this whole protectionist stance on "shipping jobs over seas" is coming from. What do you want us to do?
Put tariffs on imports? Take away jobs from poorer countries? Reduce immigration? Penalize companies for acquiring cheaper labor elsewhere?
Pretty much every economist agrees that these sort of policies are always incredibly retarded and counter-productive.
Besides, improving the life of the consumer is always a better economic goal than "protecting workers".
The only thing that's becoming obvious in our age, is that it's useless to protect workers with the amount of innovation we're seeing. What we should be doing is making it easier for people to leave jobs and to find new work very quickly.

[Anonymous No.17352200]

>>17351993
A lot of these bullshit jobs exist because unions and stupid laws won't allow employers to fire people who are no longer necessary. Just look at the bloat of nonessential workers in government. They just sit their getting paid to do fuckall. Their job is soulless and unfulfilling, they shouldn't be working that job.
What we should be doing is allowing employers greater freedom in firing these useless workers and replacing them with robots.

[Anonymous No.17352218]

>>17352200
>What we should be doing is allowing employers greater freedom in firing these useless workers and replacing them with robots.
Based

[Anonymous No.17352234]

>>17352218
How is that based?
Dumb zoomer.

[Anonymous No.17352245]

>>17352234
>How is that based?
>Dumb zoomer.
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17352302]

>>17351990
Machines will probably learn to make good music one day but they sure as hell can't now, lol. Plus, not everyone wants to become a Youtuber, Twitcher, or whatever.
There are still a lot of jobs which will resist automation. For example, AI are still pretty shitty at math for some reason, and it's likely to stay that way for quite a while. STEM in general will be ok and, in fact, it seems like there will probably be MORE jobs in STEM in the future.
Low skilled jobs will become obsolete and even some pretty respectable jobs will go away but new jobs will always come to replace them.
Sure we might not have the milkman anymore but I predict that we at some point we will start to embrace nuclear power and this will mean a new avenue of employment for people (this is just one example, there are many more.)

[Anonymous No.17352321]

>>17352302
>Machines will probably learn to make good music one day but they sure as hell can't now, lol
listen to Blue Jeans Bloody Eyes
it's easily better than anything any retarded pop musician what out this year.
Musicians allready are just PR people for the guys that actually write their songs.
A music carreer even as secret songwriter is already obsolete.

[Anonymous No.17352323]

>>17351414
Faggot

[Anonymous No.17352331]

>>17352302
>There are still a lot of jobs which will resist automation. For example, AI are still pretty shitty at math for some reason, and it's likely to stay that way for quite a while. STEM in general will be ok and, in fact, it seems like there will probably be MORE jobs in STEM in the future.
Low skilled jobs will become obsolete and even some pretty respectable jobs will go away but new jobs will always come to replace them.
AIs are already better architects than architects and as soon as the technology improves better surgeons than surgeons.
There is no escape except tilling the soil.

[Anonymous No.17352335]

>>17351684
Wages are up with productivity
The retarded chart you're thinking of compares a gold backed currency with a non gold backed currency

[Anonymous No.17352344]

>>17352134
>First of all, there are obvious limits to computation which will prevent any sort of full automation and general AI isn't even possible yet and it's not obvious that it really ever will be.
general ai Is most likely impossiblthis doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous No.17352345]

>>17352302
completely oblivious boomer.

[Anonymous No.17352358]

>>17352200
inherently based. Yes.
People should be fired from useless jobs and given a patch of land and simple 3d-printed tools as welfare.
Then we abolish Monsanto.
Here, done.

[Anonymous No.17352431]

>>17352321
lol, this is what you consider the herald for the obsolescence of human musicianship?
First of all, it's shit. The Sony CSL songs Daddy's Car and Mr. Shadow are way better but even still, all of these songs were made by a human hand stitching together some semi-decent junk an AI spat out. Humans are the one's singing the songs, making sure they sound good, producing them, working on the ai, etc.
Even gpt-3 isn't really able to make a descent, coherent /lit/ story.
If a human had made an algorithm which, otherwise unaided, spat out songs like Paul McCartney does (not current Macca though, God.), I would concede, but they haven't been able too.
>>17352345
I'm not so old, I know what's going on nowadays.

[Anonymous No.17352438]

>>17351135
You need to read Adam Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, and especially don't forget the other 2 volumes of Das Kapital, The theories on surplus value, the Chapter 6 from the manuscript of the Capital, Grundrisse, and of course, German ideology. You also need to read Max Stirner, and compare it with German ideology in order to make your mind.

[Anonymous No.17352449]

>>17352438
Nice list anon, I'd recommend Malthus too.
After that, read his critics like Menger.

[Anonymous No.17352464]

>>17352134
Yed Marx noticed how technological and industrial advances were possible under capitalism and he literally writes about how its a vital part of progress through history. However all you retards will acknowledge this and then ignore all the writing he does on how capitalism is not some forever machine that is stable, its literally built on expansion, collapse, expansion, collapse, repeat until we reach the end, which is becoming more and more clear. Every market cycle the billionaires grow their fortune while ordinary workers are fucked, and this corona epidemic shows that clearly. Hell Trump only wom because he activated the lumpen proles and conned them into thinking he could get them jobs. The old industries are dying and theyre never coming back, and all new industries will be spearheaded and endorsed by the billionaire class, this isnt even some conspiracy theory bullshit, its just what all predictions point to. Billionaires are throwing their cash out to charities, but make it back in a single day.
The only people seeing the future as promising are the ones thinking they have some sort of place in it, which is to say will be very few, even in the western world.

[Anonymous No.17352494]

>>17352464
My main point is, market mechanisms are good for spreading resources to people, but capitalism has built in a structure that ensures capitalists ownership of private property only increases, while everyone else's declines. This isnt the 1960's where you can work a cafe job and buy a car, a house and go to college, peopæe cant even pay rent anymore. The consumers have become so shafted now that prices can go unreasonably up, meanwhile wages stay the same. Only one solution, either abolish capitalism, or regulate it to the point we have some rotting corpse we keep alive for no reason through sociaæ programs that regularly redistributes wealth. Also called a welfare state and taxing the rich some amount like 70 - 80% to fund it.

[Anonymous No.17352510]

>>17352431
>First of all, it's shit
so is lady gaga, she sells milions of albums.
AI will never be as good as the top 20% of musicians
but are already better than the bottom 80%
not everyone can be in the top 2080% of musicians will be jobless.
Is this easy enought now?

[Anonymous No.17352525]

>>17352431
>If a human had made an algorithm which, otherwise unaided, spat out songs like Paul McCartney does
it just needs to be at lady Gaga level anon.
that is what sells.
you refuse to understand the fucking probl.

[Anonymous No.17352532]

>>17352438
alternatively buy those books and cum on each and every page as you read it soiling them forever.

[Anonymous No.17352539]

>>17352464
>Yed Marx noticed how technological and industrial advances were possible under capitalism and he literally writes about how its a vital part of progress through history.
he quite litteraly predicted the exact opposite of what happened each and every time.

[Anonymous No.17352542]

>>17352510
I dropped a comma between 20% and 80%

[Anonymous No.17352622]

Why can people not admit that at least the bottom 40% of humans are not genetically capable of the intelligence or creativity required for a highly automated world?

[Anonymous No.17352636]

>>17352510
>>17352525
>>17352542
I genuinely believe AI still can't outperform 90% of musicians(insofar as musician means someone who knows how to play and compose music)
Take any no-name folk singer-songwriter and, unless they're autistic "my pal foot-foot" level musicians, they'll be able to make music that sounds better and has more meaning than a robot can.
Again the song you and I mentioned were largely produced by humans so that they were anything close to listenable.
That's why your song still sounded like Eurovision trash, despite being made by a robot.
Maybe pop music might be able to get away with having robots compose and write songs but even pop music relies on producers musicians and (for the most part) model-tier looking people to play and sing their music.
Let's not even mention AI paintings, which look worse than 90% of naive art.

[Anonymous No.17352648]

>>17352539
How so? Why do you think every communist nation went through massive industrialisation? Marx saw it as necessary to build the machines to carry us forward in history, but capitalism is not the end point.

[Anonymous No.17352687]

>>17352622
Why can't people just admit that robots still aren't that clever and at beast can really only do all menial repetitive shit humans don't want to do in the first place?
It's not like robots will be everywhere lol.
They can't do mathematics and science in general, they suck at art (though i'll admit they might see some success here eventually), they can't farm, and we won't ever trust them to be politicians. There are just some jobs humans will always have to do themselves far into the future.

[Anonymous No.17352695]

>>17352636
You dont understand automation.
Its increasing effectivity to the point where one person and technology can do the job of what used to be 5 people. Look at modern electro music and DJs, they are essentially one guy able to compose music, that would require 6, 7 or 8 band members to play live. Instead they have machines that can sample and mass produce hit songs from a guy in his basement.
The music industry requires little less than a face to sell to people as we see with rappers today and singers, and then this huge corporation can spit out their songs like a factory. Thats what automation is, its making us able to do more with less people, which doesnt spell well for the average guy who now has to compete with more people for fewer avaible jobs.
Its the same with music, you could have an AI spit something decent out, have a music producer go through and edit it and then spit it out for your 2pac hologram to perform live.

[Anonymous No.17352730]

>>17352687

Read my post
>>17352695

Automation is not making ALL people obsolete, only the majority of them. My grandpa used to work on a farm together with 20 other young men. Today farms are some dude on his tractor capable of mass producing crops one man. This meams we had to find other jobs, since farming became so effective, we dont need a lot of them.
The same is happening everywhere else, and suddenly we wont have any new industries to go to, since automation is hitting multiple fields all the time. Look at truck drivers who might go extinct because of self driving cars. Thats 5 million people at least in the U.S that you have to move to other already oversaturated sectors, to compete for dwindling jobs.

[Anonymous No.17352783]

hey, I just finished reading the first volume two days ago. I come from a philosophy background. The text is not going to really change, but the more you keep reading the more you start seeing the epistemological, ontological, etc connotation of Marx’s point of view. The text itself (volume one) is actually very well knit, but that is noticeable post mortem. The vast majority of interesting continental philosophy (if not all) falls in one way or another in Marx’s point of view. It is quite radical in a way. I come from reading the German Idealists, and what it feels like having read the first vol of Capi is a shift in the directionality of ur eyesight, Marxism allows u to look at the future instead of the past. I had already read quite a bit of Adorno, Benjamin, Agamben, even Zizek (the “serious” books), and the substance I found before was in the meditations of the layer of “being” in a material/productive/legislative schema. Now I am seeing more to them, there is also this ethical implication of activity in history; this expands also the theoretical frame greatly. Anyways what I wanted to say is go forward as much as u want, at least vol 1 will be all theory of value plus very concrete historical excerpts from the age (which, to be honest, is a bit outdated, but still there’s here and there in the historical reports some phrases that really illuminate the point if view); midst the two there is the question of the relation between productive system and being, which is the most substancial part id say, but not spoken directly. Althusser says that Marx didnt quite know what he discovered, so he doesnt speak about it directly. Still, it is the most important text in this whole new cultural world which is “historical materialism”. What they say about reading it with a companion makes sense but its not necessary; once u get the point of view u can keep developing it as much as you want, and it’ll affect what u take from other readings.

[Anonymous No.17352830]

>>17352695
>>17352730
Being able to do more with less people really just means that one person can do a lot.
I know you probably don't remember a time without the internet so you naturally take it for granted but the amount of things you are able to do with the internet did not use to exist. There are whole marketplaces which take place almost entirely in cyberspace now. This is an innovation of the market. We are at a new frontier, a transitional period which government is trying to catch up with, and failing. This doesn't mean we will become obsolete, or that capitalism will fail, it just means we have to start embracing innovation for what it'll allow us to do. Human imagination still controls the reigns of AI, and computation. Robots aren't making robots, we are. We're still the masters, and for a lot of reasons, we will probably always be the masters. I think you should be more scared of the companies which make these technologies than the technologies themselves. Their power comes from manipulating humans, not controlling technology. Anyone can make technology, remember that.

[Anonymous No.17352836]

>>17352783
So you didnt read it with a companion, but then did you write notes? I want to set it as a goal for me to read it this year, but im considering either a companion next to it, or reading the "marx engels reader" first, a collection of their overall work, qith the most important texts collected.

[Anonymous No.17352856]

>>17352830
Thanks for saying exactly what my point is. Im not sure why you would disagree with me, when you say big corporations are controlling new technology which is my main point? That is capitalism?
Its not about new technology ooga booga bad, its about our current economic and political structure not capable of handling its own creations, which will be the biggest problem we face in the next 80 years.
What do you think marxism is all about?

[Anonymous No.17352891]

>>17351158
Capital Vol. 1 is about history. The actual economic theory with stats and mathematics is in Vol. 2.

[Anonymous No.17353012]

>>17352856
You still don't understand.
One of the main functions of the market is to incentivize innovation through price mechanisms as a way to alleviate time/cost of work.
The problem isn't that corporations are innovating, the problem is that government still doesn't know how to build a society around this innovation (which is getting faster and more revolutionary as time passes).
All they really do is dampen it, try to ignore it, or try to stop it, which is ridiculous.
Nobody "controls" new technology. If people cared enough they could easily enter the market and compete with the people who supposedly "control" the technology. The problem is that people are often not allowed to and power is centralized in a few corporations. Centralized economies always lead to ruin, decentralization and deregulation is what's necessary for growth.

[Anonymous No.17353022]

>>17352836
I have a file with quoted I find interesting and that sort of encapsulate the main points I manage to find in whatever I am reading. Before I used to do it next to my pc so I would type the quote directly and note all thoughts, now I just read next to a pencil and I mark the quotes (and then afterwards type them, once I finished reading the book - which is quite useful in order to see it all in a distant holistic perdpective) and write key words in order to remember the relation or idea that passage gave me and then I develop it quickly once i type the quotes. i guess it depends for everyone and the mood u’re in, Kant I read super thoroughly with many companions and “necessary reads” (Hume, Leibniz etc), but then eventually I saw that I would go nowhere if I had to read everything like that. What works for me is: lets say I have 10 of daily energy to read, then I wanna use it fully in first source readings, except if Im super confused: then I’ll find any secondary resding and read just enough (usually 10% of the whole text) so I can catch the main drift. If at bedtime or any “free” moment when Im not using the 10 points of energy I feel like reading, then I’ll download a pdf and read some casual secondary sources, but I wouldnt waste energy for those. The main points of view are exposed by the foundational texts, and for me my goal is to enter into as many points of view as possible. its like reading theology, if I want to know just a specific brach, then yea: bible ( for example) and then all the interpreters of a lutheran background (for example - in our case first Capital, then all the interpreters that work within the same framework), but if I want to know on the general nature of religion, then I’ll use all my energy points to read first testament, second, qoran, talmud, upanishads blablabla. I think this is the most substancial way of reading because it gives u many tools to find structural analogies and irreconciliable differences ( and then u can read text 3 with the lenses of text 1 and 2, text 4 with lenses 1,2,3 etc, instead of reading always with the lenses of text 1). point beeeeing: take notes but do not worry if u read with energy and will, put yourself in the reading from time to time also in your practical life, then you’ll integrate the pov sincerely and will be able to use it in a way that makes sense instead of repeating vague phrases in a closed system

[Anonymous No.17353030]

>>17352321
What? That song wasn’t made by AI. The lyrics were generated by an AI then cherry-picked, and stitched to get her by humans. Humans made the music to the song as well. And the song sucks pretty hard as well.

[Anonymous No.17353187]

>>17353012
Okay, you're a moron for saying anyone can compete with tech giants by entering the market, ignoring all material conditions existing in the world that makes your argument untrue.
Again more market libertarian pseudism, not realizing that less regulations would lead to power congregating in the top even more than it is now.
There is a reason monopolies were made illegal, and its not because of hampering innovation, its because thats the flow of capitalism. Thats what Marx saw, and he didnt think there would come the massive regulations that we have now and the idea of a welfare state to keep this zombie corpse alive.
Capitalism by itself is not innovative, thats a buzzword used by free market types like you, capitalism is stagnation, by clumping wealth at the top, essentially meaning we dont need change. The billionaire class is actively fighting political change, because the status quo is benefitting them, even though completely free markets would benefit them even more, it lacks the smoke and mirrors of bourgeoisie politics with figureheads like Biden to keep the proles sedated.
New technology is literally controlled bt patents, and the things produced with new technology is literally controlled by the owners of the machines making them. Denying this is delusional.

[Anonymous No.17353204]

>>17351135
Notice how even back then lefty memes were massive walls of text. Marx says in 3 volumes what a Moussolini type lays out in a pamphlet.

[Anonymous No.17353216]

>>17353022
Thanks anon, some very goid ideas here. Saving quotes and spending my brain energy on the most hard texts sounds like a good idea, and more easy to read stuff for when im tired and want to just coast through, with the added experience of reading the primary text when I was fully energetic.
Good tips, thanks again man.

[Anonymous No.17353238]

>>17353204
>anti intellectualism
>on the literature board
Why?

[Anonymous No.17353263]

>>17353238
>enron papers are intellectual because they are massive blocks of text
go read the ingredients on the back of a cereal box or some shit mr intellectual

[Anonymous No.17353334]

>>17353187
No retard, you're the pseud.
Small corporations turn into big corporations all the time.
Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Reddit, YouTube, Twitch, Tesla (and Musk's other companies), Google, Facebook, etc. didn't just exist, they all started out small.
And there are many corporations which are starting out now which will also become big.
Monopolies don't really exist naturally except in maybe, utilities like housing and electricity.
What would naturally happen is one of these companies, like say Microsoft, would try to eat up all of it's competitors and try to expand in all directions. Eventually though, the company would spread itself thin and fall behind in the race, possibly failing all together.
The problem is, government sees that some shitty company like GM is about to die and it goes "no, muh American manufacturer and jobs1!!1!!" and bails it out when it should have died a LONG time ago.
Lobbyist and the over-extension of democracy are whats killing us, not capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17353356]

>>17353187
Again, now that I think about it, you're probably young and grew up in a world where all these "tech giants" existed, you probably imagine that they will always exist lol.

[Anonymous No.17353372]

>>17353334
>corporations turn into big corporations all the time
They don't anymore. Those companies started small in perfect conditions like the dotcom boom and at a point in time where competition was viable. Now these companies would get merged or otherwise absorbed if not taken out of existence through corporate cold war. Everything is some subsidiary of Procter and Gamble now you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.17353374]

>>17351414
>You must read theory to understand socialism!
>Ok, I'll go read Capital then.
>NOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO THESE 1000+ PAGE TOMES ON ECONOMIC THEORY BEFORE YOU START
How do you expect the working class to do this? Why can't Marxists offer an accessible critique of capitalism? Is it literally just obscurantism and sophistry?

[Anonymous No.17353412]

>>17353374
>Is it literally just obscurantism and sophistry?
yes

[Anonymous No.17353520]

>>17353372
Shit, my bad, I didn't realize the tech industry had already solidified itself by now. What was I thinking believing companies could just come in and compete with the big guys? That stopped happening 20 years ago when the fucking dot com bubble popped in 2001. I better go tell all those new start up companies that they were late by two decades. Someone else should go tell Twitch, and Reddit that they just missed the boom.
Please tell me you honestly don't believe this...

[Anonymous No.17353555]

>>17353520
>That stopped happening 20 years ago when the fucking dot com bubble popped in 2001
Learn to read, retard, I said "perfect conditions like the dotcom boom". It's called an example faggot. Twitch is an Amazon subsidiary and reddit is a subsidiary of Advance, a company that is a hundred years old.

[Anonymous No.17353640]

>>17353555
Wait, let me see if I have this straight.
Newer companies can't compete with bigger corporations and succeed unless "perfect conditions exist".
You also claim that small companies can't just enter the market and successfully compete with big corporations "anymore".
Which implies that these perfect conditions you mentioned don't exist anymore either.
This raises four important questions:
>What are these "perfect conditions"?
>When did they stop existing?
>Why did they stop existing?
and
>Will they ever exist again?
Keep in mind that, if they currently exist now, or will for some reason exist again in the future, everything you just said is retarded.

[Anonymous No.17353679]

You fell for the commie bait fag.
The book is conveniently that size so no one reads and they can all pretend it is about whatever economic aberretion they believe in as a religion.

[Anonymous No.17353694]

>>17353640
>What are these "perfect conditions"?
New tech. No megacorps to buy out said companies.
>When did they stop existing?
When megacorps started to buy up every successful startup.
>Why did they stop existing?
Because megacorps want to expand their financial reach.
>Will they ever exist again?
Hard to tell seeing as technological advancement has been reduced to refining the same technology over and over again year by year, and these massive financial institutions have big banana republic bucks and would most likely be willing to go the same route to secure their financial interests.

[Anonymous No.17353746]

>>17353694
Wow, I don't know what to say anon.
People trained in only the humanities should really not be commenting on STEM.
This was honestly hard to read.

[Anonymous No.17353755]

>>17353746
>Wow, I don't know what to say anon.
>um, sweaty your so wrong i dont know where to start
nigger

[Anonymous No.17353796]

>>17351502
Well you should always go back to Gilgamesh and Homer when starting to study literature

[Anonymous No.17353842]

>>17353746
Fuck off STEMfag you aren't welcome,go back to coding your shitty mobile apps

[Anonymous No.17353853]

>>17353746
Please stay in your containment boards

[Anonymous No.17353917]

>>17352891
Literally the first section of the book is pure theory about the commodity form. The very atom of his theory. Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.17353946]

>>17353374
There are plenty of accessible critique points. The communist manifesto was made for workers in the 19th century, so if you can't read that then youre literally dumber than the average uneducated worker in the 1800's.

[Anonymous No.17353969]

>>17353216
nw :3

[Anonymous No.17353980]

>>17353755
You litterally claimed that
>technological advancement has been reduced to refining the same technology over and over again year by year
Anyone in technology, engineering, software, etc. or just aware of it knows this is complete bullshit. Innovation is going on all the time now.
You probably benefit from this innovation but are to retarded to notice it so you assume the whole of our tech industry is spent refining search engines all day.
The amount of R&D companies like Google put into AI (a field which is in it's infant stage) is honestly ridiculous.
Quantum Computers are being made by companies like Google, IBM, Intel, etc. right now and are getting close to reaching quantum supremacy.
5G just came out recently and it's spreading only right now.
Prosthetic limbs are also becoming much better than they've ever been before.
How the fuck is any of this just "refining technology we already have"?

[Anonymous No.17353988]

>>17353640
That other guy is right.
Most tech startups today have the goal of being bought by Amazon, google or whatever and make their founders filthy rich.
There is no "competition", theres only those who grow big enough to get bought and put under the umbrella of some mega corp.
These mega corps can be older than people now and we see no sign of them dying out, in fact they're only expanding their reach further and further.
Youre a dumbass if you think less regulation would harm these mega corps, it would make it even easier for them to create their monopolies.
Youre not a billionaire yourself, so why the fuck are you simping so hard for them? This is literally the function of ideology, youre defending people and their business who dont even know you and are actively hurtinf your class interests. But let me guess, you think you can make it and become one of them dont you? Or youre deluded by the comfort of the middle class life, and dont Think an ecocomic crisis could hurt you.

[Anonymous No.17353999]

>>17353842
Not a code monkey, I'm in math actually faggot.
>>17353853
Cope, seethe, etc.

[Anonymous No.17354015]

>>17353746
Go back to /sci/ you fucking philistine, I have seen turbo talented computer programmers with the dumbest political takes ever. The arrogance of STEM fags is insufferable. You can make a computer go beep boop and code some shitty porn website, and suddenly you think youre an expert on any topic even though the last book you read was the fucking Obama biography.
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.17354029]

>>17353980
>Innovation is going on all the time now.
Yeah man, innovation is coming out with the 20th iteration of a technology that was invented in the 90s, that's what innovation is. Can't wait for the iPhone 30 to come out along side windows version 11. You know what innovation is? Innovation is making a big computer, a 50+ year old technology. Innovation is the 10th release of microsoft office. Innovation is sticking more pixels on a tv screen.

[Anonymous No.17354044]

>>17353374
There are plenty more modern, easily accessible and understandable ways to learn about socialism, the reason people read theory is to get a richer, more complex understanding of the subject and its justifications. I'm pretty sure most marxists could point you out to some youtube videos that explains marxism and socialism in a format that the working class can understand. Of course capital wouldn't make sense to the average modern worker in a vacuum, as it was intended for 19th century economists, or perhaps the more well off or curious people who had read some of marx' other works and wanted a more in depth understanding of why he thought capitalism was unjust. No it's not necessary to read for hours upon hours to get a basic understanding of marxism or socialism, but for those people who want to understand those ideas from their base presumptions and more complex extrapolations (whether it be to refute them or justify your position), then sure, you would probably need to do all that reading.

As to recommending reading capital to people who are arguing with you about socialism or who have a cursory understanding and interest in it, it's a lot of information, but also covers a lot of ground in its evidence and theory of value and exploitation, so you're likely to find SOME part of it that addresses what you want to know. Modern printings can have plenty of footnotes that supplement the historical knowledge you would need reading it. I don't think it's so unreasonable to try to direct people's questions to the capital series if you're not adept at explaining it properly.

[Anonymous No.17354045]

>>17353980
>Prosthetic limbs are also becoming much better than they've ever been before.
>How the fuck is any of this just "refining technology we already have"?

[Anonymous No.17354046]

>>17353999
Good job thinking your math degree makes you a generally smart person, even though your political opinions are based on.. Nothing. Just pure speculation like "we will innovate our way out of all crisises that we face, wirh new technology!!1", even though you fucking admit yourself that all new technology is being made by mega corps. You dont own any of this new tech faggot, and capitalism cannot solve the problems inherent in itself. The modes of production stay the same, and the consequences of this will be the same, coming in the cycles we have seen the last 150 years.

[Anonymous No.17354065]

>>17354044
I always loved this quote from his mum, encapsulates how its like to have an actual intellectual as a son, instead of a midwit do good office worker. Such is the bitter life of many geniuses.

[Anonymous No.17354083]

if humanities and libarts majors are ignorant of stem matters, is it not logical to assume that stem majors are ignorant in these matters?

[Anonymous No.17354084]

>>17353842
>>17353853
you can't think. facts don't care about your french "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.17354104]

>>17353999
>I'm in math
bet you believe in "quantum" shit faggot

[Anonymous No.17354115]

>>17354083
Yes, it's completely illogical to assume that.
It's not that hard to pick up a book and read it lol.

[Anonymous No.17354122]

>>17354083
Majors are for faggots who think throwing money away to watch some other faggot talk in a big room makes them intelligent.

[Anonymous No.17354129]

>>17354065
It's very funny to imagine a lot of different historical figures in the context of their family, like how stirner squandered his wife's fortune on a failed milk delivery business.

Or maybe it's just funny to think about the lives of the "young hegelians"

[Anonymous No.17354140]

>>17354122
Would you feel that it would be a waste of time to try to learn from a lecturer if it was free?

[Anonymous No.17354149]

>>17354104
I actually am not sure how to feel about physics.
Of course I believe in mainstream physics but I find it hard to interpret it's implications.
I don't believe in String theory pseudery though, it's cool from a mathematics perspective but from a purely physics perspective it's mathematical wankery.

[Anonymous No.17354152]

>>17351135
Abolition of Religion
Karl Marx wrote: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of man is a requisite for their real happiness." In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote, "Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality."
Marx wrote: "I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above."
"I shall build my throne high overhead,
cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark superstitious dread.
For its marshal - blackest agony."
Karl Marx wrote to his father: "New gods have to be installed."

Darkness
In his drama Oulanem, he wrote:
"The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain,
till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me.
For me beats the time
and gives the signs
evermore boldly I play the dance of death."

Destruction
Marx loved to quote the words of Faust:
"Everything in existence is worth being destroyed."
"If there is a something which devours,
I'll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins
the world which bulks between me and the abyss,
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses."
"Without violence, nothing is ever accomplished in history."

Chosen for Hell
"Thus Heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well. My soul, once true to God, is chosen for hell."

To Bring This World to Ruins
In his poem, Human Pride, Marx, wrote:
"With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
and see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardour.
Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world.
and, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator."

Demon Possessed
Karl Marx's good friend, Frederick Engels wrote: "Karl Marx is a monster possessed by ten thousand devils."

Devilish
Robert Payne, a friend of Karl Marx, wrote: that Karl Marx "had the devil's view of the world and the devil's malignity. Sometimes he seemed to know that he was accomplishing the works of evil."

God is Our Enemy
Karl Marx wrote that he wanted to: "Hurl gigantic curses on mankind." Marx quoted positively from Paris Communard, Flourens, who declared: "Our enemy is God. Hatred of God is the beginning of wisdom."

The Family of Karl Marx
Karl Marx's family life was a disaster. He had seven children by his wife, Jenny, and another by his housemaid Helen Demuth. One of his daughters, Eleanor, married Edward Aveling, a Satanist known for his blasphemous lectures on "The wickedness of God", and for his poem to satan. Three of Karl Marx's children starved to death. Five of his children died prematurely. Two of his daughters committed suicide, as did his wife. Karl Marx wrote that he did not love anyone and that he was entirely comfortable with hatred.

[Anonymous No.17354154]

>>17354140
I wouldn't delude myself into believing it was "making me smarter".

[Anonymous No.17354163]

>>17354152
Racist
He referred to the Slavic people, like Russians, as "ethnic trash" and prophesied that: "their very name will vanish." He dismissed Mexicans as "lazy", and Negroes as "frozen at pre-historic levels" who would never contribute anything worthwhile to society.

War Against the Family
In the Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote: "We destroy the most hallowed oblations, when we replace home education with social."

Atheism and Hatred
Marx's dedicated disciple, Vladimir Lenin, declared: "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism. We must hate. Hatred is the basis of Communism".

War Against God
Under Vladimir Lenin, one of the slogans of the Soviet Union was: "WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him." A prominent slogan of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was: "Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth, and God from Heaven."

Hatred of God
Alexander Solzhenitsyn declared: "The world has never before known a godlessness as organised, militarised and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, Hatred of God is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental, or marginal, to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice."

[Anonymous No.17354169]

>>17354154
Then shut the fuck up because no one's talking about it

[Anonymous No.17354176]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ItS_df8GlQ

[Anonymous No.17354179]

>>17353374
socialism is not for or from the working class it is an inherently aristocratic movement. Look back to the Victorians in the 800s and tell me what you discover.

[Anonymous No.17354190]

>>17354084
Why are you here then?

[Anonymous No.17354194]

>>17354149
>Of course I believe in things I can't even begin to understand
kys stemfag

[Anonymous No.17354202]

>>17354169
cry about it big baby

[Anonymous No.17354208]

Leftism doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.17354219]

>actually wasting your time reading this
honestly just read the sparknotes for this

[Anonymous No.17354222]

>>17354190
cause not everyone who is interested in philosophy or literature is like you, a pseudo intellectual coping with obscurantism and intellectual dishonesty for being unable to actually think.

[Anonymous No.17354245]

>>17354222
sneed

[Anonymous No.17354358]

>>17354222
It's you who berated "philosophy"

[Anonymous No.17354376]

>>17354015
>Reeeeeeeee!
>>17354029
>Quantum computers are just big computers dude loooooool!!1!!
>>17354045
>t. anon typing from an Apple II terminal.
>>17354046
A lot of the research in AI is almost purely mathematical though and the software does not typically require technology which is that expensive for it to execute. Research is also typically done by people in college research teams and even basement dwellers who jerk off to Linux and browse /g/ can write up pretty descent AI programs. That's why tech companies rise up out of nowhere all the time. Exactly, because it is so accessible.
With your other point, monopolies mostly exist because of government (lobbying, protectionism, etc.)
Any problem which we can't fix with technology will probably kill us anyway. Marxism will never fix any problem.
Also, I never said that I'm smarter than everyone here because I'm in STEM, I just suggested that if you're not in STEM you probably shouldn't paint it one way because you will probably be wrong (like the anon I was talking to was).

[Anonymous No.17354393]

>>17354376
>Quantum computers are just big computers dude
Yes, they are.

[Anonymous No.17354400]

>>17354376
>(like the anon I was talking to was)
faggot/woman behavior

[Anonymous No.17354414]

>>17354376
>Apple II
Windows 3.

[Anonymous No.17354435]

>>17354194
>Nooooooo, you can't just believe the professionals from a discipline which has revolutionized technology and made numerous verifiable and correct predictions!!!!!!
Cope, there are a lot of things which we still don't understand faggot, I can't ignore the merits of a belief just because it isn't 100% complete and obvious to me. If everyone thought like you we would have dismissed Newton for the "occult qualities" of his physics. We still don't fucking understand gravity.
kys.
Oh, I'm also a Christian...

[Anonymous No.17354444]

>>17354393
...I...well...ok
>>17354400
not an argument desu
>>17354414
Based

[Anonymous No.17354448]

>>17354435
>the professionals

[Anonymous No.17354454]

>>17354444
>desu desu onions desu onions desu
filtered

[Anonymous No.17354478]

>>17354454
As faggy as it sounds, I actually typed desu on purpose.
I don't even watch Chinese cartoons, I just thought that's what we did here...

[Anonymous No.17354530]

>>17354448
When the fuck did you decide physics was wrong?
In the 16th century? the 18th? the 19th? lol.
Maybe it was always wrong (in some important sense this is true but not in the retarded sense you have)...
Do you have your own theory?

[Anonymous No.17354561]

>>17354530
lol go ask a "professional", faggot

[Anonymous No.17354608]

>>17354561

[Anonymous No.17354629]

>>17354608
seethe

[Anonymous No.17354663]

>>17353374

The working class doesn’t actually need to read Marxist theory. Ironically that is an idealist position, that the working class are going to become revolutionary through discovering the correct social philosophy. Marx’s historical theory described a world in which social change happened by necessity, through the process of applied social models creating new social problems. People living under those models would address problems on their own, they all scrambled around for solutions to social problems that directly impacted them and in doing so created new social models that were subsumed by or came into competition with the old. People’s common beliefs around the human world are formed from this process, as they learn and express the thoughts required to survive within a prevailing social model while also forming new beliefs and ideas in response to social problems. In a rough metaphorical way, human individuals live in a kind of symbiosis with a human super organism, the social system that has its own logic. They’re like cells in the big organ of the social system. But it is only a metaphor, because individuals are still highly adaptive on their own level, and while the social system has a power over people and it does lord over them like an artificial machine or habitat that they commune with, individuals know when the machine is breaking and they will attempt to respond in novel ways.

Which is to say that in the Marxist framework what matters isn’t people’s beliefs, if you want to change the world what you need to do is identify ways of changing it that you believe will then change people’s beliefs through their new way of relating to other humans and the world of things. Social engineering isn’t a matter of thought control or infowars, it’s a matter of actually solving social problems in ways that present concrete changes to people’s way of living, the way they reproduce themselves daily. This still isn’t always easy, but historically it has usually existed within the logic of the previous system. Like a virtual machine running within another environment, new social models tend to subsume and extend the old ones. If they are TOO contradictory with the logic of the prevailing system, then the way they appear is basically just criminalized or impossible.

[Anonymous No.17354682]

>>17353238
Brevity is the soul of wit.

[Anonymous No.17354712]

>>17353334
Normally I'd agree with you, but in the case of big tech, you're forgetting the huge structural and anti-competitive practices they put in place once they got big.

Apple and Microsoft are obvious, to the point that Microsoft was sued for anti-trust and lost. Google effectively merged with the NSA in the form of the Alphabet company and Amazon has a monopoly on some large government contracts, which gives them an endless supply of federal money. If you looked into Amazon's finances, you'd see all of their money comes from AWS, not their marketplace.

Youtube and twitch report losses every year but are basically floated by google and amazon respectively. They want to monopolize media by having these companies run at a loss (which again, is anticompetitive). Google and amazon also deplatform competitors and will even pull their cloud hosting, as seen recently with Gab and Parler.

Facebook, like Amazon and Google, also has large government donors.

The problem is these companies aren't just monopolies, they're government-sanctioned monopolies, which makes them even more dangerous than natural monopolies like Standard Oil.

[Anonymous No.17354745]

>>17354663
>Social engineering isn’t a matter of thought control or infowars, it’s a matter of actually solving social problems in ways that present concrete changes to people’s way of living, the way they reproduce themselves daily.
This is like reading a screed by Hannibal Lecter where he explains he only killed the guy to improve the sound of the philharmonic orchestra.

[Anonymous No.17354793]

>>17354712
Yes, this is essentially what I was trying to get at.
Only in our fucked up system can a company run at a loss and yet still manage to expand and gobble up competitors.
I was just using these companies as examples of companies which have recently become big and which didn't use to exist.
You are absolutely right though, I agree with you 100%.
Our economy is decrepit and zombie like because of the people who encourage protectionism and business bail outs of companies like GM, I just hope we don't let it crumble in on itself. To bad it looks like we are heading towards more government not less. I hate cronyism so much.

[Anonymous No.17354810]

>>17354793
>because of the people who encourage protectionism and business bail outs
>because
Don't act like it's "because" of protectionism. The current state of affairs would be the result, regardless of government intervention.

[Anonymous No.17354824]

>>17354682
>sandwiched between 2 walls of text

[Anonymous No.17354928]

>>17354810
Dude, stfu. The USSR is dead, China is even more decrepit then us and has already embraced state capitalism just to be relevant. Planned economies have and will always fail.
What I was talking about is the fact that we've been living under the terrible effects of (the more sensible economic theory of) (Neo-)Keynesianism for far too long now. Sadly though it seems like Sanders/AOC-type leftist politicians are becoming very popular now. Our country might actually completely embrace MMTism.
Also cope retard.

[Anonymous No.17354956]

>>17354928
What the fuck does any of this have to do with anything I said schizo? AOC and Sanders are grifters just like any other named individual.

[Anonymous No.17355039]

>>17354745

Sure, but I’m not talking about killing anybody. I’m not a ML or a revolutionary in the sense of imposing a “new” social order from the state, I don’t think that is desirable nor seemingly a very durable model anyways.

[Anonymous No.17355048]

>>17354928
>muh free market fixes all
yikes

[Anonymous No.17355125]

>>17355048
>yikes
cringe

[Anonymous No.17355126]

>>17354956
What the fuck do you believe in?
I admit after a while I was kind of just ranting tbqh
>>17355048
Not what I said, I don't worship the free market or something, it just genuinely fixes a lot of problems.
The problems it doesn't fix are usually fixed by taxation or regulation though, never planned economies/distribution or socialism.

[Anonymous No.17355151]

>>17355126
>What the fuck do you believe in?
Unironically communism and capitalism and monopoly and cronyism and blah blah blah is all the same shit. All ends up as the same bureaucratic makeshift banana republic system of people who fuck and suck eachother behind the curtain and rule over people through DMV customer service rep tyrants and media think tanks.

[Anonymous No.17355156]

>>17355126
I should clarify by saying though that I don't like taxation and LVT is basically the only tax I really endorse.
Regulation is best to stop snake oil salesmen from selling literal poison to people under the guise of being a cure but honestly, drug companies are over-regulated if anything now.

[Anonymous No.17355172]

>>17355156
>Regulation is best to stop snake oil salesmen from selling literal poison to people under the guise of being a cure
No, it isn't. Regulators don't give a fuck about your health and the FDA will gladly certify literal poison as safe and has done so in the past.
>drug companies are over-regulated if anything now
Tell that to the Sacklers.

[Anonymous No.17355198]

>>17355151
Honestly, I'm sympathetic to the centrist and apolitical people out there but I can't imagine not actually believing in anything. And anyway, all that sort of political position seems good for is trite bromides for "enlightened" centrist.

[Anonymous No.17355203]

>>17354810
retard leftist spotted

[Anonymous No.17355208]

>>17355198
I'm not a "centrist" you fucking nigger. Brain rot so severe you can't even think of someone without trying to stick them on some faggot political axis.

[Anonymous No.17355215]

>>17355203
>if you don't suck globohomo corporate cock you are a leftist

[Anonymous No.17355260]

>>17355208
Didn't say you were retard, learn to read.
I said centrists and APOLITICAL people.
Ironically, your strongest belief is in being a massive faggot.

[Anonymous No.17355274]

>>17355260
I'm not "APOLITICAL" (seethe) either faggot.

[Anonymous No.17355329]

>falling for jewish tricks from start to finish

[Anonymous No.17355348]

>>17355172
Medicine is a very weak science.
You might imagine that it would be a "hard" science but its currently getting BTFO by the replication crisis.
The only way we can really innovate in medicine is by having people test it out on themselves through the market.
Regulations are stopping a lot of drugs from getting to consumers though.
Seriously, just for the COVID-19 vaccine we had to lift some regulations on the drug to get it out as fast as we did.
>Tell that to the Sacklers
Don't know who those faggots are, something about the opiod crisis?
Generally, I think regulations should apply to drug dealers but not really to drug users.

[Anonymous No.17355469]

>>17352783
Just a question: You know a lot about Hegel i guess, I have been through the Kant mania of my philosophy bachelor and has also had some hegel, and i find Kant kinda bready and Hegel really meaty (i love what i have read of him), do i need to fuck with word difinitions and the hard full reading of Kants corpus to really get Hegel or is my bachelor level of Kant enough to carry me through Hegel?

[Anonymous No.17355649]

>>17355348
>just for the COVID-19 vaccine we had to lift some regulations
You think that's with your interest in mind? lmao Also don't bother talking about pharmaceuticals if you don't even know who the Sacklers are. You're out of your depth.

[Anonymous No.17355727]

>>17355649
>Don't talk about a scientific field if you don't know the name of some faggots who make their money in the industry around it.
So pharmaceutical companies are trying to turn a profit, so what? If they outright try to make people addicted to their drugs than regulation would be appropriate in this sense. Again, like I said, medicine as a science needs to experimented on all the time.
Also, please don't try to push your schizo anti-vax theories.

[Anonymous No.17355753]

>>17352335
proof?

[Anonymous No.17355771]

>>17351368
>>17351164
Sorry anon, but if it cant stand by itself as a timeless critique of working class conditions then it has no place in modern day politics as serious political theory. This is exactly why I meet so many marxists who have such a weird and twisted view of what marxs actual values was and somehow have shafted anti racism and lgbt rights in there when marx himself was primarily concerned with the working class, did not care for ethnic solidarity or gays.

[Anonymous No.17355844]

>>17355727
>So pharmaceutical companies are turning regular people into heroin addicts for money they don't even need, so what?
You're going to burn in hell forever.

[Anonymous No.17355905]

>>17355771
>shafted anti racism and lgbt rights in there
That has to do with americans. Marx purged them for a reason.

[Anonymous No.17355951]

>>17351135

OP has it ever occurred to you that you might actually have to do some work to try and understand what the significance or meaning of what you're reading is before you go back to just posting the same cringe you were always going to post anyways?

[Anonymous No.17356041]

>>17355844
Nigger, what Pharmaceutical system would you prefer?
The nature of drugs means they inherently carry RISKS like this so any system you make outside of letting people die of easily preventable diseases (which you probably are a fan of. Let's all die of polio, right retard?), will RISK part of peoples health.
Listen Faggot, do you realize how complex the body is?
It is a system with many variables, it is chaotic, a drug which is meant to manipulate one functional system within the body will, provided the system is sufficiently complex, will undoubtedly affect the mechanics of another system in the body. This is what are known as side effects.
We need drugs but the more complex diseases become and the more complex the systems they attack are, the more side effects and the less effective or desirable a drugs will become.
That's why drugs still can't treat the mental health of schizos like you. The brain is too complex.
I agree that psychologist and psychiatrist pseuds should stop pretending like they're scientist and should stop giving teenagers drugs to help their "illness" but on the other hand kill your self.

[Anonymous No.17356104]

>>17356041
Purposefully addicting millions for profit isn't "taking a risk". There's something deeply wrong with you if you're willing to defend such actions. I'm not even fucking around, take some time to reflect on whether or not you actually believe the shit you're saying.

[Anonymous No.17356281]

>>17356104
Again retard, propose a system which would be morally correct under your ridiculous standards (seriously, note that through the entire history of medicine humans have tried lots of medication which we now know are basically poison. People naturally got rid of these later on though because science is an evolutionary practice.)
Stop focusing on this random Jewish family anon, give me the system you would propose instead of mines.
Also, I'm not defending the actions of these niggers I was just saying less regulations makes sense from a practical, scientific aspect. If these people made a purposefully addictive drug than poor regulations are to blame not the idea that there are not enough regulations.

[Anonymous No.17356319]

>>17356281
Kek, I was just memeing but I checked and these kikes actually are Jewish, I should have known.

[Anonymous No.17356362]

>>17356281
>ridiculous standards
>it's a ridiculous standard to propose that pharmaceutical companies don't produce cripplingly addictive substances with little to no benefits, bribe doctors en masse to convince them to prescribe these addictive substances to patients and lie to these patients about their addictive properties, proceed to make billions of dollars in profit off of it, and bribe the FDA into keeping it on the market
What a ridiculous standard, you're right, that's the only option. You can either have drugs that totally fuck you, don't do what they're prescribed for, and make billions of dollars in profit for those who produce and distribute them, or you can have no drugs, there is absolutely no alternative.

[Anonymous No.17356402]

>>17356281
>I'm not defending the actions of these niggers
>entirety of post is defending the actions of these niggers

[Anonymous No.17356555]

>>17356362
>>17356402
Fuck me I'm being baited. Despite repeatedly saying that I'm against the actions of this family and that the opiod crisis was a failure of regulation. You are still whining about these Jews and their shekels and pinning their shit on me. All I said is that regulation gets in the way of innovation in the drug market (which is demonstrably true anytime one country bans a drug which is safe and another country doesn't, usually the country which doesn't ban the drug improves the lives of people who rely on that drug for somekind of relief).
Seriously, you still haven't given an alternative system. Why? Because you are a pussy who doesn't want to look wrong and can only criticize. You are the worst kind of person.
Kill yourself you little bitch.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17356574]

>>17356555
>regulation gets in the way of innovation in the drug market
The profit motive is what gets in the way

[Anonymous No.17356602]

>>17351135
Did you fail to understand what he means about surplus value? I'm currently about half way through and it seems pretty clear and compelling (not perfect, obviously, but some good insights)

[Anonymous No.17356609]

>>17356574
Regulation is clearly what gets in the way but I've already said too much about this shit.
But go ahead butterfly, since that other anon is too much of a pussy to propose any system to replace the market, what is your proposal?

[Anonymous No.17356625]

>>17356555
>Despite repeatedly saying that I'm against the actions of this family I continue to defend them
Idk man, looks like that's a (You) problem.

[Anonymous No.17356635]

>>17356609
>Regulation is clearly what gets in the way because I keep on claiming it's what gets in the way

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17356636]

>>17356609
At first a non accumulative currency can be introduced, but but eventually a free economy would flourish from it.

[Anonymous No.17356655]

>>17354129
Thamks, didn't know that. Is being a failure a requirement to being a philosopher? Or does industrial society just not reward philosophy in any degree

[Anonymous No.17356687]

>>17356636
>non-accumulative currency
How would that work and how would value be communicated?

[Anonymous No.17356768]

>>17356041
>>17356281
>>17356555
>I'm not defending the actions of these people but let me tell you why everything they do is justified
How much cognitive dissonance does it take to do this?

[Anonymous No.17356808]

>>17354083
Based on real life experience, most stem fags are clueless about anything other than their field. Some fields are okay, but computer science guys seem the most insufferable and arrogant, same with math guys. I think its because they think their field is a sign of general intelligence, so they think theyre smart in everything else, while reading no literature. Modern academics is specialized, so many philistines are created, aka bugmen.

[Anonymous No.17356829]

>>17354083
To add to my point, look at Neil Degrasse Tyson, the smug bug fuck, who posts statistics about car accidents when some makor tragedy happened, or some terror attack stuff. He always thinks hes the smartest in the room because he can mention some pop science fact abput star wars, but is a very boring personality. Thats the STEM mentality, they know science and evweything else doesnt matter.

[Anonymous No.17356856]

>>17351135
Adam Smith book starts with "division of labour" and what it means to be "worth of a country".
What does Karl Marx's book start with?

[Anonymous No.17356862]

>>17354163
Yeah, marx was based.
Now fuck off and diddle some kids
Christ fag.

[Anonymous No.17356869]

>>17351135
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4YlOyugato&ab_channel=nikkim2998

[Anonymous No.17356870]

>>17356856
the surplus value of labor

[Anonymous No.17356881]

>>17356808
>t. can't do simple equations of motions problems but thinks he comprehends all of reality because he reads hegel

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17356883]

>>17356687
Easily now with computers and smartphones (but barcodes/cards where that’s still not feasible)

[Anonymous No.17356884]

>>17354745
>le pop culture reference
Are you gonna use Harry Potter as your next argument?

[Anonymous No.17356886]

>>17356870
Any good pdf source on libgen or somewhere with good english tranlation?

[Anonymous No.17356889]

>>17356808
>>17356829
Really only true for l*ddit athiest type guys.
Pretty much everyone I know is well read, again it's not that hard to pick up a fucking book and read it. In fact, that's how most people I know came to math anyway (excluding the guys who were beat by their parents until they became mathematicians lol), personally, I read Men of Mathematics when I was younger and read some Spinoza and Kantian philosophy when I was a teenager. I read The Republic early on but I didn't start with Greeks lol.

[Anonymous No.17356896]

>>17356883
Not him, but computers and smartphones are gay and so is money.

[Anonymous No.17356906]

>>17356884
>t. some faggot who probably idolizes Zizek

[Anonymous No.17356907]

>>17354682
I guess long books are bad then, dont have enough brevity.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17356922]

>>17356896
A non-accumulative currency isn’t money. They’re also known as labor vouchers and are a gateway out of capitalism, market economics and debt slavery

[Anonymous No.17356968]

>>17356906
I unironically am a Zizek guy, so you got me there.
But saying "this reads like Hannibal Lecter" is tumblr tier posting, and youre a faggot.

[Anonymous No.17356975]

>>17356916
>>17356922
>currency
>vouchers
Sounds like money, looks like money, stinks like money. Same shit.

[Anonymous No.17356982]

>>17356886
Sure its available for free in many sites.
Here is a good one.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17356994]

>>17356975
Accumulative currency is money. You put it in a bank
Non accumulative currency doesn’t go in a bank. It doesn’t function like money

[Anonymous No.17357030]

>>17356968
I actually wasn't the anon you replied to I just sensed my chance to le OWN The LEFtISts.
Fuck you hahahahahaha.

[Anonymous No.17357118]

>>17351135
>Ive yet to see anything that stands out yet.
Just the appaling working conditions of 19th century england, something about guilds under feudalism and machinery.
You won't because Capital criticizes mostly Adam Smith who is almost irrelevant for modern economics.

[Anonymous No.17357134]

>>17356994
If it's a voucher or a currency, it's money, and it stinks of shit. Same as fucking food stamps.

[Anonymous No.17357169]

I'm sick and tired of pretentious twats saying that you have to read Ricardo, Smith, Locke, Hegel, etc. etc. before reading Capital. Marx intended Capital to be read by the working class people of his time. He didn't expect you to be some autistic philosophy undergrad with too much time on his hands. Seriously, as long as you've read Principles of Communism and the Communist Manifesto, there is literally nothing wrong with diving into reading Capital. It's not that hard of a read you insufferable nerds.

[Anonymous No.17357402]

I gave up on chapter 2

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17357604]

>>17357134
It isn’t technically money. It has your name on it so it can’t be stolen, doesn’t go into a bank, can’t be hoarded, expires even. It cannot corrupt as a bribe.
Best feature of all; it can be waved aside. The barista will say “on the house” and eventually we drop even it. It’s a training wheel currency for a free economy

[Anonymous No.17357609]

>>17351135
you are dumb anon, he talks plenty of things in the book, big brain concepts like commodity fetishism, besides ideas like surplus population, law of population, centralization of capital, concentration, besides the division of labour and bunch of other stuff. my guess is that you are a retard that is isolated from how the world actually works coup up in a university somewhere, but every bit of capital is filled to the brim with relevancy, like i'm in vol 2 and there just from the top of my head there a part close to where i am, where he literally talks about how the state supplements projects with long turnover time, at the beggining as state enterprises, and then privatises them, when the centralization of capital is enough, talking about some random house project 100 years ago, and then you realize that fuck that's the internet, that's nasa, that's so much shit. in just one meager passage of 2 pages he goes over some random sounding shit that if looked up more deeply ends being super relevant. even in places that just sound irrelevant, like in places in vol where he talks about home industries, you can apply most of that to places like india, where equivalents exist in the modern world, most of south america, and south east asia, they all have modern day equivalents, and just don't even realise that that's what they are until you read that, so a random passage that might just sound like history ends up mattering a lot. i could go on and on.

[Anonymous No.17357626]

>>17357604
Hiding behind technicalities doesn't change the fact that it's mammon's gold and it's a tool for enslavement.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17357673]

>>17357626
Oh you

[Anonymous No.17357688]

>>17357673
It isn't bait you fucking stupid cunt. Money is gay, usury is for faggots, gold comes from the devil, and putting an expiry date and purchase limits on money doesn't make it stop being money.

[Anonymous No.17357834]

>>17357688
i havent finished the book yet but my impression is that karl marx wanted an econony based on consumption instead of production.
In that sense labor vouchers are money but geared towards consumption instead if capital.

[Anonymous No.17358443]

>>17357834
karl marx is gay

[Anonymous No.17358457]

>>17351135
>getting filtered by Marx

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17358475]

>>17357688
There’s no usury, there’s no connection to gold a shiny too soft metal. The voucher is more of a coupon except that it’s personalized.
Now, what about the idea that it’s training wheels, that in short order will come off?

[Anonymous No.17358586]

>>17358475
>voucher
>coupon
Again with the same shit. Get it through your thick skull. It's currency. Doesn't matter that there are arbitrary rules attached. From brownie points to clay Sumerian tablets to gold to promissory notes to fucking Wendy's coupons to food stamps it's all the same shit and it's all irredeemably evil.

[Anonymous No.17358631]

>>17358586
You cant make everything free whike youre not a post scarcity society.
Maybe when theres nanobots and asteroid mining wrme could say we live in a post scarcity society and have full communism though.

[Anonymous No.17358639]

>>17358631
I don't want to make anything "free", and I don't want to mine no fucking asteroids with gay little robots neither.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17358674]

>>17358639
> I don't want to make anything "free
Fine, you keep using the vouchers. It isn’t money though.

[Anonymous No.17358681]

>>17358674
I don't have strong views on this thread or this poster but I want to say that Happy Go Lucky is a supremely underrated movie and I was happy to see this image.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17358697]

>>17358681
I lof her so

[Anonymous No.17358712]

>>17358674
>It isn’t money though.
>nooo you don't understand it's money with limiiiittts
still muney
cry about it

[Anonymous No.17358722]

>>17358697
With you there - and in that movie in particular she glows. I was always a little disappointed she didn't quite make it. I feel she deserved a bigger career than she got.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17358752]

>>17358722
Sally? She’s done alright

[Anonymous No.17359976]

>>17353334
Certified cumbrain. Read about secular stagnation, patriot act privacy law changes, multinational coronations and zombie corps

[Anonymous No.17359985]

>>17353520
You have fallen for meme magic and jargon. These companies are building up rent seeking infrastructure

[Anonymous No.17360196]

>>17358631
there is no such thing as post scarcity.
As soon as you accustom people toacertain standard of life, they will want more, resources WILL FOREVER be limited.

[Anonymous No.17360200]

>>17356922
lol, just look at this mf.

[Anonymous No.17360203]

>>17356862
you are the only one diddling kids and demons will diddle you for eternity

[Anonymous No.17360209]

>>17356829
they don't actually know science either, they are science cultists not science makers.

[Anonymous No.17360216]

>>17356362
they only do so because thanks to your wonderful welfare system they are completely divorced from reality and market feedback. If they were held accountable for their actions they would have closed decades ago. But that would require actual capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17360233]

Marxists are bunch of retards, simple as.

[Anonymous No.17360240]

>>17360233
based

[Anonymous No.17360243]

>33

[Anonymous No.17360359]

>>17360216
I think weve reached a point in time in which we cant go back to pure capitalism even if we wanted to.
Just like we cant go back to feudalism even if we wanted to.
Even switzerland has welfare nowadays.
Thered be a bunch of homeless unemployed people if we did.

[Anonymous No.17361068]

>>17354163
I don’t understand how anyone religious can sympathize with Marxism

[Anonymous No.17361074]

>>17351502
Kys

[Anonymous No.17361174]

>>17354478
imagine doing things because "it's what we do here". collectivist scum

[Anonymous No.17361188]

>>17356883
>we'll just use technology bro

[Anonymous No.17361189]

>>17357609
Based comment.
Sometimes the reader is just too dumb to read something and apply what they read to the modern world / how this new knowledge can be used. Instead they whine about the author all day, because its not like their spoonfeeding youtube videos that talk to them like theyre a 12 year old.

[Anonymous No.17361445]

>>17360216
>your wonderful welfare system
Yes I invented the welfare system. It was all me.

[Jesus No.17361827]

>>17351135
reminder: marx had seven children. all useless eaters.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!Fdjwhocst8j No.17361874]

>>17361188
While we still can. But as I said above, it’s a training wheel for a free economy

[Anonymous No.17362001]

>>17356975
Actually, GiG is right. Marx, in the end of Volume 2, specify that those labor vouchers are not money, because they are not meant to circulate. You cannot exchange them for goods. They are only a symbol for a quantity of labor, a labor equivalent, but it's not meant to circulate (be exchanged) and accumulate.

[Anonymous No.17362008]

>>17357626
Man cannot worship two Gods. He cannot worship both God and Mammon. Tradcucks should meditate on this.

[Anonymous No.17362104]

>>17362008
yes indeed, one cannot be at the same time a communist and a Christian.

[Anonymous No.17362112]

>>17361445
yes it was

[Anonymous No.17362122]

>>17360359
I agree we cannot go back, that just means we have to go forward towards collapse and ride the tiger

[Anonymous No.17362231]

>>17362104
That's the biggest bug of the tradcuck mentality. For me, money and Jesus are not compatible.

[Anonymous No.17362258]

>>17362231
are you perchance the same guy that destroyed his music because doing anything whatever of value offends God and who says Jesus is antinatalist and everyone should stop making babies?

[Anonymous No.17363999]

>>17351852
>being able to work on the same farm their father worked on, and his father, and his father, and his father...?
but this is extremely fucking based i WISH i grew up like this

>>17352013
>>17352358
>>17352331
based

>>17352134
>What we should be doing is making it easier for people to leave jobs and to find new work very quickly.
based

>>17352302
>Low skilled jobs will become obsolete
and this is bad because people ONLY capable of doing such jobs WILL NOT disappear
>but new jobs will always come to replace them.
you keep saying this but how can you claim to know that? There will not always be infinite jobs to pick from a pool. What are going to be the jobs that replace them? We can't know these things or know that this is truly going to happen

>>17352622
this

>>17352687
your reply doesn't refute him at all, in fact it supports what he said
>can really only do all menial repetitive shit humans don't want to do in the first place?
this is the 40% >>17352622 was talking about. with your world, the robots just TOOK those jobs from those people. the only jobs left are the ones of intelligence and creativity which those lower rung people can't do, WHAT are you going to do with those people?

>>17352830
you are still not facing >>17352730's dilemma.
>Thats 5 million people at least in the U.S that you have to move to other already oversaturated sectors, to compete for dwindling jobs.
WHERE are you going to put these people? This is the unintelligent 40% that cannot carve out a nice in "Cyberspace".

[Anonymous No.17364057]

>>17353746
yep, you just got eternally btfo. hard to face, i know.

[Anonymous No.17364090]

>>17353980
>Innovation is going on all the time
ya drank the koolaid bro
>quantum computing, 5G (successor to multiple generations of similar technology), prosthetic limbs
All things that have already been around, "refining" is exactly what is happening, they're not being invented. Especially prosthetic limbs have been around for a while now, the changes being made are just improvement, not innovation.

[Anonymous No.17364202]

>>17356883
sooooooooooooooooo digital currency. how do you figure the government wont just take your shit whenever and however they want? socialist, capitalist, or otherwise?

[Anonymous No.17364226]

>>17357604
>It has your name on it so it can’t be stolen
LOLLLLLLLL
>can't be hoarded
so it's just 1 or 0 and has no value in any way because ... ???

[Anonymous No.17364240]

>>17358674
>hiding behind "spooky" ambiguity
you have not actually described anything at all yet

>free or use the voucher that has no value
this is the same thing

[Anonymous No.17364253]

>>17356922
>>17356922
>They're also known as labor vouchers
so you've done actual labor to earn this "voucher" and this "voucher" has X value of which you have still not described. Actually if anything you have implied it has zero value.

[Anonymous No.17364337]

>>17351368
>if can't stand by itself it can't standperiod.
The most retarded statement ever made. Congratulations.
>You are telling me i need language to understand that shit? If you can't grunt it to me it is just trash