/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18792409]

Has anyone here unironically read Marx?

[Anonymous No.18792420]

>>18792409
Yep, and he’s shit.

[Anonymous No.18792438]

>>18792409
No, but I did read him ironically.

[Anonymous No.18792444]

>>18792409
Why do Marxists split into so many little groups over his writings
>>18792420
Capitalism is why you have all the things in that picture though

[Anonymous No.18792452]

>>18792444
>Capitalism is why you have all the things in that picture though
Are people still unironically using this argument? Are you twelve?

[Anonymous No.18792458]

>>18792409
Only the excerpts by Paul Lafargue. Technically I have read him but also not really

[Anonymous No.18792475]

>>18792444
I also read Wealth of Nations, also shit.

[Anonymous No.18792591]

>>18792409
Yes. I am a nazbol and read all his works.

[Anonymous No.18792593]

>>18792452
>Capitalism bad, but I want to live in a capitalist country instead of moving to a socialist one
Nice

[Anonymous No.18792599]

>>18792593
Strawman btw. Never said he'd rather live in a capitalist one.

[Anonymous No.18792604]

>>18792599
Then he should move to a socialist country.

[Anonymous No.18792731]

>>18792604
you know hume btfo classical contractarianism (the argument you're using) right? you're three centuries late
also socialism requires internationalism despite what stalinoids tell you

[Anonymous No.18792750]

I spent a bunch of time reading about soviet history which inevitably led to reading Marx too. Still not a commie, though.

[Anonymous No.18792755]

>>18792420
That's unread anon.

[Anonymous No.18792792]

>>18792731
>hume btfo classical contractarianism
hmu with some page numbers my friendo

[Anonymous No.18792798]

>>18792792
of the original contract. just read it it isn't long

[Anonymous No.18792825]

>>18792731
>NOOO I NEED OTHER PEOPLE TO WIPE MY BUTT!!!

[Anonymous No.18792829]

Of course I have.
Marx is the simple most important modern political and economical philosopher.

[Anonymous No.18792830]

>>18792731
An economical system that requires the entire world to use it, while at the same time advocating that it's not necessary to have a central government, but a bunch of workers deciding everything is simply an absurd idea.

Even with hightly centralized governments it's impossible for countries to agree upon measures and have the same laws; it wouldn't work at all with a global entity of rednecks.

[Anonymous No.18792836]

>>18792829
What’s so important about him? Absurd schizo ramblings is not philosophy

[Anonymous No.18792845]

>>18792829
That's a funny way of spelling Pareto

[Anonymous No.18792850]

>>18792829
Marx, you're dead. Stop posting here.

[Anonymous No.18792851]

>>18792845
Even now Rawls and Pareto are falling out of favor as the true realities of inequality and the contradictions of the capitalist system show themself.
>>18792836
>What’s so important about him?
The fact that political theory since Marx has structurally all been either about socialism or the critiques of capitalism which he described plainly.
It's actually a bit ironic, now that the socialist projects have been well defeated Marx still emerges as the most prominent figure in critiquing our unstable system.

[Anonymous No.18792864]

>>18792851
>Even now Rawls and Pareto are falling out of favor
That might be true, but Marxist economics are still totally relegated to an even lower position. The main reason Pareto is superior to Marx is that his main work is not tainted by any ideological concerns. It's just plain science, which is what Marx attempted but didn't quite manage to the same degree. Pareto, intellectually and mathematically, is leagues above Marx.
> true realities of inequality
Pareto was the first person to write about the "true reality of inequality", even before Marx. He came up with the 80:20 rule of income distribution and established it as a scientific reality. Yes, Pareto, and not Marx.

[Anonymous No.18792945]

>>18792864
>The main reason Pareto is superior to Marx is that his main work is not tainted by any ideological concerns
Undialectical.
Marx's work isn't tainted by the fact that it was ideological, it was elevated because of it.

[Anonymous No.18792995]

>>18792836
>Absurd schizo ramblings
You have not read him have you

[Anonymous No.18793007]

>>18792945
As a midwit, I don't find Hegelian systems or terminology particularly useful (PoS reads like Peterson of his era, than there's the graphs...). It's a shame Schelling never won Engel's over.

[Anonymous No.18793014]

Yes.

His work is a tautology to the extreme. He's the chris chan of his day.

Lenins unconscious desire to peer into the hearts of inscurpulous little men like him is the only reason we know his name.

[Anonymous No.18793018]

>>18793014
I don't understand the pic. Why is the commie mad? That's actually what they believe

[Anonymous No.18793031]

>>18793018
Have you talked to a communist about this topic?

[Anonymous No.18793037]

>>18792731
>socialism requires eliminating any other system because its mere existence would be too powerful an argument against socialism
This is how that sounds just so you know

[Anonymous No.18793054]

>>18793018
>>18793031
Communists don't believe in the validity of debt you absolute psued-retards.

[Anonymous No.18793078]

>>18792830
Well, capitalism is a global economic system.

If you break it down to basics, it's just obvious, just look around your room and select an object and think about the materials and labor that went into it, from where, at every step of the process, and then how it was transported to the store you bought it from. The physical resources in the computer or phone you're using right now and then combined into parts are from all the world. Or like the dye in your clothes and where the pollution as a byproduct have just totaled India's rivers. But that's not "counted" as a cost by capitalist bean counters.

Capitalist social relations make this all seem very abstract, though. You might just see the commodity with a brand logo or something and it seems like it all just pops into existence. You didn't think about the guy who actually harvested the coffee that you're drinking. So Marxism is interesting because it's a method for looking at the concrete relations underneath all this abstract smoke-and-mirrors.

That doesn't refute your point though. But Marx also wasn't really prescriptive. That's a notoriously weak point in it. But it has a theoretical form and a realistic form and those can differ. So when that happens, is it because the theory has deviated from reality? (Maybe.) Or is it because reality deviates from the theory? (Not this.) Or as Engels wrote:

>...the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter, and Herr Dühring's contrary conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas, out of schemata, schemes or categories existing somewhere before the world, from eternity — just like a Hegel.

Now, I know someone is about to say: well Marxists have tried to dogmatically force things to conform to abstract principles. And that's not wrong... like the Soviet Union. Or saying "a planned economy + highly centralized political system = socialism" and you have to impose that on everyone. Of course that fails and it might have ended up negating Marxism. Or what might be suitable at different times, in different countries might not be suitable during other times and in others countries.

The world is not even. Different countries have different histories, different material conditions, are at different periods of development from each other. The only way you can find out where to go from there is through real-world investigation and practice and you reason out from the particular.

[Anonymous No.18793099]

>>18792409
Yeah. He made lots of correct and relevant observations but his understanding of history is absolutely wrong and relies on some teleological bullshit which makes him sound like a false prophet.

[Anonymous No.18793108]

Has anyone read this? Also what do you think of the Marxist Brill published books?

[Anonymous No.18793112]

>>18793054
Well then they're retarded.

[Anonymous No.18793135]

>>18793112
>we believe such and so
>'they don't even believe in so and such
>how retarded of them!'
Marxists are some of the stupidest people alive, yet anon, I think you've just about peaked them.

[Anonymous No.18793207]

>>18792420
Why would you say something so mean about some poor old dead guy?

[Anonymous No.18793212]

how can you transition to socialism in non industrial economy someone help me >>18793184

[Anonymous No.18793217]

>>18792830
>An economical system that requires the entire world to use it, while at the same time advocating that it's not necessary to have a central government, but a bunch of workers deciding everything is simply an absurd idea.

So you agree, capitalism is absurd? I'm glad we could find some common ground.

[Anonymous No.18793295]

>>18792409
yes, around 4000 pages of Marx and Engels, but I have a long way to go still

>>18792830
>An economical system that requires the entire world to use it
a communist society is not an economic system
>Even with hightly centralized governments it's impossible for countries to agree upon measures and have the same laws
the present society is based on universal competition of islands of private property. of course it's going to be antagonistic. that doesn't bear on communist society, however, because communist society lacks private property to begin with

>>18792864
there are no Marxist economics. Marx has rendered economics irrelevant by showing that it's unable to produce a correct understanding of society. any valuable results that the science was able to achieve during its lifetime he integrated into communism

>>18793014
>if a company has profits, that money should be shared equally among all workers?
are you baiting? transdending capitalism will necessarily involve the abolition of companies, profits and money. and "equal sharing" of anything is impossible in the first place (see Critique of the Gotha Program).

>>18793108
>Has anyone read this?
just chapter 8, because it touches upon a somewhat interesting problem (the treatment of socially necessary unproductive labour). I haven't dedicated enough time to the study of that problem to be able to form a decisive judgment on that chapter, but at least it wasn't a complete waste of time and paper like most of those books.
>Also what do you think of the Marxist Brill published books?
most of them are trash by worthless academic careerists, but there are some that are almost decent, such as "Marx's Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism"

[Anonymous No.18793323]

>>18793295
where to start with marx

[Anonymous No.18793341]

>>18793295
Do you have any idea how division of labor and resources will be organized in a communist society, who will decide these things?

[Anonymous No.18793352]

>>18792409
Yes and he's dope, If you have not read him you cannot really call yourself educated.

[Anonymous No.18793353]

>>18792731
I’d pay you $1k to never use an -ism word again but I know it’d be against your socialist ideology.

[Anonymous No.18793361]

Sorry, I'm reading the superior man.

[Anonymous No.18793415]

>>18793323
"Wage Labour and Capital" or chapter I of "The German Ideology" or "Value, Price and Profit" or parts II & III of "Anti-Dühring"

>>18793341
division of labour will slowly disappear. production will be planned by social organs formed in order to plan production

[Anonymous No.18793473]

>>18793415
How will division of labor disappear, different jobs exist which are necessary to maintain civilization. How will there social organs be formed in a way that isn't just a state?

[Anonymous No.18793603]

>>18793473
>How will division of labor disappear
by incentives for overspecialization having been removed (private property and wage labour) and by variation in occupation having been introduced, in order to provide the opportunity for every individual to develop his capacities in as many directions as possible
>different jobs exist which are necessary to maintain civilization
sure, but individuals don't have to be condemned to a single job or even a single type of jobs for life in order for those necessary jobs to be fulfilled
>How will there social organs be formed in a way that isn't just a state?
they will be formed such that participation in them won't be a career but a temporary assignment and such that they won't be limited to members of a single economic class and those recruited to do the bidding of that class

[Anonymous No.18793615]

>>18793603
The incentives for specialization are not due to private property and wage labor, necessary expertise is one, some jobs being much more unpleasant than others is another. But again who will decide who works where on any given day?
>temporary assignment
Who will assign these positions and how?

[Anonymous No.18793810]

>>18793615
>The incentives for specialization are not due to private property and wage labor, necessary expertise is one, some jobs being much more unpleasant than others is another.
I said "_over_specialization". no job requires such expertise that it needs to be the only thing someone ever does. even brain surgeons don't suddenly lose their skills if they do something else for a week.
overspecialization is incentivized by wage labour, because when labour is a monetary cost to the capitalist, it's generally cheaper to hire one person to work on something 40 hours a week than 4 people to work on it 10 hours a week each. and it likewise yields more revenue for a wage labourer to limit his life to a single activity rather than to several ones.
and I fail to see how unpleasantness in itself would incentivize that. if anything, it seems to me that in a rational, co-operative society, unpleasant jobs would rather incentivize such an arrangement, that they would be spread out between as many members of society as possible, so that let's say every person doing 30 minutes of toilet cleaning would be enough for an entire month, and nobody would be condemned to doing it for 100 hours per month.
>Who will assign these positions
people who at a given moment work in the social organ tasked with assigning such positions
>and how
by using their brains, computers and relevant information. I have no way of knowing what specific mechanisms will be worked out. how will a group of people stranded on a desert island decide who makes shelter and who makes the fire?

[Anonymous No.18793819]

>>18793810
If there is specialization there is division of labor. What is this 'rational, cooperative society' you imagine, that doenst explain the decision procedures
>people who at a given moment work in the social organ tasked with assigning such positions
And who decides who works in the social organs at a given moment

People stranded on an island will do some combination of voting, naturally following certain people as leaders, and being coerced by force

[Anonymous No.18793973]

>>18793819
>If there is specialization there is division of labor
no, if division of labour were to mean just that every single person doesn't literally do every single thing on the planet, then it would be a useless category.
division of labour means that people are directed into careers, that they only deal with e.g. just physical labour for their entire life, and that some tasks are monopolized by particular social classes and castes.
>What is this 'rational, cooperative society' you imagine
it is a society in which production proceeds according to a common plan and which lacks social classes.
>And who decides who works in the social organs at a given moment
for each organ it will be people who worked at a random other similar organ at time n-1. or the people who were picked to do the double amount of toilet cleaning in the previous month. or the people randomly chosen from the pool of all adult individuals. or all three combined and then some more. I have no way of knowing this, there's no way to predict such details scientifically.
>People stranded on an island will do some combination of voting, naturally following certain people as leaders, and being coerced by force
what combination of that will they do? how will they vote? aren't you forgetting that they might do a coconut throwing contest to determine who gets to pick their task first?
you just can't predict those things with so little information.

[Sage No.18793993]

>>18792864
A scientific reality inherent in market exchanges. It’s not as if the universe ordains an income distribution, but the distribution falls out of the statistical mechanics of a marketplace.

[Anonymous No.18794000]

>>18792593
Tell me one socialist country
Also, Marx was a commie

[Anonymous No.18794007]

>>18793014
>there is no loss if the population decide what to produce

[Anonymous No.18794017]

>>18793973
Division of labor means there are different jobs which different people do. Evidently not everyone will be a surgeon
>common plan
How is this plan produced?

You're kicking the can to avoid the question of who will set up these social organs on the first place and decide their structure

And you're right that the people on the island might do all sorts of things, it's unpredictable. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.18794031]

>>18793473
>>18793615
>>18793819
>>18794017
READ THE CAPITAL, FAGGOT
Also, im not the anon who is answering all your questions

[Anonymous No.18794040]

>>18794031
Capital doesnt describe how a communist society will function, which is my question

[Anonymous No.18794045]

>>18792409
Yes. The economics is boring but his cultural work is interesting. Lenin is far more enjoyable imo

[Anonymous No.18794060]

>>18794040
Then read a book about the soviet union, retard.

[Anonymous No.18794062]

>>18792444
> Why do Marxists split into so many little groups over his writings

Because marx didn't live long enough to see a socialist revolution. As a result most of his work is theoretical and has to be interpreted to fix the current circumstances. Case and point in the bolshevik revolution, there was a huge split between those who thought that Russia was not ready for socialism (this was after the tsar was disposed) and those who thought it was

[Anonymous No.18794071]

>>18794060
There was clearly a state in the Soviet union

[Anonymous No.18794086]

>>18794071
Methinks other anon doesn't know what communism is

[Anonymous No.18794093]

>>18794071
Marx never denied the need of a state.
As i said, read the capital first. Only then, if you wanna learn more about how a commie society will be in reality, read a book about the political structure of the soviet union.

[Anonymous No.18794098]

>>18794007
It sure is, you just don't know how to measure it.
Production in communist countries can destroy real value, they only recognize it when they start to starve.

[Anonymous No.18794101]

>>18794093
USSR wasn't communist

[Anonymous No.18794122]

>>18794101
>USSR wasnt communist
read the capital, then read the political structure of the ussr before speaking.
>>18794098
>there has to be a loss even if you produce as much as people consume and everyone has a job
Really?

[Anonymous No.18794142]

>>18794122
Which capital? I read 1 and 3 but not 2. I'm actually very curious why you'd label ussr communist, unless you are using communism and socialism interchangeably

[Anonymous No.18794173]

>>18794142
>i have read the Pentateuch, Judges and half of the Prophets, but not the NT. Why do you think Christ is the Messiah? Im actually very curious why you'd label Christ as the Messiah, unless you are using the Messiah and God labels interchangeably.
I think you understand my argument

[Anonymous No.18794191]

>>18794122
>Really?
Really, their input can be larger than their output. There isn't much room for error here, a few percent here or there makes all the difference in world.
The problem is well known to all decision-makers of real communism, Oskar Lange was already trying to solve it soon after WW2. He attempted to discover real (market) prices without actual market exchange to save the system. Imagine that: computers and a bureaucrat in every house just to _copy_ what a market systems gives you continuously with no additional costs. (he failed as we know)

[Anonymous No.18794193]

>>18794017
>Division of labor means there are different jobs which different people do.
no, division of labour means that some people are barred from having a chance at doing particular kinds of works due to their social standing and that others monopolize some other kinds of activities for the same reason. it means that people tend to be specialized in just one specific kind of task, much less than the average human lifetime allows for given the proper opportunities.
>How is this plan produced?
by taking account of the social needs and the available means of satisfying them
>You're kicking the can to avoid the question of who will set up these social organs on the first place and decide their structure
I already told you openly that I can't answer such a question in the way you want because a specific answer will differ depending on time, place and circumstance and can't be predicted given present information
>And you're right that the people on the island might do all sorts of things, it's unpredictable. What is your point?
my point is that for some reason you keep asking me questions that can't possibly be answered with the level of specificity you expect

>>18794040
it does, in the first chapter even

>>18794060
the soviet union was capitalist

>>18794093
>Marx never denied the need of a state.
yes, for the transition between capitalism and socialism, during which there still are classes, and a proletarian class state, not for socialism itself.

>>18794122
>read the capital, then read the political structure of the ussr before speaking.
not him, but he's right. I've read Capital and Nove's "Economic History of the USSR"

>>18794142
it wasn't socialist either.
as for Capital, Vol. 2 is not terribly relevant to the question, although it does dispel some of the possible Stalinist arguments, such as "it's not capitalism when the state enterprises operate only using money of account" or "developed commodity production doesn't entail capitalism"

>>18794173
>knowledge gets written down in books, ergo Marxism is a religion
thanks for another piece of genius insight. please don't stop

[Anonymous No.18794222]

>>18794193
Division of labor does not mean barring people, that is enforced division of labor

>by taking account
Who takes account? You dont seem to get that you keep using the passive voice when actual people have to make these decisions
>cant answer such a question because it will differ
Give an example of one way it could work

As to the island, I gave you an example of how organization might occur, people elect or just follow a leader, or some people band together and coerce others by force, there are many ways but they all involve the creation of proto-states and classes and oppression

[Anonymous No.18794297]

>>18794193
>soviet union was capitalist
Weak bait
>proletarian class state
>state
Weak bait
>Nove
>an english scholar that became "a noted authority on Russian and Soviet economic history."
>thinking capitalists will let someone saying the truth about a socialist country live
Weak bait
>knowledge gets written down in books, ergo Marxism is a religion
>religious texts are debatable without knowing the entirety of them. Just like the Capital.
What? Are you retarded. I meant to say that you need to read the entire Capital+the history of ussr before discussing the subject and not asking dumb question such as the ones this >>18794142
anon asked me about.
I already said "read the capital and the history of ussr" 3 times... I wont repeat it again.
Ffs anon, stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.18794307]

>>18794222
>Division of labor does not mean barring people, that is enforced division of labor
all division of labour is enforced. people don't usually choose to clean toilets all day for 50 years without material factors having forced them into this.
>Who takes account?
I already told you
>You dont seem to get that you keep using the passive voice when actual people have to make these decisions
it's valid English, as far as I know
>Give an example of one way it could work
I obviously already don't respect my time as much as I should because I post here, but I'm not going to be writing an entire science fiction novel for you. I have zero chance of actually succeeding to specifically predict the future that way. it's completely pointless
>As to the island, I gave you an example of how organization might occur
and I gave you similar generalities too already >>18793973
you'll be able to give relatively more specific examples easily, because an island with two dozens of people will be much less complex than a society of dozens hundreds of millions

[Anonymous No.18794308]

>>18794297
>the ' read marx' poster has entered the thread
I hope you realize you guys are a running joke for just repeating that phrase instead of making points or arguments

[Anonymous No.18794314]

>>18792409
Yes. It's pretty good. It's one reason I'm a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.18794321]

>>18794307
My point is that every example of human organization in history above a certain number of people involves the creation of states and classes. If you claim a new form of organisation is going to happen that doesnt have these you have to explain how that is going to function, how it could function

[Anonymous No.18794323]

>>18794308
>in order to discuss an author you need to know his ideas
Dude, the only discussions you can get are like this one:
>>18794307
>>18794222
>>18793473
>>18793615
>>18793819
>>18794017
I. E. Shit that you can get from marx.
Repeating the basics is boring.

[Anonymous No.18794328]

>>18794323
That guy has totally failed to describe how a stateless, classless society will function so it's pretty relevant subject of discussion

[Anonymous No.18794336]

>>18794328
And you know why? Because he didnt read the Capital!

[Anonymous No.18794347]

>>18794321
>My point is that every example of human organization in history above a certain number of people involves the creation of states and classes.
duh
>If you claim a new form of organisation is going to happen that doesnt have these you have to explain how that is going to function, how it could function
lol no I don't. if you claim that states and classes will be necessary forever, you need to prove that

>>18794328
it's impossible to describe "how a stateless, classless society will function" in the way you expect, because this is simply too general of a question. you ask a painfully general question, you get a painfully general answer. you can't reasonably expect anything more. any attempt at producing more will yield pointless science fiction that will completely fail to predict anything except the most extremely general things.

[Anonymous No.18794366]

>>18794347
If you dont explain how it will function or describe it then you're doing the equivalent of saying 'i predict in the future it will stop raining forever, no I'm not going to say why'

It's not even a meaningful statement, you're just saying 'some organization that isn't a state or class will exist'

[Anonymous No.18794378]

>>18792409
Yes but I also purely ironically read Herr Vogt

>>18792864
>The main reason Pareto is superior to Marx is that his main work is not tainted by any ideological concerns. It's just plain science
lol I don't know if you're trolling but very, very few people have actually read Pareto's major works (I'm gonna guess you haven't either). The Mind and Society is one of the most dull works you could ever hope to get through in its entirety:
https://archive.org/stream/mindsocietytratt01pare#page/n9/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/TheMindAndSocietyVolIii
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.166857
https://archive.org/stream/mindsocietytratt04pare#page/n7/mode/2up

If you don't understand how concepts like Pareto optimality are ideological you're not thinking to hard

[Anonymous No.18794407]

>>18794366
>If you dont explain how it will function or describe it then you're doing the equivalent of saying 'i predict in the future it will stop raining forever, no I'm not going to say why'
no, I'm not. I'm doing the equivalent of saying "I predict rain will fall in the future because of X and Y; no, I can't give you the list of all coordinates it will fall and in what amount, that's a silly thing to expect"
>It's not even a meaningful statement, you're just saying 'some organization that isn't a state or class will exist'
it is a meaningful statement, it involves a series of determinate characteristics, such as lack of money, lack of private property, production planned consciously rather than through impersonal market anarchy, universal development and task rotation rather than careers, etc. it's general, but it's also very meaningful. if you say otherwise, then you're doing the equivalent of "'it will rain in the future' is not even a meaningful statement, because it doesn't give me the list of times, coordinates and quantities".

[Anonymous No.18794429]

>>18794407
If every single example of something has certain properties you have to explain why these properties are going to disappear, and how the thing will look without them

[Anonymous No.18794432]

>Abolishment of private capital will transcend the limitations if capitalism.
At what point do you think Marxist retards will realize that their very bodies will be held as property of the collective?

You'll never take my soul or my consciousness you degenerate monkeys.

[Anonymous No.18794448]

>>18794407
"I will build an airplane without wings. No I'm not going to explain how that works"

[Anonymous No.18794501]

>>18794432
>Capitalism doesnt do that already

[Anonymous No.18794529]

>>18794501
Capitalism let's me own other people if I have more money than they do.

That's a better solution than letting no one own themselves. I swear, you slave mentality faggots deserve to be sterilized by the vaccine.

[Anonymous No.18794541]

>>18794429
>If every single example of something has certain properties you have to explain why these properties are going to disappear
this is explained by Marx and Engels with regards to the class and the state. had you asked this at the beginning, I might've maybe even written a summary, but after all this bickering I'm a bit too tired for that.
>and how the thing will look without them
this is also explained in such details as is possible. you simply don't like the fact that it can't be described in the specifics. but the specifics simply can't be deduced without a crystal ball. we're not operating on the level of Laplace's demon, far from it.

>>18794448
I'm not going to build a communist society. and again, it's on you to prove that state and class are necessary, if you want to claim that (assuming this is what you're implying with the example of wings; by the way, wings are inherent to the definition of an airplane.).
this is also a false analogy because, while it will involve foreknowledge and more conscious action on a great scale than e.g. the feudal and capitalist modes of production did, the communist society will not be "built" according to a concrete plan. its coming to be will be a process that will necessarily involve many contingent factors. it will be directed only in general terms, and not nearly with the level of precision comparable to that of a team of engineers constructing an airplane.

[Anonymous No.18794572]

>>18794541
State and class have been necessary for every complex society that ever existed. That is solid evidence. Why do you expect anyone to take seriously the claim they will disappear when you cant even begin to describe what form organization will take their place?

[Anonymous No.18794601]

>>18794541
Power flows from the barrel of a gun bro

[Anonymous No.18794606]

>>18793112
They don't believe in profits either

[Anonymous No.18794609]

>>18792409

[Anonymous No.18794620]

>>18794572
>State and class have been necessary for every complex society that ever existed.
if you set the cut-off point for "complex" sufficiently high, then sure. but I would say that several of the known primitive communist societies, such as the Indus Valley Civilization, were already complex
>Why do you expect anyone to take seriously the claim they will disappear
because a great amount of evidence has been provided for this in the works of Marx and Engels, which is yet to be undermined
>when you cant even begin to describe what form organization will take their place
I have begun to describe it several times already, e.g. here >>18794407

[Anonymous No.18794636]

>>18794620
>indus valley
How was that communist? And since we live ina a complex civilization what matters are complex societies

Marx and engels did not provide evidence because no such societies exist so there can be no evidence, they speculated about the future.

And you have not described anything except in negative(x feature won't exist) and in the vaguest terms possible, 'rational cooperation' 'common plan', 'social organ will decide'.

[Anonymous No.18794823]

>>18794636
>How was that communist?
it was primitive-communist because it lacked socio-economic classes
>Marx and engels did not provide evidence because no such societies exist so there can be no evidence
you can gain evidence of something that hasn't happened yet by identifying the necessities leading to it in what currently exists
>And you have not described anything except in negative(x feature won't exist)
omnis determinatio est negatio.
the positive accounts are already implicit in the negatives I provided:
lack of private property, lack of money = collective ownership of the means of production, the products, land. products distributed to individuals for consumption without the return of an equivalent. transfers between productive units according to a unified plan, not through exchange of equivalents
>and in the vaguest terms possible
in about the only terms that it is possible to know it today. Marxists are not utopian, but scientific socialists. they don't make fanciful projects of the future but investigate reality and only say as much as can be deduced from it. obviously the amount of what can be deduced is going to be relatively small when we aren't dealing with thing like simple physical processes

[Anonymous No.18794875]

>>18794823
A scientific approach would not postulate a future state it cant even describe. The most reasonable assumption is that any state and classes today will be replaced in the future by other states and classes, since that is what always has happened in the past.

All you say is 'according to a unified plan' again what fucking plan? You have no clue, you cant say a single concrete thing about the structure of organization

[Anonymous No.18794936]

>>18794875
>A scientific approach would not postulate a future state it cant even describe
good, because I'm repeatedly describing it to you.
>The most reasonable assumption is that any state and classes today will be replaced in the future by other states and classes, since that is what always has happened in the past.
sure. until one discovers that the basis for states and classes will collapse due to its own nature, which Marx and Engels have.
>All you say is 'according to a unified plan' again what fucking plan?
the production plan. are you asking how many widgets will be produced in April, year XYZ on the territory corresponding to today's Equatorial Guinea? I don't know that.
>You have no clue, you cant say a single concrete thing about the structure of organization
I said several concrete things about it already, including in my last post

[Anonymous No.18794963]

>>18794936
>the basis for states and classes will collapse due to it's own nature
The basis is basic logistic realities of organization, how is that going to collapse. And no you have not explained a single concrete thing, usually you guys will at least try a half hearted line about workers voting for some kind of representatives but you haven't even done that

[Anonymous No.18795126]

>>18794963
>The basis is basic logistic realities of organization
well, this is something you have to show. my point is that Marx and Engels have shown that the historical basis was actually in insufficient development of productive forces after this development had surpassed the level that could be mastered by a stateless primitive community.
>And no you have not explained a single concrete thing
yes I have, at the level of generality allowed me by the subject matter. I explained, e.g., that in communist society the products of labour will belong directly to society instead of belonging to a private owner of the means of labour who then does with them as he personally (or as a limited group) sees fit. this is a concrete fact. it is so concrete that you will be able to observe it with your own eyes after the social revolution.
>usually you guys will at least try a half hearted line about workers voting for some kind of representatives
voting for representatives is only one of the possible decision-making mechanisms that one can come up with. it can't be determined that a communist society will decide that it's universally the best one, for all purposes and at all times.
>but you haven't even done that
because I'm not a utopian and I'm not willing to say about communist society that which can't be known about it from examining history.

[Anonymous No.18795163]

>>18795126
>belong directly to society
What do you think this means? Society is a giant group of people, not one thing, how is it distributed?

And my proof is, again, every complex society in history having a state and classes and nobody being able to describe a complex society that doesnt have them. It's like you think this will all just magically come together somehow

[Anonymous No.18795182]

>>18795163
Marx is pre-Darwin. his acolytes are unable to acknowledge that inequality is baked into the genes and culture. A hierarchy is inevitable. Their Darwinian illiteracy is disqualifying.

[Anonymous No.18795349]

>>18795163
>What do you think this means?
it means that the products of labour aren't property of a particular person or a limited group of people who happened to own the means of producing them but enter directly as inputs to the social-wide plan of production and consumption, to be directed to the correct place according to it
>Society is a giant group of people, not one thing, how is it distributed?
by ships, trains and planes, possibly some novel means of transportation
>And my proof is, again, every complex society in history having a state and classes
and this is, again, overridden by proof that the basis of states and classes will collapse upon itself, provided by Marx and Engels.
"X has always co-existed with Y" is a good basis for a prima facie judgment, but it's very weak to sustain it beyond that, as there were countless things in history that happened to co-exist, but then one of them disappeared. to have a real argument you need to demonstrate that there is a necessary connection between the two beyond coincidence
>and nobody being able to describe a complex society that doesnt have them
this has to be about the worst proof of the necessity of something possible. being able to describe some complex thing in precise terms before it appears, if it ever happens, is in any case the historical exception, not the rule. such a proof would've been mistaken most of the time.
>It's like you think this will all just magically come together somehow
there's no magic. I haven't described anything supernatural that would require a special justification. just people producing and consuming things.

good night

>>18795182
Engels defends Darwin against Dühring in Anti-Dühring

[Anonymous No.18795358]

>>18795349
>Engels defends Darwin
that's too literal. evolution's hierarchal and hegemonic implications were not integrated into the communist historical-human nature world view.

[Sage No.18795391]

>>18794529
It is odd to resent other people for trying to square this circle. I do not understand how you can be born into society and not desire to improve it, by, for example, positing a system which does not produce so much waste and sap so much free time. All things aside, including whether or not these posited systems would even work, the degree of resentment leveled at people who want more from their society always strikes me as odd.

[Anonymous No.18795392]

>>18795349
>as inputs to the social-wide plan of production and consumption, to be directed to the correct place according to it
And you did it again. What plan, whose plan?

How do Marx and engels 'prove' this situation will change? And the fact that literally every example has those features is a very strong indication they are necessary and universal, not incidental.

You do not describe even the vaguest concept of how division labor and resources will be organized, literally nothing. Just some 'plan'. That may as well be magic

[Anonymous No.18795462]

>>18793037
read a book

[Anonymous No.18795574]

>>18794875
>The most reasonable assumption is that any state and classes today will be replaced in the future by other states and classes
Sure, bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) being replaced by proletarians.

[Anonymous No.18795746]

>>18792755
Yeah, this is what this cheap book looks like if you actually read it

[Anonymous No.18795794]

>>18792444
If you read the book, you'll know that the primary motivation for Marx was the HORRENDOUS living conditions of factory workers in the 1800s. Workers crammed into tiny living spaces, sleeping shoulder to shoulder just to work 14+ hour shifts every single day in dirty, dangerous, low ventilation factories and then become malnourished because of the lack of available food and also the lack of money to buy better food. At the end of the day, for capitalism to actually work, (the ONLY goal of production is consumption) workers need legitimate bargaining power in order to negotiate a fair portion of the value produced by their work. In the modern day, workers essentially have to compete against every other worker in the world due to globalization, throw in the fact that technological advances have created better tools (which allow more production with less labor) and the actual demand for labor is slowly but surely declining. In actual income and ability to grow wealth, workers are getting a worse and worse deal, in fact, this was the primary reason Trump was elected in the US, to "bring back the manufacturing jobs" and "make American great again". His entire campaign centered on the fact that globalism is screwing workers.

[Anonymous No.18795897]

>>18795746
based creative destroyer

[Anonymous No.18795996]

>>18794062
He lived long enough to witness the Paris Commune, although it was unsuccessful

[Anonymous No.18796024]

>>18795794
basedretard. why write such a long disjointed post about things youve only heard in passing

[Anonymous No.18796151]

>>18792798
hume also thought Rousseau irl was a fucking psycho

[Anonymous No.18796162]

>>18796024
Why reply with such a hollow sentiment which adds nothing? My post centered on the tension between employer and employee which manifests in negotiating wages, working conditions etc and boils down to disparities in bargaining power.

In short, what's your problem?

[Anonymous No.18796432]

>>18792409
>Thinking /lit/ actually reads books
How new are you ?

[Anonymous No.18796465]

>>18792593
I want to move to a socialist country, but unfortunately there are no countries in which the workers own the means of production

[Anonymous No.18796486]

I only read philosophy ironically

[Anonymous No.18796512]

>>18792593
This is the level that ameritards function.

>muh if you don't like bullshit jobs to exist, why do you work at one? xDD

>muh if you don't like private health insurance, why do you pay for one? xDD

>muh if free quality education should exist why do you pay for a higher education? xDDDDDDD

You are in a fucking literature board, how about start reading a fucking book?

And what the fuck do you mean "socialist country"? there is no such fucking thing you dipshit please explain to me how a country can be economically independent to other countries? Fucking Twitter bot brainlet.

[Anonymous No.18796540]

>>18792409
I have read Capital and a few other books by him, yeah. The best secondary literature written on him was by Michel Henry. I love Marx's early humanist stuff although I do think Kolakowski and Adorno have written good crtiques of the Promethean tendency within it.