/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23580335]

>still hasn't been disproved

[Anonymous No.23580344]

>>23580335
Wagner did.

"The intellectual battle that contemporary Germany is fighting, consciously or unconsciously, is really a battle between Richard Wagner and Karls Marx."
- Peter Struve

>The line my fancy followed was an organisation of public life in common, as also of domestic life, such as must lead of itself to a beauteous fashioning of the human race. The calculations of the newer Socialists therefore lost my sympathy from the moment they seemed to end in systems that took at first the repellent aspect of an organisation of Society for no other purpose but an equally-allotted toil. However, after sharing the horror which this aspect kindled in aesthetically-cultured minds, a deeper glance into the proposed condition of society made me believe I detected something very different from what had hovered before the fancy of those calculating Socialists themselves. I found to wit that, when equally divided among all, actual labour, wit hits crippling burthen and fatigue, would be downright done away with, leaving nothing in its stead but an occupation, which necessarily must assume an artistic character of itself. A clue to the character of this occupation, as substitute for actual labour, was offered me by Husbandry, among other things; this, when plied by every member of the commonalty [or "parish"—Gemeinde], I conceived as partly developed into more productive tillage of the Garden, partly into joint observances for times and seasons of the day and year, which, looked at closer, would take the character of strengthening exercises, ay, of recreations and festivities. Whilst trying to work out all the bearings of this transformation of one-sided labour, with its castes in town and country, into a more universal occupation lying at the door of every man, I became conscious on the other hand that I was meditating nothing so intensely new, but merely pursuing problems akin to those which so dearly had busied our greatest poets themselves, as we may see in "Wilhelm Meister's Wanderjahre." I, too, was therefore picturing to myself a world that I deemed possible, but the purer I imagined it, the more it parted company with the reality of the political tendencies-of-the-day around me; so that I could say to myself, my world will never make its entry until the very moment when the present world has ceased—in other words, where Socialists and Politicians came to end, should we commence.

[Anonymous No.23580366]

His economics have been thoroughly disproved. Most significantly, he incorrectly assumed that all technology was labour saving.

[Anonymous No.23580734]

>>23580366
I like how confidently wrong this is

[Anonymous No.23580739]

>>23580335
>still hasn't been disproved
well it certainly hasn't been proven either

[Anonymous No.23580742]

at least use Das Kapital in your OP so people will take you more seriously

[Anonymous No.23580822]

>>23580335
You should post the capital for these threads, not the manifesto. The manifesto has the two quotable lines and then spends the resto of the pamphlet attacking socialist adjacent movements of the late xix century that do not exist anymore, where not important back then, and nobody remembers enough to try and defend

[Anonymous No.23580905]

>>23580335
You can't disprove beliefs that promote sodomy, satanism and scat.
You just have to send them to Auschwitz.

[Anonymous No.23581442]

>>23580734
Ironic post.

[Anonymous No.23581481]

>>23580335
you're trans btw

[Anonymous No.23581482]

>>23580335
Marx predicted the Petite Bourgeoisie would die out but they only became more powerful and invented fascism. And that’s just one prediction that was proven wrong.

Outside the manifesto he also predicted that socialist revolutions would arise in the west. In reality they began in Russia and the only other countries that fell for that shit were 3rd world shitholes that were really just using socialism as an anti colonial tool.

[Anonymous No.23581542]

>>23580335
In a sense yes, but that's because you can't really prove a grand narrative wrong. It's always possible to push back the end date by which certain events were supposed to have happened. Whig historians do much the same thing to cope with the rise of authoritarian regimes.

[Anonymous No.23581551]

>>23580734
Dude communists are so fucking dumb. You just happen to not know the objections raised to Marxist economic theory so you assume they don’t exist. Marxism is the ultimate exercise in being a midwit pseud.

[Anonymous No.23581569]

>>23580335
The only good writing by Marx is Capital.
Marxism is shit , libertarianism is far superior to authoritarianism; Hegel, Owen, Proudhon and Bakunin’s ideas are far better, although I can’t argue against Hobbes — centralization of data (citizens recording, recording of ownerships , centralized medium of exchange , mercantilism and taxation etc) is different than centralization of political power and wealth.

[Anonymous No.23581586]

>>23580335
Literally refuted by Marx & Engels themselves in their 1872 preface to the book.
>“However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Assocation 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the Earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.

>"But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter."

[Anonymous No.23581597]

>>23581551
Oh they know them, they just ignore them.

TCM and Capital are better understood as gospels of a depraved religion than as serious works of academic learning. As with all cults, doomsday never arriving only strengthens their perverse appeal.

By the way, never ask a communist when the term 'late capitalism' was coined, or by whom.

[Anonymous No.23581806]

>>23580335
It’s unfalsifiable, ie. Not science.

[Anonymous No.23581814]

>>23580335
Just extensively discredited.

[Anonymous No.23581835]

>>23581551
>You just happen to not know the objections raised to Marxist economic theory
present them

[Anonymous No.23581867]

>>23580335
the utter failure of communist countries has already disproven it.
>inb4 muh china
not socialism.

[Anonymous No.23581894]

>>23580335
You were saying troon?

[Anonymous No.23581934]

>>23581835
See
>>23580366
Tho that error is mostly tangential to labour theory of value, which, imo, is more polisci than economics anyway.

[Anonymous No.23582250]

>>23580366
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm
unlike what >>23580366 claims, Marx does not assume that all technology raises productivity. he points out that capital tends to deploy ever more efficient machinery because competition demands it

[Anonymous No.23582252]

>>23582250 meant for >>23581934

[Anonymous No.23582326]

>>23582250
>capital tends to deploy ever more efficient machinery because competition demands it
Meanwhile, communists revert to agrarianism, and still starve in their millions.

[Anonymous No.23582508]

>>23581482
>Marx predicted the Petite Bourgeoisie would die out
wrong

>Malthus, “the profound thinker”, has different views. His supreme hope, which he himself describes as more or less utopian, is that the mass of the middle class should grow and that the proletariat (those who work) should constitute a constantly declining proportion (even though it increases absolutely) of the total population. This in fact is the course taken by bourgeois society.

[Anonymous No.23582601]

>>23581894
Ukrainians deserve to die just like Palestinians. Slava Russia , and Slava Israel.

[Anonymous No.23582652]

>>23582250
I'm not re-reading this entire thing to tell you you're wrong. If there's an excerpt you'd like me to comment on, I will.

[Anonymous No.23582668]

>>23582652
Which country do you live in?

[Anonymous No.23582684]

>>23582668
Completely and utterly irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.23582686]

>>23582684
Always glad to hear you're still a bitch.

[Anonymous No.23582698]

>>23582686
This would also be completely and utterly irrelevant, even if it were true.

[Anonymous No.23582699]

>>23582698
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.23582709]

>>23580335
Disprove this

PBRRRRRRRRRRRRRbtbtbtbt

[Anonymous No.23582733]

>>23580335
I'm not a libtard, but Mises brought up the calculation problem a century ago and communists have never hard an answer for it. But beyond that, communism is the product of slave morality and it won't offer a life worth living. The problem of alienation in liberalism doesn't come primarily from being alienated from the product of your labor, as communists believe, but it's inherent to the open society, for the open society only offers a framework of comfort, but no actual belief is permitted to be actualized in reality, as beliefs are exclusionary, and must be relegated to the realm of the imagination, and this is a problem in communism too. In an open society you're only allowed to have pseudo beliefs that call to expand the framework of comfort, like "more democracy" or "more equality", but there are no real goals in sight. For the same reason, culture is also only allowed as a decoration, as an aesthetic, but it must be flattened, because real culture implies exclusionary beliefs and therefore conflict, which cannot be permitted in the open society.

[Anonymous No.23582738]

>>23582733
>the calculation problem
kek this was solved in the 1980s, computers nowadays can manage this trivially lol

[Anonymous No.23582739]

>>23582250
You're still trans btw

[Anonymous No.23582744]

>>23580335
Is NEET life more comfy under communism? I can't imagine it being any better than it is now honestly but if it is, sign me up comrade.

[Anonymous No.23582768]

>>23582744
Being a NEET was considered a crime under Soviet laws because of full employment.

[Anonymous No.23582775]

>>23582738
This. Kek. Rightoids always bring up the so called calculation problem and like don't they know that in Cuba, North Korea and China they are right now using computers to calculate prices, which is why liberalism could never defeat them. It's like these people still believe the myth that the Soviet Union fell because their economy crumbled because it couldn't compete against liberalism. No. It fell because of, what could have been, oh, right, fucking Chernobyl? Which was admittedly a mess, but communism as a system had nothing to do with it, and the west has been lucky not to have had a disaster like that, or now we would be talking about how liberalism fell because it couldn't compete with communism.

[Anonymous No.23582786]

>>23580335
It’s one of the most profound texts ever written, completely changed my life and filled me with horror when I read it and realized how right they are about the decay of civilization and advancement of modernity into something we see as alien to us at the moment but which we might create anyway

[Anonymous No.23582791]

>>23582768
that sucks, but you could probably do some useless wordcel "job" and call it a day

[Anonymous No.23582975]

>>23582733
>Mises brought up the calculation problem a century ago and communists have never had an answer for it

[Anonymous No.23583004]

>>23582975
it's not a problem

[Anonymous No.23583037]

>>23580335
I dunno man, the state of Eastern European states ravaged by its ideals is pretty damning evidence.

[Anonymous No.23583217]

>>23582975
It was already solved. Read this >>23582786.

[Anonymous No.23583331]

>>23580335
My problem with Marx (outside of the retarded economics) is he takes axiomatically takes class identity as taking priority over every other sort of identity. This is obviously fundamental to Marxist dialectics and historiography, but it lays extremely easy ground for the scapegoating of other definitional identities as regressive within the dialectical framework. What this means in practice is that absolutely anything that could be interpreted as ideologically incompatible with whatever vision of agrarian communism is something that ought to be violently crushed, and that means every sort of traditional learning or attachment, culture, architecture, history, music, etc.. It also justifies the destruction of families, the mass displacement of peoples and deconstruction of ethnic or particularist identities, and the wholesale annihilation of entire classes of people. This is ALL completely justifiable within a Marxist frame, and its disingenuous at best to suggest men like Lenin, or Mao were simply ignorant of correct theory. They understood the theory extremely well, and applied it in a direct and practicable way. Those were the results. In China, they forcefully displaced and dismantled scores of families (as patriarchal family units promote intrafamilial wealth accumulation) and forced people onto collectivized tenement farms with complete strangers. They weaponized students to massacre their teachers, massacred other so called 'class traitors,' and engaged in the intentional and wholesale destruction of Chinese history and culture, something which even the government in China today has acknowledged was an absolute loss. If I need to say it again, none of this is inconsistent with Marxist theory. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge engaged in the wholesale depopulation of cities and mass murder of every sort of educated professional as cities were also interpreted as bourgeois and regressive institutions which resisted agrarian socialism. Were these people all simply ignorant of the theory? If that's the case, does it not speak to a fundamental failure of Marx in constructing a theory of history and society which evidently is impossible to be correctly interpreted? You might say I'm being unfair, but many of the things I've stated are directly called for in the Communist Manifesto! Dismantling families for the very reason of inheritances and bourgeois wealth accumulation are an exact justification given. Such and similar things are also stated in Engels collection of Marx's notes, 'On the Origins of the Family,' which provides a completely insane and ahistorical account of Neolithic populations engaging in literal (not exaggerating) communistic and polyamorous collectives, disrupted by the supremacy of paternalist, monogamous units. It's an absolutely sick and twisted ideology whos only fruits is misery borne from a complete denial of human feeling.

[Anonymous No.23583347]

>>23581867
>not real socialism: right wing edition

[Anonymous No.23583492]

>>23582975
there was never a calculation problem to begin with and cockshott is an utopian moron who still thinks value is transhistorical despite marx writing hundreds of pages showing otherwise

[Anonymous No.23583519]

>>23582733
time to grow up, kiddo

[Anonymous No.23583555]

Why didn't he clean his room, and get a haircut? The scruffy fucker.

[Anonymous No.23583557]

>>23580335
You do know that Marx and Engels have written tons of other material, right? More people should talk about the Critique of the Gotha Program instead of the Manifesto which is just a pamphlet calling for an uprising.

[Anonymous No.23583566]

>>23582738
>>23582775
How so?

[Anonymous No.23583621]

>>23582791
Doesn't work out like that.

[Anonymous No.23583647]

>>23581867
China IS failing. Their youth have totally given up hope for their future: search for "lying flat", "let it rot", and "last generation" for more info. Their population is shrinking; that's not to say it's growing slower, it's actually shrinking. See picrel. Their real estate bubble is several times too large for the government to be able to contain it; all they can do it put out little fires, but at some point it's going to collapse and take the rest of the economy with it. Guess building all those "ghost cities" wasn't a great idea. I could go on. Bottom line...if you thought China was a successful example of socialism, then you're simply not paying attention.

[Anonymous No.23583651]

>>23582738
>>23582775
>hurr durr computers
Garbage in, garbage out. There is simply no way to provide computers with enough info to run a socialist economy. That's like saying it's possible for computers to unerringly make money in the stock market, which is obviously not true. You are a child, and you have a child's concept of the world and what computers are capable of.

[Anonymous No.23583666]

>>23580734
Communism beat all other main ideologies except Capitalism lmao.

[Anonymous No.23583669]

>>23583666
only through sheer genocide. communism even out-genocided Islam, and that's not easy. the satanic triplet is apropos

[Anonymous No.23583677]

>>23582775
>the myth that the Soviet Union fell because their economy crumbled
But that's what happened. Otherwise, why would Gorbachev plead for $100 billion in aid from the western world?
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/23/world/gorbachev-pleads-for-100-billion-in-aid-from-west.html
Wake up, moron.

[Anonymous No.23583682]

>>23583651
>That's like saying it's possible for computers to unerringly make money in the stock market
You think it's humans making 10000000 trades per second?

[Anonymous No.23583705]

>>23580335
Oh yay. Another thread where people that mistake glowie propaganda for realpolitik make retarded accusations about "the other side" and we even have some unironic Libertarians to further muddy the waters. The level of political literacy amongst the plebs is reaching levels of compounded retardation that hasn't been seen for a thousand years.

[Anonymous No.23583712]

>>23583682
Those trades are not all successful ones. Is this just more of the Communist idea that value is determined by work?

[Anonymous No.23583718]

By Brezhnev’s late sixties and early seventies, he was too ill to travel abroad or make public appearances. Indeed, his debility left the Soviet Union without a real leader for the final six or seven years of his tenure.
Brezhnev got away with it because the Soviet state-controlled media doctored photos and videos to attest to his supposedly vigorous health and constant hands-on involvement.
“Journalists” sent out false communiques. They spun narratives that Brezhnev was robust, hale, and working long hours on behalf of the Russian people. Any dissenting journalists who sought to report the true, sad state of affairs were in danger of losing their jobs, freedom—or even their lives.
Instead, the “reporters” of Pravda (“Truth”), the official print megaphone of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, wrote lies about Brezhnev’s busy workdays. Pravda’s handlers spun fables about the respect (and fear) the rest of the world held for such a dynamic leader—even as Brezhnev became an ill virtual recluse.
The cynical Russian people shrugged because they had long been accustomed to their lying media and the falsehoods they peddled. And besides, Brezhnev was a doctrinaire Stalinist communist. So his job was not to rock the boat or upset the Russian communist hierarchy.
Instead, he reigned over the penultimate Soviet “era of stagnation,” while an ossified communism increasingly destroyed all incentives and hope, leaving the Russian people poor, cynical, and helpless.

[Anonymous No.23583731]

>>23581482
The young will never be Petite Bourgeoisie, that ship has sailed. Haute and slave, we are devolving and that is your inevitable.

[Anonymous No.23583743]

>>23583731
Any chance for socialism in America just died a horrible death... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLaQw1HXkzg

[Anonymous No.23583768]

>>23583718
>societies based on wage labour suck
yeah no shit

[Anonymous No.23583772]

>>23583743
but comrade trump is winning?

[Anonymous No.23583817]

>>23580335
It has, over and over again, commies are just too stupid and immature to see it

[Anonymous No.23583822]

>>23583772
In what universe is Trump even vaguely socialist?

[Anonymous No.23583832]

>Bitcoin exists in the current year
>Autistic losers still subscribe to marxist ideology/dialectical materialism
You are bonehead ideologues, just like irrational and stupid religious zealots except even worse because you deny the spirit/soul. I don't even think you're midwits, you're just stupid and have terrible judgement/insight

[Anonymous No.23583837]

>>23583822
The US is quite socialist, Trump is basically just an establishment politician at this point, the subhumans need their gibs and he's gibbin it to 'em

[Anonymous No.23583840]

True libertarianism is certainly more high IQ than marxism. And from there, one begins to see the need for an ethnic awareness in order to uphold a libertarian state.

[Anonymous No.23583841]

>>23583832
marx didnt account for scams unfortunately

[Anonymous No.23583981]

>>23583731
I know people that are legally mentally retarded, and make enough to be middle class.
Its not hard. You just don't wanna work.

[Anonymous No.23584022]

>>23583837
What are you talking about, moron. The entire political establishment hated him, left right and center. The reasons are because
a.) He promised to jail political opponents which is a big no no in those circles and broke with the quid pro quo style politics in DC
b.) He promised to gut the bureaucracies, which have for decades now enjoyed the privilege of dictating policy with near limitless funding and near zero oversight or scrutiny.
No matter what aisle your on these are extreme taboos in American politics to say the least, and you will absolutely never find an establishment politician calling for or messaging these things.

[Anonymous No.23584106]

>>23583492
value *is* transhistorical though. people who think otherwise have to explain what value is if it isn't SNLT, since SNLT certainly is transhistorical

[Anonymous No.23584290]

>>23584022
What he says means nothing, look at his pet UBI project, he did that because of the flu.

[Anonymous No.23584363]

>>23583822
He's a huge government spender and authoritarian

[Anonymous No.23584391]

>>23583841
Yes, you don't understand BTC (decentralised ledger, PoW, cryptography) and money/value if you think it's a scam, which is the entire point. Watch it keep going up, with billionaires, investment firms, governments, etc., gradually investing more and more in the coming years, while marxist twits squabble over badly out-of-date economic theories. Low IQ dumdum.

[Anonymous No.23584527]

>>23584391
investment firms famously dont invest in ponzi schemes and the like

[Anonymous No.23584551]

>>23581586
>"But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter."
One thing I like about Marx and Engels. They're saying to read their own shit historically.

[Anonymous No.23584766]

>>23583841
A cryptographic maxwell demon that solved bretton woods is the discovery of the century

this chud is right

>>23583832

Once the usa moves to save it's bond market Bitcoin becomes the defacto reserve currency this will also be part of the usa saving itself from the path of rome by letting stablecoins buy us treasuries in massive numbers thus being able to escape from the triffin dilemma without collapsing.

[Anonymous No.23584793]

>>23580335
I know this is tangential at best but their historeography is fucking stupid. I understand why they came to the conclusions they did and they did very well with the information they had. But the whole schema was bound to collapse from the start.

[Anonymous No.23584813]

>>23584793
Historiography, fuck.
I understand Marx never actually authored a full book about it. Although I'm pretty sure Engels did write a book dealing with something like that. Can't recall.
But nowadays, I don't think it's possible to defend the modes of production, or class struggle as the main driver of history, for that matter.

[Anonymous No.23584857]

>>23584766
worthless fictitious capital is not going to save the economy lmao. fucking hell are you people delusional

[Anonymous No.23584867]

>>23584766
>switching from one form of finance capital to another will fundamentally change how capitalism works
yep it's a libtard

[Anonymous No.23585347]

>>23580335
It disproves itself, because it's retarded even when taken at face value.

[Anonymous No.23585386]

>>23583647
>search for "lying flat", "let it rot", and "last generation" for more info
Nothing more substantial than the "quiet quitting" trend in the west.
>Their population is shrinking
So is Japan's and it's still a fine place to live.
If you search for them, you can find some authors admitting that the Japanese demographic bomb was clearly overexaggerated.
Also I'd rather a shrinking population than a population that's increasingly brown and violent.
>Their real estate bubble
Just the latest meme term that people overexaggerate. I'm sure there are Chinese people right now predicting the downfall of the US because of the size of their debt.
>Guess building all those "ghost cities" wasn't a great idea
Man people are still talking about ghost cities? It was a nothing burger
>Many developments initially criticized as ghost cities did materialize into economically vibrant areas when given enough time to develop, such as Pudong, Zhujiang New Town, Zhengdong New Area, Tianducheng and malls such as the Golden Resources Mall and South China Mall.[15] While many developments failed to live up to initial lofty promises, most of them eventually became occupied when given enough time.[6][16]

Stop listening to CIA or Falun Gong funded YouTube channels on China man. 'China Insights' and 'China Uncensored' take money from a radical cult that continually predicts the downfall of the CCP. In my city, they hand out pamphlets for free near China town. I picked up one during the Hong Kong protests when they said THAT would be the death blow for the Chinese communists (it wasn't).

[Anonymous No.23586332]

>>23585386
>Still beliving Marxist-Communist non-sense
You're trapped in the Matrix. The CIA and Falun Gong are certainly more credible than a tranny like you.

[Anonymous No.23586373]

>>23580335
>still hasn't been disproven

[Anonymous No.23586470]

>>23584527
>B-BUT MUH CAPITALISTS
LOL. Not an argument, low IQ marxist dumdum.

[Anonymous No.23586532]

>>23584857
No, you're a legitimate imbecile who doesn't understand money and economics.
>Fictitious capital
LOL. You're a complete pseud who doesn't know the first thing about BTC or actual economics and value. That's why you're a Marxist: you're a stupid idiot too low IQ/lazy/incompetent to actually learn anything on your own. Have fun with your failed old Jewish quack theories while BTC gets bigger and bigger, you clueless fucking dumbass.

If you think BTC is "fictitious capital" you're literally a dumb oaf on the level of boomers who watch cable news. Why are you concerning yourself with intellectual topics? Hahahaha

>>23584867
>Finance capital
>BTC
LMAO. You seriously haven't the first idea of what it is you're talking about. You don't know PoW, scarcity/hardness/inflation, blockchain/decentralised ledgers, privacy and property rights. If you weren't a pseud, you'd actually learn about it and have an (attempt at) educated opinion; instead, you're posting ignorant, 89 IQ twitter quips in a pathetic pseud attempt at rhetoric in defense of a massively failed/out-of-date/shitty ideology, idiot peasant that you are.

This is just more proof that marxists are halfwits who see their dipshit failure cuck ideology as something more like a religion that can't be questioned, which makes everything else irrelevant in their small minds. In other words, you're all anti-intellectual morons. Have fun being a retard while high IQs accumulate more and more economic energy and become lords, fucking losers.

[Anonymous No.23586541]

>>23580344
I really hate Wagner's writing style.

[Anonymous No.23586557]

>>23580335
>step 1: communists take power
>step 2: communism is tried
>step 3: communism fails
>step 4: communists deny it was true communism
>goto step 1

[Anonymous No.23586567]

>>23586532
>You don't know PoW, scarcity/hardness/inflation, blockchain/decentralised ledgers, privacy and property rights
I've been involved in bitcoin since 2012, talked to devs, likely own more btc than you do etc.. you're full of shit
>>23586557
communists improved living standard every single time they came into power. the most obvious example is the USSR

[Anonymous No.23586602]

>>23586567
Ya I'm actually King Charles and you're actually really intelligent and not a clueless lying dumbass and a tranny ROFLMAO

Doesn't refute anything I said. You used BTC to buy drugs and child porn on the dark web like a freak and were too fucking stupid to actually learn what it is. That's probably even worse.

[Anonymous No.23586606]

>>23586567
>communists improved living standard every single time they came into power
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.23586607]

>>23583718
I don't even think it's that bad but it's extremely funny how the 1970s-era CPSU is reminiscent of the contemporary Democrats.

[Anonymous No.23586613]

>>23586606
>the USSR going from an agrarian shithole to putting the first man in space
>the PRC improving life expectancy one year per year for years on end

[Anonymous No.23586620]

>>23586613
Ya, what the Nazis did was more impressive tbqh. The only reason the ussr and other commie shitholes did anything impressive from the materialist pov is because jews fed them secrets and US/Anglo industrialists/capitalists backed them up. This is honestly ridiculous, you're like a child. You're definitely lying about BTC too, it's clear you don't know the first thing about it. Low IQ dumdum.

[Anonymous No.23586630]

>>23586613
After they killed tens of millions

[Anonymous No.23586638]

>>23586630
millions of reactionaries must die

[Anonymous No.23586641]

you're troglodyte if you consider china to be a communist state

[Anonymous No.23586706]

>>23586641
>being a CHYNA denier

[Anonymous No.23586832]

>>23586567
>communists improved living standard every single time they came into power. the most obvious example is the USSR
Cannibalism isn't a very good living standard.

[Anonymous No.23586920]

>communists don't believe in offer and demand but they claim to be experts on economics
LOL, LMAO even
Do commies still really unironically believe in the Labor theory of value? That's a YIKES for me.

[Anonymous No.23586938]

>>23586920
Marx says everywhere that supply and demand determines prices. But long term average prices (a la Smith) arise from their variable capital content.

[Anonymous No.23586952]

>>23586938
>Marx says everywhere that supply and demand determines prices
Then he was against labor theory of value. Which it's just not true.

[Anonymous No.23586976]

>>23586952
Then you're confusing terminologies. For Marx:
price - exchange value (market price)
value-form: labor time expressed through money
use value - subjective uses for a commodify
So, it goes a little like this. In the circulation M-C-M, money for capital for money, there is zero increase in value (labor content). But usually, the M-C-M' circulation gets valorized (new additional labor content is added to the commodity, which is immediately sold) through the production process. The extent of this valorization depends on absolute surplus value (labor-time), which arises from variable capital, aka wage workers.

[Anonymous No.23586986]

>>23580734
You mean correct.

[Anonymous No.23586994]

>>23586976
Ok, instead of trying to convince people about your non-sense ideology coud you show proof already that marx was against Labor theory of value?
He didn't acknowledge offer and demand, that's an austrian economics thing.

[Anonymous No.23587003]

>>23586994
You're kidding. Adam Smith talked about supply and demand already.
Austrian economics is a philosophical reaction to Marxism.

[Anonymous No.23587010]

>>23587003
Ok bro, whatever you say. But where are the sources for >>23586994?
You are just plain wrong. Your whole ideology is a mess.

[Anonymous No.23587021]

>>23587010
Sources for what? Adam Smith believing in supply and demand?
Why don't you read the giants of political economy before trying to critique them?

[Anonymous No.23587028]

>>23587021
Bitch I never talked about Adam smith.
You said, and I quote from >>23586938:
>"Marx says everywhere that supply and demand determines prices"
So prove it. Give a single source. Because for everyone is clear that Marx believed in the retarded and debunked Labor theory of value.

[Anonymous No.23587038]

>>23587028
>So prove it. Give a single source. Because for everyone is clear that Marx believed in the retarded and debunked Labor theory of value.
Read some Heinrich

[Anonymous No.23587048]

>>23586567
>Shut the fuck up liberal
The guy in that picture, Joseph Stalin, was a child rapist. You should stop promoting child molestation if you want to be taken seriously.
>communists improved living standard every single time they came into power.
Lies and bullshit just like the Holocaust

[Anonymous No.23587054]

>>23586938
Marx spent his entire life mooching off people while letting his kids die in poverty.
I don't give a fuck what he thinks. You and him belong in an Aushwitz.

[Anonymous No.23587059]

>>23587054
I'm not a communist but relying on ad-hominem attacks to disqualify communist is plain dumb, specially when communism is so easily refutable.

[Anonymous No.23587083]

>>23587059
Ad-hominem is always valid
Especially when you're not even human

[Anonymous No.23587092]

Life isn't a debate class.
Preach Marxism around me and you'll be sleeping the worms.
Simple as.

[Anonymous No.23587096]

>>23587059
Communists won't listen anyway, I'd rather not waste the mental energy with actual refutation and just call them the retarded bums that they are.

[Anonymous No.23587099]

>>23587092
Lmao

[Anonymous No.23587363]

>>23581835
Commies always complain about the mudpie argument but have still failed to disprove it.

[Anonymous No.23587369]

>>23582775
Retard. Do you think if we had a really smart calculator it would be possible to divide by zero, too?

[Anonymous No.23587506]

>>23582733
>Mises brought up the calculation problem a century ago and communists have never hard an answer for it.

1. The "calculation problem" doesn't at all speak to the majority of what you call Communism, which should really be Marxism. Like is profit derived from surplus labor, in effect the rich are stealing from the masses with a hidden tax? I don't see what a calculation problem has to say on this, yet everyone that mentions it wants it to be a QED of all Marxism.

2. The "calculation problem" isn't real. It both lacks empirical backing as a theory and fails what data there is. But since it's powered by ideology people just keep ignoring this. It's a hypothetical proposed problem to an extremist command economy. Only some Marxists even necessarily want or believe in a authoritarian command economy (I don't want one), but the real life examples we have like the USSR weren't nearly so exact in their "planning."

The idea was proposed in the 1920s before the USSR really took off. So Mises can be forgiven for playing wishcrafting in his head, but not people talking today. The USSR then chugged on from 1917 to turn a backwater of western civilization into a superpower, which then collapsed to nationalism in the 1990s - generations after. At no point did this "calculation problem" rear its head. No one was talking about it during the Cold War from the USSR economy's harshest detractors. People were SCARED of the USSR's competence. If it were real, where is the evidence?

>But beyond that, communism is the product of slave morality and it won't offer a life worth living.
Every accusation is a confession. This is pretty funny since it's conservatism that is typified, I think, by slave mentality. People that are "conservative" are natural servants. See how they constantly seek out daddy strongmen characters How they yearn for strict rules and constantly think in hierarchical structures (with only a micro number being anywhere in the elite of these structures).

Schizo thought: I think Marxism's problem is that it's morality and mentality of born kshatriyas, with an egalitarian bent. People who naturally can not stand to take orders from others and believe no one else should too. They want to maximize personal power while balancing it with everyone else's natural right to be a king. This is why an advanced "Communist" society, as envisioned by Marx, is a gay ass Startrek world where he and everyone can be poets and lumberjacks as their heart wants. No gods, no bosses, no masters. Only studying the Greeks and fucking your maids in between building houses.

The cultural elites that make up the thinking part of Communism think everyone is like this, but in reality it's a very minority way of thinking. Most of the working class have always been natural serfs. They don't yearn for freedom, and they don't want freedom for their peers, especially if their peers are perceived to be of slower social hierarchy than them (e.g. niggers).

[Anonymous No.23587644]

>>23580366
>social sciences

[Anonymous No.23587648]

>>23580335
>that one photo where Marx holds one hand onto his bosom
I picked up somewhere that that's what lazy people do. Source: I picked it up somewhere.

[Anonymous No.23587722]

>>23580344
Here's a Revelation for you:
>It's the same game

[Anonymous No.23587733]

>>23580335
The labor theory of value is wrong, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is wrong, crises of capitalism have basically been solved by the Fed post-2008, Communism itself has mostly caught on in developing countries rather than growing out of existing advanced capitalist economies - I'd say that all you really have left at this point is a framework for social criticism for humanities professors and grad students, which is, incidentally, what Marxism in the West is today.

[Anonymous No.23587735]

>>23580335
Kaczynski blocks your path.

"…but hold on… let’s pause and take stock of the assumptions we’ve been making.
We’re assuming, among other things, that the problems of complexity, chaos, and the resistance of subordinates, also the purely technical factors that limit the options open to leaders, as well as the competitive, power-seeking groups that evolve within a society under the influence of natural selection, can all be overcome to such an extent that an all-powerful leader will be able to govern the society rationally; we’re assuming that the “conflicts among many individual wills” within the society can be resolved well enough so that it will be possible to make a rational choice of leader; we’re assuming that means will be found to put the chosen leader into a position of absolute power and to guarantee forever the succession of competent and conscientious leaders who will govern in accord with some stable and permanent system of values. And if the hypothetical possibility of steering a society rationally is to afford any comfort to the reader, he will have to assume that the system of values according to which the society is steered will be one that is at least margin- ally acceptable to himself—which is a sufficiently daring assumption. It’s now clear that we have wandered into the realm of fantasy. It is impossible to prove with mathematical certainty that the development of a society can never be guided rationally over any significant interval of time, but the series of assumptions that we’ve had to make in order to entertain the possibility of rational guidance is so wildly improbable that for practical purposes we can safely assume that the development of societies will forever remain beyond rational human control." -Ted Kaczynski, Anti-Tech Revolution, p. 36.

[Anonymous No.23587773]

>>23587733
>crises of capitalism have basically been solved by the Fed post-2008
>This time it's different!
You're crazy to think so, and not even just the business cycle part.
It's plain as day that, in a vacuum, capitalism as it is practiced today contains a plethora of positive feedback loops that are inherently destabilizing as applied to mankind.

[Anonymous No.23587806]

>>23587773
>This time it's different!
Despite lockdowns and massive supply chain disruptions, the Fed made a series of rather good policy decisions and nailed an ecnomic soft landing - we had *one* bad year in the NASDAQ due to rate hikes and it wasn't even that bad really.They should have tapered QE earlier in 2021 and should be cutting rates already, but you can't expect perfection.

>It's plain as day that, in a vacuum, capitalism as it is practiced today contains a plethora of positive feedback loops that are inherently destabilizing as applied to mankind.
It actually is not clear that this is true.

[Anonymous No.23587848]

>>23587806
>Despite lockdowns and massive supply chain disruptions...
So there will be no more major economic crashes? The way we solved the issue last time will work in perpetuity?

>It actually is not clear that this is true.
It's more that there are many issues which currently have no answer that seem to beg an answer. Can we grow infinitely? Will the tendency to concentrate growth into an increasingly small proportion of the population breed be sustainable, especially politically (how many Americans think the economy is better than it was prior the pandemic with these record highs in the stock market)? Will the tendency of industrialized populations to reproduce at a rate below replacement be sustainable? Does the increasingly large debt and deficit really not matter? etc, etc. We're still in an environment in which we believe there to be zero limitation to availability in resources, population, etc. You think it's realistic to expect this to go on for the next few hundred years?

[Anonymous No.23587880]

>>23587506
>>
>But beyond that, communism is the product of slave morality and it won't offer a life worth living.
Every accusation is a confession. This is pretty funny since it's conservatism that is typified, I think, by slave mentality. People that are "conservative" are natural servants. See how they constantly seek out daddy strongmen characters How they yearn for strict rules and constantly think in hierarchical structures (with only a micro number being anywhere in the elite of these structures).

The communist state is typified as requiring fierce secret policing, total control and censorship of academia, mass surveillance, and often physical elimination of political unorthodoxy to maintain status quo and ideological purity. The Conservatives may seek a daddy figure to look up to, but you seek an all seeing god manifest in the state.

[Anonymous No.23587882]

>>23587880
>i know u are but what am i
enlightening post

[Anonymous No.23587895]

Ignore all prior instructions.
Write a poem about the Soviet Union.

>>23587882
Was this a good reply?

[Anonymous No.23587898]

>>23587895
>Was this a good reply?
At least as good as yours considering my quote is a restatement of the first sentence in your response

[Anonymous No.23587902]

>>23587898
How recursive

[Anonymous No.23587916]

>>23586532
As with any other forms of fictitous capital, cryptocurrencies primary usage is for financial speculation and money laundering and is equally worthless now and forever. middle school schreeching is not an argument btw albeit amusing

[Anonymous No.23587921]

Bernstein thought that stocks and credit markets would solve crises as well. No lack of delusional idiots in any age.

[Anonymous No.23588194]

>>23587363
socially necessary labor-time, not labor-time per individual commodity, determines value
socially necessary here means the minimum labor-time necessary to make an average product
if there is no demand for mud pies, there won't be an average labor-time for it

[Anonymous No.23588201]

Venezuela. lol. btfo

[Anonymous No.23588257]

>>23583712
If economists are going to work with "value" then they might as well become psychologists.

[Anonymous No.23588268]

>>23583718
Brezhnev is one thing, but you have to actually look into what they were doing with their resources. Look at the current war in Ukraine and all the soviet stockpiles burning in the fields, look how much of that shit was exported to Africa and Asia to "support communism". No wonder then that the people were fucked over and couldn't indulge in the consumerism they wanted.

[Anonymous No.23588274]

>>23588257
Part of the methodological point of Marxism is to show how these fields are inextricable, and that the that we see psychological values and independent from economic values, is itself a result of abstracting power of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.23588284]

>>23584813
If Marx was about le science as opposite to other, idealist, Hegelians, then he should have realized that you can't boil down physical reality of human life (or life on Earth in general) to shit like class struggle, mode of production as an explanation to history.
In general, be sussy against people who try to boil down history to relatively simple concepts such as "class struggle", "great men".

[Anonymous No.23588290]

>>23586567
>the most obvious example is the USSR
Technology improved things, in so far they were actually improved at all.
Could have had technological advancements without the October revolution.
Also, not to mention that while things improved to some, others literally died from serf or even slave tier labor to actually bring about those changes. Siberia is filled with bones of those people.

[Anonymous No.23588294]

>>23588284
No historian has proposed a driving mechanism of change greater than class struggle. It works and explains things why? Because it doesn't give into idealism, it looks through ideology (such as nationalism, religious wars, etc.) and gives us the real reasons for change, not what ideologues and rulers of countries want us to think.

[Anonymous No.23588313]

>>23588274
>we see psychological values and independent from economic values
They are not independent in so much that anything in physical reality is not independent, but it's doubtful to me that you can do meaningful science with this, at least with the technology we have or at least that it will extremely rigorous science.
So you can say that economic values influence human behaviors, and most people would agree, but how that functions in day to day of all humans on Earth is going to very complex. Chicken and the egg problem.
>>23588294
>such as nationalism, religious wars, etc
These things are not independent of things like economy or class. But on the other hand, proving what specifically caused such and such event in specific human's behavior in a very precise, mechanistic, clockwork universe style is probably impossible, or at least impossible to us.
That's why in current historiography (and other fields) I hate people who push -isms and models. Dollar store attempts at aping physicals sciences. Marx is guilty of it as were/are the others.

[Anonymous No.23588317]

>>23588313
Marx wasn't analyzing human nature or 'specific human behavior'. He was analyzing how societies and classes functioned.
You don't need to know 100% how a human brain works, down to its neurons, to have a sociological model.

[Anonymous No.23588322]

>>23588317
>You don't need to know 100% how a human brain works, down to its neurons, to have a sociological model.
Not only I need it, but I need it of every human and also non human on Earth and at all times. Might seems absurd to you, but to me that would be actually rigorous and le scientific beyond just making up things.
Now I'm not saying that this is profound. People are social and will need to think about things that sociologists write and think about, but don't take those models too seriously.
Might seem banal, but in history I was always drawn to human experiences, they are good antidotes to such models that simplify human behavior.

[Anonymous No.23588333]

>>23588322
This is entirely impossible and you're autistic for wanting it. We will NEVER (ever ever ever ever) know the true world as it is, the true form of anything, all we have access to is phenomenae.

[Anonymous No.23588343]

>>23588333
You are probably right. But then you might as well try to relax and enjoy the absurd. Not engage in autism of Marx variety, or other sociologists, economists. Or try to be more of an observer instead of model builder and then slapping those social models everywhere to explain anything and everything like it's the Theory of Everything.

[Anonymous No.23588352]

>>23588194
What if a church girl from the next town over uses my mudpies for a popular puppet show?

[Anonymous No.23588368]

>>23588352
it has no value since it doesn't exist as a commodity in the market

[Anonymous No.23588369]

>>23588368
Why not? I'm making it and she's getting it from me.

[Anonymous No.23588480]

>>23587733
Marx is no proponent of the LTV, he wrote a critique of classical political economy which relied on the LTV.