[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 457 KB, 1076x1435, Vilfredo_Pareto_1870s2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19237626 No.19237626 [Reply] [Original]

Did he end Marxist economics and liberalism forever?

>> No.19237681

Bump

>> No.19237698

>>19237626
no because the fascists used his theories and they were still marxists.

i don't see how he contradicts marx.

>> No.19237715

>>19237698
Fascists weren't Marxists. They were closer to syndicalists.

>> No.19237733

>>19237715
syndicalism was born after the crisis of marxism. it was a response to socialism becoming bourgeoise party politics. sorel was still a marxist and so were his namesake

>> No.19237746

>>19237733
>sorel was still a marxist
no

>> No.19237762
File: 153 KB, 476x640, Giovanni_Gentile_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19237762

>>19237746
>It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.

>> No.19237780

>socialism is when redistributive capitalism

>> No.19237798

>>19237626
Evidently not.

>> No.19237804

>>19237780
why do you come to shit up threads arguing shit you don't know anything about? fascists first of all did not give a shit about 'redistribution', they cared about modernizing the whole of italy, more than half of which was still largely agrarian.

please, fuck off.

>> No.19237809

>>19237626
Why don't you ask on /pol/ or /his/ where the question belongs, you illiterate mong

>> No.19237828

>>19237809
>implying /pol/ or /his/ could have anyone who even heard of pareto
those are two gutter trash boards. /lit/ is only half decent because it pretends to be educated.

>> No.19237934

>>19237804
>Did he end Marxist economics and liberalism forever?
wew couldn't wait for the day when /lit/ forgot how to read

>> No.19238055

>>19237934
what does this have to do with what I said? unless you're implying that OP is conflating liberal economics with marx- while I thought he was shitting on both, and i thought the person I was replying to submentioned me

no worries

>> No.19238453

>>19237626
>Marxist economics
Not real. Marx wasn't an economist.
>Liberalism
*Looks around* No

>> No.19238462

>>19238453
>Marx wasn't an economist.
He practically invented the field

>> No.19238469
File: 155 KB, 455x396, 9d466a804f4e62d479fd1b27e540dba09adb278d2011c0f900adca42d25c3871.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19238469

>>19238462
>He practically invented the field

>> No.19238483

>>19238453
you'll never stop being dumb as long as your mind continues to operate on the basis of dismissive one-liners

>> No.19238553

>>19238462
Economics in its modern form is very different from the kinds of stuff Marx, Adam Smith, and David Ricardo wrote about. Modern economics is mostly a mix of the ideas Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, and John von Neumann introduced.