/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21379402]

>Nooooooo I worked really hard on this book! Its value is an objective fact and you gotta value it the same as me!!

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.21379413]

His book is absolute trash. Trash writing. Trash "logic". It's literally just Adam Smith plagiarized and screeching about his ideas by making bullshit assumptions.

If some retard wants an explanation I only bother if you pay me 100k $, because Marx is just a shit book and literally every page is full with bullshit, from writing to "arguing".

[Anonymous No.21379415]

>>21379413
filtered

[Anonymous No.21379421]

>>21379402
Marx had great insights which were hijacked and bastardized by a jew (Lenin).

[Anonymous No.21379437]

>>21379402
>the other day some commie argued with me that capitalists believe in LTV cause Adam Smith said so
>they were actually dead serious and couldn't even think of alternative value theories that have developed over the centuries since
>somehow all of these guys are stuck in 1848

What's up with that? Nobody believes any of that LTV shit. Why are they so hung up on that?

[Anonymous No.21380341]

>>21379437
MARX DID NOT HOLD THE CLASSICAL POLITICAL ECONOMIST'S THEORY OF VALUE

please fucking read the book marx does not hold a labor theory of value he never uses this term and ascribing such a position to him is a product bad history of economic thought lumping him in with classical political economy

to be fair most marxoids will claim marx held a labor theory of value because they haven't read capital either but if you read the Grundrisse it becomes pretty hard to claim that he held a theory of value that had anything other than a small resemblance to the theory of value of Riccardo which could be reasonably described as a labor theory of value

[Anonymous No.21380349]

>>21379413
you have not read anything beyond wikipedia, that's okay most people haven't but please stop pretending to have read him.
if you'd read smith or marx beyond skimming the wikipedia you'd never say something this braindead
there are good and interesting critiques of marx but you have to have actually read marx in order to understand them

[Anonymous No.21380357]

Marx really is just that stupid

[Anonymous No.21380376]

Think of it as Flat Earth Theory of economics. Lots of folks out there feel very passionately about both.

[Anonymous No.21380385]

>>21380341
>muh real marxism argument
Its crazy how every single marxist can describe what Marx DIDN'T believe, but nobody can describe what he DID believe, and immediately retreat the the tried and true "j-j-just read this 1,000 page tract I can't even spirit up a good defense for!"
Nobody wants to, or is going to, read your obscurantist bullshit, commie. It is a moral good that Marx be percieved as a worthless retard, specifically because it makes you seethe and the elevated blood pressure might kill you faster.

[Anonymous No.21380387]

>>21379402
Marx literally delicates a chunk of his discussion of LTV to addressing this misconception.

>>21379413
>Einstein used Newton's laws of motion therefore it's plagiarism
You're confusing science and literature or have never encountered either

>>21379421
Correct

>>21379437
>Nobody believes any of that LTV shit. Why are they so hung up on that?
The LTV was true

>>21380357
You have never read Marx. You're just feeling good about yourself because it's socially acceptable despite having no position to base that on. You are a woman.

[Anonymous No.21380402]

>>21380385
do you have any actual criticisms of marx's project or are you just gonna continue to proudly and loudly yell about the virtue of your illiteracy

marx's basic project is not that complicated its just that people refuse to engage with it

if you want me to lay out the very basic thesis i can but it doesnt seem like you're interested in actually understading one of the most influential thinkers of the last two hundred years

again i think there are good and well reasoned critiques of marx and marxists but they don't come from people who can't read

[Anonymous No.21380411]

>>21380385
if you can't read just say that

[Anonymous No.21380420]

>>21380402
>marx's basic project is not that complicated its just that people refuse to engage with it
Then you should be able to produce a clear synopsis of it, and shouldn't have to do everything in your power to deflect from doing so at the outset.
>>21380411
Not an argument, fag

[Anonymous No.21380427]

>>21380402
To be fair he's not wrong. Many many self-proclaimed Marxists understand even less than anti-Marxists do, and even the ones who understand Marx a little mor, still often barely understand him at all. When people complain about something that is admittedly hard to understand (am I really supposed to read a 750 page book on political economy, which is just part 1 of 3 volumes?!) they get barked at by aforementioned trannies who don't know anything and won't say anything definite.

No it isn't that hard to understand once you finally get down to it. But so-called Marxists rarely help you do this.

>>21380385
Just read "Wage Labour and Capital" and "Value Price and Profit."

[Anonymous No.21380462]

All of his writings are as wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. They only dazzle aesthetic-obsessed midwits who feel some sense of authority when they encounter big books filled with numbers and "ideas." His works are no different from the usual ideologically propagandistic pieces of literature which only serve to entice potential followers into a movement. In essence, books like "Capital" are borderline indistinguishable from books like George Lincoln Rockwell's "White Power" or Klassen's "Nature's Eternal Religion." Both just string together random facts and novel ideas in hopes of eventually overwhelming the reader's mind. Marx is constantly either diving into barely connected minutia or weaving grand unprovable narratives. He does not rigorously explore or defend any particular notion or system of notions. The claim that his glorified religion is "scientific" is by far one of the most ridiculous falsehoods I've ever had the displeasure of hearing time and time again. He only seeks to mobilize and organize those who already have a psychological propensity towards his way of thinking. His writings are a crutch for people who can't think for themselves but are intelligent enough to feel the need to place their faith in some monolithic intellectual body of work that has been sufficiently praised by the authoritative clergy of their time (academics). Even the responses in this thread illustrate my point. The best the Marxists here can say in response to criticism is "just read it better" like some bible-thumping American southerner. The thinking is identical. Just as religious people see the Universe as proof of God's existence, Marxists see the very existence of classes as proof that Marx was right. Both are completely devoid of any empirical thought and will defer to any big-brain in history (like Aquinas or Hegel) who offers a slimy enough way out of the need to prove one's ideas.

[Anonymous No.21380484]

>>21379402
Anytime marxism is ever discussed I just want to excuse myself and take a massive shit, because it will smell better than what either side is cooking. Marxists are all psueds who think being shitty amateur intellectual historians makes them profound, and anti-marxists are all retards who think being even shittier amateur intellectual historians makes them not retarded. Anytime a marxist tries to argue with you, the proper response is to just piss on them, not sperg out about some retard lolbert critique of some overtly ridiculous strawman.

[Anonymous No.21380489]

>>21380420
marx's project is the immanent critique of political economy, showing how the necessary forms of appearance (value, exchange value, abstract labor ect.) are insufficient to the immanently generated categories of political economy and bourgeoise thought. he also demonstrates that capitalism constitutes a system of abstract social domination and structures human social relations to place itself as the Hegelian subject of history (the self moving substance that is subject).

this is obviously an oversimplification but Michael Heinrichs's intro to capital is like 200 pages and does a good job outlining things more generally

[Anonymous No.21380500]

>>21380484
real unfortunately
>>21380462
there are absolutely marxists who think like this but the entire marxist tradition isnt like this, the open marxists and communizers are generally pretty good
but when essentially every objection to marx is directly answered in the first three chapters of vol 1 of capital i can understand the impulse to just say "read capital" especially when anti marxists are so quick to build a strawman of marx's claims

[Anonymous No.21380501]

>>21380420
Reality is nuanced, complicated, and multifaceted. You can get the basic idea but if you actually want to debate the merits then guess what? You have to read. If you don't want to read then you can just say "I don't know anything about it." I could explain Freud in a 4chan post but you'd be an idiot to think you knew anything about him with zero effort. Also, we have to do this literally every single thread to a new wave of demanding illiterates. We were all like you but we chose to read.

Here's a quick rundown. Business profit is gross sales - (cost of labor + cost of materials and equipment). As tech increases corps have to keep investing in equipment/machinery to compete with rival corps. This increases supply which lowers the price. This means that all things being equal profit will get smaller and smaller over time. Eventually, this will cause a crisis called a depression or recession where investments start going bust on mass. Marx predicts that all else being equal these crises will become more frequent and drastic. Okishio showed that if you can somehow keep coming up with a constantly increasing worker base then you can have stable capitalism. This is why immigration and mass trade is a huge deal at this point in time.

[Anonymous No.21380519]

>>21380501
So, Marx saw things that anyone who took the time to think about it could figure out.

[Anonymous No.21380524]

>>21380500
I find that the more orthodox Marxists are more tolerable since they don't try to modify Marxism into little more than a support for all of their other cultural values which reign supreme over all the others they hold (including the Marxist ones). Most Modern Marxists only believe in Marxism insofar as it seems to support their devotion to the idea of equality despite Marxism not even being all that involved in the idea of equality.

[Anonymous No.21380532]

>>21380484
Jokes on you I'm into that shit

>>21380462
>Marx is constantly either diving into barely connected minutia or weaving grand unprovable narratives. He does not rigorously explore or defend any particular notion or system of notions.
I have absolutely no idea how you come to that conclusion. This entire post feels like an AI script. Well put together and plausible but completely disconnected from reality. Marx puts so much extensive detail into everything he talks about it's overwhelming. If you were confused there's a lot of videos online that can walk you through the material.

[Anonymous No.21380538]

>>21380519
Cool

[Anonymous No.21380540]

daily reminder that every marx hater has never read marx

[Anonymous No.21380542]

>>21380524
i find most people claiming to be orthodox marxist are really just parroting the 2nd international positions on things
a lot of marxoids do love to claim that marx held the exact same positions as your average progressive today but again i don't think that fact that people assign him ideas that he doesn't hold makes him any less useful as a thinker

[Anonymous No.21380543]

>>21380532
>Jokes on you I'm into that shit
No you aren't.

[Anonymous No.21380586]

>>21380542
>a lot of marxoids do love to claim that marx held the exact same positions as your average progressive today but again i don't think that fact that people assign him ideas that he doesn't hold makes him any less useful as a thinker
I wasn't evaluating Marx in that post. I was addressing some of his different kinds of followers.

[Anonymous No.21380624]

you niggas have never read marx

[Anonymous No.21380687]

>>21380542
>>21380586
If holding positions meant anything then Trots would have ushered in the millennium.

[Anonymous No.21380858]

>>21379402
what chapter or even page of capital supports this interpretation?

[Anonymous No.21380867]

these threads are a good reminder of the kind of people i share this board with (nonreaders)

[Anonymous No.21380872]

Marx wouldn’t be as popular today were it not for communist jews in Russia. Not to say Marx wasn’t popular during his time, but the way jews weaponized his theories is why he’s still talked about today.

Marx’s critiques on the exploitation of human labor was utilized by the jews who led the Russian revolution. Lenin and Trotsky (jews) used Marxism to justify a revolution and claim seats of power, seats which had been previously unavailable to jews in Russia. Through Marxism, Russian jews were able to usurp the Christian orthodox Tsars which had ruled Russia.

This information can be found in Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together. A hard book to find translated in English, it recounts the role played by jews in Russian society and the Russian revolution.

Today’s critiques on Marx cannot be complete without understanding the role played by jews in communist Russia.

[Anonymous No.21380888]

It's funny that losers arguing this shit here on 4chan think they are smart lmao

[Anonymous No.21380978]

>>21379413
>>21380376
>>21380462

[Anonymous No.21380996]

>321 posts in
>72% of the thread is marxists who haven't read capital saying "yall folx havent read capital"
>100% of them are men who advocate dressing up like women and molesting children
I don't get it, why do ordinary people dislike marxists?

[Anonymous No.21380997]

>>21379402
daily reminder that every marx hater has never read marx

[Anonymous No.21381009]

>>21380349
>there are good and interesting critiques of marx but you have to have actually read marx in order to understand them

Schumpeter is my favorite, but I think his criticism of socialism are ones that Marx would whole heartedly agree with. What immediately sorts an illiterate retard mumbling about jews from someone who is critically engaging with Marx is that the latter understands that Marx was not describing a system of moral standards to the economy, but trying his best to explain and predict the next mode of production after capitalism, whether good or bad.

[Anonymous No.21381042]

>>21380996
Imagine being so braindead as to think that the communists on 4chan are the same people as the purple haired faggots. We're just incels like you bud, we just know how to make an actual argument about the topic without hand waving at the scary jews and lesbians you saw on Twitter

[Anonymous No.21381055]

>>21379402
He's being ironic, economists think value is always subjective

[Anonymous No.21381062]

>>21379437
>>21379402
Bohm Bawerk and the austrians had the absolute best critique of marx's LTV and marxists are STILL seething about getting BTFO over 100 years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_and_the_Close_of_His_System

[Anonymous No.21381071]

Why do leftists think taking over the means of production will magically benefit their lives whatsoever?

>OH WOW I WILL GET 5% OF MY MONEY BACK, OH WAIT NEVERMIND IT'S NOT EVEN THAT
>SURELY THIS IS WORTH HAVING A REVOLUTION OVER

[Anonymous No.21381079]

>>21380387
>The LTV was true
Time preference exists. Soooooo the LTV doesn't exist.
Problem?

[Anonymous No.21381084]

>>21380387
>You have never read Marx.
lmao this is the go to cope for when marxists are actually forced to respond to criticism
like clockwork

[Anonymous No.21381096]

>>21380532
marxism is basically word salad that contradicts itself

>>21380540
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_and_the_Close_of_His_System
https://books.google.ca/books/about/Marxism.html?id=TVkVAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis

[Anonymous No.21381100]

>>21381042
imagine unironically being a self hating communist bootlicker
what the fuck is wrong with your brain where you fight against your own economic interests?

[Anonymous No.21381104]

>>21381009
>but trying his best to explain and predict the next mode of production after capitalism, whether good or bad.
how did he get it so wrong then?

>there will be no division of labor and the state will wither away
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

[Anonymous No.21381110]

>>21380624
>>21380978
>you niggas have never read marx
Literally every marxist says this when backed into a corner.
They've never read marx.

[Anonymous No.21381121]

>>21381110
You didn't refute him

[Anonymous No.21381122]

>>21381042
>Imagine being so braindead as to think that the communists on 4chan are the same people as the purple haired faggots. We're just incels like you bud, we just know how to make an actual argument about the topic without hand waving at the scary jews and lesbians you saw on Twitter
This leftypol cope is just not true. Face it, you are a minority in leftist spaces and your only cope is to screech about the rest are just not real leftists. It's pathetic. And the ones among you which are "anti-idpol" types, are all vulgar "materialists" who just beat people over the head with quotes from 20th century ideologues nobody cares about. it reaches a point where the aesthetic of revolutionary struggle completely supplants any actual substance, and you just talk in circles about the same set of ideas over and over again while doing fuck all. It's larp. You are all just standing around a dead horse, poking it with a stick to see if you can squeeze just a little bit more out of it.

[Anonymous No.21381126]

>>21380501
>>21380519
>Here's a quick rundown. Business profit is gross sales - (cost of labor + cost of materials and equipment). As tech increases corps have to keep investing in equipment/machinery to compete with rival corps. This increases supply which lowers the price. This means that all things being equal profit will get smaller and smaller over time. Eventually, this will cause a crisis called a depression or recession where investments start going bust on mass. Marx predicts that all else being equal these crises will become more frequent and drastic. Okishio showed that if you can somehow keep coming up with a constantly increasing worker base then you can have stable capitalism. This is why immigration and mass trade is a huge deal at this point in time.

IMAGINE believing the falling rate of profit theory when there is so much evidence against it and it's been refuted.
https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/02/marxs-tendency-of-rate-of-profit-to.html
https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-us-profit-rate-was-abnormally-high.html
Many marxists don't even believe in it anymore.
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/crisis-theory-the-law-of-the-tendency-of-the-profit-rate-to-fall-and-marxs-studies-in-the-1870s/
IMAGINE not accepting the austrian theory of the business cycle instead which is much more coherent and which actually plays out in history

[Anonymous No.21381128]

herpa derp marx a shit okay show's over

[Anonymous No.21381136]

>>21381121
Bohm Bawerk did.
The world is still waiting on marxist's response to Bohm Bawerk over 100 years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_and_the_Close_of_His_System

[Anonymous No.21381158]

>it's another marx thread where all the marxists act like weird retards and fags to convert people to their transgender rights activism movement

[Anonymous No.21381162]

>>21380501
So the tendency of profit to fall is because of a growing proportion of capital relative to labour. Every new unit of capital has decreasing returns relative to an ideal labour capital mix. The idea is more or less that it is harder to squeeze more productivity out of an ever increasing amount of capital over time if labour is static. Less productivity means lower returns to investment. Eventually the return to investment falls to zero, and people stop investing. Which causes a chain reaction along the supply chain leading to economic crisis.

Marx himself suggested two things that could temporally go against the general tendency of profit to fall. An increase in productivity based wages making producing more capital relativity profitable again, and the destruction of capital during economic crisis doing the same.

However it seems the two get out of jail free cards might not be as temporary as Marx thought. Marx thought that wages would fall to subsistence because of his theory of exploitation. However if that is not the case then wages could continue to keep the relative value of capital high.

Also capital is not just destroyed by crisis but by progress. A new technology can make existing capital obsolete(both because their might be a better capital, or because the consumer good itself has been abandoned or changed along with the capital that produces it) devaluing it relative to labour, and spurring on a new wave of investment in the new technology. This is the idea created by Schumpeter famously called "creative destruction".

So to recap: increasing labour, rising wages, and creative destruction are forces that can keep the falling rate of profit at bay potentially perpetually.

[Anonymous No.21381173]

Marx LITERALLY thought wages would be kept on a "subsistence level".

He was dead wrong, even in his own time wages continued to rise.
How do marxists deal with the fact reality proved marx wrong?

[Anonymous No.21381176]

>>21381158
Reminder that marxists don't even believe in evolution. They think all human behavior is the result of economic forces and that biological instincts do not exist LOL

[Anonymous No.21381198]

Where does the money with which capitalists use to invest originate?
What is the “risk” incurred when investing this money? What happens if your business venture fails?
How are undesirable jobs filled? Nobody wants to flip burgers for a lifetime, or clean out septic tanks, but still these jobs must be done. What compels someone to become a shit scrubber?

[Anonymous No.21381210]

>>21381198
>Where does the money with which capitalists use to invest originate?
It was either saved when they were workers or they got it from loans.
>What is the “risk” incurred when investing this money?
They could lose all of the money?
>What happens if your business venture fails?
All of that money you accumulated while waging disappears?
>obody wants to flip burgers for a lifetime, or clean out septic tanks, but still these jobs must be done.
Your point being?
>What compels someone to become a shit scrubber?
It probably pays a bit more than typical jobs.

[Anonymous No.21381225]

You could take every single dollar from every single billionaire and it would only fund the US government for a little over a year.
Why do leftists think eating the rich is the answer to everything?

[Anonymous No.21381299]

>>21381071
>saved capital
How did he save capital if he’s not producing anything?
>you get the majority of the profits
More like the CEO makes millions while the workers make a fraction of that. We’re talking about massive corporations here who don’t pay their fair share of taxes or wages.
>I take on the risk
Risk is entirely relative and changes constantly. Jeff Bezos isn’t risking shit anymore.

[Anonymous No.21381343]

>>21381299
>How did he save capital if he’s not producing anything?
He either got it from working for another capitalist, borrowed it from someone else who saved it, or got it from being a capitalist some time in the past.
The capitalist does produce goods. The production wouldn't exist without his capital and planning.
>More like the CEO makes millions
Brainlet, typical profit margins are around 5-10%. If surplus value was real, this is all that is taken out of your paycheck by the capitalists. Your taxes are more than that, who cares?
>BUH BUH MUH MILLIONS BILLIONS ZILLIONS
Yeah okay divide that amount by every worker in the firm, it's barely anything.
The capitalist advances future profits to the workers in the present, this is discounted by the interest rate. Bohm Bawerk discovered this and it explains away the LTV/surplus value noise brilliantly.

>while the workers make a fraction of that.
It's hilarious how much marxists think the capitalist are stealing from them. It's like they think each worker could have the lifestyle of bezos if bezos didn't exist lmao pic related
This is the main thing we need to drill into the heads of naive socialist zoomers.
If you took every last penny from billionaires(and ignored the fact you'd get like 10% of that anyway because you'd need to liquidate the stock and destroy the companies to do this) you'd be able to fund the US government for a little over a year. That's it.

>fair share
Not a thing.

>taxes
Taxation is theft.

>Jeff Bezos isn’t risking shit anymore.
Yes, he is. In fact his net worth radically decreased over the past few years. He took that risk. He could have sold his shares at the top.

[Anonymous No.21381565]

>>21381343
I don't want to end world hunger. We have too many people, specifically low IQ, communistic, r-selected, dysfunctional third world people.

The global south deserves to starve and suffer, and I will watch with apathy as it happens. The worthless Shaniquas will point their TV cameras at me and say "HE IS THE REASON MY KIDS CAN'T EAT" - as she has 8+ kids on a shoestring budget, while I chose to have only 1-2 and to invest highly in those 1-2.

I will watch the bloat flies swarm their empty eyes without a single shred of pity in my heart. Because white empathy has been exploited by the global south for far too long.

[Anonymous No.21381591]

>>21380484
Marx wrote some good stuff honestly, but the fact is his solutions weren’t great and his followers are just as crazy as the fascists in my eyes. You always hear them harping on like the world didn’t have multiple communist revolutions. They hate America with every fiber of their being for going a different route, but I don’t see those communist revolutions leading to something better than America.

Of course I’m not about to discount Marx’s thousands of pages of work over this shit and people who hand wave his work with no genuine arguments are pathetic.

[Anonymous No.21381593]

>>21381565
>he actually thinks we invest in foreign aid

[Anonymous No.21381673]

>>21381136
>marxist's response to Bohm Bawerk over 100 years later.
there's been plenty

https://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/ch02.htm

https://libcom.org/article/critique-bourgeois-science-microeconomics-explanation-value-invention-marginal-utility

[Anonymous No.21381685]

>>21381122
Leftist spaces aren't a thing.
Leftism isn't a real thing.