Was he right?

[Anonymous No.18044919]

Was he right about capitalism? Capital makes some good points about labor imo.

What are the major flaws in his works?

[Anonymous No.18044946]

He was autistic unironically, he’s not worth deciphering; just read Hitler instead

[Anonymous No.18044949]

>>18044919
i think it’s important as always to point out that marxs value theory isn’t about proofs; he’s not all that interested in showing that the system works the way he says it does, as if it ought to conform to his wishes – ie as if the real dynamic of capitalism is worked out in the notebooks of economists rather than in the interactions between real economic actors – his critique of political economy is all about interrogating the kinds of stories that capitalism itself offers (think of his bit on the language of commodities at the end of ch1 of v1), which is why it’s a genealogical critique and not just a correction or a straightening out of concepts. so when it comes to kinds of problems, especially presented as “Gotchas” for marxists to solve or whatever, it’s basically just a kind of admission that these people don’t understand the purpose of marxs project imo. marxs concerns aren’t the same as marginialism’s concerns. he’s not setting out to offer a theory of relative prices for one thing. etc etc etc

[Anonymous No.18044965]

>>18044949
>it's not actually trying to describe anything, it's just describing the descriptions other people made and critiquing them
This makes it sound somehow even more useless than my previous conception of it, I am impressed how commies continually exceed my expectations in this manner

[Anonymous No.18044975]

>>18044965
not what the post says. apply yourself and be interested in learning instead of trying to be a debatelord and wanting to own people and get gotchas.

[Anonymous No.18044979]

>>18044946
I consider myself a strasserite fwiw.

>>18044949
That explains why it comes off as a long ramble.

[Anonymous No.18044997]

>>18044975
>he’s not all that interested in showing that the system works the way he says it does
>his critique of political economy is all about interrogating the kinds of stories that capitalism itself offers
That is exactly what the post says. I actually think you're being unfair to Marx by making him sound this useless, which is a serious accomplishment

[Anonymous No.18045015]

>>18044919
Nobody in this board has actually read Das Kapital, it's just gonna be retards strawmanning and a lot of ad hominem insults ITT, don't waste your time

[Anonymous No.18045078]

>>18045015
This. I’ve yet to see an actual critique of Capital that goes past surface level filters like the “labor theory of value”.

[Anonymous No.18045081]

>>18045078
>surface level filters like the “labor theory of value”.
That's literally what he grounds his analysis on, if it's wrong the entire thing is wrong

[Anonymous No.18045096]

>>18045081
You didn’t understand Marx. Please refer to >>18044949

[Anonymous No.18045111]

>>18045015
>>18045078
>>18045096
>if you didn’t read muh 1000 page capital/bible you can’t debate my ideology/philosophy
literally religious tier thinking

[Anonymous No.18045120]

>>18045111
>debate
faggot, grow up

[Anonymous No.18045140]

>>18045120
Mature adults don't debate they just endlessly ramble about incoherent 19th century political economy without ever saying a single thing of practical value or really explaining fucking anything

[Anonymous No.18045153]

>>18044949
>his critique of political economy is all about interrogating the kinds of stories that capitalism itself offers
Did Marx tell you that in a dream? That reads like a 20th century post-structuralist reinterpretation of Marx. Marx himself was a modernist and he wasn't interrogating bed time stories. His and Engels' project was to find the laws of capitalism that would allow socialist movements to move to the next stage of history, hence the "Scientific Socialism" moniker.

To answer OP, yes he was wrong pretty much everything. He starts from faulty premises and just keeps on making mistakes from there.

[Anonymous No.18045158]

>>18044919
>What are the major flaws in his works?
umm sweetie there is none

[Anonymous No.18045180]

>>18045153
>He starts from faulty premises and just keeps on making mistakes from there.
What are there faulty premises?

[Anonymous No.18045182]

>>18044919
Well firstly his whole system tests on the labour theory of value, which is just stupid.

Also he said that the pleb's would rise up and began the Marxist utopia. Every communist revolution I know of was lead but upper class autists

[Anonymous No.18045222]

Marxism's basic framework is dialectical and historic materialism. There are a lot of concepts tied up in this but they include the conservation of mass, the unity of opposites, the interchange of quantity and quality, the negation of negation in addition to some well-known materialist principles.

The most notable implication of conservation of mass for Marxism is that the internal contradictions of capitalism are structural and cannot be eliminated but only transferred / transformed through "make the Mexicans pay for it" or "Russia, Russia, Russia / China, China, China," "that's racist," "I'm with her for president because she is a woman and we need a change," "we treat women this way because our ancestor / god says this and that" or use imperialism to cover up the internal social class oppression, in a sense transferring it.

The unity of opposites means that in a subject, the development (rise and fall), motion (up, down, spinning, forward...), forms… are caused by the unity of opposites, which are the contradictions both depending and opposing each other. The collision between contradictions is responsible for all those changes we see from the material world. There are contradictions in every thing, in every country, every historical process; between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, straight and LGBTQ, Christians and Muslims, Abrahamic vs. non-Abrahamic religions, religion in general and atheism, Republicans and Democrats, socialists and capitalists, capitalists and workers, patriots and traitors, nomadic tribes and agricultural villages, manufacturing capital and financial capital, globalists and nationalists, subjectivity and objectivity... it goes on. It exists in everything down to the internal structure of a coffee cup.

So, a man is a man and is different from a woman, but both of them could be white, so they are different from a black man and a black woman. Yet they are all Christians, so they are different from Muslims. Yet they are all Americans, so they are different from Chinese. The unity of opposites exists everywhere to promote/stimulate the development or death of every subject through the collision between the contradictions.

This result of the unity of opposites is known as quantitative changes leading to qualitative changes, or the interchange of quantity and quality. For instance, the struggle from slaves against the slaveholders results in the collapse of slavery replaced by feudalism or capitalism (depending on which period you look at). The slaves would not succeed in just one minute, one day or one year but every struggle they have is adding "quantity" in slavery until "quantity" is big enough to change the quality of the system such that the nature of slavery changes (in this case abolished and replaced by another system).

[Anonymous No.18045243]

>>18045182
>>18044949

[Anonymous No.18045245]

>>18045222
Also, this eventually leads to the negation of negation. For example, slavery is wrong / obsolete so we "negate" slavery and replace it with capitalism. However, capitalism has also lots of problems or is wrong to some extent. So we negate capitalism and hopefully replace it by socialism. So a negation of negation just happens.

Again, this law of the negation of negation exists everywhere and is by definition describing the stages of development of the thing (such as the child-adult-old, polytheism-monotheism-atheism, tribalism-slavery-feudalism-capitalism-socialism-communism). The negation of negation is not complete negation but dialectically negating the bad elements but inheriting and absorbing the good element into the next stage of the thing.

Dialectical materialists realize those natural laws and philosophical methodologies and apply them to the study of history. This leads to historical materialism.

Another thing is that men make history but not under self-selected circumstances, but circumstances already existing and transmitted from the past. The rise of new productive forces and of the relations of production corresponding to them also does not take place separately from the old system, but within the old system; it takes place not as a result of the deliberate and conscious activity of man, but spontaneously, unconsciously, and independently of the will of man. The "shape" of history if you could say it has a shape is tortuous, or spiral-like:

https://youtu.be/WtTgsu_JtNU

[Anonymous No.18045249]

>>18045182
>his whole system tests on the labour theory of value, which is just stupid.
His value system is definitely not what you think it is retard

[Anonymous No.18045251]

>>18044919
Marx achieved his purpose though. He got so many people navel gazing and discussing philosophical moot points instead of demanding and actualizing their demands. In a sense, he prevented action by insisting that said action must be carefully planned with endless discussion. Meanwhile the industrialists took over.
Oh and Marx was jewish. He was from an extremely wealthy industrialist background himself. He pits the proles against the bourgeois to divide up their efforts. But he describes the ruling class as a phenomenon instead of a group of people.

[Anonymous No.18045254]

>>18045182
*enters room*
Marx did not have a labor theory of value
*leaves room*

[Anonymous No.18045263]

>>18045254
He explains it in literally the opening pages of the first volume of Capital, I have no idea why you guys keep repeating this

[Anonymous No.18045270]

>>18045245
>capitalism negates slavery
Lmao

[Anonymous No.18045271]

>>18044919
Capitalism is like all the money slowly runs to one singular point.
Communism is like all the money runs to one singular point.
Whats even the point reading books if you know that?

[Anonymous No.18045272]

>>18044949
>>18044919
If I'd find a diamond on the floor with zero effort then according to the labour theory of value it's worth nothing, while if I'd put in all efforts to build a giant pile of reeking shit for 3 days I should be payed handsomely. i dont think anyone argues that labour is not a critical factor in value, but the idea that labour is the singular determination is just silly. It’s the mental trick of the humanists who determiend beforehand that workers were important, but since workers have only their work, they tried to make a price 100% about the work of the worker, ie how long does a worker needs to produce a good.

It’s the usual hypocrisy of the atheist who tries to find a justification to his innate prejudices lol. It’s all retroactive.

[Anonymous No.18045274]

>>18045251
Marx never intended leftist infighting or whatnot to take place lmao. Also you seem to believe that he created industrial age labor conflicts, when he really described already occurring conflicts and gave the existing and exploited proles an actual ideology and means to understand their oppression.

[Anonymous No.18045280]

>>18045263
>>18045272
Posting the pasta

Marx did not have a labor theory of value he had a value theory of labor. I get this from Diane Elson who asked the very important question “what is Marx's theory a theory of?” and the answer she came to is that when Marx talks about value, he’s not coming up with a theory of prices which locates labor as their prime determinant (a theory-of-value which posits labor as its source/substance, ie, a labor theory-of-value) but instead mostly takes the notion of value itself as it’s found in classical political economy (and this is done through what Sam Chambers highlights as a genealogical critique) in order to consider, in a reversal of the Ricardian problem, what value means for labor (a theory-of-labor which focuses on how it is affected by value, ie, a value theory-of-labor). so instead of the classical concern for the regulation of prices by labor-time, Marx is trying to understand how labor itself is regulated by value via the violence of abstraction, domination by time, etc. If you read the first chapter of capital like this, especially with Holloway’s piece on the way to read the very first sentence in mind, the text becomes wildly different. Socially necessary labor time ceases to be a mere economic term which is arrived at theoretically but a kind of self-asserting average which compels the laborer to keep pace with the rhythm of the machine and the constantly increasing tempo of the market.

[Anonymous No.18045281]

>>18045263
You can't understand his value-labor framework without completely reading das kapital. It's not a straightforward labor theory of value like you think it is.

[Anonymous No.18045287]

>>18045274
It would be a funny twist of history if one of the most important political theorists in world history is a cranky Jewish guy with boils on his ass who wrote about economics and managed to blow up half the world because of that, but I'm going to blame the Kaiser and the Tsar for that one.

[Anonymous No.18045288]

>>18045270
More like packages slavery in an appealing way lmao

[Anonymous No.18045290]

>>18045222
>>18045245

Thank you, this was an interesting read.

[Anonymous No.18045291]

>>18045272
Marx' way of getting around this is by transforming it into 'average homogenous labor'. This would still be retarded anyway because it doesn't address organization and resource

[Anonymous No.18045296]

>>18045272
Nice strawman.

[Anonymous No.18045302]

his theory of the tendency for the rate of profit to decline is interesting and doesn't seem to get talked about much. this seems to be the key argument for why capitalism will cave in on itself.

[Anonymous No.18045307]

>>18045274
Understanding is not equal to success. It is another form of cope. A very sophisticated form at that. Goes back to my point about preventing action and dividing up proles and bourgeois. And pretending the ruling class is a phenomenon and not a group of people actively destroying the lives of everyone below them.
Descriptive philosophy ended with the ancients. Everything from the 18th century onwards was intended to be imposed on the way things are. Much like how Freud projects a very common Jewish practice: incest onto the world. And then insists that everything belongs to that exact framework. Enough time and people don't organically function anymore. They act in way described by said "philosophers".

[Anonymous No.18045312]

>>18045281
>You can't understand... without completely reading
I only ever hear this from charlatans. In no actually useful or intelligible subject does this apply, you learn the basic concepts first and then use them as building blocks.

[Anonymous No.18045320]

>>18045291
>>18045272
During an act of exchange it's actually abstract labor that is equated, not concrete labor. What is abstract labor? Can you calculate it? No, you can't calculate abstract labor because it only occurs during exchange and has no objectivity to it. It is a result of a certain kind of social relationship between all producers and it relates a particular instance of exchange to all the production in a society. Yep, you faggots didn't read Marx and just larping.

[Anonymous No.18045331]

>>18045312
That's not how marx's analysis works. He slowly builds his value-labor framework by looking at contradictions and resolving them only to result in new contradictions which he then again resolves.

[Anonymous No.18045336]

>>18045272
>lolberts actually think this is an argument

[Anonymous No.18045338]

>>18045302
>tendency for the rate of profit to decline

This and his ideas of the alienation of work in industrialized societies are worthwhile ideas. It's also important to note that he recognized that Capitalism was a necessary - but temporary - step on the road to Socialism.

[Anonymous No.18045350]

>>18045302
I think we should actually criticise his stages of historical development. That shit is ahistorial and based on racist ideologies of his time. His understanding of history is mostly wrong.

[Anonymous No.18045359]

>>18045307
Proles certainly don't "succeed" from exploitation lmao. Them understanding their exploitation at least allows them to seek liberation from wage slavery. Also why do you insist that Marx "divided up" the proles and bourgeoisie, their division would still have existed with or without Marx, he just described it.

[Anonymous No.18045364]

>>18045350
It’s really not and most criticisms of his “racism” cherry-pick the one or two times he mentioned oriental despotism as if that’s a total refutation of his historical understanding. And I’ve seen him called “Eurocentric” too but who cares? He was writing for Europeans.

[Anonymous No.18045365]

>>18045320
It's not labor being exchanged at all you retard

[Anonymous No.18045366]

I think this is a good intro to the Communist Manifesto and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 -- by an individualist anarchist / mutualist philosopher no less, so critical of it, but a very fair overview and gives some of the background in Hegel:

https://youtu.be/Fuo5uAZW0Jo

https://youtu.be/0hYhtA0haIg

>>18045302
The way I understand it, capitalists compete with each other and invest in machines to produce more with less, which gives them a leg up over their competitors. The first one to do it has an advantage, but over time the other capitalists will catch up, which will cause the rate of profit to decline over time, since you have less labor (which produces value) but have to pay for upkeep of machinery. Also, when returns on invested capital fall, capitalists will increasingly resort to the things we're seeing right now, like financial speculation or meme stocks or whatever. There's too much money sloshing around and not enough profitable investment opportunities in the productive economy.

There are countervailing tendencies though to adjust for this, but Michael Roberts -- a Marxist economist -- has his own measurement for the rate of the profit. Funny enough, he has worked as an economist in the City of London for 40 years.

Xi Jinping is also interesting because he'll give a speech at the World Economic Forum, and people always wonder "whether China is communist" but this is straightforward Marxist talk, it's just not "kill the rich' or whatever people expect lmao:

https://youtu.be/RjNcLhaAxQQ?t=111

[Anonymous No.18045374]

>>18045365
Lol brainlet I didn't say otherwise

[Anonymous No.18045381]

>>18044919
Of course he was. The nations who adopted policies influenced by him have high living standards, universal education and health care, and the highest self-reported happiness levels in the world.
The ones that went with "trickle down effects" think ketchup is a vegetable and voted a screeching circus clown with alzheimers and tourettes into the highest office in their nation and can't stop reeeing about how it's everybody else's fault they are fat and miserable.

[Anonymous No.18045389]

>>18045381
>The nations who adopted policies influenced by him
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things

[Anonymous No.18045390]

>>18045350
Graeber and wengrow's new book does exactly that.
Also this is a nice video showing Marx's white supremacy foundations
https://youtu.be/qBFvxkvpi2w

[Anonymous No.18045391]

>>18045359
I say that because Marx's intentions can be debated endlessly.
However the results are clear.
You seem to conveniently brush aside the main point I made.
Marx and the rest serve one singular purpose: to keep proles proles... to keep bourgeois bourgeois. And to solidify the industrialists power.
Proles already knew their position. What the fuck is wrong with you? They didn't need Marx to tell them they were in a bad situation. Marx did however make them REEEE and discuss endlessly by articulating their "pain". Which cements their position as proles even further.
18th century onwards very few philosophies were used as descriptions. They were instead imposed as the nature of things. Which is ass backwards.
Notice also how the ruling class is merely brushed off as a phenomenon of nature. The finger is instead being pointed at the bourgeois. Not the ruling class.
You can debate me endlessly by deflecting and pretending the last 150 years didn't happen.
But it did happen. And Marx, the Jewish capitalist himself, helped his kin take over the world; while keeping an air of plausible deniability because he wrote a bunch of stuff with deliberately ambiguous points that people will endlessly debate. Like you.

[Anonymous No.18045393]

>>18045374
>During an act of exchange it's actually abstract labor that is equated,
There is no abstract labor being equated, it's not labor in any sense, labor was involved in some aspect of the creation of what is being exchanged

[Anonymous No.18045396]

>>18045366
yes, essentially since technological development is not a steady constant, the rate of profit will tend to go up or down - and in marx' view tend down over time - and since capital holders will not accept lower returns on investments, they will increasingly turn to self-cannabilizing acts such as short sighted business plans at the expense of the long term and putting the squeeze on the workers.

[Anonymous No.18045400]

>>18045381
America and UK are basically third world countries for common people now lmao

[Anonymous No.18045406]

>>18045393
Hush, the grown ups are talking

[Anonymous No.18045437]

>>18045393
It's just a theoretical concept. What actually happens in a market is basically production process getting abstracted from exchange. He's just trying to understand the framework in which the labor is done in a capitalist society.

[Anonymous No.18045438]

>>18045391
>The finger is instead being pointed at the bourgeois. Not the ruling class.
https://youtu.be/V9-D8h4iDaI?t=115

[Anonymous No.18045439]

>>18045406
Try to explain how 'abstract labor is equated during an exchange' you brainlet. You know that simply repeating bullshit does not actually constitute saying anything of value

[Anonymous No.18045453]

>>18045437
It's an incorrect theoretical concept because that is not what happens in markets

[Anonymous No.18045457]

Theorists after Marx suspected that if it a revolution were to happen, it certainly wouldn't come from the "workers", since the common man is usually profoundly Conservative at heart, and has a hard time imaging things being different. Many thinkers feared that the worker would ultimately rather fight within the Capitalist system for table scraps, rather than working towards flipping the table entirely. What do you all think about this observation?

[Anonymous No.18045461]

>>18045391
>Marx, the Jewish capitalist himself,

I wouldn't describe him as much but the more I read about Marx the more I realize that Marxism (and leftism as a whole for that matter) is basically just a religion based on ressentiment. The actual Marx saw capitalism as necessary and was socially conservative. I'm starting to think that a country like China is a more accurate representation of Marx's ideas than anything that leftists brought to the table in the 20th century. I mean compare the average American leftist with a Chinese Marxist. In China they're building entire cities in months and expanding markets with Marxist analysis, in America leftists consider China a fake communist country and their primary political platform is basically about black transgender kids.

[Anonymous No.18045471]

>>18045453
Abstract labor doesn't exist in reality. You're clearly not understand what it is supposed to be. No one is fucking saying there's a thing called abstract labor and it is getting exchanged.

[Anonymous No.18045473]

>>18045461
The majority of China's economy is capitalist, and it becomes more capitalist every year, only having become functional after doing so following the comical disaster of Maoism

[Anonymous No.18045480]

>>18045471
It's attempting to reduce economy to labor through abstraction, which is wrong

[Anonymous No.18045482]

>>18045473
TYBD

[Anonymous No.18045487]

>>18045391
Marx's theory is far more complex than just telling proles that they are proles and telling industrialists that they are industrialists. Of course proles already knew they were in a fucked up situation and bourgeois people already knew what they were doing, but Marx provided the descriptions of how bourgeois power functioned so it could be upturned. Marxism isn't just about articulation of prole pains, as you said they already knew they were in a bad situation, it just explained how the system prolonged and enforced their pain. Also the Bourgeoisie is literally the ruling class, unless you're some schizo conspiracy dipshit who laughably blames da ebil Joos for everything. I wonder why Marxist theory has dominated philosophy in the last 150 years, could it be because that was the era that saw the entrenchment of bourgeois ruling class domination, which is what Marx detailed?????? Impossible, it is surely the ebil Joos, somehow

[Anonymous No.18045489]

>>18045461
Because modern leftists aren't marxists. You're supposed to grow out of Marx. Modern leftist movements outside of China are based on anarchism/left-libertarian shit instead of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.18045495]

>>18045461
>political platform is basically about black transgender kids.

Traditional leftists in my Euro country have been railing against identity politics along with the Rightoids here, which is kinda funny. True leftwingers see the subversive nature of identity politics and where it leads (endless bickering and infighting), and in the meanwhile the powers that be are laughing their asses off.

[Anonymous No.18045497]

>>18045480
He's not reducing anything. That's not the entirety of what's discussed in das kapital. It's just an aspect of it.

[Anonymous No.18045498]

>>18045487
Why does the Bourgeois ruling class allow Marxism to exist in its society exactly

[Anonymous No.18045501]

>>18045439
All value is abstracted labor. When you look at something you would like, you think what it would cost in terms of your own assets. Which is your abstracted labor, and what owning it would give you as an asset, which is the abstracted labor embodied in the commodity.
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.18045503]

>>18045461
>is basically just a religion based on ressentiment
I go even further and say it is a means to capture dissatisfaction for a specific type of audience. Much like how booze captures the dissatisfaction of another type of audience. So now instead of figuring out ways to get more control over your life, more money, etc you get shitfaced on the weekends... or you discuss "philosophy" to assuage your inability to change things... further cementing your position and that you will be unable to change things.

[Anonymous No.18045508]

>>18045498
they don't actively allow it or encourage it, it just sprouts up among the proletariat and academics

[Anonymous No.18045510]

>>18045497
>A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article.
yes he is reducing it

[Anonymous No.18045511]

>>18045495
Of course they are but they aren’t the ruling class

[Anonymous No.18045513]

>>18045489
I know they aren't really Marxist. They're largely just progressive liberals. But then why does everyone still pretend that they are? Why do Leftists in America still call themselves communists and socialists when their definition of socialism is just having basic healthcare policies that every other country has? Why do people dismiss them as radicals when all their beliefs are visibly in most social institutions today? And if they are really Marxist then why would they be so dismissive of China, the most successful communist country in history?

Like you said, I don't know why they haven't just grown out of Marxism. There's something about Marx and leftism that very quickly developed into an incomprehensible cesspool of different ideologies and secular religions. They have no idea what they're doing, China is the only country that figured it out. I can't tell you how fucking cringe it is in America how most leftists just LARP as if they're 1960s radicals even as China is building the future.

[Anonymous No.18045515]

>>18045508
Why don't they just make it illegal in academia? They have more or less made fascism illegal there

[Anonymous No.18045517]

>>18045503
how can you be sure society can't be changed? Sounds way too prematurely defeatist

[Anonymous No.18045520]

>>18045487
>Marx's theory is far more complex than just telling
No. You and Marx and the rest desperately want it to seem complex so as to be able to have endless discussion... all while preventing action.
>the rest of what you wrote
is retard tier shit. would you like marx's balls as a side to his penis while you're at it?

[Anonymous No.18045521]

>>18045515
the ruling class doesn't directly control academia in every country lol. Also it has been censored a billion times before in like every country

[Anonymous No.18045524]

>>18045501
No value is also determined by resources and organization

[Anonymous No.18045530]

>>18045495
In my Euro country as well
The thing about sjwlgbtqblack thing being categorized as marxist in this 4channel always makes me cringe

[Anonymous No.18045534]

>>18045520
lol you don't know what you're talking about, just quit it retard

[Anonymous No.18045542]

>>18045461
>basically just a religion based on ressentiment
It is an ideology. Religion is ideology. As is any other Political or cultural abstraction.
China is efficient because they have an Authoritarian bureaucracy. They were just as efficient when they had an emperor. And they can kill of millions of people, because individual people don't matter.
What you are bitching about is that in the Liberal West, individuals matter. A black transgender kid has the exact same rights you do. And you mean just as little as they.
Now, we both know, that you would NEVER chose to starve or die for someone else. So why don't fuck off with your ignorant bitching and your false belief that you understand anything at all about politics.

[Anonymous No.18045543]

>>18045521
>the ruling class doesn't directly control academia in every country
not much of a ruling class is it then, especially since academics are so influential in law-making and the control of information through the press and education system

[Anonymous No.18045546]

>>18045457
I think this is where Lenin comes in. Engels was pointing to this later on but the idea is that capitalism develops into an imperialist stage and the proceeds allows the ruling class to "buy off" their workers which creates a "labor aristocracy." The U.S. for example today is like the financial center of a global empire. Why would people tear that up for a revolution? That said, there are serious contradictions embedded in this empire, the productive economy has been hollowed out and outsourced -- most of your proletarians today don't even live in the western countries.

That said, there was a wave of communist revolutions in the 20th century that took over half the world, that was a pretty big deal, and the ruling party of the largest country today -- and perhaps the single most powerful political organization anywhere in the world -- is a Marxist-Leninist party and I would argue operates with a Marxist theory of history and method of political analysis.

A lot of people don't agree with that, but I think that's true.

https://youtu.be/U1qCtjbnj3E

>>18045461
I mostly agree with this especially about being more authentically Marxist but I wouldn't say this American "social liberal vs. social conservative" dynamic translates to a Chinese context exactly, at least in the same way. If anything, I would call the Communist Party of China "moderates" on those issues, they tend not to weigh in, and if they do, they tend to do it cautiously. In some way, they are more socially conservative than the U.S., but in other ways less so -- the affirmative action programs there for ethnic minorities are probably the most sweeping in the world and if applied to the U.S. would probably spark a civil war lol

Here's some socialist realism though ;)

https://youtu.be/ojpN6PjRcQc?t=979

[Anonymous No.18045549]

>>18045524
Concretely so, not abstractly. It doesn't matter to you what something is actually worth. The only think you care about in the act of exchange is what it is worth to you. Like I said, come back when you have the basics down.

[Anonymous No.18045551]

>>18045510
That's wrong interpretation of Marx. If you check his letters you can see him getting annoyed by people who interpreted it like that. You can't measure the magnitude of value by somehow measuring concrete labor expended for making a product. Value only arises u during exchange and you can't measure it independently. He was trying to understand the capitalism of his day. He wasn't creating a new system.

[Anonymous No.18045553]

>>18045543
you're trying to overgeneralize to try and own me or something. It varies by country. Also there is a vast difference between academia that is random intellectuals publishing dense academic shit for other intellectuals and the academia that concerns what actually gets taught

[Anonymous No.18045561]

>>18045549
>The only think you care about in the act of exchange is what it is worth to you
That has literally no relation to whether the thing's value was determined entirely by labor you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.18045568]

>>18045553
Do you have an answer as to why the 'ruling class' would allow an influential and prestigious institution to promote material that ostensibly seriously threatens it?

[Anonymous No.18045577]

>>18045561
Of course it does. It is not. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.18045579]

>>18045517
We can change our situations once we see through the truckloads of obfuscated garbage being shoved into our eyes and ears in so many forms... one of them being modern "philosophy... and focus instead on reality. Like how can I make more money ? How can I support my family and relatives and secure their future? How can I change my situation? etc. Not how do we help proles direct their abstracted labor via marxist and critical theory in order to rebel against the phallus of the state.
Note: I'm not saying "dont read". I'm saying read, but dont get sucked in and always keep your eyes on the ball. Not some made up bullshit these "philosophers" insist exists.

[Anonymous No.18045587]

>>18045577
You're contradicting Marx then since he clearly states here>>18045510 that it doesn't and that the only determinant is labor. You stop adding your faggot little 'grow up' comments to every post, you're too stupid to even faithfully defend the idiotic doctrine you think you understand

[Anonymous No.18045588]

>>18045546
Also the socialist realist opera in that, if you go to 58:30, has this absolutely over-the-top performance by the legion of steel singing about the glory of construction. It's like futuristic USSR stuff and pretty amazing.

[Anonymous No.18045592]

>>18045579
>Like how can I make more money ? How can I support my family and relatives and secure their future? How can I change my situation?
You poor fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.18045593]

>>18044949
This is the only person that knows what they are talking about in this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.18045594]

>>18045568
holy fuck you are simple. Academia is not one single institution that is tightly regulated by anything. It varies by country and by specific institutions. In many countries Marxist stuff is or has been censored. And it is not the material itself that threatens the ruling class, but people's utilization of it on a mass scale. It's far easier to allow intellectuals to publish their texts and just focus on brainwashing everyone and controlling the flow of information, as well as what actually gets taught at schools in an attempt to prevent people from caring about these texts

[Anonymous No.18045595]

>>18045513
>Why do Leftists in America still call themselves communists and socialists when their definition of socialism is just having basic healthcare policies that every other country has?
It's just the opposition that calls them commies for inane shit. I mean Republicans call you a commie for demanding a fair minimum wage.

>And if they are really Marxist then why would they be so dismissive of China, the most successful communist country in history?
Because china is like any other modern oppressive nation-state. It didn't even bring changes at local level like erasing patriarchy or organizing work along leftist lines. All it is doing is what USA did back in the day with central planning and state led development but with outright authoritarianism.

>Like you said, I don't know why they haven't just grown out of Marxism
They did. No one reads Marx that much. Do you think they were reading Marx while talking about police abolitionism or degrowth or mutual aid or transformative justice? It's all heavily influenced by anarchism. Basically something happened after 80s and crypto anarchists started leading the leftist discourse. There's a reason rojava is not marxist and every major leftist movement is organized by a non-marxist. Marxism is actually dead in modern left.

[Anonymous No.18045603]

>>18045592
Says the guy sucking on Marx's dick while his only form of currency is discussion lmao.

[Anonymous No.18045606]

>>18045579
the thing is these philosophers tend to explain the things you listed but in greater and more detailed context. Philosophy doesn't have to be all overblown and complex, but simple things still relate to the proles and the state and whatnot

[Anonymous No.18045610]

>>18045587
Read the few lines you are quoting. The key term is abstracted labor. You have had is spelled out to you several times. We have spoonfed you. And you are still too dumb to get it. So go over it again until you get it, or fuck off.

Add to that that you keep thinking you understand something you clearly don't, and piss yourself when it's pointed out to you, you do need to grow up. So at least try not crying like a little pussy while the growups are talking.

[Anonymous No.18045616]

>>18045603
Keep projecting, I'm sure you're going to do well in life.

[Anonymous No.18045618]

>>18045510
Read more than that. You're just taking that shit out of context.

[Anonymous No.18045622]

>>18045595
I think you're right that the western left, particularly in the U.S. and U.K. are heavily influenced by anarchism and Trotskyism (a negative ideology) for historical reasons, but I think more people are getting back into Marxism. It's still very small of course, but I think there has been a change compared to 10 or 20 years ago. But the conditions have changed, and ultimately ideologies are only functional to the extent that they address the big problems -- and if leftists are beginning to look at Marx more seriously, it's because the other stuff has been striking out whenever it has stepped up to bat.

[Anonymous No.18045623]

>>18045606
Except modern philosphy's purpose is not to help or describe. Its to obfuscate and have you navel gazing while the rest of the world keeps moving.

[Anonymous No.18045628]

>>18045610
>The key term is abstracted labor.
Yeah Ive repeatedly pointed out that it's not simply abstracted labor that determines value you mindless sack of shit

[Anonymous No.18045634]

>>18045594
It's more likely that they are simply completely unthreatened by it because it's idiotic and doesn't correctly identify the ruling class at all. Look at what they actually do censor

[Anonymous No.18045642]

>>18045618
I'm sure you can explain the context that makes it seem like it's not saying exactly what it's saying

[Anonymous No.18045644]

>>18045622
The leftist discourse these days is eerily similar to what Italian immigrants did in US before war with anarchist communities. One important thing to notice is explicit leftist activities in US are done by PoCs whereas white people are just pro lgbt liberals.

[Anonymous No.18045649]

>>18045628
And you are still too dumb to get it. Go on. Say how you get it again, and how stupid we all are to make fun of you for not getting it. Because of course you really get it, just because you think you do. That's what little babies do, right? They think they get it, so they must be right...
Now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.18045653]

>>18045623
yeah truly a shame isn't it that philosphy was ruined by evil jews or something. Guess I'll go back to navel gazing with my shitty dishonest philosophy and cry myself to sleep over how the ruling class is so mean :( If only someone detailed how the ruling class systems function and exploit the working class so I could learn how society works

[Anonymous No.18045654]

>>18045457
>>18045461
Also another thing about this social conservatism question is that I think a socialist system has to synchronize with a country's characteristics -- that's what the Chinese do. It's only until recently that people have woken up and go "oh, they're communists" because the mass performances like at the Olympics didn't seem "communist" but just "Chinese" because westerners just assumed that "communism" is Soviet aesthetics, which were in fact very Russian and borrowed elements from Russian culture and Eastern Orthodoxy. But turns out that thousands of people doing synchronized dance moves about mankind uniting and working for a common purpose is pretty damn communist.

So an American socialism would be different, it would fit the culture. Like, this is from Cuba:

https://youtu.be/kYrshwlqnFM

Is that socially conservative? That country governed by a Marxist-Leninist party. But Cuba is also a Caribbean country. There's no way anyone will ever make them act like Russians. They have too much cha-cha. It's like the joke from The Hunt for Red October where Sean Connery says to the Russian crew: "Then we will sail for Havana, where the sun is warm... and so is the comradeship."

[Anonymous No.18045658]

>>18045649
I see you're now reduced to spluttering and saying literally nothing

[Anonymous No.18045660]

>>18045644
>The leftist discourse these days is eerily similar to what Italian immigrants did in US before war with anarchist communities. One important thing to notice is explicit leftist activities in US are done by PoCs whereas white people are just pro lgbt liberals.
That's fascinating. I don't know enough about early Italian immigrant anarchism in the U.S., but I can definitely see more straightforward Marxist-Leninist / communist stuff being more PoC

[Anonymous No.18045663]

>>18045654
China is not remotely communist, and its economy becomes objectively less communist every year

[Anonymous No.18045665]

>>18045653
I expect you to do exactly that, unironically. Cause that's all you can do. Discuss
>I'm sure you're going to do well in life.
I will thanks.

[Anonymous No.18045666]

>>18045622
>but I think more people are getting back into Marxism.

No, they're posting on twitter about revolution without actually doing anything. They aren't organizing, they aren't creating a new analysis, and they aren't picking up guns. They're just taking mainstream liberal ideas of intersectionality and using a radical aesthetic of typical American leftist LARPing. They don't fucking do anything except cry on social media. Even our politicians adopt their "Marxist" ideas like abolishing the police. Stop pretending like they're any threat to the system or anything outside the norm, especially using a literal libshit grifter like shoe

[Anonymous No.18045667]

>>18045111
Yes, anon. If you didn't read the book then you don't get to debate what it says. That's how literary discussion works. You have to read the book first. Is that really that hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.18045670]

>>18045653
>If only someone detailed how the ruling class systems function and exploit the working class so I could learn how society works
You mean 'someone incoherently rambled about something that will never accomplish anything because it's retarded'. Of course you don't even intend to do anything but performatively ramble about it yourself and pretend you are 'analyzing the ruling class' lmao

[Anonymous No.18045674]

>>18045634
whoa now you suddenly are aware of state censorship lmao. I'm sure you've also read through enough academic works to confidentially say that it's all idiotic and doesn't accurately describe anything. who the fuck is "they" stop being so damn vague

[Anonymous No.18045676]

>>18045660
Just say non-whites, faggot

[Anonymous No.18045680]

>>18045674
Have fun with your larp that is so threatening that absolutely nobody cares no matter how much you discuss it any institution, you are a brave rebel

[Anonymous No.18045684]

>>18045680
>no one cares about it
I dont think I need to retort lol

[Anonymous No.18045691]

>>18045666
What you're proposing is IMO a petit-bourgeois radicalism that prizes action for action's sake, "picking up guns" (no mention whether those who do it will just be slaughtered or not), and wildcat adventurism.

My alternative:

https://youtu.be/25apx_nF_pw

[Anonymous No.18045694]

>>18045684
No really, the fact that you are perfectly free to discuss it in prestigious state-affiliated institutions and mass culture depicts it fairly positively is a definite sign that the 'ruling class' is very concerned with your 'analysis', and you definitely aren't bootlicking retarded cowards

[Anonymous No.18045707]

>>18045691
i'm not proposing anything, and no matter how much you try to convince yourself that you're a TRUE leftist, most leftism is moving into the direction of american progressivism. your whole movement will be deadlocked into slave morality and whining about "BIPOC" or pronouns or giving native americans their land back or putting little kids on puberty blockers. that's the leftist platform now, china won't influence a thing

[Anonymous No.18045715]

>>18044949
>duhh Marxism isn't actually describing reality, just what it sees as reality
Huh, so you're basically admitting Marxist theory is worthless. I didn't think you'd hand the medallion to us like that.

[Anonymous No.18045719]

>>18045674
>who is they
The ruling class, the 'bourgeois' in Marxist terms. It really is strange how marxism is completely accepted in academia. It's completely acceptable and even respectable for sociologists and other humanities' academics to espouse Marxist rhetoric. Even outside of it in popular media, popular films, books, and video games come out with explicitly marxist messages every year. Then you talk to a leftist and they tell you the reason capitalism hasn't been overthrown yet is because the Bourgeois craftily hides the truth of Marxist theory from the workers and implants a false consciousness into them.

[Anonymous No.18045725]

>>18045694
well the adoption of progressivism and marxist-adjacent ideas in culture is a separate thing, which deals more with the ruling class accepting social progress but still within the framework of capitalism. Far left ideas get tossed around in media and general discussion to satiate progressives and create a new "woke" capitalism. Don't mistake this for actual leftism. Also, in many western countries people highly value freedom of speech so it would look bad for the state nowadays to outright censor discussion and publication of shit, there would be massive backlash. Leftism was censored in the US under McCarthyism, but this failed due to concerns over constitutional infringement.

[Anonymous No.18045727]

>>18045707
I think Native Americans should get their land back. But you can't force the masses into a revolution if they're not ready for it, or if they don't perceive it to be in their self-interest. That's commandism. What I think authentic "communists" want to do is not turn more and more people into "communists" and then once you have enough "communists" you have communism, although that's a nice to have, but unleash people power, where people throw off traditional patterns of deference and command, see the shared struggle they have with their working brothers and sisters contra their bosses, and organize themselves.

People don't need to listen to "us." Who am I to say I know better than the working masses in this country? If I wanted to be an authentic communist, I should spend more time listening to them. That's where the power is. Maybe they're concerned about racism and police brutality. That seems to be a big concern with cops shooting kids or pulling working people over and extorting them for fines and fees to pay for their inflated budgets. Once you boil it down it's very simple.

https://youtu.be/QM9xgHibvzM

[Anonymous No.18045733]

>>18045719
>they tell you the reason capitalism hasn't been overthrown yet is because the Bourgeois craftily hides the truth of Marxist theory from the workers and implants a false consciousness into them.
I never said that and it's not the only reason

[Anonymous No.18045736]

>>18045180
Materialism, permanent/inevitable class conflict, historical materialism (class dialectics), etc.

[Anonymous No.18045740]

>>18045733
>I never said that
So you're directly disagreeing with most established Marxist theorists on this point, good on you. Maybe one day you will move past Marxism all together.

[Anonymous No.18045744]

>>18045727
can we deport all the immigrants if we give the natives the whole north american continent again

[Anonymous No.18045755]

>>18045740
no i'm not lmao. I never said that because it doesn't pertain to our fucking pathetic discussion. You asked why is marxist shit in academia and I responded, not once did we touch on that being a reason for capitalism's survival. You're just trying super hard to pwn me, stop

[Jesus No.18045766]

hello discoossers! did you vaccinate yourself already?

[Anonymous No.18045774]

yeah what i love the most from the communist bugmen is that they keep whining how the bourgeois get richer with finance.

So the usual reply is to tell them that if it's so easy to earn money from finance, why don't they do it themselves and give money to the poor and make the capitalist poor [finance is a zero sum game, until QE ofc]

Then they shut up forever

[Anonymous No.18046330]

>>18044919
More importantly whys he reaching for a glock

[Anonymous No.18047581]

Bnp