Was Marx basically right?

[Anonymous No.23509704]

I've been reading Capital and I'm convinced this is the best book I've ever read. I also read a portion of the German Ideology.
The other day I read about Dulcinians. A religious sect that was killed off by the Inquisition. They fought against Feudalism and wanted an egalitarian society.
They were shut down because, of course, in the medieval spirit, they were going against god. Feudalism was essentially created by god and his order should not be disrupted. After all, who could defeat god?
Today they tell us similar things. Capitalism is the best system we can have. Going against it? You are fighting against human nature (god's order), democracy (Christendom) and you are doomed to fail. But technology develops, societies change, why are capitalist ideologues so dishonest? Why can't they recognise the irony of their claims?

[Anonymous No.23509711]

>>23509704
if marx were right he would be berating the patent office, not "capitalism"

[Anonymous No.23509721]

>>23509704
Marx criticism are valid and on point about capitalism, but all socialist experiment of the 20th are failure or a mix bag, the better system now is a Scandinavian social democracy with markets.

[Anonymous No.23509740]

>>23509721
Leninism was an obvious failure. I think Capitalism has to develop itself enough for it to be overthrown, the same way peasant revolts didn't end Feudalism.

[Anonymous No.23509743]

>>23509704
Gramsci touches on the cultural elements a lot more, but it's all there in Marx. Of course capitalism creates its own self-reifying apparatus and of course idealogues (left and right) will eat up all this garbage about capitalism being le best system.
>>23509721
>the better system now is a Scandinavian social democracy with markets.
Yet these societies have some of the highest use-rates of anti-depressants globally. A better way would just be utterly destroying the capitalist system.

[Anonymous No.23509767]

>>23509704
The most enduring element of his thought might be applying his critique of religion to capitalism. It's an alienation of humanity onto a man-made creation that people think created them, and they worship that fraction of themselves so they can regain what has been taken from them.

[Anonymous No.23509851]

>>23509704
No. His statement on the English kid ‘William Wood’ being overworked by Capitalists doesn’t sound so bad when you realise he would have gotten paid less by feudal lords or just starved in 50 years before his time. Or the fact that children mortality was way higher before the industrial revolution and Capitalism uprising.

[Anonymous No.23510253]

>>23509851
>Or the fact that children mortality was way higher before the industrial revolution and Capitalism uprising.
Not when Marx was writing. Important thing to mention. And a big reason why it changed is because of laws and reforms since then brought about by worker agitation.

[Anonymous No.23510294]

>>23510253
More like in lesser developed Germany and where he originally got his ideas in 1848. The mortality rate for kids was definitely smaller then it was when Marx, Jenny and their family sailed to London where he wrote most of his tome, especially London. He may have not known it, to give him credit, as evidence and reports for children’s mortality was under-researched until a few decades later.

[Anonymous No.23510302]

If anyone was right it was Mussolini. The mixed economy has pretty much taken over the world. Capitalist countries becoming more socialist and social countries becoming more capitalist.

[Anonymous No.23510311]

>>23509743
I don’t see any logic for depression decreasing if you got rid of capitalism. To me it seems like depression is a byproduct of development. The farther people are removed from the environment that they evolved to live within, the more depression you will have. A very rich communist country (which has no way of existing) would still see very high rates of depression IMO.

[Anonymous No.23510315]

>>23509704
no, he wasn't. one need only look at his mathematical "proofs" just how truly retarded he was, but its no wonder he's only popular with the innumerate

[Anonymous No.23510416]

So you guys have to accept that:
1/ all societies decay
2/ the democratic republics by the bourgeois will not be exempted from decay
3/ the new society will not have the bourgeois at the top, ie it will not be a republic
4/ if the new model of society is so obvious, the bourgeois will nip it in the bud, in order to keep their republics alive
5/ the new society will NEVER EVER be created by any civil servant or businessman

=>The solution will never come from any media products like the coomer Zemmour in France, nor from a business product like the coomer Trump in the USA, nor from an academic product like Milei (in democracy, academia is part of the entertainment industry), let alone a self-made intellectual like Dugin, nor from a woman because, in democracy, women are products of bureaucracies and marketing.
The solution will come from somebody who is not part of the republic. Only an external element and/or an external event to the republic will destroy the republic and the fake dichotomy bureaucrats-businessmen for good.
The point is that it will be so strange that westerners won't see it coming.

[Anonymous No.23510460]

I don't like reading satanists, sorry

[Anonymous No.23510495]

>>23509704
No

[Anonymous No.23510536]

>>23509743
>Yet these societies have some of the highest use-rates of anti-depressants globally.
Sounding awfully reactionary there froggy.

[Anonymous No.23510545]

>>23509704
Commies are really good at formulating all sorts of criticism of capitalism and explain why it should be destroyed.
Unfortunately when it comes to actually replacing it with something else and creating a socialist society instead it always turns into a nightmarish dystopia.

[Anonymous No.23510851]

>>23509851
You're joking. People worked in worse conditions in the 1800s than as serfs in Feudalism. Engels wrote a small book about it.
>>23510545
Do you think Feudal people thought up a perfect model of Capitalism before their time?

[Anonymous No.23510872]

>>23509704
Workers of the world should unite, indeed. Communism is wrong about central/state powers organizing that.

[Anonymous No.23510880]

It won't be as correct as the next book you read, which will change your mind. And then the next one and the next one...

Marx said nothing remarkable.

[Anonymous No.23510889]

>>23510460
do you mean atheists

[Anonymous No.23510891]

>>23510872
you say that as if there's consensus among communists

[Anonymous No.23510895]

>>23510891
It's enough of a consensus, even with variations. There's always some centralizing body that's rearing its head around the corner. It's what makes it different that Distributism, for example. Even if they have the same initial goals of the wellbeing for the working class.

[Anonymous No.23512091]

He's a great writer, but he didn't realize that a socialist government has a sizeable chance of leading to the total enslavement of the individual to the ideal of communism.

[Anonymous No.23512158]

Basically, it's just inane. Power consolidates. People justify their own corruption. If you want to explore a materialistic worldview that incorporates all his supposed insights better look at what biological evolution says about the world .

[Anonymous No.23512198]

>>23510851
>Engels wrote a small book about it.
Work in question?

[Anonymous No.23512311]

>>23512198
The Condition of the Working class in England

[Anonymous No.23512406]

>>23509704
>why are capitalist ideologues so dishonest?
at the end of the day everyone is part of some lobby and those make up "capitalist ideology", it's class struggle in a broad sense and there is no good or evil class, there are colliding interests. Look at how "digital artists" who would fall over themselves about how tech is "democratizing art" (=giving them an opportunity to make money) are seething about AI image generation, as it destroys that opportunity while democratizing even more. It's just a small example. Or look at bureaucracies and how they will gladly accept utter inefficiency as long as their jobs are protected and well-paid and easy.

A truly egalitarian society will only be possible with the end of scarcity, when having others do work for you (that's what money does) is not that big a deal because you get anything you need for free, made by machines.

[Anonymous No.23512412]

>>23509704
No

[Anonymous No.23512432]

>>23510302
Truth pilled

[Anonymous No.23512441]

>>23510315
This.
>"Calculus shouldn't exist because I have a conceptual issue with derivatives."

[Anonymous No.23512648]

Marxists today rarely touch upon the issue of workers not identyfing with their job. How can there be unity if everyone on the jobsite hate each other? Like people today seem only interested in collecting "experiences" and not an actual future. It's a debate that would involve the toxic post 68 "culture" and it would be interesting to hear both leftist and righ wingers answer to this problem, but like I said this culture today is all-enveloping.

[Anonymous No.23512662]

>>23512441
>Calculus shouldn't exist because I have a conceptual issue with derivatives."

It’s a bit anachronistic to consider it bad math when Euler also points out that the ratio 0/0 between infinitely small quantities can take any value. The limit notion existed but was not widespread, and set theory and modern predicate logic (for expressing precisely the ε-δ formulation) had yet to be developed

[Anonymous No.23512681]

>>23509704
>I've been reading Capital and I'm convinced this is the best book I've ever read.
So you only ever read 1 book in your life? Sad!

[Anonymous No.23512774]

>>23512091
Thats the thing with leftoids though. They only want to criticize because that makes them feel smart. They don't actually offer sensible solutions to anything. Most of their solutions are in fact, the most retarded possible solution because that is what is most easily understood by the common man.

>want to raise up the wages
Impose a high minimum wage. Then you don't have to worry about things like supply/demand, training, culture, deindustrialization, immigration policies etc. It is the most brain dead way to raise wages, and they have this logic across the board. In every scenario the leftoid will take the most retarded means to get their ends. Usually involving price controls, and the state ordering people around rather than trying to address the root cause of any problem.

[Anonymous No.23512795]

How can marx fags say he was right when theres literally zero proof of concept? If anything theres negative proof of concept?

[Anonymous No.23512814]

>>23509704
How did this guys writings turn into this unhinged, murderous cult of losers, pseudo intellectuals and jews?

[Anonymous No.23512932]

I need some leftist to explain to me how socialism will be reached in a post-industrial world ravaged by climate change and resource exhaustion. Because the way I see it the ecological conditions of the future make socialism, at least in the industrial/technical form it’s commonly imagined as, impossible.

[Anonymous No.23512986]

>>23510545
because capitalism kills its competition.
One small example: cars. Gas makers intentionally murdered the EV industry for as long as they could.
Capitalism does the same, not allowing good alternatives to exist. Have no choice but to shoot first and hope for the best

[Anonymous No.23513001]

>>23512986
thats a retarded way of thinking about the barriers to ev usage and doesn't comport with the reality of the adoption or use new technology at all

[Anonymous No.23513002]

>>23510880
Marx genius was analysis; explaining the underlying causes. His points may seem obvious but nobody gets them right.

[Anonymous No.23513029]

>>23510416
the term bourgeoisie lost all meaning when the nobility was abolished/relegated to ceremony. Any analysis that considers the bourgeoisie as a real and integral part of the puzzle is invalid.

[Anonymous No.23513036]

>>23512406
digital artists seethe about AI (as should you) because AI art destroys the spirit of art-making and produces pure unadulterated SLOP. Why would anyone like art which was created by no-one, held no message, whose making did not bring any growth or satisfaction from anyone, and that is not even an expression of talent? Worse, AI """"""artists""""" claim to be artists when they can't even make a stick figure on their own.

[Anonymous No.23513142]

>>23513036
See, that absolutely doesn't matter from the material point of view, just as it didn't matter whether clergymen 500 years ago thought a printed book lacked SOVL as opposed to a hand-copied one, as I'm sure many of them did. AI is a new means of production and will give a certain measure of power to whoever's able to control and use it, and your aesthetic judgements of it are just ripples in the superstructure.

[Anonymous No.23513586]

>>23512648
read some post-operaismo on social wage compositions of the class.

[Anonymous No.23513599]

>>23512681
>anti-marx person posting this zogged out shit on lit
grim

[Anonymous No.23514006]

>>23512774
What kind of leftists are you talking to that aren't concerned with root causes? American ones, right? Did you simply assume that they were genuine leftists because they self identified as such?

[Anonymous No.23514011]

>>23512932
It's not a short term goal.

[Anonymous No.23514098]

Marx couldn't have been more wrong. His point of view is that of the parasite that demands to feed off the host indefinitely without consequence. It has never worked, and will never work.

[Anonymous No.23514131]

>>23514098
Insightful. Try explaining yourself, if you can.

[Anonymous No.23514139]

>>23512932
I hate marxists but sadly I see things very much opposite. AI will allow their dreams of central planning to actually work some day. Without very sophisticated AI they cant run an economy.

[Anonymous No.23514143]

>>23512986
What a fucking retarded criticism of capitalism lmao EVs are being produced at record rates. By the way how many electric vehicles are there in Cuba? Last I checked they were still driving ancient cars there lol

[Anonymous No.23514278]

>>23513586
Does that mean Hardt & Negri, or did you have something else in mind?

[Anonymous No.23514292]

>>23509740
>Leninism was an obvious failure
Stalin killed the NEP, meanwhile Deng tried it and now China is doing great.

[Anonymous No.23514294]

>>23510311
>I don’t see any logic for depression decreasing if you got rid of capitalism
nta but capitalism fuels globalism, which fuels narcissism, which fuels depression.

Capitalism fuels globalism because it's economically efficient to eradicate borders.
Eradicating borders increases uniformity.
Uniformity decreases pain (no one opposes you).
The absence of pain converts into hedonism.
Hedonistic pleasure and uniformity together strengthen narcissism (everything is an extension of self).
Narcissism leads to a collapse of time (self-reference cannot provide narrative structure).
No time + capitalist worship of work = feeling of frantic multi-tasking around the clock = burnout = depression (exhaustion of self).

[Anonymous No.23514295]

>>23509704
Marx's primary issue was his inability to separate the idea of 'capital' from 'power' and his oversimplification of exploitation of product. This, combined with his reactionary and flawed vision of history, led him to think what a lot of people like to think, that being that they are in the times that are changing. The reality is that pretty much every form of government and economic structure has been based around oligarchical principles and the idea of supply and demand.

He reminds me a lot of Freud in that he had points but tended to oversimplify issues rather than understand the nuance and very sociological reality of human interactions. His brushing off of the rural class, which he stated was unable to become a united class due to its diversity, has been proven wrong consistently and his lack of foresight in the formation of a class of bureaucrats formed from the soviet's and unions required for communes was borderline retarded.

[Anonymous No.23514376]

>>23514278
I was more thinking starting with Silvia Federici and Selma James: if in the current composition of labour wages have a social aspect rather than a job specific aspect, a fixation on job specificity is a negative for forming solidarity, compared to a generalised understanding of the reproduction of labour power. You get me? Zoomers are vapid cunts because its an optimum working class in-itself strategy for maximisation of reproduction of actually living labour and potential to sell labour power.

[Anonymous No.23514524]

>>23514295
>The reality is that pretty much every form of government and economic structure has been based around oligarchical principles and the idea of supply and demand.
Primitive communism
>His brushing off of the rural class, which he stated was unable to become a united class due to its diversity, has been proven wrong consistently
Fair, but this was never a central issue for Marx in the first place
>his lack of foresight in the formation of a class of bureaucrats formed from the soviet's and unions required for communes was borderline retarded.
Same as last one: Marx infamously declined to forecast what he thought communism would look like because he was aware that as a member of the bourgeois worldview it would be impossible for him to do so. By the dictates of historical materialism Marx lacks the material conditions requisite for the elaboration of communism as a formal system. Who in the year 800 would have been able to imagine our world?

[Anonymous No.23514532]

>>23509704
> why are capitalist ideologues so dishonest? Why can't they recognise the irony of their claims?
They know it's doublespeak.
You are not the target audience of those claims.

[Anonymous No.23515090]

>>23514131
What's to explain? Marx preached from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Such values reward parasites. It's much easier to have all needs and no abilities.

[Anonymous No.23515096]

>>23512986
Are you delusional? Unsold Chinese EVs are piling up in European ports. The governments of the world are trying to push EVs down the people's throats, but no one wants them. Capitalism wasn't suppressing them; if anything, the customer was.

[Anonymous No.23515124]

>>23515096
why would gas companies have any say over what kind of cars car makers produce? this is a ridiculous leftist conspiracy theory. the only thing stopping the electric car in the past was that battery technology wasn't mature enough. byd literally started as a battery company in the 90s. after the growth of mobile devices and the research put into batteries, evs are finally viable now.
>>23512986
if no one wants them, why did biden have to put a 100% tariff on them? just goes to show you how much libs really care about the environment. low income hippies could be buying cheap evs from china, but instead biden has limited them to upper middle class tech bros via his tariff regime.

[Anonymous No.23515158]

>>23515124
Viable? Are you high? EVs have serious range issues, replacing the batteries when they wear out is ridiculously expensive, the batteries (even new ones) spontaneously combust for no apparent reason, it takes 25x more water to put out an EV fire than a car fire, their tires wear out faster (and put more particulates into the air) because they're heavier, etc. I could go on. The bottom line is that most people don't want to buy them, hence why they're piling up in European ports (which has nothing to do with Biden's tariffs). Ford has already declared they've stopped making EVs in favor of hybrids, which people actually want. The only one that really wanted EVs was the government, and they squandered billions trying to push this crappy idea down our throats.

[Anonymous No.23515431]

Marxism has been refuted so many times. It's for dumb slaves and literal subhumans.

[Anonymous No.23515479]

>>23515158
>push this crappy idea down our throats.
Like what Jews do with Marxism?

[Anonymous No.23515542]

>>23515479
It wouldn't surprise me if EVs were being pushed by the same people pushing Marxism. A low-range car, for people who aren't allowed to stray very far.

[Anonymous No.23515549]

>>23514524
>Primitive communism
Is a buzzword and an idealizes version of early history that Marx dreamed up to rationalize his own viewpoints

>Was never a central issue
Yes and that's my point. The lack of care for rural working class, and specifically farmers, was one of the core failures of communism as was his inability to comprehend them as a class in of themselves. His over simplification of the class structure as exploiters and workers caused a fundamental flaw that was unable to be overcome. In the USSR of it hadnt been for western intervention in the agricultural sector of Russia, and the rise of the kulaks, the entire system would've died in it's cradle

>Refused to forecast
But he didn't, he consistently forecasted he simply chose when to do so. His refusal to see human culture for the reality it was, that being a cycle of power structures from one interest group to the next, was a huge and gaping hole in his entire theory. I can tell you with certainty that 800 years from now, whatever government we have in place will have an oligarchical ruling class. How much sway the people have over them is an entirely different question.

[Anonymous No.23516097]

>>23514131
he doesn't understand incentives

[Anonymous No.23516120]

Ancient Athens was social-democrat. From a sociological point of view, they were more modern than the current West. Just a few more years until the rich are disenfranchised! Next collapse.

[Anonymous No.23516656]

>>23515090
One doesn't get to choose one's needs or abilities.

[Anonymous No.23516721]

>>23516656
Of course they choose their abilities. They work hard at something and increase their abilities. But it's much easier to sit on your dead ass and pretend you have no abilities, but of course your needs go on forever, and you can claim you have nothing to exchange for them, so eventually civilization collapses, just like the Soviet Union did.

[Anonymous No.23516733]

>>23515431
>literal subhumans
explain exactly what you mean by this
so we know what kind of person you are

[Anonymous No.23516774]

>>23516097
great explanation faggot

[Anonymous No.23516780]

>>23516721
>The soviet union collapsed because I didn't introspect the need for learning or working.

GJ. Peterson grade. Yes I did mean what I said.

[Anonymous No.23517005]

>>23516780
You can't force someone to reveal their talents. But they can't help but reveal their needs.

[Anonymous No.23517039]

>>23517005
What if I told you that expression of talents was a high order maslow need?

[Anonymous No.23517042]

test

[Anonymous No.23517050]

>>23509704
marx was a good sociologist.
marx was a bad economist.

[Anonymous No.23517056]

>>23516733
nta, but probably south east asians and transgenders

[Anonymous No.23517060]

>>23517039
Thats literally not true though. Some of the best books were written by people who didn't have all their needs met

[Anonymous No.23517086]

>>23517060
>Some of the best books were written by people who
Generally aren't expressing their identity but resolving core traumas on a need based level.

The best art may come from lower order fulfilments like security. Still diké. Take the diké. Love the diké.

[Anonymous No.23517094]

>>23517039
Not if you live in a society that's forced, by design, to supply your needs. Remember, socialism/communism have failed every time they've been tried. I was just trying to explain why. You appear to be coping.

[Anonymous No.23517134]

>>23509711
>Not interpreting bureaucracy as a tool of capital to be exploited
ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.23517142]

>>23509704
Since anons get their panties in a bunch over Marx I say he’s based

[Anonymous No.23517159]

>>23515549
as per usual these threads are filled with idiots offering up their worthless opinions your post being the apex of mount stupid

> His refusal to see human culture for the reality it was, that being a cycle of power structures from one interest group to the next, was a huge and gaping hole in his entire theory.
absolutely insane 'take'

>>23517094
>Not if you live in a society that's forced, by design, to supply your needs.
read the Gotha critique moron

[Anonymous No.23517166]

>>23517159
>Gotha critique
irrelevant. communism implodes long before that point

[Anonymous No.23517168]

>>23509704
Marx was right. AI and replicator technology, aka, "printing" technology, will make post-scarcity a reality. Capitalism makes no sense other than in environments of scarcity.

[Anonymous No.23517182]

>>23517168
AI is vastly oversold, and 3D printing technology is a lot more expensive, and difficult to wield, than you might think. Also, you can't 3D print food.

[Anonymous No.23517184]

>>23517182
Yeah, man can't fly. Flying machines? You've been watching too many puppet shows. Man will never be able to build a flying machine.

[Anonymous No.23517196]

>>23517168
Modern food has less nutrients. There's no such thing as post-scarcity. It's a complete fantasy.

[Anonymous No.23517234]

>>23517196
Modern food isn't replicated at the molecular level. It's fillers and binders plastered together

[Anonymous No.23517253]

>>23517234
>It's fillers and binders plastered together
It's actually grown with antibiotics and poorer quality feed. Not even meat has the same nutritional value anymore. Point is, you're asking for a miracle, for Techno Jesus to arrive and make infinite bread "at the molecular level." But something will be lost, and some form of scarcity will remain.

[Anonymous No.23517261]

>>23517094
>Remember, socialism/communism have failed every time they've been tried. I was just trying to explain why.
You're doing a fucking awful job.

What were the levels of mechanisation in Soviet consumer goods production? How did the soviet business loans market work? Which industries had effective wage motivation in the Soviet Union?

Fuck off and read. Andrle, Fitzpatrick

[Anonymous No.23517269]

>>23517253
I'm not asking for a miracle, I'm predicting something entirely feasible using insights from contemporary physics and engineering principles.
You're describing problems that would be solved by what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.23517277]

>>23517269
You are asking for a miracle. Let's say highly nutritional food can be cloned perfectly and without limit, something which is not guaranteed. Okay, so where will the infinite distribution centers and delivery transports come from? Or the infinite waste disposal facilities?

A deeper question: what's the point? What do we gain by not only being fed by the machine, but by having our asses wiped by the machine too? Will this really make us better? Why would it when character is built by grappling with and overcoming resistance?

[Anonymous No.23517295]

>>23517277
You raise several intriguing points which at one time, I agreed with or sympathized with. Let's explore them. Firstly, i want to stress that when I say post-scarcity, I recognize that a true 100% post-scarcity environment is never really possible. What is possible, and very probable, is a state of abundance that renders capitalism's main justifications for itself inert, and creates a state of practical post-scarcity. Something will always be needed that we don't have enough of, some limit will always confront us. But the nature of the game will change drastically. As for the infinite machines needed and distribution centers etc, a conglomerate of innovations makes this extremely likely. Autonomic technologies have ever expanding, exponential capacity to produce at scale. Once singularity is achieved, and it will be, you really up the ante. Simply put, how will these machines and centers be built? By machines that know how to build them at scale and with rapacious pacing.

As for your latter, more existential problem, that's the one I spend the most amount of time thinking about. Here's what I'll say. The human destiny, journey, whatever, is anchored by perspective, freely chosen. One view is overcoming resistance creates character. Perhaps it does. But I'd wonder about whether or not an African child with a distended belly and no air conditioning, who's parents fight in wars over scant resources and can barely read, thinks of their experience as a character building endeavor. I would imagine they think of it as an unrepentant, meaningless Hell, that they either feel the need to escape from (many can't find the exit!), or, some justification for seething hatred and vengeance upon the world.
So what would be the point...you said I'm looking for a techno-Jesus. That's a good analogy. The point would be to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to cool the overheated, to warm the frozen. Character can be built in many ways, and the horrid poverty of my fellow men and women is a form of resistance to be overcome; not by ego, but by love.
Am I making sense to you? I sincerely hope I am.

[Anonymous No.23517307]

>>23517295
I'm too tired to continue this conversation, so I'll just concede for now and say thanks for the effortpost. I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced that abundance will completely kill capitalism; I think it's a little more nefarious than that (I'm not exactly pro-capitalism btw), especially in its neoliberal form.

[Anonymous No.23517331]

>>23517307
I think capital vs labor is only justified by high levels of scarcity. Once its brought down to negligible levels, the sole justification for some people's ownership of scarce resources versus others is eliminated.
Though I, like you, fully expect that this won't occur without major social upheavals and desperate, deranged attempts by some to maintain their "power." Luckily, machines are stronger than men in terms of will.
But I recognize what you said about continuing the conversation, so those will be my final thoughts. A good night to you my friend.

[Anonymous No.23517441]

>>23509721
Social democracy equals castration, those niggas are spiritually dead

[Anonymous No.23517442]

>>23513036
>>digital artists seethe about AI (as should you) because AI art destroys the spirit of art-making and produces pure unadulterated SLOP. Why would anyone like art which was created by no-one, held no message, whose making did not bring any growth or satisfaction from anyone, and that is not even an expression of talent?
Because it's hot and you can jerk to it and you don't have to wait 6 months for some hoity toity trust fund babby to get out of their drug induced stupor to finish the commission?

[Anonymous No.23517786]

>>23515090
Let me guess, landlords are not parasitic in your view because they "providewkyr housing".

[Anonymous No.23517807]

>>23509704
>why are capitalist ideologues so dishonest?
Let's spin that around for a second. If I make one salient critique of socialism are you going to abandon it forever?

[Anonymous No.23517819]

>>23509704
The way Capital is written is one of the smartest things ive ever seen in a political manifesto and goes to show hes more intellectual than a lot or conservatards pin him as
Most marxists I talk to always say the manifesto is pure slogans and propaganda if you wanna understand Marx you ought to read Capital
Capital is written is a kind of vague yet intellectual way so that it can have multiple interpretations and views based on what the person reading sees on the text and manages to do that without losing out its core points
Marx probably observed that when 2 people read the same book they often times have very different views on it and that said views were directly influenced by said person's own personal agenda and experiences, thus tailoring his whole text with small gaps so the reader automatically fills it with what he deems most appropriate, kind of falling in love with it, he does this specially during gaps between 2 importsnt points so that the more specific and applicable cases of the ideology are up to the reader's head

[Anonymous No.23517831]

>>23513036
Oh my, I work at a orchestra and seethe when hoodrats who cant even play a proper instrument go about playing their stupid electronic music made by mashing lines on a computer while I worked my ass and hands off to get where I am today, God forbid the lyrics too. Hopefully one day the plebs can appreciate real art more than trashy nonsense

[Anonymous No.23517890]

>>23514524
>Marx infamously declined to forecast what he thought communism would look like
why in the hell would you follow the vision, if you can even call it that, of a man who can't even explain what it looks like?

[Anonymous No.23517931]

>>23517295
>But I'd wonder about whether or not an African child [...] they think of it as an unrepentant, meaningless Hell
I would agree with that and it seems plausible to me that post-scarcity would be a net benefit overall but I still wonder how we would create meaning. The only thing I can think of is space colonization, but even that might either be infeasible or it will eventually be too successful and there will be nothing left to do.

[Anonymous No.23518131]

>>23517931
Space colonization is what I also think. I also understand the severity of the meaning issue, I dont write it off but I tend to think...at some point in our history there were people who felt like if we freed the slaves and designed machines, we'd destroy human meaning too. So we will figure it out.

[Anonymous No.23518206]

>>23509704
First of all it depends on what you call capitalism. Some European countries in the late 1800s in a effort to combat depression literally seized the means of production by nationalization of certain industries like railroads or by participating in the market as actors like having monopolies over certain products like tobacco. Would you still call this capitalism? Hayek calls this socialism. Liberalism would be having Laissez-faire even if you had rules like minimum wage laws and social safety net through social security.
But participation in the market through state actors, nationalizations or burocracy to the point that who really controls the industry is a state actor and the economy is centrally planned like through the use of interest rates today with the government guarantee of all banks no matter how much they fucked up, can’t really be called capitalism in the sense Marx would have called it.

[Anonymous No.23518371]

>>23509704
yes, I read the capital for philosophy class in high school (European) and changed my life. Except some irrelevant details it's literally irrefutable. that's why during the coldwar they had to make things up like Marx said everyone should own the same or that private property is illegal under communism. stuff that people still say today, that's why philosophy class is important in America, but that's too dangerous to you know who

[Anonymous No.23518374]

>>23509721
my guy, nature is dieing, millions starve to death every year and suicides are at an all time high

[Anonymous No.23518384]

>>23512681
fuck off glowie

[Anonymous No.23518388]

>>23515096
yeah with no charging infrastructure and insane taxes. don't be a retard, Europe, especially Germany, knows exactly what they are doing.

[Anonymous No.23518479]

>>23509704
Marx's criticisms were on point, outside of perhaps having "European who has never interacted with Negroes" syndrome, his weakness was always what to do next.

>>23509721
Actually I'd say the biggest success stories came from the Marxists who eventually burried the hatchet and accepted some forms of Monarchism and Hierarchy, such as China and North Korea.

Also, I don't really count social democrats as a part of Marx's thoughts, will some of them came from original Marxist parties, most of that impulse came from Nobles and the sort of people Marx derided actually reading Marx and seeing what bandaids they could put on to improve lives as far as they could without destabilizing the system.

[Anonymous No.23518485]

>>23510302
>If anyone was right it was Mussolini. The mixed economy has pretty much taken over the world
Well he is Italian, they always understood the nuances of Mixed systems more than others (Germanics, etc.)

[Anonymous No.23518505]

>>23509721
Why would you agree for leftovers the capitalists give you? Why not have a full course?

[Anonymous No.23518901]

>>23509704
Because they have literally everything to lose by stating fact about material reality. It's like asking why knights and nobles weren't honest about why peasants lives sucked and why they deserved it instead of saying shut about Catholicism and natural superiors

[Anonymous No.23519140]

>>23509721
>the better system now is a Scandinavian social democracy with markets.
If you weren't a midwit you'd understand these 'systems' don't exist in a vacuum and are dependent on other larger systems which are built upon atrocity.

[Anonymous No.23519154]

>>23519140
There's no reason Haiti can't adopt the Scandinavian model. It's not about being rich in lumber, oil, rare metals or having centuries old commercial relationships or a high IQ high trust society. It's about making sure the pieces of paper stamped "Laws" have the right words on it, socialist words.

[Anonymous No.23519171]

>>23519154
Just like people aren’t all equal laws are also not universal

[Anonymous No.23519191]

>>23519171
nah people are all the same fundamentally, differences are just transitional phases which should be recognized but not emphasized

[Anonymous No.23519212]

>>23519154
Amazing what can be achieved when you turn workers into subservient cucks

[Anonymous No.23519219]

>>23519212
Do you really doubt that Scandinavia during the height of viking barbarism wasn't better off than Haiti at any point in time?

[Anonymous No.23520698]

>>23509740
COVID came close.

The pandemic could only possibly have been so bad because of the "capitalist" (it's a corrupted, inefficient, greedy capitalism) system being overdeveloped.

The world reacted so poorly. China was secretive and misleading about possibly ending the world. And the entire United States was in a frenzied and destabilizing mental state of denial, delusion, and the anxiety of abundance scarcity and many reacted with a frenzied consumerist gluttony

[Anonymous No.23520776]

>>23515090
hmm marx's section of primitive accumulation BTFOs you. porky and their private property and consequent wealth was built upon land captures, deplorable working conditions, and exploitation of the many in the first place. there will be no need for jeff bezos and karl schwabs once AI rises up and drones them all

[Anonymous No.23520789]

>>23520776
Automating decision making out of owners hands literally could resolve into a centrally managed communism, especially if that AI is "classless" in its resource management decision making.

Ain't no chance in hell though. You're insane if you think owners lose ownership because AI automates their work.

No, AI will just keep returning value to the shareholders with less effort on their part.

Those shareholder will see their shares accumulate this value which will further and further price out non owners. This is what is happening with real estate globally, non owners are being priced out.

Equality will grow, economic mobility will slow.

[Anonymous No.23520791]

>>23520789
I know, I should have said if, not once, AI rises up. IF it does, also just as likely it'll omnicide all of us, not just globalist pedophiles and bimbo lovers (bezos)

[Anonymous No.23521931]

>>23512986
To be fair, it's not a capitalist system that does that, but an enterprise market with a crony infested regulatory bureaucracy.

Another example is telecommunications. Verizon T-Mobile and at&t run a three firm oligopoly on all telecommunications systems people have access to.

Anti competitiveness is anti capitalist.

[Anonymous No.23523087]

>>23509704
Marx's critique of capitalism is fundamentally correct. His politics was deeply flawed although he was certainly smarter than Bakunin and some of the other socialists of his time.

>>23509740
Lenin was a pseudo-intellectual at best. What we today call Marxism is largely an invention of Plekhanov and Lenin and Engels.

>>23515090
"Each according to his ability" is a phrase taken from the Bible, Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

[Anonymous No.23523108]

>>23514292
https://theredspectre.com/against-dengism.html
i don't know if i necessarily agree with this article but i think it's worth checking out

[Anonymous No.23523150]

>>23521931
Its so glaringly obvious how thing should work. All arterial systems should be owned by the government. There should be free enterprise. Once your buisness gets big enough that it is now a system that the whole nation depends on, you should get bought out by the government. There should be rich people and poor people and money should be an incentive to get people to work and create things.

The problem is that the government is always retarded and incompetent. The only real solution is to have a dictator or a king who will cut your head off for being corrupt or being a really poor administrator. Honestly I think its quite possible that a good old heritable monarchy is the best system. Yes you will get crazy/retarded leaders sometimes. But when you take the long view of history it seems that the stability is worth it.