Marxism

[Anonymous No.18121293]

Did you read "Communist Manifesto" What do you think about it and what do you think about all of Marx's ideology? In my opinion, Marx was right in some respects.

[Anonymous No.18121300]

>>18121293
This is the vaguest shit I have read today. Good job.

[Anonymous No.18121304]

>>18121300
Meh can do worst.

I think Marx is overrated.

[Anonymous No.18121307]

>>18121304
Meh can do worster.
I think that

[Anonymous No.18121311]

>>18121293 (OP)
Sorry ;D

[Anonymous No.18121319]

Value of labor theory is rubbish, his economic ideas are basically all wrong.

[Anonymous No.18121325]

>>18121293
The first half regarding the critic of 19th Century capitalism was spot on. Same goes his prediction of accentration of wealth in a very small numer of powerfull corporation
The second half, regarding his prediction about the downfall of capitalism and the rise of socialism, is fantasy-tier bullshit to almost a comicall way

I'm still baffed milions of people were willing to die in the name of the second half

[Anonymous No.18121329]

>>18121319
That's in Das Capital dude. The Manifesto was a short summ up of his ideas about Capitalism and how Communism would had risen

[Anonymous No.18121333]

>>18121325
based and reasonable

[Anonymous No.18121362]

>>18121325
His criticisms of 'capitalism' are strawmens. He's basically pissed at crony capitalism and self interested parties abusing government to support their endeavors in business. Von Mises and von Böhm shit all over Marx and his infantile ideas. Or you can read bastiat and circumvent the communist/socalist pipeline.

[Anonymous No.18121370]

was more right than wrong

[Anonymous No.18121373]

>>18121325
Historically wealth concentration is inevitable and socialist polices eventually redistribute wealth through government. This historically gives rise to laissez-faire and the process starts again. Wealth concentration is inevitable and unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.18121401]

>>18121329
His ideas on power, struggle and exploitation are all wrong. Then he goes on about how Communism will be different (better lol), which it isn't, it's worse than the abusive system they're currently in. These are all economic ideas by the way.

[Anonymous No.18121407]

>>18121293
>>18121325
hegel and Marx wanted to pass as a scientific due to the masses being in praise of the scientists who improved their life during the industrial revolution. Socialists are inherently jealous of this success and they want to be praised too.. So Marx and Hegel said they were materialist and said history is materialistic.

>The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.
—Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Scientific and Utopian (1880)

Yes. yes it reduces people 'life to producing and trading goods, hence all the narcissism of the workers about who controls he goods.


According to those assholes, Hegel and marx are scientists'
Marx tried to so hard to larp that he even put high school maths his books, and made mistakes, but since the masses were not educated, just like today, they all viewed him as legit.
This from those people that you get history is a science, economy is a science, psychology is a science and so on. All those non-Stem crappy fields pushed by liberals as a science.


Then 150 years later, all the morons who idolize science and maths from popsci videos on YouTube still praise him.

So I have a question: are you one of them?

[Anonymous No.18121418]

>>18121373
>>18121362
Beggars and swindlers.

[Anonymous No.18121425]

>>18121418
>malnourished hands posted this

[Anonymous No.18121428]

Marx was a loser, Marxism as a theory has been thoroughly refuted and is completely irrevealt. To top it all of, marxists are a bunch of retarded losers as well.

He was right about absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous No.18121436]

>>18121407
I am not a communist. I just think that world isn't so black and white. Marx in SOME elements was right. For example things, that capitalism will lead to increasing inequality and corporate influence in a globalizing market.

[Anonymous No.18121439]

Marx is only insightful or good if all you have read on the topic is Marx. Anyone with a shred of objectivity and capable of reading beyond a single book soon realize that nothing he said is worth repeating.

[Anonymous No.18121445]

>>18121293
>Frederick

[Anonymous No.18121453]

>>18121436
Human differences give rise to inequality since no one is inherently equal. It's wrong to assume the economic system inherently gives rise to inequality.

[Anonymous No.18121456]

>>18121428
Lol dreadful take. His teleological beliefs are silly as anon says above, but his basic conception of social superstructures basically reflecting the relations of production is irrefutable. It's all but a truism now to say that (for example) legal systems support existing power relations. But this was revolutionary thinking at the time.

[Anonymous No.18121462]

>>18121436
>capitalism rewards people who create wealth thus increasing the material wealth of people
>communism punishes people to create an artificial basis for everyone's existence by destroying wealth

[Anonymous No.18121463]

Marx was human garbage from the beginning, pure evil.

People often point to Lenin as the first guy who twisted Marxism into something evil, that being Communism, but Marx was the origination point entirely.

The guy is quoted as saying certain people simply "had to be liquidated" for the ideology to flourish. The guy advocated for genocide from the beginning in his book and that shit is still celebrated today.

I'm just floored at how effective propaganda can be. It's terrifying.

[Anonymous No.18121477]

>>18121456
Everything marx said in relation to worker/manager and production are a by product of corruption and monopiles - no competition in the market which is only possible through government intervention. It's not a feature of capitalism, it's a feature of government and self interested groups.

[Anonymous No.18121483]

>>18121477
This. Capitalism is literally rooted in freedom. Shit like inflation is entirely a byproduct of corrupt managerial oligarchy.

[Anonymous No.18121495]

>>18121293
Marx was jew. End of story. No need to read.

[Anonymous No.18121497]

>>18121293
Before you read criticisms on capitalism, since there are ones (Marx isn't), you should first read about capitalism instead of relying on the feeling you get about capitalisms by observing the current economy/market/society. Once you realize what capitalism is and isn't you will be prepared to understand Marx.

[Anonymous No.18121539]

In the late 18th century Kant modelled his transcendental philosophy on the idea that human consciousness is typified by rational judgment, judgments made about objects, within a mind, by a subject, who presides over them. Kant's philosophy stressed the possibility of the subject being in error about its judgments. Kant was very impressed by 18th century science, like Newton.

Then Hegel came along, gelled Kant and his major successors together into his own thought, and said that the concepts that the subject has access to, that he uses to make judgments, are inherently historical, and therefore developing historically. He wrote a lot of very insightful philosophy on this subject, but no one is quite sure how systematic he was about it. Many nowadays interpret him as a social philosopher of history. But in the 19th century he was mostly taken to be a metaphysical idealist, not a social idealist, whose "ideal" realm (the realm of the mind, or Spirit) was a collective, semi-divine mind whose thought was developing toward pure rationality. (This remains the common perception of him now, as well.)

Much of the 19th century was dominated by "left" (think Marx) and "right" (divine mind) Hegelians, and by Kantian thinking generally on how subjects rationally know their world. In the late nineteenth century, a bunch of guys got tired of the Hegel bullshit, which by then had also spread to Britain and the USA as a very Christian, very religious interpretation of Hegel's (alleged) divine mind idea. Science by this time was exploding, as everyone knows, and German theoreticians were in the lead. They took essentially Kantian ideas of rationality and naturally extended them to "apodictic" certainty, the ideal of self-evident certainty as in a geometrical proof. Auguste Comte and John Stuart Mill were very influential as well, both around the same time advocating a "positivist" conception of science that would gradually describe laws explaining all of reality (including, in their minds, biology, culture, human thought, etc.).

In the late 19th century, the other tradition of German thought, the "historicism" of the German historical school (on which modern history-writing is founded) clashed more and more with this positivism. It said, in a somewhat Hegelian way, that life and consciousness cannot be reduced to positive laws. A list of sociological descriptions would not give an adequate account of what life is. You could not write history positivistically - every life was unique. A major figure in this line of thinking was Dilthey.

[Anonymous No.18121589]

>>18121293
Manifesto isn't Marx's "ideology."

Manifesto was written for committee, and represents the position of a political party, not Marx.

If you want Marx working ideologically try German Ideology.

Also Engels is better.

[Anonymous No.18121721]

>>18121539
>kant
>looks like cunt
hehe

[Anonymous No.18121737]

>>18121483
OHohoho he doesn't know.
>>18121462
https://shop.bloomon.nl/
Here's your capitalism bro. 40$ for flowers worth 4$.
It's all marketing and fooling people that this is somehow better while the granny selling the same arrangement for 4$ at your local grocery store is being fucked over.

[Anonymous No.18121747]

>>18121463
Nothing wrong with that.
Do you hate "criminals"? Why?
Because they don't conform to your current system of material and labor distribution.
This a bit more meta and you'll realize that the current paradigm is a very strange one and utterly flawed.

[Anonymous No.18121749]

>>18121737
>worth
You need to reread volume 1 mate.

[Anonymous No.18121766]

>>18121749
Worth as in capitalist framework those flowers cost that much to be delivered straight to you in the most efficient manner at lowest cost.
Or do you call brand hypnosis a service in favor of the customer?

[Anonymous No.18121770]

>>18121293
>Marx was right in some respects
So is every other writer moron.

[Anonymous No.18121781]

>>18121766
If you're paying above prevailing rate which fixates on the labour power inputs, then you're a fucken moron.

If you're asserting that surplus value makes up 90% of the flowers, then you're moralising by putting "worth" on top of it.

If you don't know the distinction between value, price and worth fuck off and read.

[Anonymous No.18121807]

>>18121747
lmao shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.18121837]

>>18121325
>Did you read "Communist Manifesto" What do you think about it and what do you think about all of Marx's ideology?

He's literally right about everything and all politics after him is pure cope.

[Anonymous No.18121841]

>>18121837
Wrong click here, obviously meant for OP.

[Anonymous No.18121907]

>>18121781
Retard still stuck in his capitalist mindset, refusing to take a look from a realistic perspective.
I'm not paying anything.
These swindlers already collected 30$mil+ from funding enabling them to now rob the common flower customer with greater ease than if they had to start with their own funds.

[Anonymous No.18121916]

>>18121362
>crony capitalism

[Anonymous No.18121942]

>>18121463
Billionaires must be liquidated. If they simply hand over their stolen wealth they won't have to be executed.
Seethe.

[Anonymous No.18121982]

>>18121463
And? Monarchs had to be liquidated for capitalism to flourish.

[Anonymous No.18121991]

>>18121463
>I'm just floored at how effective propaganda can be. It's terrifying.
Kek how new are you to everything? Sophists and propaganda has been the primary mode of thinking since the French Revolution

[Anonymous No.18122211]

>>18121942
based

[Anonymous No.18122620]

Coomer bump.

[Anonymous No.18122684]

>>18121407
>>18121463
This is the sort of person you share a literature board with

[Anonymous No.18122706]

>>18121293
Why would I read enemy propaganda? I'll consider listening to your ideas when you're not literally trying to genocide my people.

[Anonymous No.18122719]

>>18121982

[Anonymous No.18122740]

>>18121483
You're just as subversive as the commies

You want to cut everything my people ever built into pieces and sell it to the highest bidder. You want to create a society where fraternity is replaced entirely by an atomized consumer crab bucket that sees all of its peers as mere prey. Your "freedom" is the freedom to be powerless slaves to the international elite and banking class.

[Anonymous No.18122751]

>>18121325
>I'm still baffed milions of people were willing to die in the name of the second half

Do you think the position of the Russian worker and later on the Russian peasant was so good, they wouldn't be ready to kill their oppressors?

[Anonymous No.18122763]

>>18121428
Yeah religion is so good for the people.

[Anonymous No.18122772]

>>18122706
How to detect an american 101.
What happened to hold your enemies close dummy?

[Anonymous No.18122907]

>>18122706
Based.

[Anonymous No.18122930]

>>18121293
my main problem with marxism is that my favorite color isblue, but they use a lot of red, and i dont like the color red too much :(

[Anonymous No.18122949]

The communist manifesto is a declaration, it does not teach Marxism. Read Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and Lenin's State and Revolution. Stalin has some good work on dialectics too, if you are interested in that

[Anonymous No.18122982]

>>18121907
You've not read Value Price and Profit let alone volume 1.

[Anonymous No.18123041]

>>18122930
Only honest post in this thread.

[Anonymous No.18123053]

>>18123041
Its a real shame too because I might like marxism if it was blue or white or green, but sadly its red :(

when I was younger I asked my mother for a blue firetruck for christmas and she actually got it and I was very happy about it. Maybe someday someone will give me blue marxism for christmas :)

[Anonymous No.18123058]

>>18122740
>muh people
You're a worthless cretin who has never accomplished anything in his life and dares to attribute other people's success to his own existence. You unironically deserve a bullet through your brain.

[Anonymous No.18123095]

>>18121837
Book?

[Anonymous No.18123117]

>>18123095
It's from the introduction to the Communist Manifesto iirc.

[Anonymous No.18123120]

>>18123058
Triggered

[Anonymous No.18123134]

>>18123117
Ty anon

[Anonymous No.18123139]

>>18123058
I observe an atom.
You can't do anything without people in this world. And those who claim "bootstraps" are just using everyone around them without giving proper credit.

[Anonymous No.18123608]

>>18121293
>Did you read "Communist Manifesto"
Yes.
>What do you think about it and what do you think about all of Marx's ideology?
Wrong.

It's like meme Nazism, but bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.18123617]

>>18121293
I hope you realise what a colossal joke you are to everyone around you. No one takes you seriously! Dialectics? More like Diatwatics! Get a Life! Read a book! learn some math! Make something useful, build something! OMG actually contribute to society instead of brown-nosing this retarded Hegelian nonsense. Get your head out of the theory and take a walk in the countryside! I promise you it'll do some good. Did you know that earth is a natural anti-depressant? HAHAHA my goodness why do you still insist on pursuing this lineage of thought? What utter rubbish! My god! Murderous, unforgivably destructive gibberish. Do you not know you share a close common ancestor with fascism? If it was AT LEAST interesting, but it's not even that! Did you send me to sleep? Sorry I just woke up and all I can see are a bunch of fucking stupid faggots LARPing on a dead fucking horse. WOW get a load of this guy! You silly bloody fool.

[Anonymous No.18123678]

>>18123617
What a fool he is. He should pull himself up by his bootstraps, crabby crawl on top of his fellows head to the top of the bucket.

[Anonymous No.18123711]

>>18121293
>What do you think about it and what do you think about all of Marx's ideology?
He definitely had some interesting insights, but being a communist should still be a capital offense. Communists are not people

[Anonymous No.18123723]

>>18123711
You can really see some parallels between americans and children.
"I don't like it!"
Why?
"Because it's BAD!!"

[Anonymous No.18123726]

>>18121483
the natural life cycle of a market results in a monopoly. monopolies(or oligopolies) breed inefficiency and corruption. Capitalism may actually begin (and in many ways succeeds) in ideas of freedom but market forces normally result in a higher degree of market control by one or a few firms.

capitalism is generally good but only when it is adequatly controlled and the state as control of natural monopoly industries

[Anonymous No.18123740]

>>18123726
it's almost like you require anarchy for a functioning system with freedom

[Anonymous No.18123773]

>>18123723
Disliking something because it's bad makes sense. If it wasn't bad, you'd like it.

What's your issue?

[Anonymous No.18123783]

>>18123678
>unintentionally implies women lack free will and NEED the guiding hand of government to do anything worthwhile

[Anonymous No.18123788]

>>18123773
Because there's no such thing obviously.
>>18123740
Refer to Capitalist Realism.
Your precious "free trade" doesn't exist outside of zones under complete control of governments.

[Anonymous No.18123828]

>>18123783
Yes. As do men.
You can't get anywhere in society without social connections/ networking and not everybody is capable of scummy beggar tier behavior to perpetuate their own cause at the expense of honesty and moral integrity.
It is there to help those lacking in treachery, but capable.
If you have worked a day in your life you would know how many people get to the top with little to no competence and high social skills.

[Anonymous No.18123961]

>>18123723
CHIAMI
Communist Hangings Are Morally Imperative

[Anonymous No.18124482]

When capitalists run the state, its bad, but it magically disappears when communists run the state

[Anonymous No.18124492]

It's merely a criticism of allocation of resources and a very bold claim of how to better allocate resources. (bold not meaning good, just meaning bold).

[Anonymous No.18124585]

>>18124482
>One thing is bad, but another thing is good
Groundbreaking stuff man

[Anonymous No.18124969]

>>18121428

[Anonymous No.18125095]

You will never be a woman :)

[Anonymous No.18125246]

>>18122620
That’s a guy.

[Anonymous No.18125758]

>>18121766
price and value are different you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.18125778]

>>18123788
You and I have an anarchical relationship. We are free to trade ideas because we have no way of harming one another. I don't know where you live, you don't know where I live, neither of us (presumably) have any murderous intents, and neither of us are carrying any firearms or other weapons.

In that instance, we are completely free to trade ideas so long as we have a line of communication. This concept can be taken to a state level as long as everyone is their own sovereign.

[Anonymous No.18125780]

>>18123726
Monopiles don't exist for long in a free market vs interventionalist markets they exist as long as the government allows them too which is usually as long as they are being bribed.

[Anonymous No.18126848]

>>18121325
>I'm still baffed milions of people were willing to die in the name of the second half
Whatever you think about it, I think to really "get it" or have it click means thinking about the ideology as a kind of slave-revolt ideology, as an analogy (although it was more directly literal in countries such as China). The communist hero is like Spartacus. And it's not a rationalist ideology by any means, although some western rationalists might describe themselves as Marxists, it's a heroic ideology in which one "breaks the chains" but collectively and becomes transformed with a new morality. They are not who they "were" anymore, they're something else.

In any case, you feel it in your heart.

Also, what I think is really key, in the actual history when we talk about "socialist revolution" and much misused terms like identity politics, particular identitarian struggles have often served to drive rather than stifle revolution. In "What Is To Be Done," Lenin explicitly and repeatedly dismisses the "economism" of leftists who think that labor organizing should be the primary political struggle, instead saying that the power of the labor movement needs to be devoted to particularistic causes like ending religious oppression or colonial subjugation.

This is incidentally why I think a diversified bourgeoisie is inadvertently creating the preconditions for their own downfall at the hands of a working class that is tired of being pitted against itself along racial/caste lines. But this is a long historical process.

https://youtu.be/mjxD8WtRjQU

[Anonymous No.18126859]

>>18121307
I

[Anonymous No.18126964]

I’ve been getting into some of the socialist stuff recently. Communist manifest is kind of naive but also kind of romantic. I read a few chapters of Das Kapital and it’s clear that Marx was wrestling with understanding what seems obvious to us today: your employer is taking advantage of you, he makes the money and you get fucked, but it is very difficult to escape this situation even if you are talented, intelligent, and strong. Social relations of employer v employee essentially would disappear under communism. I like it and can agree with the main points. But if you watch the news closely you will get the message that if you try to wrestle any power away from people with real money you will get your shot kicked in. Even if you work together with other poor fucks. Nothing to lose but your chains is a cope. You could lose very much.

[Anonymous No.18126994]

>>18126964
That's why you do it outside their playing field - with arms.

[Anonymous No.18127004]

>>18126964
>your employer is taking advantage of you
Wrong wrong wrong, why do you parrot this?

No one is forcing you to work for an employer, the only difference is the government makes it harder to start your own business to compete with immoral companies. This is by design, the government does as much as it can to dissuade the majority of people from competing with the few successful companies. The government allows this because they receive grey gifts from these businesses. What you think is a fault of capitalism and free markets is a fault of socalism, governments, interventionalism and human behavior.

No one is forcing you to work for someone else, but when you do, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. Now your labor is not fixed, that is what you offer to a business. Your labor fluctuates with supply and demand of that particular skill. Governments work to erode your value for businesses to profit more. They also ensure it's harder for you to compete. This is not a fault of businesses because if they couldn't do it, they wouldn't.

You are very very misguided and I think you should read about economics from real people who know what they're talking about before you start parroting communist propaganda.

The system we have now is broken, and it's governments fault. The solution is to allow free market competition and stop businesses ability to influence policy/legislation/restrictions/regulations. The government is incapable of performing this job now, giving them more power and influence will not help, it will make it worse. The little good they can and are doing is minute in comparison to the corruption, exploitation and mismanagement they continually do. You think it will be worse when people are able to regulate the market themselves but you're wrong. Freedom gives you more control, more power and more opportunities.

[Anonymous No.18127373]

>>18127004
You’re thinking about it in the wrong way. It’s not about free markets, laissez faire v command economy, but the relationship people have with one another that Marx is looking at and the conclusions to those relationships. The relationship of employer and employer. Seizing the means of production is a heroic and romantic way of saying it. By saying no one is forcing you to work is a very naive thing and makes me think it’s bait.

[Anonymous No.18127389]

>>18126994
Arms is still their playing field. The real solution is probably really boring. Like reading and rereading in search of lost time.

[Anonymous No.18127392]

>>18127004
>No one is forcing you to work for an employer

[Anonymous No.18127409]

>>18127373
>you have to see my idea through a lens which does not reflect reality to understand it
Right...

Free markets are about the relationships we have with one another. it means that two people trade freely with no one hurt, no one coerced. That is your relationship with an employer, you are not forced, you do not own the means of production, you have no right to steal which is hurting someone. You can legally obtain production through capital which you can create through labor. Communism is attractive to people who are unable to compete in a free market. It inhernrtly recognizes that all people are unequal through nature and that because some people are better at life than others they should not have more. Well you're wrong. The most valuable people to society will always be more wealthy, the difference in capitalism is that the wealthiest people should be those that help the most people. By increasing wealth for the most people they increase their wealth. Profit chasing in a free market uplifts people.

No one is forcing you to work, you are not a slave, you can do whatever the fuck you want. If you don't want to be apart of society then buy some land and live off it. No one is given anything for free in life you fucking loser.

[Anonymous No.18127421]

>>18127004
>No one is forcing you to work for an employer

Stopped reading here. The control may be indirect but fact is you end up on the street if you don’t work. It’s implied at every level of the education system. You work within these parameters or die on the street lazy fuck.

[Anonymous No.18127439]

I really can't take Marx seriously, some stuff he says makes sense but I don't know everyone who has followed his ideology has turned crazy.
China, the soviet union, it's all complete crap.
>inb4 no true scotsman.

[Anonymous No.18127442]

>>18127421
What system involved you getting free shit? There is none, you still work in a communisnt system you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.18127445]

>>18127421
Just live outside a city then and work for yourself. Land is cheap in the wilderness.

[Anonymous No.18127451]

>>18127421
Life is working to survive, there is no free ride. You work in a capitialist system you are more materially wealthy, have more freedom to chose your lifestyle, and you can if you're smart enough stop working completely if you want. None of this is possible in a state run economy. You become a means to produce profit or survival for the system, you are completely stripped of your rights and human decency.

[Anonymous No.18127470]

>>18121293
not the communist manifesto, but marx was wrong about the state, and Bakunin tried to warn him of "the emergence of a communist authoritarianism that would take power over working people."

[Anonymous No.18127483]

>>18127470
Even Rosa Luxemburg resented Marx, Lenin and the rest for turning their misguided attempt to make a better life. She acknowledged that the system they were creating was worse than what they had before.

[Anonymous No.18127499]

>>18121293
Communist manifesto isn't communist theory or real ideology work, it's a pamphlet.

[Anonymous No.18127506]

>>18127483
Free markets are definitely better, that's why Europe innovated a lot early on and now that the EU is so highly regulated the US is left to do it, and that's quickly eroding.

[Anonymous No.18127508]

>>18127483
she resented marx? lenin maybe but marx? i thought her and marx were very close ideologically?

[Anonymous No.18127518]

>>18127506
i'd imagine decentralized planned economies would be best, as seen in the few expirements where they existed, though its hard to say since they have never existed on a large scale

[Anonymous No.18127522]

>>18127518
And anyone that starts out thinking that way turns into a communist dictatorship. It won't work. Unless you're talking about some post-scarcity AI run future economy or something crazy.

[Anonymous No.18127530]

>>18126964
I actually prefer Principles of Communism by Engels since it's a bit more straightforward. That became the basis for the Manifesto but the latter has more of a "call to arms" tone.

[Anonymous No.18127537]

>>18127518
Economies are too complex, people are too complex, the environment around us are too complex to have it planned, ever. The best tool we have to function is price. The more accurate and reliable the price, the better the economic system.

[Anonymous No.18127543]

>>18127522
I'm referring to anarchist societies. Which as far as I'm concerned have never turned into communist dictatorships on internally, thought have sometimes been conquered on the outside, so there's no reason to think that they would become one on their own. Think about it, why would you want to give up freedom if all the positives an authoritarian socialist society could possibly grant you have been acheived as well?

[Anonymous No.18127554]

Most of the 10-point demands that Marx and Engels laid out as an initial transitory socialist state have already been achieved in the People's Republic of China and I don't think even the most ardent anti-Marxist would claim China is unsuccessful.

Like, this whole thing is really just capitalism = markets for some people. Okay, fine, let's use markets and call it "capitalism" if you want, but they've also nationalized all the land in the country along with 85% of the financial sector which is practically run as a public utility. Imagine if Wall Street was 85% owned by the government and there was a single party called the Communist Party of the United States. There would be a civil war in this country to prevent that from happening but people can go on believing China is "capitalist" if that allows their brains to think more easily.

https://youtu.be/L9AF2fiYANc

[Anonymous No.18127558]

>>18127537
well decentralized planned economies still have markets to some degree. they're based off of the direct needs of the community, which work with other communities to secure each other's needs.

[Anonymous No.18127561]

Also this idea that socialism is about being a freeloader and you don't have to work is an anarchist notion that has nothing to do with Marx. Quite the opposite with Marx and it's in the Manifesto.

[Anonymous No.18127571]

>>18127554
What measure do you mean China is successful? The wealth disparity in China is far greater than US. The people have less economic freedom.

Now the US has it's problems and they are getting worse and worse but the old capitalistic foundation created the most prosperous nation on earth. Obliviously it has been corrupted now.

Capitalism is individual rights extended to private property, and the system that creates is capitalistic because it relies upon capital and labor. In China you have no real private property and international businesses are owned partly by the state. At anytime the state can take from you what you have created. In a true capitalistic system this would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.18127581]

>>18127558
How do you know what their needs are? How do you know what each individuals needs are to funciton as a community successfully? How can you adapt to changing circumstances outside of your control. This just at the top of my head is not possible in a planned economy, though you will try, and in your misguided attempts at thinking you can plan for such complexity, everyone involved will suffer. Read Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed

[Anonymous No.18127589]

>>18127561
The idea of being a freeloader stems from the idea that the most productive, most intelligent, most innovative, successful and diligent people get compensated the same as the most lazy and stupid.

[Anonymous No.18127610]

>>18121293
i loved it

probably the best book to wipe your ass after taking a shit. I dont see any other use of it

[Anonymous No.18127613]

>>18127571
I think the wealth disparity is partly a result of the explosive growth that is happening. The Chinese economy has tripled in size since the Olympics. It's completely insane. And while wealth inequality is a problem, I don't actually think that's the main issue since a class can reap the benefits of work via public investment (like a bullet train), even if bosses make more as individuals, despite billionaires and inequality. I think this guy sums it up pretty simply:

https://youtu.be/V9-D8h4iDaI?t=103

Let me quote Stalin here:

>The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.

>All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.

>Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

>It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.”

[Anonymous No.18127616]

>>18127589
Then your argument is with some anarchists sitting around inside a squat.

[Anonymous No.18127632]

>>18127613
mate the reason why there is such a disparity is because the state controls how and who profit. In a capitalistic system, profit serves the majority of people. If you increase the wealth of the majority you make the most money, by seeking to appeal to everyone you help everyone.

On the surface you see these bullet trains and what not and immediately assume they are not feasible in a capitalistic system? Why? In the US it was all funded through individual capital, venture capital, etc. These things are all apart of a capitalistic free market, only it serves the most people.

You can't know if these bullet trains are even worth it? How do you know there are even people who want/need it? You can't know that in a planned economy because there is no signal for you to know, and even if you could know there is no incentive for you to act on it. The state has to inefficently use resources and inefficiently force people to produce these things. In a free market they could of had this much sooner if it was profitable and thus beneficial for society.

Look at south korea, it was one of the poorest nations on earth in 1960, and then in under 50 years it is in the top 15, maybe top 10. It has no wealth disparity like China because it isn't fucked by the state. You're misattributing success because you have no relative measure. You should read more history.

[Anonymous No.18127633]

>>18127613
That might be true that it's fine at the rate they were going at, but now the growth is over, and they still have the inequality, they have growing youth unemployment and dissatisfaction, an aging workforce, etc.
They didn't quite make it.

[Anonymous No.18127648]

>>18121293
I remember at the time I was arguing with my gf that women weren't granted rights due to moral imperatives, but because it was advantageous for the wealthy to do so. Marx and Engels' arguments helped me solidify my belief that feminism only came about as a result of women being able to do as much labor as men with the advent of the machine. Before that, women were economically inferior, since they couldn't farm/create as much produce due to weaker arms, and so were given a lower position in society where they knitted clothes and did basic duties. Give a woman a mechanical body, and she's raised to be man's physical equal. Modern feminism now seeks for some equivalent social appendage which puts men and women's brains on par with each other, either by restraining the former or boosting the latter.

[Anonymous No.18127655]

>>18127632
I think you said that the U.S. benefited from capitalism. And yes, you're right that the U.S. grew up and became wealthy because of capitalism, but I feel it's important to stress that the U.S. seized the historic moment when capitalism was emerging as the dominant mode of production in the world. Look at World War I after all, the U.S. was already the world's largest economy, and also understood the capitalist nature of the war and became the main financier for the warring powers so they all owed the United States in the end.

But my objection to capitalism is that nothing checks the power of finance capital. Why bother investing in real production if it's not profitable when you can invest your money instead in flipping luxury real estate back and forth or in meme stocks or whatever -- no matter how stupid -- as long as you can get a reliable rate of return that's better than investing in actual production. This is why I think in the U.S. in particular you see a lot of rot, things look like they're just visibly deteriorating, while you have an incredible amount of money sloshing around inside the financial system.

And while I wouldn't say China has eliminated systemic risks (and this is something they talk about constantly in the business press), they do at least seem to be trying to do something about it, instead of gleefully letting bankers set the economy on fire once every decade knowing the government will bail them out... like the United States.

>>18127633
China's % share of world GDP in 2030 could very well be double that of the United States. It was the only major economy that actually grew last year. I think Americans and people in some other countries are in total denial about what's coming.

[Anonymous No.18127657]

The US and China have very similar economies. The difference is on how they achieved this. The US started as a free market and maximised individual rights, thus driving innovation and wealth. This made them rich and powerful and over time the state became more and more parasitic, controlling and creating inefficiencies. Businesses coopted the state to siphon money from taxes, politicians used their influence to push restrictions on competition for business and create monopolies. They did this because they were incentivized by businesses, because they are human and because they had the power to. Thus we conclude how the US economy is not an interventionist economy. It has socialistic aspects but its foundation was free market capitalism.

China on the other hand approached it from the opposite direction. it has state controlled and planned. That's why early on you see a lot of trouble, because it's impossible to manage it so every time they tried it caused more problems. They had no intention of maximizing wealth for everyone, no intention of uplifting the people. The ruling party wants control and materialistic wealth at the cost of the majority. So they keep a tight leash on everything and everyone, as much as they can. Since it's impossible to manage an economy and they (at the time) lacked the technological resources to control everyone, individuals experienced some measure of freedom due to the distance from the state. this has lessened more and more with their technological advances - which are just western innovations that they stole or fund state money into developing which is stolen from the people. over time China realized they need to allow some measure of market competition and freedom to increase the material wealth of everyone. So they maintain a strong control on the economy.

The US and China are very very similar. The US and China both intervene and control the success of the economy and businesses. They do it differently sometimes, other times the same. The only major difference is how they started and got to this point.

[Anonymous No.18127665]

>>18127655
>denial about what's coming
It's China that's in denial, they can't sustain growth, it's proven they lie about the size of their economy. They've been lying about population growth too.
Unemployment for new graduates is skyrocketing, the amount they have to pay for pensions is increasing. Every year pensioners expect a raise in their pension as well. It's tradition there at this point, if they stop that there will be serious revolt.
This year China will finally have lower growth than the US, and it might be that way forever too. Fewer people are buying Chinese exports. Why do you think they're trying to push so hard for domestic consumption to increase? But people don't want to spend money.

[Anonymous No.18127679]

>>18127655
The US was heavily regulated by the time WW1 came around. The state actually made the economic situation throughout WW1 and WW2 worse, the only reason they came out on top was that the only competitor they had was Europe and it got fucked up by the war. The US made incredibly bad economic decisions basically ever since Lincoln. Lincoln was the worst president and set the precedent for the economic decline of the US by allowing businesses to use the states power to enforce monopolies.

In a free market capitialistic system you check the power of business. You regulate the market by deciding how you spend your money.

What you have now is not a free market and all these problems you are listing are because of government interventions in the economy.

China is doing something about these problems because they can yes, and the US isn't because the people that have most to lose control how things are influenced in the economy and government.

In a free market the consumer has the most power, the individual. Your apprehensions and lack of knowledge on the subject is because these people intentionally muddy what I'm espousing.

Please if you want an informed understanding, you need to read what people are saying on free markets, capitalism, etc and see how they work and why. What we have now is far far from free.

[Anonymous No.18127700]

>>18127665
Western economies are so overly restricted it basically guaranteed the rise of China. It's easy to compete against a limping man when you have a wheelchair but if we heal the limp and start running again, China is fucked. We need to take the cast off and allow the people to be free to solve this problem. The only situation a government can help is by creating disincentives for destructive behavior like creating a tax on carbon emissions. None of the other meme shit we are doing will work. better to do this one tax and remove every other restriction than to pile on a million misguided albeit well intentioned regulations to fix problems that other misguided and well intentioned regulations/restrictions have created.

[Anonymous No.18127721]

>>18127700
Yeah I'm all for a freer market, I just think China is going to see little to no growth from where they are now. Since their population growth is now over, and they have a demographic problem with increased costs and no easy way to raise productivity in the future. That coupled with the fact that they've pissed off the world and exports will decline in the future. The people aren't rich enough to sustain the domestic consumption they think will save them. They're in worse debt than anyone else which is fine when things are growing, but now it will catch up quick.

[Anonymous No.18127743]

>>18127679
>In a free market the consumer has the most power, the individual.
If you think you have more power over the economy than Blackstone then we are living in two different worlds.

[Anonymous No.18127765]

>>18127743
Blackrock. Nigger how many times do I have to say we don't have a free market.

Nothing is stopping you from investing in Blackrock and exerting your share holding voting rights. In a free market you money is votes. You invest in a company you think is successful or invest in its competitors if it isn't.

We do not have a free market. The government stops competition. Competition is hard and these businesses can avoid competition by using the government. You money can be invested in any big company now because they all have their own monopiles that drive growth. In a fucking free market monopiles do not last long because anyone can access the market, anyone can provide a better service for less and force competitors to adapt to the consumers wants. If you want to have better environmental companies or companies that treat people with respect than you want a free market, because as long as the government stops competition then businesses will never respond to your money.

By the way I have over $250k invested with blackrock.

[Anonymous No.18127958]

>>18127518
>decentralized planned economies
So capitalism?

[Anonymous No.18128030]

>>18127765
>In a free market you money is votes.
That just sounds like the United States. It's run like a big corporation, and like any corporation -- in theory -- every shareholder has a vote, but you very well know that a minority group of shareholders with concentrated wealth and power control the company. For the United States, an oligarchical class of wealthy businessmen control American policymaking.

"The government stops competition?" The government -- the state -- is just a tool (and a weapon) for the big capitalists to protect their markets. How that tool (i.e. the state) is used depends on the class character of the ruling party.

Look at the U.S. trying to enforce sanctions on European companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. That pipeline would deliver gas from Russia directly to Germany and do it more cheaply than shipping fracked gas across the Atlantic. But American energy companies want control of the European market and they will try to use the power of the U.S. government to keep the Russian gas out if necessary. That's because the United States is a capitalist country and its external relations are shaped by the class character of the government -- it's a bourgeois government and it wants to protect its markets. Congressmen have to beg for their money if they want to run for office in most places.

https://youtu.be/jOFzTjjZcZw

[Anonymous No.18128037]

>>18121293
I read it when I was like 16, I didn't understand any of it at the time, but now it seems like to much of a meme to go back.

[Anonymous No.18128047]

>>18127765
>because anyone can access the market, anyone can provide a better service for less and force competitors to adapt to the consumers wants
You don't know that mergers, cartels, collusions, price-fixing, price discrimination and predatory pricing are even a thing right? Yeah they existed before anti-trust laws, because we need state regulation to prevent companies from doing unfair practices, just like we need laws to prevent people from killing and stealing.
I know that corporations control the gov' (see pic related), that's the fucking problem of the West and that's why China is growing stronger, because the Chinese state is superior to companies while American state is under companies influence.

>If you want to have better environmental companies or companies that treat people with respect than you want a free market, because as long as the government stops competition then businesses will never respond to your money.
This does not make sense you Randfag, I can make a lot of counter-examples of unfair practices (see asbestos) by businesses because they are made by people and yeah humans can be bad and immoral at time, so you need laws and regulations to guarantee fair free market, not a fucking Free For All.

[Anonymous No.18128058]

>>18127655
America is historically successful because they spent money on military gears in ww2 and then imposed dollars to everybody else, who by the way were weakened due to war

then the americans felt like big boys but since they never won a war, they had to build new ones, and made up the cold war and then irak which they lost.

that's the point of americans: they have no idea what they are doing.
What makes me laff the most from the murifats' 'culture' is their utter lack of critical thinking when it comes to geopolitics. Those subhumans are so shit at international relations, that they created their own suffering by not even being able to beat Vietnamese peasants and supporting terrorists who would crash their precious towers. FUCKING REKT

And they are so shit at managing latin countries that they flood their country with drugs. Fucking pathetic culture. Americans fuck themselves in the ass and they don't even understand it.

[Anonymous No.18128059]

>>18128030
No there are many ways to vote. You vote by buying and not buying as well.

Cronyism relies upon using the state to ensure their success. Free market capitalism does not require the state to create monopiles, or use it's ability to extract wealth/coerce people.

Once the government begins intervening in markets, we no longer have a free market. Once the government uses it's monopoly on force to coerce people we no longer have capitalism.

What we have now it not capitalism or free markets. I'm not advocating for government intervention or businesses using the government to their benefit, I'm arguing for the exact opposite. A fair system that allows competition to flourish for the betterment of all. Where the state exists purely to disincentivize people to employ harmful means of acquiring wealth and to ensure contracts are enforced. The state should employ the law fairly for everyone as equals and that's it. No intervention.

>Look at the U.S. trying to enforce sanctions
None of that is the fault of capitalism. Everything you just said is because the state was the power to, it has the money from taxes and the businesses lobbying the individual politicians to do it. This is human behavior not the fault of an economic system. Communism relies upon people being robots, capitalism acknowledges the fallibility of people and seeks to remove as much influence they have over others. All your problems are with the government, it's not capitalism. It's completely misguided and uninformed criticisms of the economic system.

[Anonymous No.18128080]

>>18128047
>ou don't know that mergers, cartels, collusions, price-fixing, price discrimination and predatory pricing are even a thing right?
They all exist become of the fucking government you idiot. They all appear because the government started controlling the economy. They started through all the regulations, restrictions, policies and legislation. These are all features of cronyism, by design. They exist to support businesses, then their solutions support the businesses as well. None of these exist in a free market over a long term.

You fundamentally lack the knowledge to be able to understand the problems you are describing. You don't understand how pervasive the government has intervened in the market. You see all these problems and misattribute them when they all stem from previous governments interventions. Literally every one of your examples are from the government. Read Free our Markets by Howard Baetjer for starters so you at least have an understanding of how markets operate and solve these problems.

You literally think people are saying these things without taking into account the potential harmful outcomes, like for the last 100+ years these problems have not been worked on and understood. The solution is not applied because the people who would apply it do not want it, they cannot use it to gain wealth and power.

[Anonymous No.18128083]

>>18128059
You're not wrong (necessarily) to want what you want, but I think it's just a fantasy. If you walk into the board of executives of ExxonMobil or Citigroup and say "hey, you guys are being unfair and what you're doing goes against capitalism," they're not going to say "oh I guess you're right" and then stop doing it.

What I think will win out in the end is what has always won out: a mode of production that is more productive and efficient than the one that came before, more capable of rationally allocating labor and resources, and so on. The Soviet Union, as nostalgic as I am for it, didn't meet that criteria. I also believe this is outside the control of individuals or even any individual country. There are much larger economic forces at work. In that sense I agree with Xi Jinping here:

https://youtu.be/RjNcLhaAxQQ?t=148

[Anonymous No.18128104]

>>18128083
I'm not saying the solution exists with changing the attitudes of businesses. The businesses adapt to the environmental circumstances. This is well documented, studied and understood in economics. When a business spends its time lobbying the government to create monoplies as the path of least resistance than creating wealth. This is literally because the government exists in this current form, enabling businesses. The solution is to top the government from intervening. Stop politicians from being able to interact with the economy completely. Stop the politicians from receiving grey gifts from businesses like jobs and 'legal bribes'.

What will win out in the end is that they politicians and businesses will become more and more greedy and extract/steal more wealth from people. Eventually the downtrodden masses will institute more wealth distributions until the entire system collapses and everyone is reset relatively. Then the laissez-faire will start again and over time the government will grow to interfere with the market.

You think history is one economic system bettering another, but it's actually the cycle of laissez-faire and socialism wealth distributions. From antiquity with Greece and Rome, Western Europe, etc.

The solution to stability and high material wealth is ensuring that the market remains free

[Anonymous No.18128123]

>>18128080
>The world would be better if companies were left alone
>All problems are caused by the gov'
>You admit that the gov' is influenced by corps
>Those same corps that would behave better if left alone
This does not make sense.

>>18128059
>Where the state exists purely to disincentivize people to employ harmful means of acquiring wealth and to ensure contracts are enforced. The state should employ the law fairly for everyone as equals and that's it.
That's what I meant, I agree so you need laws and regulations.

[Anonymous No.18128152]

>>18128123
If the government cannot influence the market then businesses will not spend time influencing the government. Thus the equal playing field remains because there is no opportunity for the business to change the rules for their favor.

>That's what I meant, I agree so you need laws and regulations.
I'm not arguing for anarchy or now laws. I'm saying the role of the state is clearly defined and it has no business for interacting with the market. I fully support laws and what not, but what we have now is not that. We have businesses writing the rules using the puppet politicians.

On regulations, we don't have that either. We have restrictions. The best regulator is the market but the government doesn't allow this because they want that power.

But obviously you won't take my word, so I implore you to read about it. Regulations may not be necessary, considering the cost of allowing governments to influence the market. It may be better to let the market to solve these problems. Please withhold judgment on this until you've read about it because it doesn't really sound possible because of how fucked everything is now. You have to see how bad the government fucks the market before you understand the cost of allowing them power to influence and learn how a market can regulate itself.

[Anonymous No.18128158]

>>18128080
>They all exist become of the fucking government

"The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies, who co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts. Trusts first appeared in the US railroads, where the capital requirement of railroad construction precluded competitive services in then scarcely settled territories. This trust allowed railroads to discriminate on rates imposed and services provided to consumers and businesses and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could be dominant in different industries. The Standard Oil Company trust in the 1880s controlled several markets, including the market in fuel oil, lead and whiskey."

Source: The International Dimension of EU Competition Law and Policy

[Anonymous No.18128162]

>>18128158
You know all those sectors had monopiles because of Lincoln and Grant right? That's literally an example of one government fucking it and another one creating another problem with their solution.

[Anonymous No.18128182]

>>18128152
>>18128162
You know you may be right.
Any reading list about free market?

[Anonymous No.18128209]

>>18128182
Free Our Markets: A Citizens' Guide to Essential Economics by Howard Jr. Baetjer
The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Ludwig von Mises
Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard

I think these three books are a good start. The first is very basic and outlines how free markets work. The second describes the capitalism vs anticapitalism dynamic, you will be able to understand this better with having read the first, and the third is a short description on the role of the state. It's also very good to read the law by bastiat with this because you'll see how these ideas were inspired.

[Anonymous No.18128279]

You should read Marx then Lenin then Mao then Gramsci. Then you should read Poulantzas Mouffe and laclau, EO Wright, Braverman. Now you should have Marxist conceptions of the State, Ideology, Power, Class, Transition, Revolution, DM, HM, Contraditions, struggle.

From there you read journal articles on topics of today and apply your theory. Things like BRICs, globalization, platform economy, automation, gig economy, non standard employment, housing, financialization.

Now you know how society works within a Marxist framework, but you should be able to tell ppl the reasons you are using a Marxist framework, and not say a Christian, or post-modern framework.

Have fun

[Anonymous No.18128302]

>>18128279
>You should read my propaganda
Just no. Just kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.18128314]

>>18128209
Nietzsche and Stirner have better critiques of communism. If going to critique Soviet Communism, just use the communists themselves,
https://fee.org/articles/soviet-admissions-communism-doesnt-work/
http://links.org.au/node/4291

[Anonymous No.18128319]

>>18121407
>muh science
religious zealot

[Anonymous No.18128324]

>>18128302
Are you an edgy teen?

[Anonymous No.18128350]

>>18128324
No, I'm not stupid enough to fall for communism propaganda. My mind is too sharp, and too critical to be swayed by non-sense. kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.18128526]

>>18128350
Lol. It isn't about believing Marxism. I gave a list that will teach how to understand the world with marxist.. so you would always start with 'within Marxism, we can understand this problem this way'. It is just a starting point. And it is one worth knowing as at least a 1/3 of the world lives under some form inspired by it. Do you use any theories to understand the world?

[Anonymous No.18128538]

>>18128526
You don't use Marx to understand the world, you use Marxism to frame the world. Instead of asking why something is like x, you see x and attribute it to y. It's limiting and malicious to yourself and others.

[Anonymous No.18128611]

I read this recently. I think I'm technically from the petty bourgeois class, or at least my parents are petty bourgeois. Does that mean I'm the enemy number one or something?

[Anonymous No.18128618]

>>18128611
Yeah, same boat as you. Academics will be friendly toward you, and happily discuss things, but anyone trying to implement the ideas in the real world will hate you. They take class very seriously.

[Anonymous No.18128630]

>>18128611
>>18128618
Profs don't care about your class position. They are usually petitebourg in a sense too. The only thing is historically the petite bourgeoisie tend towards reactionaryism when push comes to shove they align (foolishly) with the haute bourgeoisie, so if there were a revolution (there won't be,) the petty would have to be oppressed

[Anonymous No.18128640]

>>18122930
based honest political aesthetics anon

[Anonymous No.18128642]

>>18121293
In which respects?

[Anonymous No.18128680]

>>18127409
I'm just saying that's how Marx defined the term capitalism, not trying to convince you dude.

[Anonymous No.18128682]

>>18128630
>the petty would have to be oppressed
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "oppressed"?

[Anonymous No.18128701]

>>18128682
If you're a Leninist - dispossesed of their small factories, and bakeries, with control given to workers, land redistributed, put in jail for reeducation if they resist.

[Anonymous No.18128766]

>>18128701
What if I was reactionary when I was younger, but am starting to consider Marxist arguments more as I get older? Do Leninist style Marxists believe in allowing petty bourge to redeem themselves? I'm interested in reading Das Kapital and some stuff by Lenin, but I don't want to be given up to a firing squad by my comrades for past leanings

[Anonymous No.18128888]

>>18128701
>Lenin
>Give control to the workers
Ah yes, the man who supressed the Workers' Oppposition and Soviet democracy was very interested in workers control.

[Anonymous No.18128893]

>>18128888
Nice. Also China's the same way they try to stop workers rights movements and stuff.

[Anonymous No.18128895]

>>18121293
it takes a very small brain to believe any of it

[Anonymous No.18129249]

>>18127581
ik this is late but you would know what their needs are because the communities are organized from the bottom-up, using direct democracy to know what they want, rather than factory managers and corrupt bureaucrats

[Anonymous No.18129255]

>>18127958
no capitalism isnt planned. this would be anarchism.

[Anonymous No.18129280]

It's insane to see the uniformity of the pro-capitalist wing of 4chan. It legitimately feels astroturfed in some way.

[Anonymous No.18129499]

>>18127581
>>How do you know what their needs are?
according to humanism, all humans are equal

[Anonymous No.18130166]

>>18125246
Ok.

[Anonymous No.18130214]

>Marx was wrong!
>Marx was right!

>Sparks endless debate.

Isn't that the whole purpose of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18130251]

Just the fact that he makes people seethe makes me interested in what he has to say. People always tripping over themselves to say he was wrong.

[Anonymous No.18130260]

rate this quote:

"Marx was right on everything about capitalism and wrong about everything on socialism"

[Anonymous No.18130261]

he was wrong in that the workers will rise up. the average person is profoundly conservative and deadly afraid of rocking the boat.

[Anonymous No.18130273]

His ideas on the alienation of the worker towards his work and on the tendency for the rate of profit to decline are interesting

[Anonymous No.18130296]

>>18130273
Those aren't exclusively his ideas. He simply tackles the issues.

The biggest misconception about Marx is that it's all about capitalism baaaaddd and socialism gooood, when in reality he was writing his views on human nature and economics. He wasn't anti capitalist.

[Anonymous No.18130416]

>>18130296
Yeah he thought that capitalism was only a stage, not something inherently evil. Probably automation will leave people without an useful degree unemployed and a revolution will spark, and the result could be a mixed economy where artisan workshops, small low-automation businesses are private while the highly automated factories and farms will be state-owned with profits directed towards a minimum guaranteed income and who doesn't own a small business or doesn't work in state-owned factories as engineer will be given a social care job like babysitting or clean up the streets. But I wonder if the ruling class would be the scientist/engineer technocrats or the proletariat as Marx said.

[Anonymous No.18130447]

>>18130296
Yeah he thought that capitalism was only a stage, not something inherently evil. Probably automation will leave people without an useful degree unemployed and a revolution will spark, and the result could be a mixed economy where artisan workshops, small low-automation businesses are private while the highly automated factories and farms will be state-owned with profits directed towards a minimum guaranteed income. Who doesn't own a small business or doesn't work in state-owned factories as engineer would be given a social care job like babysitting or cleaning up the streets. But I wonder if the ruling class would be the scientist/engineer technocrats or the proletariat as Marx said.