Critical Theory

[Anonymous No.21207475]

What do we think about Byung Chul-Han /lit/? Any other fascist/hard right critical theory that eclipses Marx? And before any crying about this starts just understand that the right are the only people concerned with Big Data.

[Anonymous No.21207479]

Han is not Fascist or "hard right". Stop using these words.

[Anonymous No.21207501]

>>21207475
>he thinks marx can be "eclipsed"
o i am laffin

[Anonymous No.21207536]

>>21207479
>mommy make him stop

[Anonymous No.21207545]

>>21207475
Nigger, please stop making these "what does /lit/ think of..." threads. Lurk moar until you figure it out on your own.
Also:
>we
You're not one of us, newfag.

[Anonymous No.21207588]

>>21207545
Lots of buttmad gibberish but no actual discussion on the literature. Hmm, looks like I do know /lit/ after all!

[Anonymous No.21207599]

>>21207475
He's a pop sociologist.

[Anonymous No.21207616]

>>21207599
So is the Health Minister in the Biden Cabinet. Explain why this is bad?

[Anonymous No.21207751]

>>21207616
It just is

[Anonymous No.21207820]

>>21207475
What is this book about?

[Anonymous No.21207866]

>>21207820
Essentially it’s about how the Marxist concepts of Labor and Means of Production is no longer relevant because 1. There’s now no link between Labor and GDP and 2. Much of the Labor done is digital and we essentially already own our own Labor since it’s psychic Labor and we own our bodies. The neoliberalism of the psyche or “psychopolitics” is dictated by algorithms and Big Data and is a more effect at form of control than BioPolitics. Han draws comparisons to Jeremy Benthams Panopticon but explains how data maps are essentially Panipticons of the mind and that transparency leads to compulsive conformity. There’s more in the Text but these are some of the main points.

[Anonymous No.21208471]

>>21207475
I read 'A thousand years of nonlinear history' by Manuel DeLanda and it was just applied Foucault. Didn't add anything. Waste of time. Title massively oversold the project. Not reading anything else in this sphere unless I am assured it is actually intellectually worthwhile and not just another swindle.

[Anonymous No.21208584]

>>21208471
>Not reading anything else in this sphere unless I am assured it is actually intellectually worthwhile and not just another swindle.
Historian here. I can assure you that all work using Foucault's academic work is a swindle.

If you want to start with Foucault's non-academic work, read his second half goal in Foucault/Chomsky and then start reading Autonomism. I'd recommend Lotta Continua versus Solidarity (UK). Even though Soli are Cardanist they tested it on the factory floor.

If you want why you abandon intellectual schema formally, read D&G's argument and proof by making the argument. "You can't think your way out of a paper bag."

>>21207866
Which is post UK structuralist marxist dribble. When EP Thompson beats you on a theory argument by arguing that theory is irrelevant from a bourgeois marxist perspective… …join your union, find people engaged in praxis, start composition studies of your own work.

[Anonymous No.21208660]

>>21208584
The only D&G I've read was 'Nomadology.' Tempted to go back to Dumezil for context. Could also pivot to Burckhardt or Bachofen I suppose.

[Anonymous No.21208674]

>>21208471
I’m not familiar with that work but in this short Essay Han contrasts Foucaults BioPolitics to his PsychoPolitics heavily and posits that Foucault was too focused on disciplinary society restricting what we Can and can’t do and not enough on how our basic urges work *with* the forces of Capital to help drive NeoLiberalism. Although he does say that Foucault later started to lean this way in his thinking.

>>21208584
>UK structuralist Marxist Dribble
Can you explain how this is the case when Han goes out of his way to bypass Marx himself? I’m not familiar with EP Thompson or the event you’re talking about but I don’t think Han is a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.21208767]

>>21208674
>Can you explain how this is the case
Because of Althusser's seminal influence on post-structuralism because of his seminal influence on structuralism.

Now claiming that Althusser is No True Marxist is fine and dandy, but the idea of socially determined culturally present categories that transcend their categories to the point where categories begin to break down as determining (surdetermining) structures is fundamental to post-structuralist thought.

In this sense all post-structuralism inherits Althusser even if they fail to inherit from him Marx.

You'll want to read:
_The Poverty of Theory_
Perry Anderson _Arguments Within English Marxism_

it goes fairly rapidly in English to surdetermination versus system wide interdetermination and whether Language has meaning through structure or whether language is a historical phenomena of interdetermination.

If you've actually read the crisis in French Marxist theory then all this post-structuralist nonsense seems like such, how did Thompson phrase it, un-historical shit.

[Anonymous No.21208789]

>>21208660
I'm suggesting that instead of reading D&G, that you organise a body of workers who wish to talk about their experience of work in the context of reading. That rather than the problem being the quality of theoretical works, the problem is that you don't read them as tools for class struggle. etc.

You know the very argument D&G make about the possibility of history. Without doing it themselves.

Kind of like Marx arguing for the primacy of proletarian class struggle while actually being a bourgeois insurrectionist liberal in practice.

[Anonymous No.21208830]

>>21208767
What you’re describing sounds interesting but it also sounds like all of your thoughts around this are couched in the discourse and history of academia. So help me understand, are you saying because Critical Theory was influenced by Marx through Althusser that it’s inherently Marxist despite the fact that many of those thinkers only have critiques of Marx? I’m not a Marxist but it sounds like you’re contending with mostly textual references outside of Hans work specifically. Han seems to say that categories aren’t socially determined entirely but rather work dialectically with Capital and Data. I’m less interested in the history of this and more focused on contemporary interpretations of technology which is what Han does for me in my reading of him and his critique isn’t valueless because of his inherited philosophical legacy. I would even agree that a lot of post-structuralists are full of shit and ahistorical but the text in question isn’t dealing with any of the stuff you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.21208845]

>>21208584
>read D&G's
I'm not a tranny though.

[Anonymous No.21208859]

>>21207866
garbage

[Anonymous No.21208870]

>>21208830
>but rather work dialectically with Capital and Data.
Are these categories "pure forms" ala Plato?

What is "Capital" for Hans? (Pro-tip: he'll have a sloppy definition that indirectly references Althusser probably.) What is _D_ "Data"? I think you'll find if you grab Han's categories by the balls and yank them that you discover than Hans views them as surdetermined by an overarching social determination.

Hans doesn't have 500 pages on the construction of data as a social relation in class struggle history does he? I mean I can start outlining one for you now:
Airline tickets => Tax systems => Private Tax systems
Atom bombs => Multics => Unix => {early social media} => USENET

Notice how mine is concretised through actual acts which large bodies of humans participate in, even as a sketch?

Now if you just want some handy flash categories that seem to interact, sure, pick something up, but the philosophical validity of those categories are about the same as the latest best seller, "My experience with Big Data: How Google saved my child with cancer" type book. If the categories are going to attempt philosophical validity they're going to do that by basically an appeal to Althusser via an ironised, "but we all know categories aren't complete or determinant."

Because the _other_ option of categories exist as the result of historical class struggles as ideas produced by society in interdetermination by conflict requires you to be a historian and open the fucking archives and that's a lot of hard work and you can't make big gestures without massive archival workings.

And Hans doesn't have that kind of bibliography does he? No. He Doesn't. So its big gestures supported by ironicised surdetermination.

So yeah: you just want an O'Reilly to make a point to pull a hot chick or make an extravagant claim in public, right? You don't actually want a terrain analysis of whom to abduct and place in front of red BR flags from inside Meta?

>>21208845
So read Paul Cardan's version instead. I'm just using D&G because they're more connected to class struggle than Socialisme ou Barbarie.

[Anonymous No.21208915]

>>21208870
It’s not “Hans” it’s just “Han”. He bypassed the idea of class struggle entirely by asserting that labor is done not by oppressors v . Oppressed but that most labor is done psychically and he talks deeply about the Violence of Positivity. There is no class struggle because the neoliberal regime can extract Capital without forcing it from us but coaxing it from us. Working in tandem with desire or functions seamlessly. His definition for Capital is the classic Marxian definition (which has essentially bled into popular conception anyways). What I’m hearing from you is you haven’t read his work at all and you don’t want to because he doesn’t go into great detail the way social climbing academics do with their big door stoppers of text. You should read Kant and understand that knowledge is not some finite thing waiting to be discovered and the world exists in more ways than some rationalist analysis waiting to be quantified (also something Han touches on). I’m not trying to be rude but seriously a writer doesn’t need a deep bibliography to be taken seriously or even be influential.

[Anonymous No.21208921]

>>21207866
Oh wow, it's like Sohn-Rethel for freshmen.

[Anonymous No.21208968]

>>21208921
Sounds interesting, say more about that

[Anonymous No.21208992]

>>21208915
>oppressors v . Oppressed
Now I know you're underread. Exploiters exploited. Length of Working Day, Volume 1.

Oppression is a cultural relationship: I spank you because you wear green panties.
Exploitation is a value-form relationship subsiding in the relations of production: in order to pay rent you need to work 8 hours, but the product of 8 hours of your labour is your rent plus "profit."

I apologise about misspelling an irrelevant bourgeois thinker's name, because it shows the improper form of disrespect to them, and shows disrespect to you which I do not intend.

>most labour is done psychically
Marx discusses the school teacher as a proletarian. Marx also discusses logistics workers as proletarian. Value exists in a material form as a social relationship: moving shit around is material. Putting words in ears is material.

>can extract Capital without forcing it from us but coaxing it from us.
Marx discusses the "minimal" price for labour power in Capital. There is no minimum "socially acceptable" price for labour. I suspect that Han hasn't actually read Marx, or talked with people who have read Marx.

>Haven't read his work
I have however read Marx, and either your summary of Han, or Han is radically deficient. Like as in didn't read the fucking text. Like as in toy trot Oppression is Exploitation bad.

>You should read Kant
I'm talking about praxis being the only way to produce a verifiable knowledge in the world, and that by violence alone. Now I'm happy appealing to an ad bacculum but I'm fucking read the text. Suggesting that my analysis is rationalist when it is justified by collective violence is amusing.

>deep bibliography
If you lie in public about Marx you're going to be found out pretty quick smart as you've been, and possibly (let's not attribute your poor reading to Han), Han possibly has been.

[Anonymous No.21209143]

>>21208992
Again you’re situating the concept I’m discussing into a Marxist analysis. Nothing about what I said would suggest oppression isn’t following some cultural logic but Han suggest that this is done subconsciously. Han breaks with Marx because most of the Modern labor doesn’t happen on a material field—he’s not a materialist for this reason. It sounds like you’re assuming this entire field of knowledge *has* to operate in Marxian terms. Marx could never of foreseen the technologies we have and was bourgeois himself —he was totally Assmad at Proudhon. I honestly don’t know what economic situation Han is in or what class he falls into but I don’t care because his critique is useful. Marx’s theory of labor is not hard to understand because it’s the de facto way we understand economics in modernity. Even republicans discuss class in Marxian terms. Your analysis sounds rationalist because prior to this you’ve appealed to it that way, or it seemed you were. I’m confused on what exactly you think I’m lying about? I’m going to assume there’s some misunderstanding between us but it’s a stretch to say I’m lying somehow.

[Anonymous No.21209164]

Intelligent discussion on lit wtf is going on

[Anonymous No.21209169]

>>21209143
>Han breaks with Marx because most of the Modern labor doesn’t happen on a material field—he’s not a materialist for this reason.
I gave you two fucking counterexamples from Marx where the material is indicated to not be concrete objects, and you failed to read them.

TEACHING WHEN CONDUCTED FOR WAGE LABOUR TO SUBSIST IS PROLETARIAN PRODUCTIVE LABOUR POWER EXERTION.
LOGISTICS WHEN CONDUCTED FOR WAGE LABOUR TO SUBSIST IS PROLETARIAN PRODUCTIVE LABOURT POWER EXERTION.

Fucking read your first year tutorials. Then go read Anderson versus Thompson.

[Anonymous No.21209187]

>>21209164
>Intelligent discussion on lit wtf is going on
I got holidays and my new anti-[medical condition] medication has castrated my libido so I'm not 15 cm deep inside me missus. I'm too depressed to actually go to the reading groups where we talk about our workplace and its immediate composition and how we can use that to empower ourselves.

So instead I'm bullying underread US system undergraduates because the fake 3d tank game takes too long to load on the NBN.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa maxima 15 centimetre.

[Anonymous No.21209200]

>>21209187
my man. It makes a welcome change

[Anonymous No.21209216]

>>21209164
/pol/ is sleeping

[Anonymous No.21209223]

>>21209200
I mean I could outline curricula if you thought it would help; but, have you ever seen these cunts actually read anything? Did you notice how I tried to make Poverty of Theory and Arguments within English Marxism seem sexy and esoteric? I mean shit—the attempted defence of argument via forms above…

I dunno, every day I am eaten from the trash.

[Anonymous No.21209683]

>>21209187
something very "old school" about this post. been seeing it a lot more recently. real heads know. thanx for posting

[Anonymous No.21210102]

>>21209169
Again, Han doesn’t see Labor as being connected to productivity. The metric isn’t productivity/GDP it’s Big Data. I’m not trying to argue with you about Marx because I don’t care about Marx beyond his influence on more contemporary thinking. I know it’s sexy or whatever to pretend Marx is important but believe it or not nobody really gives a shit about him (Engels was a better writer anyways). I’m looking to discuss Han, and you haven’t read him so.

[Anonymous No.21210148]

Wake up, babe! New State Department blueprint for prescriptive psychic lobotomies just dropped.

[Anonymous No.21210213]

you seem like an educated guy OP but no way anything published by fucking Verso is 'fascist' or adjacent

[Anonymous No.21210220]

>>21210213
It's part of the role.

[Anonymous No.21210262]

>>21210102
>productivity and GDP are commensurable terms
God fuck me cunt do your undergraduate degree before you vomit cum laced shit in public.

[Anonymous No.21210303]

>>21210262
Lazy response

[Anonymous No.21210313]

>>21210213
Right wing thought owns all critiques of technology. People even say it’s reactionary, and that’s a good thing.

[Anonymous No.21210431]

>>21210303
Yeah as opposed to grossly misarticulating basic categories and ignoring prior work because your undergraduate thesis supervisor gave you a hand job in the library before Verso pulled his buttplug out?

Fuck me cunt. Grow balls and read the seminal texts.

[Anonymous No.21210502]

>>21209223
>>21210431
You're quite annoying but it's much better than being boring and annoying. The problem is no one is making these arguments around us, the people associating in any way with Marx or the like that reach any audience are retards that reverse-steelman their own position. Thus we are not apt to search out the real dialectic amidst the slop. But even so ignoring Marx for this vulgar Korean fellow should be where the buck stops. I'm reading Ingham's Nature of Money (references Arrighi, Schumpeter, etc), what do you think of the debt-focused, history of money approach and global political economy/geopolitics in general? Was already look at Perry Anderson, thanks.

[Anonymous No.21210521]

>>21210502
I honestly haven't caught up with my PE mates for five years, but they were all working Debt / Financialisation / Money-capital as capital. I think that a large part of the unrealisable commodity mass is shifted through money capital inside any cycle.

Look its valid work. I just don't think that in circumstances where the Soviet Union doesn't exist that its going to inform anything approaching Praxis.

>But the chinese party

If I believed they approached praxis would I really talk about them in a recorded format? And in any case are either of us liable to influence the Chinese party?

Which is why I constantly harp on about local composition studies: it builds better thinkers, it builds more militant workers, it builds communities of struggle. It is achievable here and now. My pants smell like stale thick semen.

[Anonymous No.21210545]

>>21210521
I kind of just find it quite interesting for itself. Hudson seems like he's been a member of the party for a while but he lives in the US...
You've given some stuff to chew on. Did you also recommend Storming Heaven by Wright? I just don't know this area much at all.

[Anonymous No.21210555]

>>21210545
I've recommended Steve Wright because of the usefulness of the Italian workerists to rebuilding locally in any domain. The long hard building shit of PO, not the years of lead heroic stuff.

Get friends. Read together. Spend 75% of your time analysing your workplaces, and 25% reading classics. Target reading the classics at 75% workplace specific stuff, 25% general. etc.

If you can't directly influence it within 6 months you probably shouldn't be studying it. So yeah, volume 1, not volume 3, for the first year at least ;)

I'm serious about the semen though.

[Anonymous No.21210601]

>>21210555
Get well soon!

[Anonymous No.21210612]

>>21210601
I too am a huge

[Anonymous No.21210697]

This is a real humbling thread that makes me realize the insignificance of the "knowledge" that I carry and the pathetic nature of the thoughts which inhabit my daily activities, as if I was never conscious. The worst part is due to how the substance of these posts seems inaccessible (i can follow along fairly nicely but I could never reformulate any of this properly) and necessitates rigorous involvement in academia. I don't know if it's possible to graduate from being a twelfth grade thinker, for lack of a better term, with my current status in life. And here I was thinking that reading Artur London and Vaclav Havel made one well informed lel.
So what do you sincerely recommend for ignorant retards?

[Anonymous No.21210701]

>>21207475
>What do we think about Byung Chul-Han /lit/?
I read The Burnout Society, and while there were a few insights, I personally think that they were surrounded by a lot of bullshit. Reading it really soured me on continental philosophy as a whole.

[Anonymous No.21210711]

>>21210697
correction: not twelfth grade, but twelfth rate. 12 being an haphazardly picked number signifying a low position on the totem pole of quality, healthy thinking.

[Anonymous No.21210717]

>>21209164
This pseud shit? Really?

[Anonymous No.21210868]

>>21207475
I have read only his Burnout Society, and excerpts from Psycho-Politics and the Agony of Eros.


I would say that his approach relies much more on the Hegelian tradition, with an Oriental (Zen-Taoist) syncretic twist to it.


His address of a post-disciplinary society is, for me, really well received due to a rather retrospective thinking of personal experiences, personal intuition, and familiarity with the post-structuralist tradition, the last being the only somewhat serious judgement that leads me to agree with the fact that his achievement-society is/seems like a logical conclusion to the disciplinary one.


Despite not being an academic with a well-developed and rigorous philosophical system, I still believe that his writing style is not only accessible, but also has developed a rather unique appeal. His pop-like academic writing style is, nevertheless, aided by serious readings of Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Deleuze,etc. Of course, the Deleuzian philosophical flamboyance, that can be observed as well in the genius labyrinthian systems of Heidegger and Hegel, are no match for Han's simple way of doing things. In a way, he takes thing for granted - sometimes he just makes a two-sentence interpretation which seems rather odd. I think it is due to him not focusing too much on said conceptual issues, and that he takes (inherits) the concepts (for granted, maybe) from the great thinkers (or, at least, from the general consensus surrounding the concept's interpretation).

[NOTE: I would also attribute this to the fact that he started out as a STEM student of metallurgy in S.Korea.]

However, maybe due to his Korean roots, Han awakens in a really "tea-ceremony-like-manner" (a form of Oriental tranquility) the vitality and call for the patience of meditation/contemplation which Nietzsche himself espoused. He is not a genius - he doesn't say anything new, nor does he seem like a laboratory philosopher, but he sure as hell sees the depth of the abyss, around which a lot of young "deterritorialized" and mentally-disturbed (least to say) people are dwindling.


Because he addresses this issue at heart (for many of us) and because he does this in a non-convoluted manner, I can say that he has a fair critique.

[Anonymous No.21211345]

>>21210868
Yes this is how I feel, the people in this thread are obviously over obsessed credentialists that think reading obscure books and tweeting the word “praxis” a hundred times a day make someone smart. Clear writing is important for a readership to form and absorb ideas outside of the bourgeois bubble of academia (imagine thinking Marx wasn’t bourgeois lol) and we see this time and time again. Mark Fisher comes to mind, even Marx himself knew how important it was to write the communist manifesto. Anyways Han Is very forward thinking and not reliving some glory days of communist thinking that we’re made redundant after the invention of the smart phone. We can only hope his writing lands on the desks of some powerful people.

[Anonymous No.21211354]

>>21210701
Can you say more? What felt like bullshit to you? Thanks for your genuine response : )

[Anonymous No.21211425]

>>21208767
But anti-humanist Marxist is so cold and cool and I hate humanism and agency can't even exist

[Anonymous No.21211432]

>>21207475
At what point do Workers learn and start to be changed by psychopolitics?

I was thinking either gym class or guidence counseling. Or do they just pic it up from culture in an ambient way?

[Anonymous No.21211444]

>>21211432
It’s not so much a process of pedagogy or through schools, it’s influence is felt by the technology we use so I would say that it starts when a child receives a smartphone. But both of your examples certainly help buttress it.

[Anonymous No.21211453]

Neoliberalism certainly is how power works now.

I think it changes the self to be depoliticized, it coops desires, it ends collective action

[Anonymous No.21211458]

>>21211453
Agreed, what’s this book you posted it looks interesting? Neoliberalism essentially solves class tensions and that’s why Marx is unimportant. If Marxists could galvanize people they would of already Witt the rising populism in the west.

[Anonymous No.21211460]

>>21211444
What's it called when a number of forces socialize individuals? Overdetermination? I imagine the 'dont give kids a cell phone' argument goes down an old granola pathway that can make those kids somehow even more self interested more Homo oeconomicus where they really on an individualism that is quickly c-opted by the idea of interesting career paths that fit their unique personalities

[Anonymous No.21211464]

>>21211458
Judith Butler's wife's book on the harm neoliberalism does to democracy

[Anonymous No.21211536]

>>21211460
I’m sure there are a number of terms to describe that process. I don’t think not giving your children cell phones simply fixes the problem because it’s way more systemic than that and your point is right that they’ll be socialized in other ways into understanding society. This technology is embedded into so many facets of our lives and short of communal living like the Amish I think in many ways it’s inevitable. Han says that the best way to break yourself of this is a process he calls “idiotism” and he remarks that both Rousseau and Nietzsche were skeptical of the power I’d statistics discovered in the enlightenment. To quote him “Statistics does not take into consideration ‘great active individuals’ but only the supernumeraries” when everything is made visible at once it enforced conformity. Idiots are idiosyncratic in nature and idiosyncrasies are inconvenient for accelerating conformist communication.

[Anonymous No.21211610]

>>21211464
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t skeptical of this book since Butler retconned herself into a “trans-academic” a few years ago so her spicy takes wouldn’t get her fired. There’s nothing more bourgeois than that but I’m sure after years of study her and her wife have a huge wealth of knowledge. Her best critique to me was pointing out how there shouldn’t be more women in prison for the sake of equality because equality isn’t a zero sum game of numbers. The part she didn’t say out loud is that she’s happy with corporate control being forcefully equalized to include all of society regardless of how well that work which is the obvious next step in her logic. I guess she’s cool with the investors of prisons being more female.

[Anonymous No.21211619]

>>21207475
>the right are the only people concerned with Big Data.
The right only cares about anything related to tech because the chinks and trannies who work in those companies are mean to them and won't let them yell NIGGERKIKEFAGGOT on twitter.

[Anonymous No.21211645]

>>21211610
Yeah she is a reformist liberal like Foucault probably. I see them all as understanding how neoliberalism operates a s a form of capitalism and you just have to put Marx back into their ideas at the end. (also society won't get better so idk it's just a fun thinking game at this point)

[Anonymous No.21211661]

>bing chilling

[Anonymous No.21211737]

>>21211453>>21211458

of course that's the brainlet take. Since it is only brainlets who believe neoliberalism exists. It turns out the atheist propaganda is that there are several atheist -isms, and that's since like 200 years ago. THe truth is that ther eis only one atheist society and it hasnt changed since the atheasit revolutions. And by the way atheist replaced the ejw god by society since the first day they took power. And guess what, roasties and NPCs take it even more seriously now than ever kek. Literally bugs are addicted to the latest bureaucrats' and merchants' babble broadcast on the bureaucratic-entertainment complex lol.

[Anonymous No.21211768]

>>21211737
You sound fully like a paranoid schizophrenic. Like thinking the religious cleavage of politics works that way shows you have an illness damaging your ability to think and communicate. You also have never went to school beyond perhaps grade 8 or 9 and are proud of this correct?

[Anonymous No.21211865]

>>21211737
I can’t really follow what you’re saying, but neoliberalism definitely exists. In case you’re not sure what that is it’s the latest form of capitalism that commodifies everything including ideas and we’re living in the cultural logic of that.

[Anonymous No.21211877]

>>21211354
While I think some of his claims about the "performance society" were insightful in that they identified some more recently developed social tendencies, but I'm not exactly convinced by his claim that we've gone from a "disciplinary society" to a this new one. I think many of the disciplinary functions are still in place today, especially when you take social stratification into account.
I also couldn't stand the chapters dedicated to literary analysis. This is just a personal opinion, but I really don't think there's anything to be gained from doing philosophy in such a way.

[Anonymous No.21211950]

>>21211877
Thanks for your response. I haven’t read The Burnout Society yet but I plan to. From my reading of Han I don’t think what he’s saying is that the mechanisms of Disciplinary society no longer exist (they certainly do) but that protecting power no longer takes that form. The powerful remain that way not due to an iron hand and authoritarian will but by gaining public acceptance. It’s not about destroying CEOs as much as it is about making them women. Certainly the state will use violence when it feels necessary and anyone can see that but power isn’t necessarily serviced from that with the technical tools capitalism has to manage us in other ways. Foucault started to see this near the end of his life with his analysis of the Administrative State.

[Anonymous No.21212113]

>>21211619
Stupid take. Right wing people have children and they’re worried about the effects the internet is having on then. Who do you think the audience was for those articles that came out around the Facebook whistleblower? The only people interested in seriously challenging this power are the right. I’ll change my mind when the left begins to mount any serious criticism of this but I haven’t seen it yet.

[Anonymous No.21212481]

>>21207501
Marx has been "eclipsed" a long while ago, and its only twitter leftist that still cling to Marx being infallible
All reasonable scholars and Marxist philosophers agree that Marx made up a bunch of shit, that his methods are unscientific, that he doesn't understand economics outside of capitalism, and that his interpretations of history are ahistorical and wrong
Marx is on the same level as Freud, a lot of ideas remain and his contribution is felt, but overall he's not to be taken seriously and studying Marx means studying his books and not the world though his works
>>21207475
He was popular in Germany some 10 years ago, imo he is good in pinpointing everything that we had before and have lost with the introduction of neoliberalism. Its interesting since him being a migrant into Germany doesn't know or can feel old Europe, but still can articulate the americanisation of Europe. For that he reminds me of Baudrillard a lot
Overall id recommend him (idk I just read this book, and its really short too afair)

[Anonymous No.21212561]

>>21212481
Thanks basedbro. I agree with all of your sentiments.

[Anonymous No.21213702]

>>21207475
>What do we think about Byung Chul-Han /lit/?
A sloppy thinker through and through. And one of the major points in that book, i.e. that biopolitics isn't relevant anymore, was empirically disproved by Covid. Read a real Italian fascist instead, read Agamben.

[Anonymous No.21213893]

>>21213702
I am interested in Agamben however I would point out that all of the social pressure that came from Covid administrators was sent to us straight from our smartphones which is something Foucault could never have even dreamed. I don’t believe he says BioPolitics aren’t happening but that control is coerced through psychopolitics. Covid was a war waged on the psychic level where consensus was fought over—the specifics of which played out on the efficaciousness of the vaccines, the origin of the virus and so on. The censorship imposed was done entirely online. Psychopolitics were essential in getting the public to go along with the plan. It was actually the first time that neoliberal order was seriously challenged in that way.

[Anonymous No.21214108]

>>21213893
Social Control is my new favourite topic.

but no one really knows how it works

[Anonymous No.21214147]

>>21214108
Say more about this bitch and stop being so mysterious. I know who Durkheim was but what’s this book about?

[Anonymous No.21214272]

>>21214147
its the start of thinking about things happening in a society as a result of something bigger than individual choices. Basically the religion people have leads to different suicide rates.

hes like the first dedicated Sociologist and all sociology 101 students will read about him.

idk. imo him and the ideas that come out of this diminish any agency anyone has, and I just think that no one has agency so its fun to guess why people do what they do.

[Anonymous No.21214295]

>>21214272
I read him in sociology 101 and remember him being representative of one of four schools of sociological thought (I think they called it structuralism or maybe functionalism or something like that).

[Anonymous No.21214560]

>>21214108
Anyone who actually discovered how social control would work would keep it secret to either:
1) Ensure their continued social control
2) Abolish existing social control
3) Institute their own social control
4) Abolish the possibility of social control.

The slippage of bullshit post-structuralists towards "data is value" is trite because this is already present in classical marxism and because, ffs, social control is expressed historically in classical marxism. They're reacting to structuralist marxism where control is expressed schematically.

I hate to keep bringing it back to Althusser but if you're a post-structuralist and not reviewing say MYSTERY FILMS you should have read Althusser and Poulantzas.

[Anonymous No.21214601]

>>21214560
The idea of social control is entirely socially constituted though, your tin foil conspiracy hat is showing because you reduce the world to forms of control and resistance which is the most reductionist take. That’s only the dichotomy that was formed to appeal to the property which has failed for over 200 years. Recognizing a more complex structure at work where technology interacts with our subconscious is a more holistic way to view the world rather than through irrelevant faggots like Marx and Althusser. Sorry to tell you you did all that reading for nothing cupcake!

[Anonymous No.21214693]

>>21214601
Your shitpost is incoherent.

You're so illiterate you are unable to read the tentative:
>who actually discovered…would

>subconscious
Please see your primary care physician and get a consult to your psychiatrist.

[Anonymous No.21214713]

>>21214693
Anal cream is on sale right now, 2 for 1 on EBay. You need that to stop being so Assmad. Maybe you can read Marxs thoughts on anal sex to tell you how you’re supposed to think about it.

[Anonymous No.21214932]

>>21212481
NTA but could clarify
>made up a bunch of shit, that his methods are unscientific, that he doesn't understand economics outside of capitalism, and that his interpretations of history are ahistorical and wrong

From my perspective(from video essays, talking and reading about marx, i havent actually read anything other than manifesto) a lot of his ideas seem correct and to apply to modern times. For example: fetishism, surplus value, alienation, crisis of the capitalist system, materialist conception of reality.

Im interested in what you think Marx was wrong about anon, im not an expert nor a leftist twitter troll, im genuinely curious about this, and my knowledge is quite limited.

[Anonymous No.21214952]

>>21214932
could you clarify*

[Anonymous No.21214983]

>>21214932
None of those ideas are special to Marx. Houellebecq is better at describing alienation that Marx.

[Anonymous No.21215011]

>>21214983
I know the class aspect of all the concepts that I mentioned are originated by marx, at least the socialist formulation of them. Could you tell me about these thinkers, I am interested and would like to be more knowledgeable about them. Also can you give book reccs for the writers who originated these ideas, id still like to think that marxes ideas were more prevalent for a reason, but i dont know. red pill my ignorant ass

[Anonymous No.21215073]

>>21215011
Marx wasn’t the first Communist just the most famous. Materialism existed before him— I would encourage you to read Poudhon if you’re really interested in that period but regardless those ideas are no longer relevant.

[Anonymous No.21215101]

>>21215073
Marx was a communist and Proudhon an anarchism, there is quite a difference. Im doubting your knowledge of what communism is now.
>Materialism existed before him
its true. but the socialist materialist historical philosophy is what he brought to the table

>those ideas are no longer relevant.
why arent they? class struggle, fetishism, alienation and class consciousness are ideas that are valid to this day, why wouldnt you want to read such an important thinker that influenced so much of modernity? Houllebecq seems interesting but i still think theres value in marxs ideas.

Now im asking, why do you think that his ideas are not relevant today? And if so, what ideas are relevant?

[Anonymous No.21215149]

>>21215101
an anarchist*

[Anonymous No.21215195]

>>21215101
Yes I know Proudhon was an Anarchist but the two men were writing to each other in their works. There are some valuable insights Marx had but the main part of his work hinges on class tensions and class consciousness like you mentioned. Neoliberalism solves class tensions by packaging itself a certain way (this has been discussed in Hans work in this thread). The alienation Marx described was alienation from labor for the proletariat class not the kind of alienation we feel now with the disintegration of social bonds through the commodification of everything (the neoliberal regime has mutated from the capitalism Marx was speaking about). Houellebecq is not a theorist but his fiction captures intellectual and emotional atomization as a process influenced by forces that developed after Marx like modern technology and Feminism.

[Anonymous No.21215202]

>>21215195
>neoliberalism solves class tensions
What's profit, cunt?

>The alienation Marx described
was lack of control over the means and tools of production, and lack of control over the results of their labour.

You are another boring version of a Marcuse addict, or for that matter Empirio-criticism.

[Anonymous No.21215219]

>>21215202
Marcuse was a CIA glownigger and you’re a Marxoid faggot. The mere existence of profit is not proof of class tensions. Even the primitive communist societies Marx himself talked about at length has commodity trading and monetary systems. MUH PROFIT. Oh no some people have money!’

>lack of control over the means of production
That’s exactly what I described cunt, Marx described alienation from Labor. Learn to read before you start typing. That type of alienation has nothing to do with atomization. Get raped.

[Anonymous No.21215264]

>>21211458
> Neoliberalism essentially solves class tensions and that’s why Marx is unimportant

It has not solved solved class tensions, in fact since the 70s, class tensions have gotten worse. The crisis of keynesian economics has caused stagnation and instability in most capitalist countries. If you compare the relative stability of keynesian capitalism in the post war boom(1945-1960s) to the rising tech cost, oil crisis and neoliberal implementation of economics around the 70s, youll see that neoliberal economics exchanged things like healthcare and privatized previous public structures(hospitals,schools,etc.) that could otherwise be used for longterm economic development, and instead what was developed under neoliberalism was supply side economics, which, by definition, frustrate aggregate demand and cause less spending of the working class and less economic activity. An obvious example was the housing crisis of 2008, where people werent buying house because the spending power was too little, people couldnt afford them, even though there was a large percentage of potential buyers(people who were renting, who didnt own property, etc.) and a large supply. Neoliberalism has caused a strain in purchasing power and increasing instability in the capitalist system. The neoliberal organization is not stable in the long run, although it brings benefits in the short term. It overproduces, yet lessens the purchasing power by lowering wages and privatizing. You are partially correct anon.

> and that’s why Marx is unimportant. If Marxists could galvanize people they would of already Witt the rising populism in the west.

Marx is most definetely not non-important. His ideas contributed to modern union movements and working class movements that are probably one of the reasons your mom has healthcare and doesnt work 12 hours a day seven days a week, things that were commonplace in certain capitalist countries in Europe in the 1860s-1920s. His ideas contributed massively to the fighting for rights such as healthcare, vacations and higher pay. It seems like plain ignorance to say he is in unimportant, maybe not in the modern neoliberal society because of capitalisms supposed win against socialism, but in the rights of past workers in their fight for their rights. And it seems plainly ignorant to not see that ideas like alienation and fetishism are prevalent in modern society, ideas which marx developed and which function specifically in a capitalist system, and which he described in the capitalist system

[Anonymous No.21215297]

>>21215195
> alienation Marx described was alienation from labor for the proletariat class not the kind of alienation we feel now with the disintegration of social bonds through the commodification of everything (the neoliberal regime has mutated from the capitalism Marx was speaking about)

They are both very similar types of alienation, Hans way of describing it just applies to a new form of hyper-technological capitalism in which the way of controlling, profiting and supplying a product are different. Both types of alienations result from the commodification of everything, which is has ALWAYS happened in capitalism, believe it or not. Selling and buying and looking for something to profit of of leads to, in a way the commodification of most things, abstract and concrete. Neoliberalism and Marxs capitalism are very similar, because they both are capitalist systems that place very little restrictions in bourgeosie power. Hans interpretation of it is an interpretation of capitalist alientation in a hyper technological capitalist system, and marxs in a still emerging laisez faire capitalism. But they both share the property of people being alienated from the incresingly commodifying capitalism and the issues it has on the human psyche. Hans talks about a capitalism where the big corps control a large part of ourselves and the commodity exchange is data to entertainment/internet use, where big corpos profit of our data therefore having massive power potentially over what we could do. Marxs interpretation of capitalism still exists in neoliberal capitalism, its just slightly less noticeble, but workers themselves are still very far apart from their products of labor in modern neoliberal society. Marxs alienation and Hans, arent mutually exclusive, they exist continuosly in modern neoliberal society

[Anonymous No.21215300]

>>21215264
If you define “class tensions” simply as a pooling of Capital at the top then sure. But that is NOT what Marx talked about. Marx talked about real tensions in late capitalism and the stress test of Covid for example proves the peoples love of neoliberal conditions. Nobody wants this to change, they just want more female CEOs. There is absolutely no revolutionary potential in the west and the so-called Left is dead. It’s why they prattle on endlessly about pet political projects around identity that excites nobody. Capital has COMPLETELY won. It’s why you’re here on 4chan speaking about it now. Recognizing that neoliberal policy has hallowed out public institutions doesn’t mean shit except that you have eyes. Marx has been a joke for the last 100 years —you mentioned the 70’s. The Frankfurt School did nothing but distance themselves from him and especially post Soviet Union nobody gives a fuck about Marx. More people are willing to follow Alex Jones than fucking Marx lmaaooo

[Anonymous No.21215304]

>>21208859
you talking about Marx right?

[Anonymous No.21215306]

>>21215219
Wow mate. I like how you contradict yourself four times in two sentences.

>>21215300
>Marx talked about real tensions in late capitalism
Which is unusual because "late capitalism" as a term doesn't develop until the 1950s really in response to the failure of the "immanence" of imperialism thesis within Leninism.

Try reading things other than encyclopaedia.

[Anonymous No.21215307]

>>21215297
It’s “Han”. It doesn’t matter if workers are far from what they produce because we produce digital data. If I OWNED all of my emails it wouldn’t matter. It’s all administrative work, therefore Marxist points about this are null. Frankly you don’t need Marx to have some kind of insight into these things—his work is entirely redundant.

[Anonymous No.21215312]

>>21215306
>mate
I stopped reading right there, in the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.21215360]

>>21215300
>If you define “class tensions” simply as a pooling of Capital at the top then sure.

Class tensions occur from the loss of power of the working people. Capitalism naturally concentrates wealth at the top, the point i was making was the privatization and stagnating wages lead to tensions, not that accumulation of wealth(which capitalism always does) signifies the rising of these tensions. The pooling of wealth is a signifier of certain specific type of class tension, but that not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the tensions neoliberalism has created and its supposed "stability". What I was trying to say in my post was that loss of aggregate demand meant(from stagnating wages and privatization) result in class instability. If you want to talk about why this "pooling at the top" is itself unstable thats another converstation. But denying saying that neoliberalism has solved class tensions when it only brought back the ones from 100 years ago is ignorant.

>Marx talked about real tensions in late capitalism and the stress test of Covid for example proves the peoples love of neoliberal conditions

Love is most definitely not the word here. If people loved neoliberal capitalism there wouldnt a rising rate of unionizing, quitting of jobs and strikes during the pandemic. To think that most people have "a strong feeling of affection and concern toward neoliberal capitalism" is delusional. If so alienation would not exist and I wouldnt be talking to you about this right now.

>Marx has been a joke for the last 100 years —you mentioned the 70’s. The Frankfurt School did nothing but distance themselves from him and especially post Soviet Union nobody gives a fuck about Marx. More people are willing to follow Alex Jones than fucking Marx lmao

You seem to be arguing in bad faith here but ill ignore it and try to respond to you full. The Frankfurt school used marxism, they were marxsist and analysed psychology/emotions from a marxist perspective. Also if you researched slighly on why the collapse of the soviet union you wouldnt be saying this. Russia post soviet union is capitalist and capitalist countries do not follow marxism in any fuckin way.

>Nobody wants this to change, they just want more female CEOs. There is absolutely no revolutionary potential in the west and the so-called Left is dead. It’s why they prattle on endlessly about pet political projects around identity that excites nobody. Capital has COMPLETELY won

Strange argument considering that you're arguing against someone who wants change. Modern neoliberalism has cause ever growing distance and alienation between humans thanks to advancing technologies and the worsening of the conditions. There is a concept called "urban decadence" that is evidence of the worsening conditions of modern capitalism, not to mention the stagnating wages and privitazation, which are proof enough of loss of worker power abd general signs of an unhappy working class.

[Anonymous No.21215379]

>>21215300
>Marx has been a joke for the last 100 years
This is an idiotic statement. Considering the Soviet Union and socialism were the biggest threats to capitalism and capitalist countries tried their best to fuck over the Soviet Union and destroy socialism. If it was such a joke, the US and the western bloc countries woulve paid no mind to the USSR. Also marx has influenced important thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, Sartre and so many more. To say he is a joke shows your ignorance to how much he has influenced the entire world. I don't particularly agree with everything he has said, but to say that he's a joke? it would undermine a whole series of important thinkers that you would'nt seem to know of. then again it seems you're aguing in bad faith.

[Anonymous No.21215488]

>>21215379
>then again it seems you're aguing in bad faith.
This is 4chan. Personally I ague at home under medical supervision.

[Anonymous No.21215593]

so what's on the other side of the paper bag boys? is sociability only a factory or does it serve a higher purpose? to some a perfect synthesis of equity might seem a boring prospect. where would your sense of self be without these raging conflicts? mayhaps the accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth only serves that pleasure the bottom rung get from liquidating it.

[Anonymous No.21215597]

>>21207588
Looks like you know how to seethe

[Anonymous No.21215600]

>>21215593
Have you ever tried fucking a fellow shift worker behind a KFC at 2.45 am in the morning before shift? I'm not talking heterosexually.

I'll show you some biopolitics, now sniff this amyl.

[Anonymous No.21215677]

>>21215600
wtf i love Agamben now!

[Anonymous No.21216199]

>>21215307
>It doesn’t matter if workers are far from what they produce because we produce digital data. If I OWNED all of my emails it wouldn’t matter

It doesn't matter to you perhaps, but to big tech companies like google data is their way of profiting on data that they sell to 3rd parties.There is a great of bakstage information that gets stored These companies use sociometric analysis to use these data for future profit and to keep people on screen. The data is used to prod, use and modify us. Your lack of knowledge of this simple fact, and how alientation relates to the fact of us being atomized in ever growing internet landscape shows that Marx's works are important to understand alienation from a sociological perspective in the capitalist system. The new form of hyper technological capitalism in which bit tech companies control people using this data stored in the backstage just proves that under modern capitalism there exists new emerging forms of social control different from the ones of Marx's time, but quite similar. This new type of alienation resulting from atomization is not about you owning data, its about you feeling like a cog in a machine which is constantly turning with your data but you couldnt be further removed from it, yet you are being influenced by this data in ways we could not have imagine 30 years ago. Your argumentation reaches conclusions out of 1 premise, which marx seems to have described in full the original idea, and which idea seems to apply today more than ever considering that Hans description of alienation and Marx's exist both today in modern neoliberal society. It is delusional to say that there is not alienation considering the definition of alienation is defines the procceses of big tech(which is capitalist) profiting off of our data. Even then, this system of profiting, selling and buying occurs in a specific manner in a capitalist system, which Marx was one of first to critically describe. There are new forms of profiting resulting from hypertechnological capitalism, new forms of controlling the population as well. Marx described alienation in a precise manner from a sociological perspective, and organized a criticism of capitalism which was much needed in a times of economic and social turmoil as the 1860s-1920s. In conclusion there are new forms of alienation and also worker alienation from the product they produce. They both exist at the same time. Secondly, Marx was important for the development of working class movements, important thinkers and criticism of capitalism. Third of all, stop fuckin shilling for fucking capitalism, big tech and big data are capitalist and they want to profit off of controlling you and me. We arent that much different considering that we live in a society where things have been getting shittier day by day. Shilling for capital and sucking Bezos and Zuck and big corpo cock isnt helping anyone other than people with billions of dollars who dont give even 1 shit ya.

[Anonymous No.21216258]

>>21207475
>Narrative=good
>Rituals=good
>the Other=good
>religion=good

>digital=bad
>big data=bad
>narcissism=bad
>dataism=bad

Simple as

[Anonymous No.21216281]

>>21216199
Use paragraphs. Topic sentences. And the red thread.

[Anonymous No.21216286]

>>21216199
So what is your solution faggot? Even your daddy Chul Han don't have any

[Anonymous No.21216311]

>>21216286
I exceeded the character limit

[Anonymous No.21216316]

>>21216311
Of your brain or what brainlet? Just make separate post, you imbecile

[Anonymous No.21216333]

>>21216316
I don't wanna spend 3 hours writing a fucking 4chan post retard. This shit doesnt deserve a whole fucking academic essay to get my point across.

[Anonymous No.21216351]

>>21216333
Then why the fuck you even make this thread? If you wanted to keep your ideas for yourself you could just write another gigantic piece of shit in your computer that no one will ever read

[Anonymous No.21216355]

>>21216333
Without paragraphs nobody reads you.

[Anonymous No.21216374]

>>21216355
>It doesn’t matter if workers are far from what they produce because we produce digital data. If I OWNED all of my emails it wouldn’t matte

It doesn't matter to you perhaps, but to big tech companies like google data is their way of profiting on data that they sell to 3rd parties.There is a great of backstage information that gets stored These companies use sociometric analysis to use these data for future profit and to keep people on screen. The data is used to prod, use and modify us. Your lack of knowledge of this simple fact, and how alienation relates to the fact of us being atomized in ever growing internet landscape shows that Marx's works are important to understand alienation from a sociological perspective in the capitalist system. The new form of hyper technological capitalism in which bit tech companies control people using this data stored in the backstage just proves that under modern capitalism there exists new emerging forms of social control different from the ones of Marx's time, but quite similar.

This new type of alienation resulting from atomization is not about you owning data, its about you feeling like a cog in a machine which is constantly turning with your data but you couldnt be further removed from it, yet you are being influenced by this data in ways we could not have imagine 30 years ago. Your argumentation reaches conclusions out of 1 premise, which marx seems to have described in full the original idea, and which idea seems to apply today more than ever considering that Hans description of alienation and Marx's exist both today in modern neoliberal society. It is delusional to say that there is not alienation considering the definition of alienation is defines the procceses of big tech(which is capitalist) profiting off of our data. Even then, this system of profiting, selling and buying occurs in a specific manner in a capitalist system, which Marx was one of first to critically describe.

There are new forms of profiting resulting from hypertechnological capitalism, new forms of controlling the population as well. Marx described alienation in a precise manner from a sociological perspective, and organized a criticism of capitalism which was much needed in a times of economic and social turmoil as the 1860s-1920s. In conclusion there are new forms of alienation and also worker alienation from the product they produce. They both exist at the same time. Secondly, Marx was important for the development of working class movements, important thinkers and criticism of capitalism. Third of all, stop fuckin shilling for fucking capitalism, big tech and big data are capitalist and they want to profit off of controlling you and me. We arent that much different considering that we live in a society where things have been getting shittier day by day. Shilling for capital and sucking Bezos and Zuck and big corpo cock isnt helping anyone other than people with billions of dollars who dont give even 1 shit ya.

[Anonymous No.21216381]

>>21216355
>>21216351


My bad, thought it was understandable without paragraphs, im retarded.

[Anonymous No.21216396]

>>21216374
No one reads this shit the first time you posted it, no one will read it now.
Yes yes, we understand that you got all excited after reading a few Chul Han books but we already know the shit he's talking about, lurk more faggot

>>21216381
>I'm retarded
Exactly

[Anonymous No.21216410]

>>21216396
I read it. It is slightly coherent but restates its central point that Han's conception of alienation is a Marxian one of the value form, but differs in that the use-value of the commodity is a newly discovered one. This is restated twice per paragraph over three paragraphs. I'm not sure its the most coherent way to present the argument; and, it differs from prior arguments in favour of Han which claimed that Han produced something unique which exceeded Marx's categories. Here, then, there is a retreat to Marx's categories.

[Anonymous No.21216427]

>>21216311
Socialism retard. Go fight for better wages and a better job. And before you say
>muh socialism bad, killed 100 million people

You are retarded and if we were to equate socialism to deaths under a certain country, if we included capitalism the deaths would be in the billions if we went by that metric

Socialism, if fought for democratically and applied democratically could better the conditions of the working class and can begin to solve certain problems that are specific to a capitalist mode of production.

Now in praxis the socialism im taking about achieving is very difficult, and but reorganizing the mode of production is the first step in solving the problems that are society is facing, not alleviating them, which capitalism can only do. To achieve better conditions for the working people and it is necessary to understand how capitalism works and who it serves. It serves rich people, not people like you or me, not your neighbour John down the street, it serves the company owners and stockholders that get rich without moving a finger. They dont give a shit if you or me die as long as their profits are are up.

Recognizing that this system is fucked and its caused irreperable damage is the first step. Secondly is to read on socialist theory without any fucking retarded bias. Read Althusser or Bourdieu. Read marx and think about him critically, not 99 percents of retards that believe everything he says. Think on your own. Socialism is just a mode of economic production, but it could potentially solve a lot of our issues by organizing a concise response to the alienation and suffering caused by the taking of surplus value and alienation. Not to mention eco socialism is a good response to the incipient climate crisis, that green socialism couldnt even fathom, sorry it cant solve.

If you want to talk more about this im down, but even talking critically about capitalism brings so many fucking shills who love big capital to the convo. Im down to argue against anyone that opposes my position or has any counter arguments. So go ahead.

[Anonymous No.21216439]

>>21216396
Dont fucking reply then, if youre just gonna not read it retard.
Im not fuckin excited, im actually apathetic to a certain extant about his books. I think he brings interesting ideas to the table, but not particularly something world changing.

[Anonymous No.21216455]

>>21216410
> but differs in that the use-value of the commodity is a newly discovered one.
Im trying to say that new forms of alienation have emerged from a new hyper technological internet and information centric capitalist system. This, does not contradict or magically make other forms of alienation dissapear though. The alienation that Marx describes is not mutually exclusive with Han's description.

They are both very similar in that they describe the atomization of the person as a result of the distance they feel between the thing they produced.

[Anonymous No.21216472]

>>21216455
>They are both very similar in that they describe the atomization of the person as a result of the distance they feel between the thing they produced.
Marx's alienation isn't that.

Marx's alienation is the gap between C' and C being comprised of the difference between lp's productivity and its cost as socially enforced by ownership over means and tools of production.

Marx's alienation isn't that I am atomised.

Marx's alienation is that I do not own the large warehouse where I move things about, and therefore do not control the large warehouse where I move things about, and therefore I provide 14 hours of work for 7 hours of pay. That's Marx's alienation: that I am prevented by state power and the illusion of freedom in commodity exchange from hanging the foreman with the guts of the administrator and moving things about freely.

Your claims about Han's contributions are undermined either by Han having grossly misrepresented Marx; or, by you misrepresenting Han and Marx.

I stated this up-thread and you waffled.

I mean I can make Kant agree with my views on raping cats merely by redefining the categorical imperative. As Kant said, the categorical imperative is to _RAPE CATS_.

[Anonymous No.21216565]

>>21216472
>Marx's alienation isn't that.
>Marx's alienation is the gap between C' and C being comprised of the difference between lp's productivity and its cost as socially enforced by ownership over means and tools of production.

They are both definitions of alienation. Alienation is the consquence of the mechanization of labor and its estrangement that this causes the person in society.
Alienation as a philosophical concept is what i described, not an economic one. They both are different ways to say the same thing

Marx's alienation isn't that I am atomised.

>Marx's alienation isn't that I am atomised.
>Marx's alienation is that I do not own the large warehouse where I move things about, and therefore do not control the large warehouse where I move things about, and therefore I provide 14 hours of work for 7 hours of pay, That's Marx's alienation: that I am prevented by state power and the illusion of freedom in commodity exchange from hanging the foreman with the guts of the administrator and moving things about freely.

I dont think you are understand that alienation is a philosophical concept as well, and is the related to the maximum extraction of surplus value of the worker.

>Your claims about Han's contributions are undermined either by Han having grossly misrepresented Marx; or, by you misrepresenting Han and Marx.

Im not an expert on Han nor do i pretend to be. My reading of him was brief and more like a skimming. If you could enlighten me on this topic i would appreciate it.

>I stated this up-thread and you waffled.
>I mean I can make Kant agree with my views on raping cats merely by redefining the categorical imperative, As Kant said, the categorical imperative is to _RAPE CATS_.

I partially disagree with you. that why I answered. I dont know why you are talking about Kant here. He is a little bit removed from the concept of alienation and what we're talking about no?

[Anonymous No.21216577]

>>21216565
The key concept in alienation is that the conditions of the worker are alien to him. What i described doesnt contradict what you said, in fact it complements it.

[Anonymous No.21216582]

>>21216565
>>21216577
Glad to see that you both rape cats.

[Anonymous No.21216591]

>>21216582
raping cats will never be a catergorical imperative. nor is the categorical imperative related to marxs conception of alienation.

[Anonymous No.21216605]

>>21216591
Marx's concept of alienation isn't psychiatric and conflating Han to Marx is identical to me claiming that raping cats is the categorical imperative.

[Anonymous No.21216614]

>>21216605
It isnt psychiatric, and it can be interpreted in different ways. The main one is " Alienation is the consquence of the mechanization of labor and its estrangement that this causes the person in society."

>conflating Han to Marx is identical to me claiming that raping cats is the categorical imperative.

I am not conflating marx to Han. Han is certainly a more apolitical writer while marx was a socialist. Im just pointing out the similitude beteween their formulation of alienation and how these formulations dont contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.21216621]

>>21216605
Marx theory of alienation isnt purely an economical concept. It has psychological effects on the worker being distanced from his labor. I reccommend you brush up on what Marx's definition of alienation actually is

[Anonymous No.21216626]

>>21216614
You're conflating a very specific use of alienation which contradicts your use to your own definition, Han. Also you should be writing your first year curriculum.

[Anonymous No.21216665]

>>21216626
Marx's alienation is a product of the estrangement of the worker caused by the extraction of surplus value. This also causes estrangement for the worker psychologically. From what I know of Han, i pointed out some similarities between a certain concept of marx and of Han.

My main point to which i was replying to >>21215297 was that alienation exists in the digital age, just in a different form than what Marx described, which you would know if you were following the thread. Im trying to correct certain ideas of what some anon think of neoliberalism and its effects. If I conflated these two concepts, well I apologize, but I hope I got my point accross that alienation does exist in modern capitalist society and it is something that should change.

>Also you should be writing your first year curriculum.

I dont go to college for lit/philosophy/history, im a stem student wishing to be enlighthened about certain philosophical concepts.

[Anonymous No.21216679]

>>21216626

but i do understand what you are saying, and i completely agree that Hans concept is different i just thought i should point out some similitudes

[Anonymous No.21216695]

>>21216665
Conflation is really very poor form. It is like failing to denote the units in engineering. And results in massive fuck-ups for a very similar reason.

If you're going to *argue* that Marx's alienation is psychiatric then you need to advance that argument with demonstration. If you're going to argue that Han and Marx's alienation are adequately identical and both are psychiatric you can't simply assert.

[Anonymous No.21216731]

>>21215360
You retards see every economic hiccup as some kind of class revolution because it’s what you want to see. People are quitting because of Covid and because they want better jobs not because they have some Marxist vision of the future LMAOOOOO. Read that again, they’re quitting because they want a different, more capitalist job. That’s part of the normal boom bust cycle of capitalism and everyone form the Fed on down understands this especially while they raise interest rates. Alienation exists because of the absence of religion, nationalism, or any kind of socially constituted identity as per Nietzsche not because of some grand unified vision or loss thereof. Your psychological makeup is literally made how it is because there’s no religion in secular society and your temperament would of suited a catholic zealot only 300 years ago.

>>21215379
The influence Marx had on most id these thinkers was that they constantly say around point holes in Marxist theory. Foucault for example described how Marx was wrong about control societies. That was his entire body of work — this is like saying Zizek is a Marxist when he calls himself a Marxist even though he’s a Hegelian (hint hint people do it because they think it’s cool not because they believe in it). Marxist are literally crying because they’re no longer the coolest kids on the block and that’s it.

[Anonymous No.21216742]

>>21216695.


>If you're going to *argue* that Marx's alienation is psychiatric then you need to advance that argument with demonstration.

And you are advancing your arguments with demonstrations? Spare me evidence talk, the only evidence you gave was a partially incorrect definition of alienation.

Alienation is psychological. According to Marx's Theory of Alienation, the worker is estranged from the product they produce. In capitalism the worker is estranged from the labor and feels empty. We are cogs in the labor machine, alienated from what we produce, which is the product, which the capitalist extracts surplus value from.

> If you're going to argue that Han and Marx's alienation are adequately identical and both are psychiatric you can't simply assert.

Im not arguing that they are identical, they are not identical they are different. They share some similitude, but i pointed them out contextually trying to defend my argument that data can be extracted and can cause alienation. I am indeed conflating the two to some extent, and i take the blame for that.

[Anonymous No.21216749]

>>21216199
You don’t understand Big Data at all. The swelling of administrative roles and the data they produce is not what Han is describing. Metadata of demography is essentially what’s worth money and the emails of a worker at IHOP HQ are totally worthless. This completely BTFOs the idea of labor alienation and ownership of the means of production because as Han points out we already own our own bodies and minds and there is no produced finalized product for us to own. Most workers (including myself) work from home every single day and love it—Marx was responding to the industrial revolution and hence he is no longer interesting. By the way this is the same reason that your cucked college degree is so expensive (administrative costs) and why I own two houses. But just keep living in delusion lol.

[Anonymous No.21216750]

>>21216742
I've cited texts. You've sited your position: you rape cats.

[Anonymous No.21216763]

>>21216621
*citation needed

[Anonymous No.21216777]

>>21216742
Marx’s theory of alienation is material only because he’s a materialist. He never mentions psychology because it didn’t exist in his time. Neoliberalism solves all class tensions.

[Anonymous No.21216791]

>>21216749
Just because you're a comfy work from home guy, doesnt mean that you arent affected nor a lot of people arent affected by the consequences of the capitalist system. You can get fucked by the market, by the companies, by an economic downturn or by lack of buyers,etc. That is the equivalent of saying that you dont see or know about something it doesnt exist. Alienation of workers exists, even though you might not see it piled up in your room.

> Most workers (including myself) work from home every single day and love it—Marx was responding to the industrial revolution and hence he is no longer interesting.

You love it because you getting paid extremely well. Meanwhile most workers are getting paid shit and their living conditions are worsening. Marx was responding to the capitalist system as a whole, not just the industrial revolution. He defined and thoroughly criticized the system and added his own thoughts. Im not saying hes perfect, im saying you are misrepresenting his ideas

[Anonymous No.21216808]

>>21216750
Retard,

In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Marx describes 4 types of alienation: alienation from their product, alienation from the act of production, alienation from their human nature/essence and alienation from other workers.

In the philosophical manuscripts Marx describes each of these in a different manner than you have. I still think your definition is partially correct but its still incomplete. Marx talked about alienation as both as a concept affecting our individuality and human nature and an economical concept. That is the reason he is not just an economist.

[Anonymous No.21216815]

>>21216808
All the definitions i mentioned coincide with my definition of alienation, which is the estrangement of the indiviudal. There are different types though, and it a plain and simple concept.

[Anonymous No.21216821]

>>21216815
is'nt a plain and simple concept*

[Anonymous No.21216823]

>>21216791
I actually agree with you that conditions are getting worse and there should be policy put in place to help this occur less. However the idea that socialism will do this is dumb and that is not what we need at all. I won’t be fucked by the market because I have a locked in interest rate that I got during 2021, the way people get fucked by the market is by over leveraging their money like they did in 2008. Sure I think the banks shouldn’t of been predatory lending but ultimately people took out those loans and got underwater that should never have qualified (nuggets and rednecks with shut credit and no savings). I could still pay both my mortgages working as a waiter but it would suck and then all I need to do is wait two years for the market to pick back up. I believe in student debt relief, closing of the border, and paid leave for pregnant women. Essentially the Chinese system which if you haven’t noticed is producing a thriving middle class. The mere fact that things are getting worse for workers I would argue are a result of socially constituted problems more than economic problems. I think you like dwelling in evolving tensions because you believe we’re in late capitalism and the proletariat are about to organize but there is no organizing under the Idpol regime (most likely funded by the CIA) which is not a class antagonism. Those issues are undeniably more tense and visible than any class issue could ever be for a modern worker. Your references for everything are outdated—tell me Mr. Marx do you think the borders should remain open and if so how will we organize Mexico into class construction alongside the US?

[Anonymous No.21216896]

>>21216823
> However the idea that socialism will do this is dumb and that is not what we need at all.

I actually think that socialism, if done correctly and democratically could solve many of the economic and social problems in capitalism. But Im not sitting here expecting for a revolution to just happen overnight or anytime soon, Im not that idiotic. I just think that workers should fight for rising wages, healthcare and better infrastructure/ Socialism, unlike capitalism is concentrated on the wellness and giving to the worker better rights by not having private property. Private property concentrates and pools wealth at the top, wealth that could otherwise be used to help those in need. Im not saying to take away everything that billionaires have, im saying that we should use those billions for something that is truly good for everyone. Socialism, if applied correctly could be amazing. Its potential for thriving of society, in my opinion is inmense. Right now I of course dont expect for socialism to happen, but workers should still fight for better pay and their rights, which have gotten less and less(healthcare and college used to be free)

>Your references for everything are outdated—tell me Mr. Marx do you think the borders should remain open and if so how will we organize Mexico into class construction alongside the US?

I'm not sure what you mean by "class construction" but my thoughts on the immigration issue is very limited. But from what little I know, there have been a lot of jobs in the US that have been outsourced to China, and mix of job shortage and immigration cause a lack of blue collar jobs that could otherwise be take by "white americans". Big companies are outsourcing these jobs to places where labor is cheaper instead of their home, the US. I honestly think a lot of americans have been brainwashed into thinking that the immigrants are stealing their jobs, when in reality they are actually getting outsourced to other countries for cheap labor costs.

I dont think building a wall will help in any way though, if people want to go to the USA they will get in, through boats or some other shenanigans. I think organizing foreignt policy is the first step to better things, but then again my knowledge is limited.

[Anonymous No.21216914]

>>21216823
There are many factors concerning the worsening conditions of modern workers. Stagnating wages, lack of infrastructure and essential care and the taking back of certain workers rights that were fought for in the past are for sure some of the most impactful reasons. Im not gonna stand here and say that these are fully the reasons that neoliberalism has worsened the conditions of the modern workers, but I do know that these factors that im talking about directly correlate with the well being of working people. Neoliberalism is great insofar there isnt a market crash, wages dont stagnate and essential infrastructure is not ignored, but that wouldnt be neoliberalism, that would be Keynesian capitalism or a form of socialism. Neoliberalism is not stable.

[Anonymous No.21216946]

>>21216777
The theory being a materialist doesnt mean that things like estrangement and loneliness didnt exist, nor that materialism doesnt recognize psychology as a valid field of study. It being a psychological effect(an effect it has on ones feeling/emotions and how we act) has no relation to Marx's protopsychological understanding of alienation and how it affected the individual. Your definition is an economical one, but the economy affects the individual as well.

[Anonymous No.21216985]

>>21216896
Workers can, and do, fight for better working conditions without being socialist. In fact I would argue socialism hinders this process. There’s nothing wrong with wealthy people or even wealth being pooped at the top as long as the proles have class mobility under that system. It doesn’t seem like you’re thinking very deeply about the issues that concern people—labor forces were always anti-immigration and considering that you appear to be a classical Marxist I find it hilarious that you subscribe to his industrial era idea of labor and Capital but have little to say about immigration and how the Unions dealt with it. You aren’t even cogent in your ideas of economics for that reason alone. I know for a fact a wall won’t help but I think harsher punishments including ramping up deportation will help. Every person breaking the law and illegally crossing the border needs 15 years of prison. These problems are indeed easily solvable and the only way you could think they aren’t is if your Brian is effected by modern politics. Congratulations your ideology aligns with the Koch brothers!

>>21216914
I never said neoliberalism is completely stable but the temporality and historical conditions needed for a mass class consciousness do not exist under neoliberalism.

>>21216946
This is just wrong because psychology was not an area of intrigue in Marx’s time. Later materialists have contended with this but the more of that thread you follow the more distance you travel from Marx. Everything effects the individual lmao.

[Anonymous No.21216993]

Marx predicted that what he called “non-productive labor” would cease to exist as a category but it has only grown. Han reigns supreme.

[Anonymous No.21216997]

>>21216731
>You retards see every economic hiccup as some kind of class revolution because it’s what you want to see.

I do not believe a class revolution will happen in the next few years. It would be delusional to think that modern conditions allow a class revolution, not to mention stupid.

> People are quitting because of Covid and because they want better jobs not because they have some Marxist vision of the future LMAOOOOO Read that again, they’re quitting because they want a different, more capitalist job That’s part of the normal boom bust cycle of capitalism and everyone form the Fed on down understands this especially while they raise interest rates.

Other than this being extremely retarded, people are leaving their jobs for various reasons, one of them being looking for better jobs. I dont know what exactly defines "a more capitalist job". If that means that they are looking for jobs that pay better than yes, i agree.

> Alienation exists because of the absence of religion, nationalism, or any kind of socially constituted identity as per Nietzsche not because of some grand unified vision or loss thereof.

No retard it doesnt, if you looked at the thread or read a but you would realize that there is a specific definition for alienation from Marx and Han that are not related to religion. Religion is good insofar it connects us and gives us higher value, but the alienation we're talking about estranges oneself regardless of religion, because you are estranged from what you produce , your human essence, other people and the act of production. Alienation is a problem of capitalism, and will continue to exist as capitalism exist(although the landscape has change in a hypertechnologically centered capitalism where there are differences between the relationships).

>The influence Marx had on most id these thinkers was that they constantly say around point holes in Marxist theory.

They were all influence by Marx and built upon his ideas. Slavoj zizek is a communist and a marxist. Him having a specific idealist interpretation of marx's work does not mean that he is not a communist nor a marxist(marxist to a certain extent)

[Anonymous No.21217025]

>>21216997
I’ve read Han and he specifically mentions N in his conception of alienation. You have not even read him. Again, Marx’s category and prediction do that category of “non-productive jobs” is the failing Han had to address since Marx was wrong about this category.

[Anonymous No.21217048]

>>21216985
>classical Marxist
I am not a classical marxist bro im just saying what I think. I think times have changed and an adapted marxism/socialism is neccesary to grow.

>In fact I would argue socialism hinders this process There’s nothing wrong with wealthy people or even wealth being pooped at the top as long as the proles have class mobility under that system

Here is where I fundamentally disagree with you with the idea of wealth pooling at the top. If I were to work every day, every year, and every hour for 2000 years under a capitalist system, I wouldnt even get to 10 percent of what the 1percent billionaires are making. And this is where I think Marx's surplus value comes into play. Capitalist extract the maximum amount of value off of worker, becoming rich and making sometimes thousands of times of what the worker makes. And im not saying that they shouldnt have any money. I think that people who work hard should be rewarded, but having an unimaginable amount of money like billions is absolutely insane and the use of such a quantity would'nt be much really.


>This is just wrong because psychology was not an area of intrigue in Marx’s time.

The point was that alienation affects the individual, and psychology not existing back then was not an indicator that Marx's description of alienation is purely economical or that materialism denies the analysis of feelings and emotions.

[Anonymous No.21217066]

>>21216985
Im not from the US nor particularly informed on the effects that immigration has had on the US. Although jail seems fair as a punishment cant they make the issue simpler for mexicans wanting to move in? i dont think putting a bunch of immigrants in a jail cell is gonna fix anything though, but for sure mexico should try to better its conditions, people are immigrating for a reason, and although i dont think immigation is bad, the people who treat the illegal immigrant are quite cruel from my understanding

[Anonymous No.21217074]

>>21217025
Ive skimmed through his books, im not particularly interested in what he has said. I didnt know that, thanks for enlightening me, ill try to re read him more carefully.

[Anonymous No.21217133]

>>21217048
Your post reads like jealousy. There’s literally nothing wrong with multi-trillionaires. Elites could make an entire planet out of nothing but gold just for them and nobody would give a shit as long as living conditions for their children and society were generally good and they had mobility. You say there’s noting wrong with people being wealthy but just not *too* wealthy.

>>21217066
There is already a system for immigration and it’s a very fair process. The growing population of conservatives in the US are almost all Mexicans who immigrated correctly and I would know because I grew up in a border town. People are immigrating for many reasons but mostly because of US Policy making areas of the world unstable because the Koch brothers and corporate companies love immigration. It drives down wages and should be the number one concern for leftists and was for over a hundred years until Bernie famously switched his position like a coward in the 2020 election (due to CIA idpol operatives infiltrating The Left and destroying it from within). You can see this from our involvement in Venezuela to the Middle East and all of the immigration crises are caused by The Western Elites funding CIA coups to make up for declining birth rates and keeping people poor. Personally I think immigrants need the death sentence but I think 15 years of hard labor would be more than enough to stop the flow from Central America. Furthermore Chinese investments among other foreign investors need to be barred from our economy entirely.

[Anonymous No.21217193]

>>21217133
>Your post reads like jealousy. There’s literally nothing wrong with multi-trillionaires.

Then you completely ignored the point I was making. I am saying that that extra(basically useless money) should be used for proyects that are good, not wasted around in a trillionaires pocket, collecting dust while people starve.


>Elites could make an entire planet out of nothing but gold just for them and nobody would give a shit as long as living conditions for their children and society were generally good and they had mobility

Thats the things, children are suffering, living conditions are worsening, social mobility IS becoming more difficult. If these things were'nt occuring do you think i'd make this argument? That wealth could be used for better things. It is'nt jealousy, its wanting that wealth to reach people who really need it(in other words not me, im okay financially). People who are starving, people who have no homes.

Multi billionaires exist yet there are starving children, explain to me how you can reconcile those two facts?
I personally think socialism is the first step to fix the problem in question. Under capitalism there will always be multi billionaires and starving children. Socialism reconciles these two facts in my opinion. The collectivization of property will make workers get paid more and better their conditions. Under socialism that infrastructure for the people who need can be used for something good. But first we have to expropriate the capitalists. Im not particularly fond of it, but i believe its neccesary for the greater good of society and surviving the climate crisis that capitalism has created for the most part.

[Anonymous No.21217210]

>>21217133
>. People are immigrating for many reasons but mostly because of US Policy making areas of the world unstable because the Koch brothers and corporate companies love immigration.

I agree and have heard before of what these companies are doing, its fucked up and they should be expropriated. If you use your power in that manner to fuck shit up so much, those companies shouldnt exist. Ive read about the CIA backed coups, didnt know they related to modern immigration in the US. I'll read up more on it.

Still I dont think jailing the illegal immigrants will do anything. Its like trying to use tape to try to fill in a giant hole. There are more fundamental problems at play here.

[Anonymous No.21217262]

>>21217193
Then you don’t understand monetary theory. If you spread out all of the money on earth equally every single person would be dirt poor and dying of disease because there’s not an infinite number of dollars to go around. It’s literally a simple math equation. Take the total number of dollars and divide it by the number of people.

>>21217210
I disagree and so do virtually all populists, this is the defining issue of our time and that’s why it’s all Americans talk about. Let me ask you, how come it’s ok to take money away from wealthy people but it’s not ok for illegals to take money away from poor and dying people?

[Anonymous No.21217296]

>>21217262
>Then you don’t understand monetary theory If you spread out all of the money on earth equally every single person would be dirt poor and dying of disease because there’s not an infinite number of dollars to go around

Im not saying that im trying to spread all of the money on earth thats concentrated on those mulit billionaires. Im saying that wealth is a product of surplus value and can be redistributed in a more efficient way under socialism. I have never ever said that I want to spread all the money accros the earth. I said that socialism reconciles this massive inbalance in wealth. Your monetary "theory" is commonsense. You cannot spread out all the money on earth equally.

What socialism is and you seem to fail to understand is the collective ownership of property. Under these conditions wealth is distributed more fairly, instead of an egregious amount being concentrated in a few. Your conception of socialism is limited to distribution of wealth, but its distribution insofar as you work for the money you get. Under capitalism surplus value allows those trillionaires to exist. Those trillionaire are a product of accumulation of wealth. Wealth created by workers, not those capitalists you're shilling for. I reccomend you stop shilling for them and get your head straight. The people at the top dont give a shit about you or me. They care about if their company is doing good and will lay off 12,000 workers if need be.

[Anonymous No.21217333]

>>21217296
I understand full well what socialism is, in modernity many workers DO own the means of production. An Uber driver is the ultimate socialist because they own their vehicle (means of production) just like intellectual labor is owned by our own minds. You can’t take the conditions of the industrial revolution and pretend they still matter to this day. Furthermore we need MORE wealth because honestly if you look at the world most people have actually been lifted out of poverty over the last 70 years. Again I agree that there needs to be more protections from neoliberalism and out of control Capital but the entire frame of Marxism is not how we will do that because most of Marx’s predictions have failed and that’s not even some grand failing of his because any thinker 200 years ago could not predict the future. It’s time to let go of Marx.

[Anonymous No.21217345]

>>21217262
>ow come it’s ok to take money away from wealthy people but it’s not ok for illegals to take money away from poor and dying people?

I dont understand the equivalence. How is a poor immigrant from Mexico's life in any way comparable to a trillionaire who has their every need met by 15 maids?

Of course its okay to take money from fuckin wealthy people. Their fine if you some of their money. BECAUSE THEIR FUCKIN RICH AS BALLS.

A poor immigrant from Mexico is probably more like to get encarcerated as well. If a rich person robbed(which under the conception of surplus value they do) they would most like not get jail because they can get super mega lawyers that will give them immunity. I dont get your fascination with getting Mexican's in a jail like i said, its like filling a fucking giant hole with fucking duck tape.

Also im not saying that illegal immigrants should not be jailed if they rob. They should be jailed if they commit crimes. It just seems to me that jailing people for immigrating is not a solution to the immigration problem. It seems blindsided to think so. I dont know nor care very much about US foreign policy in Mexico. A socialist perspective would say something similar to open the borders entirely, and better the town who are suffering from the immigrant by giving more jobs and bettering infrastructure. And then educate the Mexican and give them jobs, also I would fuckin force Mexico to better the conditions of its people.

But then again im not a fuckin expert in this shit, i know slightly more than the next guy because i read but that doesnt mean shit for things like this. there is no 1 solution. its a difficult problem that should be tackled in a precise and cohesive manner.

[Anonymous No.21217396]

>>21217345
I never claimed it was equivalent but the crux of your argument lays in the fact that poor people are being exploited by rich people which undeniably happens and always have and always will because it’s a human reaction to all systems. Even under communism people did this .My point is that you’re focused on wealth distribution coming from wealthy people but wealthy people often create jobs and sectors and wealth in general. Before you start your bullshit about Reagonomics and trickle down theory yes I agree that it’s an imperfect system but if you’re saying hame reduction to the poor is the most important aspect of finance then you can easily argue that jobs taken by illegals AND wage stagnation encouraged by illegals undercutting labor value I believe illegals have in fact literally taken away more money from the working class than billionaires have. 2 million illegals come in every year which roughly translates to maybe $30k of wages for each one which means 60 billions dollars are taken away from Americans every single year and that’s being conservative at a wage of only 30k. There are about 700 billionaires in America (some are Falling in and out of this status just look at Kanye). By this rough math it would only take 12 years to steal the wealth of every American billionaire in the amount of funds illegals steal but their immigration rates are increasing so it will be much less than this. None of this includes the high rate of rapes and crimes and the financial effects from illegals. This is all funded by Super PACs organized by libertarians mostly and other corporate companies where these illegals are employed mostly in Agrabusiness. There’s a reason they’re more likely to be incarcerated and it’s not because they can’t afford good lawyers. If you agree they should be jailed for crimes then you agree crossing into a sovereign country is a crime and they should be jailed but activists Districr Attorneys and again super PACS and organizations funded by crypto currency barons and Soros and a ton of others make sure the system of deportation is broken (unlike Poland for example who have a working immigration enforcement program). All of the immigrants that came in through New York acclimated to American life because we CLOSED THE FUCKING BORDER UNTIL 1965.

[Anonymous No.21217399]

>>21217333
>in modernity many workers DO own the means of production.

You are taking exceptions as the rule anon, just because an uber driver and intellectual labor are viewed as exceptions to the rule doesnt mean that most workers arent wagies who slave their life away not being able to afford retirement. But even then a maximum amount of surplus labor is extracted from these worker who own these means, and are still being exploited to a certain extent. The way capitalism functions is that wealth accumulates on top while a livable modicum proportionally is given to the workers.

>You can’t take the conditions of the industrial revolution and pretend they still matter to this day Furthermore we need MORE wealth because honestly if you look at the world most people have actually been lifted out of poverty over the last 70 years

Neoliberalism is the bringing back of the economic liberalism of Marx's time. Although they are different because of a great deal of change and proggress that has occured during the last 100 years, Marx is still valuable for understanding capitalism, even though some of it doesnt apply today. And just so you know that proggress that was achieved in the past 100 years are thanks to Keynesian economics, which is capitalism with certain capitalism that bettered working class conditions(it had socialist characteristics).

> his because any thinker 200 years ago could not predict the future. It’s time to let go of Marx.

By letting go of marxism you are saying I should let go of my socialist ideal, which in my morals and ethics are the correct political economic system. To solve the incipient climate crisis, the companies at the top dont give a shit if their fuckin up the planet, giving us shit food and making the air we breath toxic . They care about fuckin profits. And its proved by the lobbyist fuckin with climate change legislation.

Do you really think companies with billions on dollars on their hands and a crap ton of power will let green energy take place? they fuckin arent going to let that fuckin happen, especially since oil is so important.

The only way to effectively fight against these big corpos is to have the workers themselves(which the companies depend on) rise against them in an organized manner that benefits them. Believe me if i believed that capitalism could solve a lot of these issues, socialism wouldnt even be on my mind. The collective ownership of property is an effective way to deal with the extremely wealthy, working class conditions, infrastructure and the climate crisis.

[Anonymous No.21217436]

>>21217396
I genuinely fuckin doubt that a bunch of immigrants with no credentials working at a contruction site or in independent companies make a livable wage(30k is a livable wage for 1 person). Do you seriously by any logic believe that those immigrants are getting paid above the poverty line?It would be delusional. They are getting payed dogshit because the company owners will if had the chance exploit an immigrant with no state to protect him from labor abuse.


Even if it was 60 billion, its a fact that money is being accumulated at the top while wages are stagnating. By your logic it wouldnt make sense that wages are stagnating if the immigrants are getting paid so well. Considering the trend that 2 million are coming, the anual growth of the 1percent of income is more than any fuckin mexican could ever fuckin dream of. Its an idiotic equivalence. One is a fuckin mexican who immigrated to look for a better life. Another one is a billionaire that gets rich out of the work off of others. They are both HUMAN, that is it. That is all they have in common.

[Anonymous No.21217459]

>>21217399
>exceptions to the rule
My point with this is not to say workers don’t get exploited. It’s to point out that Marx’s theoretical frame for how to approach this problem no longer applies.

>neoliberalism is bringing back the economic liberalism of Marx’s time
Lol no not even close. You can’t even have these conversations without already setting up yourself for the criticism you *think* is coming because it’s how people have discussed it for decades. I’m not pro Keynesian. This again is why Han’s take is more valuable that Marx’s because it’s an ideological claptrap and one that far too many people fall into. It’s why our boomer politicians are giving billions to Ukraine because they think they’re fighting LE EPIC 200 YEAR COMMUNISM IDEALIST WAR WITH CAPITALISM. Nobody gives a shit about this because we live in a post-ideological age.

>letting go of Marxism
You feel like this is stripping you if your identity because Marxism is literally the only frame of reference you have for thinking about the world. As I said before, many workers fight for wages and try to solve their problems without socialism.

[Anonymous No.21217470]

>>21217436
I know they make that much because I’ve worked with them. You literally thought Duct Tape was “Duck Tape” because you’re a bourgeois academic faggot. 30k really isn’t a livable wage at all especially with the current rate of inflation. I think you’re underestimating just how much immigrants are working because they work way more than the 40 hour work week. Where do you think all of our Buildings and infrastructure is coming from? They’re living here and making it work precisely *because* of the money they’re making.

[Anonymous No.21217474]

>>21217459
I dont think you understand marxism or socialism.

[Anonymous No.21217483]

>>21217474
You would say that wouldn’t you

[Anonymous No.21217485]

>>21217470
And you made a fuckin generalization, the minimum wage is 8 dollars an hour which is around 15k. Just because 1 worker whos an immigrant makes 30k doesnt mean that every immigrant does. 30k is definately livable, it might be bare minimum for you cause your a 100k andy with 2 houses that invested in crypto, but you can most certainly live off of 30k.

[Anonymous No.21217498]

>>21217483
Yeah and I said it because I believe it.
I think youre strawmaning socialism in marxism because it doesnt fit into your particular 100k+ worker lifestyle.
Do me a favor and read theory, ive said time and time again that marx is A GOOD BASE for understanding the fundamental concepts of marxism and socialism. Its not the end all be all, its a theory that should be analysed carefully and according to different contexts. In this particular context socialism would be the first step to better the world. I get that you wanna be comfy, and I do to but change is neccessary for the survival of humanity

[Anonymous No.21217504]

>>21217498
fundamental concepts of capitalism*

[Anonymous No.21217505]

>>21217399
>Do you really think companies with billions on dollars on their hands and a crap ton of power will let green energy take place? they fuckin arent going to let that fuckin happen, especially since oil is so important.
They already are, some of the biggest investors in green energy are oil companies.

[Anonymous No.21217508]

>>21217485
Depends on where you are in the county. I’ve survived on 12k a year back in the early 2010’s but again you still think they work 40 hour weeks. They work 70+ hours a week picking fruit or laying cement or packing meat. Those jobs are NOT office jobs. Even at minimum wage (and they all don’t make minimum wage) they’re making much more than 15k and more than that if they aren’t paying taxes (many don’t) which is why corporate America loves them and funds their illegal journey into the states. This doesn’t even include H1B work visas that are renewed every year where we have money filtering out of the states into the south Americas. FUCK immigrants and FUCK Marx.

[Anonymous No.21217512]

>>21217505
They are investing retard, do you think those investments will win against a massive market share, lobbyist and the US goverment and EU supporting them? the system is fucked, and socialism clearly the best way to fix it

[Anonymous No.21217516]

>>21217504
I don’t make 100+ k a year I make 45k to send three emails a day. I don’t work virtually at all but I’ve invested my money in a smart way. You don’t understand money.

[Anonymous No.21217526]

>>21217508
Why do you think that, if it were a possibility for a company owner to pay below minimum wage, they wouldnt do it?

Its assuming the employer is a gracer of god who gives livable wages to his employees who arent dont have any labor laws protecting them. It just doesnt make sense.

[Anonymous No.21217528]

>>21217512
MUH SYSTEM!!! Dude green energy IS big business. What aspect of green do you want to see? Solar panels are bad for the environment and not a good technology. Wind power isn’t bad but kills bird migration. There’s not enough thermo to go around. EVERYONE believes in green energy and we’re already doing it but it’s so naive to think there’s some cabal of capitalists trying to stop green technology. Who do you think owns all the shares in green tech? The energy sector. Fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.21217536]

>>21217526
I know that some employers pay below minimum wage which is why I lowered the average wages to 30k. That’s more than fair. At any rate you could go with your incorrect 15k and still be short 30 billions dollars yearly and increasing.

[Anonymous No.21217551]

>>21217528
This is retarded. Do you seriously think that oil companies will let go their market share for green companies?

INVESTING DOESNT MEAN THAT THEY WANT TO LOSE THEIR MARKET SHARE RETARD. THE COMPANIES ARE POWERFUL AS FUCK. i dont think you understand lobbyism, and even then my other points of critique of capitalism still stand.

I dont think capitalism can organize itself to deal efficiently with climate change considering companies look for profit. I dont know why the fuck, if a bunch of companies invest in oil would let that go. They arent mutually exclusive retard. Everyone invests in everything that can potentially make them money in capitalism, thats a fact.

[Anonymous No.21217572]

>>21217551
The only way they would let it go is if green energy was profitable and it’s not because the technology is bad, not because they want to kill the world with Oil. You literally be mine that that’s what’s happening though.

[Anonymous No.21217580]

>>21217536
It wouldnt be increasing as wages would be stagnating. but other than 60 billions is little compared to a total 100 trillion which the USA has in wealth. The top 50 percent make around 70 trillion, which is nothing compared to these immigrants you are talking about.

I dont think its a problem of the wealth, its a problem of jobs and the goverments incapacity to deal with it. But then again you're the Texan, you tell me.

[Anonymous No.21217618]

>>21217580
The number of people you’re talking about are less than how many people graduated from my high school. As I said there only 700 billiaonires and how many of those are trillionaires? Maybe a few dozen? I honestly wouldn’t know nor care because it’s irrelevant. Your idea of the amount of money they hold is juvenile because that net worth is wrapped up in assets and businesses and employment. Even the money the government has is streaming to programs and schools and other shit. You can’t take that money because it’s not liquid cash. Do I agree they aren’t paying their fist share? Yes I do. But again you could take all of their Capital W Wealth and it wouldn’t fix the middle class. You need to fix wealth creation and the border problem. Communists espoused this themselves for over a hundred years.

[Anonymous No.21217695]

>>21217618
It still stands that the top 1percent is richer and will be richer and the future, due to their accumulation of wealth from exploitation of labor. Meanwhile your wagie mexicans will stay at the bottom, living off their scraps.\

Dont get why people like you like to suck Zuck and Bezos cock. They have a crap ton of fuckin money that could be used for starving children of infrastructure. I get that you were born in this system, but it still stands that its dogshit.
Theres nothing wronng with wanting to better it..

[Anonymous No.21217705]

>>21217695
or infrastructure*

[Anonymous No.21217717]

>>21217695
>the 1% will get richer
So fucking what. Mexicans are literally destroying the housing market. Facebook (Meta) just experienced a huge stock crash and it’s gone below $99 a share. Amazon is crashing too. Why are you obsessed with these celebrities? I could give a fuck less about what happens to them. Understand the difference between net worth and liquid cash faggot.

[Anonymous No.21217748]

>>21217717
Understand that your shilling for bezos and zuck by advocating for lower taxes for them retard.

Even if a lot of it isnt liquid, you can still fuckin tax them shill.

I dont know if you know this but taxes on the US are regressive retard. So technically those people at the top are paying less proportionally. Ive already listed my arguments on why this is bad, if you are too retarded to understand, then I tried my best.

[Anonymous No.21217897]

>>21217748
When did I advocate for lower taxes? You’re just projecting your gay shit onto my thought because neocons say shit like that. I don’t think a hugger tax rate would matter much in the grand scheme of the national budget because the way taxes work. You’re backpedaling so hard because now you’re basically saying that your solution to all of the conditions of neoliberalism are to basically tax the wealthy (who don’t have as much wealth as you think) and that’s it. I can name ten different things that would help the economy and culture right now including debt forgiveness and border control. I’m for busting up monopolies, I’m for restricting Mastercard from shutting down businesses it doesn’t like which happens to right wing populists daily. So many of them are out on no-fly lists for making jokes on YouTube. You are an absolutely retarded faggot who talks about Marxism like you graduated with a new undergrad degree in Philosophy. You backpedaled when you said Marx’s thought needed to be built out and you do this so much his influence isn’t important. I’m aware that he was influential in the 21st century. But again with the radical change we’re seeing with demography, technology, feminism, and the acceleration into NEOLIBERAL CAPITAL his thoughts don’t matter.

[Anonymous No.21217955]

>>21214932
>what you think Marx was wrong about anon
Its unfalsifiable, either the proletes revolt, and Marx was right, or they dont revolt since they arent selfaware enough, and Marx remains right again
His interpretation of medieval economic system is laughably wrong even for his time and it was based on false facts. He saw serfdom as a direct evolution from slavery but didn't take in account free peasants, manufacturies, artisans, fratiliaes etc etc. Marx wasn't a good historian and looking at the medieval world and how it operates refutes the Hegelian claim that people tend to become free with the march of history (people were freer in the Medieval period compared to Hegels time, it is just that Hegel only knew "oh ok so serfs are exactly like slaves but they are a bit freer because a lord can't kill his serf" which ended up being ahistorical). Marx also sees everything through the lens of capitalism, it's ridiculous to say that the medieval economy was a capitalistic one.

When it comes to Marx ideas you listed I can say that alienation can be answered with the meme sentence from Sisyphus, "what if we imagine the worker as being happy?", I personally have a lot of probelms with the idea of alienation (at first its obvious untill you look into it and realize that there are some holes in it. Angst and inauthenticity as concepts offer far more since they arent linked to production)
MAterialist conception of reality and history is meh since it is based on the claim that technology only develops as a mean to further the goals of the rich (highly debatable from a historical standpoint, also materialism from a ontological standpoint)

[Anonymous No.21217966]

>>21217897
You were comparing fucking mexicans to billionaires retard, like their the fucking same. I made a mistake cause now i know you arent that fucking retarded, but the main point that you were making on mexicans was fucking retarded and anecdotal. I dont give a shit anymore about what you think about fucking marxism i already outlined all my my points.

Its true that im proyecting, im just so sick of shills advocating for companies and shi. My bad, i know we share similar thoughts to a certain extent. We might disagree on the border patrol shit(which is retarded in my opinion) but mostly we agree in a lot things. You are just way too shilled in to capitalism. Its fine. You arent completely retarded

[Anonymous No.21218022]

>>21217966
You just don’t like my point, you haven’t contended with it all. Any populism that does occur will clearly be right wing for this reason: The Left can’t take this issue into account anymore. It’s not trivial. For the record I don’t believe in NeoLiberal capitalism and I think it blows your mind that I think neoliberalism solves class tensions. It does and that’s a BAD thing.

[Anonymous No.21218073]

>>21217955
>Marx wasn't a good historian and looking at the medieval world
Which book of Marx' is a history of the medieval world. Link to the book which is Marx' history of the medieval world via MIA.

[Anonymous No.21218422]

Marx=faggot

[Anonymous No.21219228]

>>21218422
What's your substack?

[Anonymous No.21219592]

>>21219228
Www.yourmomspussy.Substack.com

[Anonymous No.21219628]

>>21219592
ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH

:(

[Anonymous No.21220744]

>>21216565
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVrNZa_Rco

[Anonymous No.21220822]

>>21207479
He was critical of the covid hysteria and pandemic profiteering so that makes him (along with Agamben) far-right and close to Alex Jones. I don't make the rules, I am simply reiterating what leftist academia has stated.

[Anonymous No.21220845]

>>21220822
I love how according to leftists rules right wing thought has flourished the last ten years. I’m personally a post modern fascist, I couldn’t of gotten here without Foucault :)

[Anonymous No.21220849]

>>21220845
Foucault would have been an antivaxxer, like his greatest student Agamben.

Marxists like Zizek openly support Pfizer and consider doing so an act of socialist solidarity and any opposition to pandemic profiteering is "perverse."

[Anonymous No.21220851]

>>21220849
Yes, agree on all points made.

[Anonymous No.21220901]

How can we be sure Marxism isn't a controlled opposition psyop pushed by capitalism to gatekeep and destroy all other possible alternatives? After all, Marxists spend as much time, if not more, attacking other non-Marxist socialists, and everytime Marx was put into practice you ended up with a two-tiered state of bureaucratic managers lording over, and often outright genociding the proles.

How many Rolls-Royces did Lenin own again? This is supposed to be the strongest alternative to capitalism, the one they hate the most (muh CIA) while being taught in all elite neo-liberal universities?

[Anonymous No.21220979]

>>21214983
You shouldn't talk authoritatively about things you don't understand. Marx's "alienation" isn't bourgeois hedonist ennui.

[Anonymous No.21221051]

>>21220901
This is the case

[Anonymous No.21221058]

>>21220979
Hahaha what a total faggot, he’s mad that his daddy Marx could never write half as interestingly as chad Houellebecq.

>B-B-But that’s BOURGEOIS!!!

[Anonymous No.21221733]

>>21220744
Why is the Labour theory of value so hard to understand? This dude has literally no clue...

[Anonymous No.21221947]

>>21221733
Imagine having your ideology btfo with anime cartoons

[Anonymous No.21221971]

>>21220901
>How can we be sure Marxism isn't a controlled opposition psyop pushed by capitalism to gatekeep and destroy all other possible alternatives?
Whats that other alternative retard? Fascism? By definition communists are anti capitalists retard. They want property to be owned by the workers(and a plethora of other things). Capitalism is fucking private property and all communists and marxists want to eliminate it.

> After all, Marxists spend as much time, if not more, attacking other non-Marxist socialists, and everytime Marx was put into practice you ended up with a two-tiered state of bureaucratic managers lording over, and often outright genociding the proles

Nice conclusion retard, they fight between themselves because they disagree on how to deal with retards like you who spout pure retardation.

You dont know shit because you have never read a book on communism in your life. Communism is a specific type of political economical system, and if we were to talk about bureaucratic management the fascism(which is capitalism mind you) in nazi germany and fascist italy was way more authoratarian than the Soviet Union.

>This is supposed to be the strongest alternative to capitalism, the one they hate the most (muh CIA) while being taught in all elite neo-liberal universities?

Your retardation is showing anon, the "socialism" being taught at these universities is social democracy, which is just a slightly less shitty capitalism. Although there are some communists they are a minority because communism has fucking died down since the 90s. Communism is ontogenically against capitalism. Anyone who says it isnt is a fucking social democrat and isnt a fucking communist. Communist wants to expropriate the rich and make a system where workers get paid for what they fucking worked for.

It is the strongest alternative, because its the only one that has been implemented and survived for as long as it has. If modified, it can be fucking great. Communist China(which is capitalist but was communist mind you) modified itself so it could survive in modern the modern neoliberal landscape.

Socialism in the US could be fucking great if retards like you stopped spouting retarded shit like this. You are just fuckin brainwashed into thinking that communism is the new form of social leftism, which isnt neccesarily fucking economically leftist. Considering capitalism has destroyed half the fucking planet and is doing so right, It is the best alternative, for workers and for the earth.

[Anonymous No.21221974]

>>21221733
>Marxists grasping at semantic straws in current year

Never change. Of course it's because evil racists don't understand the real definition of LTV that Marxism never succeeds. Two more weeks until capitalism implodes like Marx predicted!

[Anonymous No.21221975]

>>21221971
You typed a lot to say nothing.

>muh retard

Wow you proved Marxism.

[Anonymous No.21221979]

>>21221971
>It is the strongest alternative, because its the only one that has been implemented and survived for as long as it has. If modified, it can be fucking great. Communist China(which is capitalist but was communist mind you) modified itself so it could survive in modern the modern neoliberal landscape.

hahahaha holy shit Marxists are high on drugs, and this is the best they got

[Anonymous No.21221985]

>>21221971
Whatever the CIA is paying you it should be more for that performance Mr. Communist. It might be time to see your therapist again.

[Anonymous No.21221988]

>>21218022
I did contend it, I wrote an essay worth of points on why i think your position is retarded

>Any populism that does occur will clearly be right wing for this reason: The Left can’t take this issue into account anymore. It’s not trivial. For the record I don’t believe in NeoLiberal capitalism

You not believing in neoliberal capitalism and thinking that right wing populism is possible is funny, because it shows how much of a retard you actually are. Right wing theory is not populist and never will be, because right wing theory favors those at the top like Jeff Bezos and Elon musk who dont give three shits about you. Right wing theory believes in capitalism, which because it pools wealth at the tops and exploits labor, IS NOT FUCKING POPULIST.

>I think it blows your mind that I think neoliberalism solves class tensions It does and that’s a BAD thing.

I stated my points on why neoliberalism doesnt solve class tensions here >>21215264 and here >>21215360 . Read my fucking posts retard. And see why it truly doesnt. Your right wing populism is retarded and is a barely coherent idea. The right wing only cares about maintaining those in power and giving workers the scraps of what they win. Try to think for once in your life, and not be controlled by fucking CIA psyops who are antifucking communist and who are trying to conceal to you the best alternative to capitalism: communism.

[Anonymous No.21221991]

>>21221985
The CIA is anti communist retard. They toppled socialist goverments in chile and latin america and tried to do it to the Soviet Union. You dont know shit about history faggot

[Anonymous No.21221995]

>>21221988
You have the intelligence and maturity of a sophomore. Maybe one day you'll grow up, until then you can go back to redd.it.

[Anonymous No.21221997]

>>21221985
Liberals arent communists, They are fucking capitalists. They are on your side economically faggot, because they think capitalism can prosper.

[Anonymous No.21222001]

>>21221991
>it's the CIA's fault my iron-clad scientific socialist laws didn't pan out

[Anonymous No.21222004]

>>21221995
And you are a shill. If all my points dont make you realize how fucked capitalism is, than you are retarded or a fucking shill who wants things to stay the same, no matter how shitty the situation may be.

[Anonymous No.21222006]

>>21222004
I've read everything from the Grundrisse to Gramsci and Schumpeter, Lenin to Kolakowski and Djilas. I know an intelligent Marxist when I see one and you sure as hell are not it.

[Anonymous No.21222008]

>>21222001
No, the CIA is anti communist. You are retarded. Socialism is doing fine in Cuba right now. Keep shilling retard, when you find out the people in power dont give a shit about you, youll finally realize who this system is serving. They could kill you in a blink of an eye for saying what ive been saying. The retarded shit youre spouting just helps them keep power.

[Anonymous No.21222014]

>>21222006
Never claimed to be one. I am saying my points, and how I think this board is filled with retards. My points are correct. There are marxists that are way more intelligent than me and way more well read.

[Anonymous No.21222017]

>>21222008
You completely missed the point because you're still apparently 15 years old and only know the most superficial Marxist talking points.

[Anonymous No.21222019]

>>21221988
Citation needed*

[Anonymous No.21222020]

>>21222014
Don't care.

[Anonymous No.21222021]

>>21222017
Enlighten me then fag, if im so wrong prove it with arguments.

[Anonymous No.21222026]

>>21222020
Well dont reply then retard. And if you do, use arguments and stop being a retarded shill.

[Anonymous No.21222027]

>>21221997
Maybe if you define liberalism like John Adam’s or something. You must not know about Chapo Trap House. Does the CIA make you wear disguises when you go to DSA Meeting? Sorry for bringing up this point of privilege bro

[Anonymous No.21222030]

>>21222008
The CIA is the reason the immigration crisis is occuring due to destabilizing countries to provide cheap labor for agrabusiness. The CIA wants open borders!!!

[Anonymous No.21222031]

>>21207475
>I read critical theor

[Anonymous No.21222033]

Imagine having to call everyone. Retard because you’re scared to say nigger on 4chan. What a retarded niggerfaggot.

[Anonymous No.21222037]

>>21222027
Liberalism is capitalism with with some socialist leftism. The CIA even did a fucking ad to bring in these type of people to work for them. Liberalism is free market with some socially libertarian aspects to it. Ask any of these liberals what they thing of workers owning property, they will say theyre fucking against it. You are braindead from watching fox news and CNN, liberals are capitalist and they serve the CIA.

Im a fucking communist, not a DSA activist who wants to tax the rich. I want to abolish private property. Something that you are shilling for.

[Anonymous No.21222038]

>>21222021
Marxists have been saying for 200 years that capitalism will implode in "two more weeks." And you're saying it's the fault of the CIA that these iron-clad laws PROVING the inevitable implosion of capitalism haven't occurred yet.

Marx thought in his lifetime capitalism would implode, so did Lenin, Stalin etc. I don't condone the stuff the CIA has done but it's not their fault that Marxism always leads to a bourgeois class dominating the proles. Marxism is just inherently flawed.

[Anonymous No.21222041]

>>21222030
I dont fucking care if they do. They serve the neoliberal and capitalist world order. The CIA should be fucking abolished, and everyone who works there is a fucking asshole working for big Capital and the deep state.

[Anonymous No.21222063]

>>21222038
As i mentioned here >>21216997 I dont think that a revolution will happen in 2 weeks, nor do a lot of marxists. They believe it will eventually happen, because of the unstable characteristics of capitalism.

Them thinking that a revolution would happen(which in the case of the soviet union it did) does not contradict any of my arguments that capitalism is shit and it needs to change. I never said its the CIA's fault retard. The CIA helped topple certainly, but socialism exists in CUBA, and even with CIA intervention it has continued to exist. You are a retard and are skimming my points to try to prove
>muh communism bad because umm CIA psyops said so

No retard, the CIA is explicitly anti communist, that was the point I was trying to make. Capitalists organizations are anti capitalists,

[Anonymous No.21222074]

>>21222063
* not anticapitalists

[Anonymous No.21222088]

>>21222063
>I dont think that a revolution will happen in 2 weeks, nor do a lot of marxists.

It's been quite a long time since Marx started writing. Much longer than two weeks. I guess capitalism may implode in 500 years and Marx will be vindicated.

[Anonymous No.21222096]

>>21222088
It happened it the Soviet Union, Cuba and China retard. That it hasnt happened in centres of capitalist powers in Europe and US doesnt mean capitalism isnt dogshit nor that it should be removed.

[Anonymous No.21222101]

>>21222096
capitalism shouldnt be removed*

[Anonymous No.21222109]

>>21222096
Each of those examples are two-tiered states where a bourgeois class becomes the bureaucratic managers who dominate the proles and are richer than them. You excuse this because of resentment towards capitalism but it doesn't make Marxism any less hellish to live under. Time to grow up and accept the inherent contradictions within Marxism.

[Anonymous No.21222167]

>>21222109
Those conditions are brought in because they live in a majority capitalist world. Me wanting communism does not mean I want to live under a fucking authoritarian state.

It means I dont like capitalism and I think this system wont solve our most important problems.
If growing up means me shilling for big capital and not criticizing it then fuck you. I'll criticize capitalism all I want if I see you saying retarded shit I will correct you.

Even though its "hellish" the people in these countries have good infrastructure, healthcare, can retire and are very much less unequeal than capitalist countries which billions are pooled at the top, and social mobility is extremely difficult.

I will criticize capitalism until the day I die, plain and simple, because I recognize that it is against my value system.

[Anonymous No.21222214]

>>21222037
Ahem point of privilege, is it ok if I become communist comrade even though I’m white? How Many Hail Marys is that? Please be soft on me

[Anonymous No.21222222]

>>21222041
Scumbag

[Anonymous No.21222232]

>>21222167
I’m a millennial with two houses. I’m enjoying Byung Chul Han in one while the other is being renovated in a nigger neighborhood : ) fuck CIA commies, fuck Marx, Fuck Trannies and Fuck Biden.

[Anonymous No.21222264]

>>21222167
I already knew that you were young. Thanks for the blogposts, zoomer.

[Anonymous No.21222280]

>>21222001
"scientific socialism" just means murdering millions of people and then getting nerve-stapled by aliens

[Anonymous No.21222292]

>>21220849
>[...]and any opposition to pandemic profiteering is "perverse."
He has been very critic of pandemic profiteering... also I a can't recount an instance where he said "vaccines le good or anything like that (take your meds schizo)
My personal take: A somewhat non-cinycal "socialist solidarity" would, very obviously, not take into consideration "short term profiteering" of any kind (again, take your meds please...)

[Anonymous No.21222357]

>>21222292
Zizek is controlled opposition and a CIA operate. He wants to rape and eat small white children (after turning them into trannies of course)

[Anonymous No.21222395]

>>21222037
All these strings of words and it doesn't explain anything.
Let me repeat the words of Oswald Spengler,

Liberalism is Anglo hegemony.

[Anonymous No.21222425]

>>21222292
He said "the unvaccinated have a perverse desire to keep the pandemic going." Meanwhile Agamben gets called an extremist and likened to Alex Jones, by his own English translator. This is the absolute state of the left in current year. They are not fighting capitalism at all and have no relation to the proles in any way.

[Anonymous No.21222439]

>>21222425
Agamben is based, Foucault is based, Han is Based, Amex Jones is Based, Hitler is Based. Murder all troons, CIA,progs, and COMMIES.

[Anonymous No.21222476]

>>21222439
You see? You're a child with no argument. You can only regurgitate second hand memes from the alt-right. Marxism is a dead-end (literally) for the working class. The only ones espousing it are bougies who have never done a day of hard labour in their lives and would feel scared sharing an elevator with a blue collar man wearing a camo hoodie.

[Anonymous No.21222658]

>>21221733
>Can't refute a word the fumos say
>h...he doesn't understand it!
>no elaboration

I shall trust the fumos. Get rekt commie.

[Anonymous No.21222788]

>>21222476
What are we supposed to be arguing about?

[Anonymous No.21223800]

Thank God I’m not american. You guys sux

[Anonymous No.21224172]

This thread is such a shit show, what happened?

[Anonymous No.21224361]

>>21224172
You need to learn to read. That's all.