/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2613169]

Could you help me, /lit/?
I have an exam tomorrow about Marx. One of the questions must be some kind of essay about his philosophy and I was thinking about talking about how comunism isn't viable. I don't have any arguments besides the failure of the Soviet Union and the economic policies. How they needed to promote the NEP, etc.
I'm looking for some kind of lead maybe.
Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.2613184]

Unless you're at Mormon school, don't write about communism not being viable, write about it as a brave and wonderful standard whose struggle is ongoing. There's no point in expressing a right-wing point of view in organized education, the culture is overwhelming left-leaning and you'll just make yourself unpopular.

[Anonymous No.2613189]

Unless you're at Mormon school, don't write about communism not being viable, write about it as a brave and wonderful standard whose struggle is ongoing. There's no point in expressing a right-wing point of view in organized education, the culture is overwhelmingly left-leaning and you'll just make yourself unpopular.

[Anonymous No.2613193]

>>2613184
I'm in Spain so it doesn't really matter. As long as I validate my opinion with some kind of argument.

[Anonymous No.2613212]

>>2613193

If you're in Spain it does matter. Write something pro-Marx.

[Anonymous No.2613226]

Workers are better off then they were in 1840s.
Marx didn't take the fact that governments would do stuff to stop these 'revolutions' into account etc
Try finding lectures by professors or something. Yale's has some online. Most of them are anti-Communist anyway so you'll figure something out.

[Anonymous No.2613229]

The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba are all examples of communism executed poorly. It's like our version of Keynesian economic theory: If we refuse to follow the instructions and conditions of the theory, can we claim that the concept failed when we do not achieve the desired result?

I don't believe in communism, but if you are going to debate its practicality, do not use examples of the failures of self proclaimed communist governments as examples. Instead, focus on the fact that the instructions are difficult to follow (it is difficult--some might say impossible--to construct such a powerful government that is also free of corruption). Focus on the impracticality of the theory itself, using the countries as examples of how things can go wrong. Do not simply say, to paraphrase: "Communism is bad because look how bad the standards of living are in these countries." Your argument must be that the theory is difficult to execute and is open to corruption, not that, when properly executed, communist governments fail. We have never seen a properly executed communist government.

Your focus should be that humans cannot be trusted to display the good will required in order for communism to work. Focus on the people. Use examples of "communist" governments, as well as others that have suffered from corruption.

This may seem picky, but it's exactly the kind of distinction that distinguishes a good thesis from a bad one.

[Anonymous No.2613238]

>>2613169

Oh, and is that your writing in the picture, OP?

[Anonymous No.2613239]

Marx says in his critique of the Gotha program that a communist society would be actually be unequal in the sense that it would allow different returns based on the differing capabilities of each worker. This is literally setting the stage for hierarchy and class division.

He also seems to believe that division of labour will actually decrease and productivity will rise at the same time due to the engagement of the worker. This is simply untrue, the human mechanism has definite boundaries which can never surpass mechanical division. See: the great leap forward. Perhaps in the sense of thought this idea has some validity however

And finally. The argument regarding overcoming of class struggle through revolution is dubious. For certainly in the wake of one material difference would still exist and thereby exert itself.

Marx was an interesting thinker, but many of his ideas are not realistic

[Anonymous No.2613244]

>>2613169
Write about how Bakunin predicted all the bullshit that would ensue but Marx wouldn't listen because he had his head up his ass.

[Anonymous No.2613247]

>>2613238
No, I saw it posted in a thread about procrastinating. I saved it because I thought it could help me later on.
English is not my native language. Hence my poor writing skills.
>>2613229
I'll work that out. It's understandable and pretty logic.

[Anonymous No.2613249]

>>2613244
and then mention Bakunin had an even stupider idea after that

[Anonymous No.2613252]

OP, every sentence I can see in your image includes the word "this." Stop it.

[Anonymous No.2613257]

>>2613247

I'm the same guy as :

>>2613229

Thank you. Basically; people are flawed, but communism would work if people were not flawed. But since we are flawed, communism cannot truly exist because it relies on the idea that we will act like flawless people.

And it's good that it's not your writing. It's not very well written. But writing in English as a second language is pretty impressive.

[Anonymous No.2613279]

>>2613226
>>2613226

This. Marx' economic theory relied too much on teleology, i.e. especially the assumption that a rising rate of profit would necessarily lead to the empoverishment of the working class. He underestimated the systemic flexibility of modern (!) capitalist societies. They turned out to be highly adaptive to crises and adapted for example by adding social compensation (welfare etc.).

Marx also underestimated how deeply the capitalist principle (i.e., the principle of trading) penetrates human consciousness. The "capitalist virtues" of competition, greed and even something like the American Dream ("everybody can make it") have been driven into peoples minds so deeply that they couldn't adapt to revolutionary change as it happened in the USSR and elsewhere.

Revolutions can establish formal equality, but Marx didn't see that you can not change human consciousness as fast as the form of government. Thus, socialist societies existed, but with people who still thought like capitalists.

I don't think that Marxism doesn't work. But Marx progonostic theory of history is too static and wrong. And his theory of revolution is too optimistic. Socialism as Marx imagined might be possible, but it can't be achieved simply by overthrowing capitalism. You have to change human consciousness first, which is a long process and also leads to a kind of contradition in Marxist theories. Consciousness can only change when the relations of production are changed, but you can't successfully change the relations of production - at least through a revolution - without leaving human consciousness behind.

One of the most important dilemmas in Marxist theory until today.

[Anonymous No.2613277]

OP, Communism DID work with the native americans - the flaw of their system though, was it easily sustains a small group, but the larger the group gets, the more the social moires change - you can only have so many hunters, gatherers, cooks, cheifs, etc. before the whole thing collapses on itself...

[Anonymous No.2613282]

>>2613257
Ugh. That pic just made me barf.

[Anonymous No.2613286]

>>2613279
>believing that the welfare state isn't a transitory phase of capital
Being replaced with globalized sweatshop labour as we speak. You are quite literally wrong. Capitalism has only managed to move the holes it digs around spatially, but can never eradicate them

>Marx also underestimated how deeply the capitalist principle (i.e., the principle of trading) penetrates human consciousness.
Also problematic is the common assumption that absolute greed penetrates human consciousness as well. If you look at human activity historically you will find this was not the case.

gonna contest you on these two points bro

[Anonymous No.2613314]

this thread isn't very good.

if OP has virtually no knowledge about marx he will be utterly fucked.

I can't be bothered writing much.

scarecity.
marx never really took into account the effect that scarecity of materials would have.

also, if your exam asks you to go into detail about the descriptive, as oppose to the prescriptive (praxis) aspects of marx's "philosophy".... and all you got is "boo U.S.S.R".. you will be utterly fucked

[Anonymous No.2613350]

>>2613314
Okay, Engels.

[Anonymous No.2613634]

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.2613645]

just sketch this

[Anonymous No.2613656]

>I have an exam tomorrow about Marx. One of the questions must be some kind of essay about his philosophy and I was thinking about talking about how comunism isn't viable. I don't have any arguments besides the failure of the Soviet Union and the economic policies. How they needed to promote the NEP, etc.

Ah fuck naw bitch. "comunism." And how exactly the fuck does the NEP relate to Marx's philosophy. Explain in two paragraphs with reference to Kautsky, Bukharin and the Gotha Programme.

If you can't, then don't try to associate a critique of Leninism with a critique of Marx's philosophy—go simpler and actually critique Marx par Marx.

[Anonymous No.2613668]

>I was thinking about talking about how comunism isn't viable
>I don't have any arguments
just go away

[Anonymous No.2613676]

>>2613279
>especially the assumption that a rising rate of profit would necessarily lead to the empoverishment of the working class.

Marx's writing suggests that due to the increasing organic composition of capital (investment in fixed capital) that the rate of profit will necessarily __decline__. This can be interpreted as a absolute (ie: it has); an ameliorated absolute (primary accumulation of 3rd world pre-capitalist property has held off the declining rate of profit for a period); or a tendency between crises, ie: the Kondratieff wave cf: Grundrisse's fragment on the machines and its interpretation.

Marx's writings on emiseration emphasise both absolute emiseration (cf: contemporary Bangladesh), and relative emiseration (cf: returns to labour as a proportion of GDP, 1980–2010).

You don't appear to have read any Marx.

I'd suggest you actually fucking read Wages, Price and Profit; an approved vulgarisation for workers of the central elements of Capital.

[Anonymous No.2613873]

If only we could have this sort of intelligent, informed discourse on /pol/. Whenever Marx is brought up it's, "STOP LIVING IN YOUR PIPE DREAM UTOPIA, COMMUNISM NEVER WORKED, JUST LOOK AT RUSSIA BLAH BLAH BLAH".

[Anonymous No.2613940]

That was socialism, not communism. Communism is inherently stateless.

The basic argument against communism is that resources are limited and untill technology is sufficiently advanced that that's not the case it will always be an invalid idea.

If you have to write against socialism then history has made a fairly good case against it, just cite examples and point out that it's only ever taken countries from bad to worse.

[Anonymous No.2613945]

>>2613940
Even then, that was only state "socialism." Socialism technically means "any economy where the workers control the means of production." State Communism doesn't even qualify as that.

[Anonymous No.2613948]

>>2613873
>If only we could have this sort of intelligent, informed discourse on /pol/. Whenever Marx is brought up it's, "STOP LIVING IN YOUR PIPE DREAM UTOPIA, COMMUNISM NEVER WORKED, JUST LOOK AT RUSSIA BLAH BLAH BLAH".

Or even better MARX RAPED A SLAVE GIRL!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.2613957]

>>2613945
They were owned publically so It's socialism in the broader term, but it's not directly linkable to marx.

But the labour theory of value should be featured heavily in any exam about marx, it's an important hinge for his ideas. It also falls apart under the realization that you need labour, capital and land to produce anything, ot just labour. Plus how you value your labour will depend on costs of living,supply and demand always plays a role in trade.

[Anonymous No.2613961]

>>2613957
Kevin Carson has reworked the labor theory of value to adapt to and incorporate marginalism and such, and it actually kind of works.

The other problem is that the LTV doesn't actually prove communism. It lends itself better to market socialism.

[Anonymous No.2613966]

>>2613957
You don't understand the labour theory of value. Read Capital.

[Anonymous No.2613976]

El colectivismo lleva al fascismo, lee "El camino a la servidumbre" de Friedrich von Hayek

[Anonymous No.2613980]

>>2613966

You don't understand that supply and demand is always present. I've read capital, it was a good argument against corporatism.

[Anonymous No.2613987]

>>2613980
Value != price

[Anonymous No.2613991]

>>2613676
c'mon bro, labour theory of value is based on shaky premises and you know it. The delineation of human and machine labour is false, and the thing is always going to be based on relative scarcity and availability of product

[Anonymous No.2614060]

>>2613991
You don't appear to have read Marx. Volume II and III are all about realisation. You don't appear to have read Volume I, or you'd understand that "socially necessary" implies that only labour _power_ which meets an effective demand in circulation is socially necessary.

>>2613980
"realisation"

Seriously—the standard of anti-marxist intellectuals has collapsed since the Cold War ended.

[Anonymous No.2614066]

>>2613645
>that pic

[Anonymous No.2614072]

>>2614060
let me reiterate myself here:

>value does not necessarily have to come from human labour as Marx assumes
>therefore, the labour theory of value is incorrect

[Anonymous No.2614090]

>>2614072

You gonna back that statement up with an argument?

It seems pretty obvious to me that without labour a thing has no value. Take air for example. It has USE value, but since no labour is required, it has no value. On the other hand metals, which require mining (labour) to produce, do have value, in addition to their use value. Value is basically an expression of social relations that are obsured by commodities.

Also bear in mind the concept of "socially necessary".

[Anonymous No.2614100]

>>2614090
Except it breaks down when you realize value can still be accumulated without having to resort to human labour. The explanation that value rests in human labour only works within a limited historical context

[Anonymous No.2614104]

>>2614072
>[A = A]

This is the last reply you're going to get if your only argument is ad nauseam repetition of an undemonstrated tautology.

Marx's argument is advanced in chapters I through V of Volume I. To summarise for you, Marx's argument is specific to Capitalism as a social institution, and expands Ricardian LTV by noting that labour power is purchased as the results of subsistence, but realised as actual productive labour.

If you're not aware of the grounding of the Ricardian argument, I'd refer you again to Volume I, where Marx enumerates and then elucidates this.

"Scarcity" isn't a valid critique, as you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read any LTV writer on the extraction of material subsisting in nature, for example, on the value of gold.

[Anonymous No.2614114]

>>2614100

For fuck's sake, you're not even trying. Give an explanation/example of value being produced without human labour.

[Anonymous No.2614125]

>>2614114
How much would you pay me for a bottle of water if you were dying of thirst? Assuming no other available sources of water.

[Anonymous No.2614134]

>>2614125
>demonstration of zero comprehension of the idea of value

Yeah whatever bro, I think we're done here.

[Anonymous No.2614164]

>>2614134
Concurr, to quote Brecht
>I don't know what a man is, I only know his price.

[Anonymous No.2614709]

Two hours til the examen, I'm fucked. Thanks anyway, guys, I can work out some of your ideas.

[Anonymous No.2614728]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.2614971]

I think I failed. I did a good opinion though. Thanks for your help.

[Anonymous No.2615400]

>>2613169
Just come right out and argue Marx has the blood of 100 million people on his hands.

[Anon No.2615405]

>>2614728
lol.. the picture

[Anonymous No.2615483]

>>2615400
0/10

[Anonymous No.2615572]

>>2615400
Truth.

[Anonymous No.2615623]

>complete homework thread
>/lit/ almost did OP homework
>nobody tells OP we don't do homework