/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4556261]

Why does Marx still have relevence in modern philosophy, political and economic thought when he has been entirely debunked by Rothbard and Mises?

Why isn't Praxeology taught as a major philosophical strain like Marxist Dialectics is?

[Anonymous No.4556269]

>>4556261
>when he has been entirely debunked by Rothbard and Mises?
Incorrect premise.

[Anonymous No.4556276]

>>4556261
His ideas aren't practical, but they're a great thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.4556313]

>>4556261
>Why does Marx still have relevance in modern philosophy

Material Dialectics is a great analytic method used to understand events and the world. Marx is one of the fathers of Sociology.

>political
The entire modern political dichotomy are based on Marx's theories.

>economic thought
Most Economic thought finds its basis in Das Kapital. He has some of the most in-depth writings and analysis on society and economics in existence.

>entirely debunked by Rothbard and Mises?

No one except retards take Rothbard or Mises seriously. Austrian economics is a joke and considered a utopian fantasy for capitalist economists who fell asleep during Sociology class.

>Why isn't Praxeology taught as a major philosophical strain like Marxist Dialectics is?

Because it's nonsense.

[Anonymous No.4556315]

Is Marx relevant? I think Zizek is the only one who still quotes him.

[Anonymous No.4556634]

>>4556315
>Is Marx relevant? I think Zizek is the only one who still quotes him.
Thesis 11
Critical Theory
All the Postructs
* * *
Harvey
Cleaver
Negri (fuck him)
I don't give a shit if multiline spoilers don't work

[Anonymous No.4556732]

>>4556261

>entirely debunked by Rothbard and Mises

Tell me, please: what was the critical blow they struck to Marx? I would love to hear it--in your own words, of course.

>Why isn't Praxeology taught as a major philosophical strain like Marxist Dialectics is?

It's taught by Austrian economists. Who else would teach it?

Why isn't Hegel taught in the philosophy departments of the majority of Anglo-American universities? Because none of the professors there are fucking Hegelians.

I mean, if you're really having trouble getting hard, mises.org is just a few keystrokes away.

Praxe-fuckin-ology. The fuck outta here.

[Anonymous No.4556752]

[Anonymous No.4556761]

Praxeology is nonsense.

Hayek and Böhm-Bawerk are the ones who really dealt the most serious blows to Marx's doctrines.

[Anonymous No.4556797]

>>4556732
>Why isn't Hegel taught in the philosophy departments of the majority of Anglo-American universities?
Wow, is that true?

[Anonymous No.4556798]

>>4556634
What's wrong with Negri?

[Anonymous No.4556800]

>>4556761
This fuckin guy is right on the money. I like you, guy.

[Anonymous No.4556802]

>>4556798
He's a bit of a cunt about the proletariat but not as entertaining as Castoriadis.

[Anonymous No.4556809]

>bakunin quote
>anarcho-capitalist flag

Both hilarious and disgusting.

[Anonymous No.4557944]

>>4556261
*except in the cases of lands with constitutions, as by legal definition you're entitled to those constitutional rights as an individual if you meet the requirements set out by that land upholding it's constitution and are considered a part of it.

[Anonymous No.4558055]

>>4556797
Nope, it's not. Hegel is most certainly taught in a variety of disciplines, whether it's literary or critical theory, philosophy, or history. The dude is unavoidable once you get to a certain level of discourse.

[Anonymous No.4558097]

The real question is why you have an AnCap flag with a Bakunin quote you filthy degenerate.

[Anonymous No.4558102]

>>4556261

[Anonymous No.4558103]

>>4558055
Some people like referencing Hegel. If you dig deep enough you get to him, but that doesn't mean he gets 'taught'. I would be surpised to see a course on Hegel in a literature department.

[Anonymous No.4558127]

OP where did you get that picture? I need to find the idiot who put a Bakunin quote over an an-cap flag.

[Anonymous No.4558155]

>anarcho-captialism
kek

[Anonymous No.4558176]

>>4558155
literally an oxymoron

>what is wage slavery

[Anonymous No.4558210]

>>4556261
>Bakunin
>"Anarcho"-capitalism

Now that's top-shelf cake.

[Anonymous No.4558232]

Not strictly on topic, but I am tired about all of this "Adam Smith" tripe emanating from the right lately. Adam Smith's thought was incredibly nuances (read "Theory of Moral Sentiments" to see for yourselves ... it's the next thing on my reading list after Weber's PWE). From what I have read, Smith comes out against over-specialization of labor.

[Anonymous No.4558241]

>>4558176
capitalism is the economical system closest to pure anarchism
anarchism is about the absence of coercion

[Anonymous No.4558541]

>>4558241
>anarchism is about the absence of coercion
Anarchism is the abscence of hierarchies. There must be hierarchies for capitalism to exist.

[Anonymous No.4560140]

>>4558055
>hegel
>taught in history
riiiiight.

[Anonymous No.4561358]

You should all read "The Myth of Sysiphus"….

[Anonymous No.4561364]

>>4560140

i bet you go to some shitty state school, topkek.

[Anonymous No.4561494]

>>4558541
>There must be hierarchies for capitalism to exist.
Nope.

[Anonymous No.4561501]

>>4558176
>what is wage slavery
literally an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.4561508]

/lit/ is pro-establishment because they've all been brainwashed by leftist universities. They don't realize the people who are pushing for socialism are the same ones who run everything. That's what you get for going to a 4 year uni and surround yourself in liberal/gay/antiwhite/socialist literature

[Anonymous No.4561564]

>>4561494
>Nope.
Very argumentative
Much insight
wow
So eloquence

[Anonymous No.4561791]

>>4561364
Where in Thompson versus Althusser or Carr or the Whig History (help us) or Annales is it suggested that Hegel bears any relevance to historiography?

[Anonymous No.4561811]

>>4561508
>tfw /pol/ is always right.

[Anonymous No.4561817]

>>4561508
Cornelius Castoriadis ran everything?
NEFAC secretly controls Canada?
The IWSM is responsible for bin tax?

[Anonymous No.4561820]

>>4556261
>libertarianism

[Anonymous No.4561824]

>>4561508
>>>/pol/

Take your delusions as far from me as possible.

[Anonymous No.4561826]

>hurr war is a bear of stories durr
History itself refutes this faggot.
I have no idea how anyone takes this jackass seriously.

>mercantile nigrame
lol

[Anonymous No.4561848]

>YFW Americlappers actually believe that removing government regulation right now would be good

[Anonymous No.4561851]

>>4556261
>entirely debunked by Rothbard and Mises?

obvious troll.

[Anonymous No.4561860]

>>4561508
>leftist universities

You mean those universities with economics courses dedicated to teaching free market principles, and focus on pumping out as many cheap scientists and laborers to flood the markets and make labor cheap, while discouraging all research that won't be helpful to increase GDP?

OH YEAH, LOL, THE IRRELEVANT HUMANITIES DEPARTMENTS SOMETIMES STEP OUT OF LINE AND CRITICIZE AMERICA. IT'S SO AWFUL, THEY SHOULD BE LIKE THE INTELLIGENTSIA OF SOVIET RUSSIA

>inb4 socialism never has worked, and can't work
>inb4 the word nigger
>inb4 /lit/ mods don't ban /pol/tards for shitposting

[Anonymous No.4561871]

>>4556809
I only got ITT to say this.

>>4556634
>Negri (fuck him)
Early Negre, especially Marx beyond Marx is really good. But Everything post Empire is pretty much shit.

[Anonymous No.4561877]

>>4558097

But we're real anarchists, really!

Honestly, I really hope they succeed. I mean, if they can remove the state, a socialist revolution would be a piece of cake.

Of course, when they ever come that far they probably realize the state has been their ally all along and everything they believed in was absolute bollocks.

If they get that far.

[Anonymous No.4561883]

>>4561860
>>inb4 socialism never has worked, and can't work
It spends more than what it produces.

[Anonymous No.4561892]

>>4561883
That idea is literally a contradiction.

Think again.

[Anonymous No.4561895]

>>4556761
>Hayek and Böhm-Bawerk are the ones who really dealt the most serious blows to Marx's doctrines.

Hayek is irrelevant. Böhm-Bawerk has a good critique on Marx' theory of value. The problem is, his critique does not deliver a critical blow and the alternative (good old subjective theory of value) is not a valid alternative since it only explains trade.

[Anonymous No.4561908]

>>4561895
Thanks mate. I couldn't be bothered saying this days ago. Nice to know someone else out there has actually _read_ Böhm-Bawerk instead of just believing him.

[Anonymous No.4561909]

>>4561883
>It spends more than what it produces.

Why don't you think first before saying something?

[Anonymous No.4561922]

>>4561892
That's why it doesn't work.

>>4561909
And why don't you think before taking sides?

[Anonymous No.4561933]

Every time.

[Anonymous No.4561940]

>>4561922
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Read up and stop shitposting.

[Anonymous No.4561943]

>>4561895

Explain.

[Anonymous No.4561945]

>>4561922
>And why don't you think before taking sides?

I have.

Come on, did you forget socialist states have existed in the past and do exist today?

[Anonymous No.4561952]

>>4561945
>implying that just because they aren't impossible, they actually work
a hue a hue a hue

[Anonymous No.4561958]

>>4561945
Are you implying he's actually educated on the subject? He's probably watched like 5 Stephen Molyneux videos and thinks he knows economics

[Anonymous No.4561961]

>>4561952

Yes, I do imply that yes.

[Anonymous No.4561985]

>>4561895

Hayek is pretty far from irrelevant. You can argue that a socialists system could make effective use of price signals but you can't just pretend that the problem of conveying information in a planned economy does not exist considering that it has plagued every planned economy ever attempted.

[Anonymous No.4561989]

>>4561945
>socialist states

NOT A THING

[Anonymous No.4562009]

>>4561943
Böhm-Bawerk identified the transformation problem in a particularly useful way.

Time chained calculations and the politicisation of Marx's categories both offer trivial ways out of the transformation problem.

[Anonymous No.4562020]

>>4561985
Except it isn't a critique of Marx's work, its a critique of a strawman. Hayek doesn't refer to actual workers' organisations, but an imaginary of his own production.

The historical-material, ie the empirical, needs to be the basis of a defensible political economy, and Hayek avoids discussing actual proletarian pre-figurative forms.

[Anonymous No.4562023]

>>4561985

Yes, but you can't say Hayek disproved Marxism. Hayek criticized one thing, a vague idea of a socialist state Marx wrote down in the communist manifesto. Which amounts for probably less than 1% of Marx' work.

This is also still a very inconclusive and hard discussion. One reason being that people disagree how markets work.

[Anonymous No.4562041]

Bawerk effectively believed that the only difference between a laborer and a capitalist was their moral character. That's what happens when you extend neoclassicism to its logical endpoint.

And people should. Because I believe Mises.org and libertarians, how narrow minded they may be sometimes, do apply the tenets of utilitarianism and neoclassicism correctly and logically.

[Anonymous No.4562055]

>>4562041
If they apply utilitarianism logically then tell me how they can plumb the difference between my desires and yours: they're internal states.

[Anonymous No.4562060]

man, fuck anarcho-capitalists

[Anonymous No.4562081]

>>4562020

Hardly a strawman. It was not a critique aimed at Marx, per se, but it accurately predicted the issues that would arise in a planned economy without a functioning price system. Reality proved him right.

Just look at Venezuela for a clear modern example. The fact that Venezuela is "not real socialism", "state capitalism " or whatever you wish to call it is irrelevant ; it attempts to disrupt market prices and thus leads to people running out of toilet paper and powdered milk.

There is a book called Socialism After Hayek that seems to offer an interesting take on it, but it sure as hell takes a lot more to dismiss Hayek's work than just calling it "irrelevant" or a strawman, considering how accurate it has proven itself to be.

[Anonymous No.4562090]

>>4562081
>Hardly a strawman. It was not a critique aimed at Marx, per se, but it accurately predicted the issues that would arise in a planned economy without a functioning price system. Reality proved him right.
Which state would that be in? The Soviet Union had a continuous price system with realisation, as did the Eastern European states.

Again: please avoid the empirical, it makes your argument so suasive.

By the way: Hayek's argument was founded on a total absence of price, not a localised one.

You've failed to draw conclusions from empirical data by ignoring it, and you've misread the basis of your argument.

[Anonymous No.4562091]

>>4562041

Quite a few anarcho capitalists despise utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.4562111]

>>4562055

They can't. I never said neoclassical economics make sense.

[Anonymous No.4562112]

>>4562091

That is true, I guess, but since neoclassical economics is based on utilitarian principles they're in a bit of pickle.

[Anonymous No.4562117]

>>4562111
Just checking if you're familiar with the debate really.

What do you think about the ranked-order-preference proxy for utility embedded as an assumption inside of marginalism. Does it defeat the project, or does it mean that the model has some use to the extent that reality mimics the model's special case occasionally?

[Anonymous No.4562128]

>>4562091
>>4562112
How's hayek, mises and ricardo utilitarians?

[Anonymous No.4562133]

>workers of the world will overthrow their capitalist oppressors and enact a workers paradise

>doesn't happen

>come to the conclusion that it didn't happen because people are spoiled by capitalist products

"it mus be de cultur!!!1!"

marxists are idiots

[Anonymous No.4562154]

>>4562117

I have not heard of that argument. Who claims it?

[Anonymous No.4562162]

>>4562128

I thought the first two are, no?

[Anonymous No.4562169]

>>4562162
Explain your point of view.

[Anonymous No.4562173]

>>4562154
>I have not heard of that argument. Who claims it?
The marginalists. Their claim is that market preference is a reasonable proxy for utility and that therefore their model can speak to the fulfilment of human desire.

[Anonymous No.4562183]

>>4562169

They subscribe to an economic theory based on utility of the consumer?

>>4562173
Yeah, but who claims the ranked order assumption undermines it?

[Anonymous No.4562188]

>>4562183
Undermines marginalism? The critique of 19th century utilitarianism: the proxy can't speak to actual desire.

[Anonymous No.4562565]

>>4561871
>I only got ITT to say this.
What does that mean?

[Anonymous No.4562573]

>>4561494
Yep.

[Anonymous No.4562681]

>>4556261
>bakunin quote on an anarcho-capitalist flag

anon, pls

[Anonymous No.4563020]

>>4562081
>Just look at Venezuela for a clear modern example. The fact that Venezuela is "not real socialism", "state capitalism " or whatever you wish to call it is irrelevant ; it attempts to disrupt market prices and thus leads to people running out of toilet paper and powdered milk.

Venezuela isn't even Socialist in any regard, over 70% of the Economy is private.

The issue with Venezuela is that when they Nationalized their oil, every single right wing country on the planet and right wing ideologue started calling them a socialist dictatorship and capital fled the country, Chavez (and now Maduro) are fucking around with the markets to try deal with the capital fleeing but are just fucking the market more.

A large portion of Venezuelas problems are in my opinion, actual sabotage of the Venezuelan economy on purpose by private interests and the United States along with Columbia to make it fail.

I'm not saying Chavez and Maduro have nothing to do with it, they obviously do as they have panicked and tried to force private interests to do their bidding when capital fled which has backfired, but it's pretty obvious there are outside forces at play here to destabilize the country.

It's also important to note that it's quite interesting that nobody mentions the massive rises in quality of life under Chavez that has taken place amongst Venezuelas poor and the massive increases generally in life indicators like child mortality and life expectancy.

Also Venezuela's governement spending of GDP is far below that of most OECD countries.

[Anonymous No.4563042]

>>4563020
>all this damage control
Lefties are so delusional.

[Anonymous No.4563048]

op is proof that ancaps are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.4563049]

>>Why does Marx still have relevence in modern philosophy, political and economic thought when he has been entirely debunked by Rothbard and Mises

He doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4563066]

>>4563042
It's a known fact that private business in Venezuela has been hording goods and smuggling them across into Columbia for quite some time.

Again, Venezuela isn't even Socialist, they are Social democrats who nationalized the oil, that's fucking it, almost the entire venezuelan economy outside of oil is private. There is nothing "socialist" about that.

Chavez fucked himself over with the "Socialism" rhetoric and aligning himself with Cuba, this gave right wingers massive amounts of ammo to grab onto and cause faith in Venezuela to collapse, even though they haven't fucking done anything worth note (actually Government spending is LESS now than it was before Chavez)

if anything, Venezuela is proof you can not call yourself Socialist, or build socialism in one country, Venezuela isn't socialist in any single regard, yet has still been fucked in the arse by the market who PERCEIVES them to be Socialist.

Again, almost every first world country has more Government spending and ownership than Venezuela, why in fuck is Venezuela singled out?

[Anonymous No.4563069]

>>4562133
diaf

[Anonymous No.4563090]

>>4563066
Jesus christ, you can't be serious.
I'd rather you be a chuuni.

[Anonymous No.4563094]

>>4563048
The problem with Ancaps is that they are blinded by ideology and refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't conform to their incredibly narrow views.

They believe that violence from the state is the only form of coercion in existence, they don't believe that say, social coercion exists they don't believe blackmail exists, only violent coercion from a state. (I have never seen it adequately answered how private property exists without violent coercion).
In reality coercion is any leverage someone can use against someone else to work for that coercers means, you know, like wealth inequality.

They pretend that all trade exists in a vacuum and that people only trade what is worth to them thus the free market is just. (ignoring again wealth inequality)

They pretend Capitalism = Free markets. They totally ignore every single thing else to do with Capitalism, including what makes Capitalism, Capitalism, the mode of production. According to Ancaps own logic, Market Socialism is Capitalism.

The coercion nonsense they come up with is complete load of shit anyway that no other anrchists even bother to argue about. No anarchist says that an anarchist society would not be coercive, by the nature of direct democracy, there would have to be coercion, but they argue that there would be no rulers and that everyone would have a say in how society is run through direct democracy in a federation of communities.

Frankly, Anarcho-Capitalism is a bunch of buzzwords and ideological abstraction that right wing think tanks use to trick psuedo-intellectual idiots into spreading corporate propaganda , this is why essentially all Ancaps are climate change denialists and fight regulation and tax rates, it benefits big business that they do this, while at the same time, Big Business also discredit them as a group, so they don't get power (as what was seen during the Government shutdown)

Anarcho-Capitalism is literally manufactured consent the political leaning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiKMmrG1ZKU

[Anonymous No.4563099]

>>4563090
Over 70% of Venezuelas economy is private.

Government spending is below 30% of GDP (well below OECD average)

Every mainstream media outlet is private.

Venezuela is not Socialist in any single regard. There is not a single argument that can be made that can call them Socialist.

The reason leftists support Chavez is because of the massive improvements in life indicators amongst Venezuelas poor, no one believes they are "Socialist" apart from right wingers.

[Anonymous No.4563103]

>>4563099
>mfw

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4563105]

>>4563090

[Anonymous No.4563112]

>>4563099
You start with all the facts and come to all the wrong conclusions. It obviously isnt a Dictatorship as America wants us to believe, but it is socialist alright, and a very good kind of socialism too.

[Anonymous No.4563110]

>>4563103
Prepared to provide evidence to the contrary?

>Last year the private sector accounted for 70 percent of gross domestic product, including 11 percent in taxes paid on products, according to Central Bank estimates. The public sector was 30 percent, a slightly smaller share than when Chavez was elected in 2008.

Biggest Venezuelan media companies
El Nacional - Private
Ultimas Noticias - Private
El Universal - Private
RCTV - Private
Venevision - Private
Globovision - Private

(State media VDT, TVes, ViVe)

So socialist! Oh wait, it isn't in any regard.

If Venezuela is Socialist, then by all rights, China is 100% Communist.

[Anonymous No.4563119]

>>4561358
And the relevance?

[Anonymous No.4563128]

>>4563110
>Prepared to provide evidence to the contrary?
I would, but then you'll either start saying how much my sources are all biased or just close your ears anLALALALALALALALALALALALAA I DONT HEER U CUBA IS BOSS.

Why bother? Dealing with delusional people is a dead end.

[Anonymous No.4563168]

>>4563066
>It's a known fact that private business in Venezuela has been hording goods and smuggling them across into Columbia for quite some time.

Yes, because Chavez's fixed prices meant that they couldn't sell their product at a profit.

You're delusional. Chavez was power hungry, but Maduro is just retarded. He speaks to birds and blames american soap operas for the rise in violence.

It's not about government spending. It's about market freedom. Scandinavia has high taxes but you're allowed to open a business and sell your product at the price you see fit. Venezuela has lower taxes but citizens have to resort to the black market due to government willingly destroying the functioning price system.

[Anonymous No.4563192]

>>4563168
Is Venezuela functioning when half the country lives in abject poverty to the point they can't even afford food?
Is Venezuela functioning when half the population is illiterate, had never been to school or seen a doctor?

Venezuela was a country where the elite lived in luxury where the rest of the country starved to death. If you think that is functioning, then you are full of shit.

Abject poverty in Venezuela was 49.9% before Chavez, now it's been lowered too 7.5%

Malnutrition has been halved.

Enrollment in education has incresed 95.1%

Child Mortality has been decreased from 28:1000 to 8.6:1000

HIV therapy has increased from 1000, to 26,000. Tuburculosis treatment has increased from 68% to 83%

Safe drinking water has increased from 68% to 92%

You people would be entirely happy to see poverty skyrocket again so the "economy can be fixed and prices go back to serving only those that can afford to live"

Fucking disgusting. How about putting the people in the economy before the fucking market itself. If prices are restored back to what they were before subsidies, then you condemn half of Venezuela to abject poverty.

[Anonymous No.4563195]

>>4563192
whoa shit
go make a tulpa fgt

[Anonymous No.4563250]

>>4563192

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/venezuela-planning-third-dollar-supply-system-as-scarcity-rises.html

>Maduro, who said that the new system would be known as “Sicad 2,” has blamed inflation and shortages on an “economic war” waged by the “parasitic bourgeoisie.” He gave businesses until Feb. 10 to cut prices to “fair” levels and reduce their profit margins to a maximum of 30 percent.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/11/3928572/rights-groups-venezuela-seeks.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-venezuela-protests-idUSBREA1B1K220140213

>The violence was a crescendo to weeks of sporadic demonstrations in the provinces led by opposition hardliners who denounce Maduro for failing to control inflation, crime and product shortages and vow to push him from office.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/food-rationing-in-socialist-venezuela-leads-to-mob-fighting-over-milk/

Whoa look at all those happy proles clawing each other for a pack of powdered milk

also, murders more than doubled doing Chavez's time. Maduro would like us to believe this is due to the harmful effects of american soap operas, but I have a better theory.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2010-ch6.pdf

I live in South America bro. You're delusional. Venezuela is widely recognized as a shithole and even Argentineans thank God every day that their country hasn't yet collapsed into the leftist singularity that is Venezuela. There are lines for fucking toilet paper. The murder rate is one of the highest in the world. It's just a complete trainwreck of a country and everyone knows Chavez's retarded economic policies are the main culprit.

meanwhile Chile's free market economy means it has the highest HDI, lowest poverty rate and fastest growing GPD in South America. Stay mad, leftist scum.

[Anonymous No.4563272]

>>4563128
>Cuba
>Not Boss

Propoganda disregarded.

[Anonymous No.4563304]

>>4563272
As long as you're a tourist, yeah, Cuba is pretty boss.

[Anonymous No.4563328]

>>4563250
This is just like saying Pinochet "cleaned up" Chile. Yeah, because America was paying truckers to go on strike, etc.

[Anonymous No.4563374]

>>4563250
1: Those killed in protests have been Chavistas who were hunted down and murdered by Opposition protesters. One was a Chavista community leader, the other was a state photographer.

2: Maduro praised the peaceful protests, but now they have turned massively violent, with reports protesters looting, holding people in public ransom and smashing offices and murdering people.

3: It's a known fact that businesses in Venezuela have been working to sabotage the economy, pic related.

Businesses have been hoarding their goods and smuggling them out through Columbia.

I agree with the fact that Maduro is a fucking retard, but it's blatantly obvious that there has been a plot for quite some time to destabilize Venezuelas economy by the US and business. Being from South America, you should have a clue about your own history and know that the US sort of does this nonstop down there to regimes that are not sycophantic to it.

[Anonymous No.4563393]

>>4563168
>fixed prices
Wow. so the United States went socialist under Nixon. Fucking kiddies.

[Anonymous No.4563394]

>>4563374
What you're doing now is just classical leftist damage control.
Next thing you're going to tell me the URRS didn't had concentration camps and that Cuba is a haven for free speech.

>Being from South America, you should have a clue about your own history and know that the US sort of does this nonstop down there to regimes that are not sycophantic to it.
lol
Why should I listen to some idiot that outright discards the ambivalence of imperialism?

If a country in development can benefit from aligning with a more powerful country, why not do it?
Because of muh deegnity? Because of muh supremeceçacy?
Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.4563398]

>>4563394
>URRS
I think that this is a sufficient indication that your statements are entirely vacuous.

[Anonymous No.4563404]

>>4563394
>What you're doing now is just classical leftist damage control.
Classic rightist damage control.

[Anonymous No.4563409]

>>4563374
Withholding economic goods in in a situation when economic freedoms are curtailed is reasonable. It's perfectly legit protest. Of course you should protest against that. Would you expect workers to not do similar if they were taken advantage of?

Please stop being biased.

[Anonymous No.4563412]

>>4563409
>Would you expect workers to not do similar if they were taken advantage of?
Striking is illegal in economically "free" Australia. I think this disproves the validity of a number of "sources" you've cited.

[Anonymous No.4563415]

>>4563412
Yeah, and so are a lot of the actions businesses take in oppressive situations. Seems you're completely blind to your double standards.

[Anonymous No.4563429]

>>4563415
>Withholding economic goods in in a situation when economic freedoms are curtailed is reasonable. It's perfectly legit protest.
Striking is illegal. Either you're a fantasist with no connection to reality or a lying shite.

I think it is obvious which one is true.

[Anonymous No.4563435]

>>4563404
>Have no argument
>LOOK I CAN SHITPOST XD

Dude. How do you people not realize that you are objectvely whiney little pissants with no point? You have nothing but sarcasm and ad hominem and outright acting retarded, ever. How do you never realize this?

[Anonymous No.4563436]

>>4556313
>Most Economic thought finds its basis in Das Kapital

This is what liberal arts majors actually believe.

[Anonymous No.4563441]

>>4563429
#REKTIFIED

[Anonymous No.4563447]

>>4563435
>Merely claim someone has no argument, when it's clear they've no argument themselves and are trying to turn the table
>Get called out
>Fury

Who do you think you're convincing?

[Anonymous No.4563453]

>>4563398
>"how dare you mispell and slander the name of the UURS"
>mfw i get reported by commies
Heh.

[Anonymous No.4563458]

>>4563453
>all this damage control

Hahaha

[Anonymous No.4563483]

>>4563429
You're repeating yourself my dear. Do you understand the concept of civil disobedience, and its history in labour rights?

[Anonymous No.4563494]

>>4563458
Don't worry. This is a thread of pure, unrelenting damage control.

[Anonymous No.4563501]

>>4563483
I understand the concept of taking down a teenager who posts authoritative declarations about reality that are at odds with the commonly agreed happenstance of empirical reality.

There is no discussing actual social relations with such a young person, as they are willing to make statements about the nature of reality that are factually and obviously incorrect.

[Anonymous No.4563518]

>>4563501
>No arguments

You're boring me.

[Anonymous No.4563521]

>>4563518
I demonstrated a clear internal contradiction in their statements above; one which goes to their ability to speak about reality, and to their category of "force". Do learn to read friend.

[Anonymous No.4563552]

>>4563521
Appears you've lost track of replies. In any case, economic sabotage in Venezuela is justified. Even if the US is involved, good. They should be.

[Anonymous No.4563557]

>>4563393

Nixon (at least his economic policies) was a pretty left-wing President by modern standards. Have you even heard of "We are all Keynesians now?"

Glad to see that you're sticking with self-serving political labels kiddo.

[Anonymous No.4563561]

>>4563557
Its obvious you have no defensible concept of what "capitalism" is if you're claiming Nixon was a socialist for freezing prices.

[Anonymous No.4563571]

>>4563393

I never said Venezuela was a socialist country.

[Anonymous No.4563575]

>>4563561
Where did I say Nixon was socialist?

Keynesianism != Socialism.

Keynes wrote the General Theory of Prices as a sort of reaction to the socialist/communist leaning of other economists in the 1930s. Educate yourself. Stop listening to all that Ron Paul crap. It's really just a form of propaganda.

[Anonymous No.4563578]

>>4563575
*General Theory of Employment ...

[Anonymous No.4563579]

>>4563575
>>4563571
You know, every Keynsian I've met with an Economics or Political Economy degree has a grounding in actual economic history, and hasn't spouted off about situations they are entirely unfamiliar with reducing them to categories derived from the very Paulites you appear to detest.

Claiming that the difference between market friction in Veneseula and Sweden is about the ability to price output is fucking ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4563586]

>>4563579
Anecdotes aren't evidence.

[Anonymous No.4563592]

>>4556261
>this thread

I remember when /lit/ was good for talking reasonably about politics, unlike every board on 4chan. Now we just get GET WREKT SON and DO YOU EVEN KNOW X KIDDO and not to mention my favourite GOD THIS BOARD IS SO LEFTIST.

I miss the early days.

[Anonymous No.4563596]

>>4563592
It's /pol/ leaking. REPORT, SAGE, and MOVE ON.

[Anonymous No.4563600]

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Without-Illusions-Debunking-Capitalism/dp/0307590577

OP, read this. You don't even have to get to chapter 2, just read chapter 1, it explains why your line of thinking is utterly retarded. Then you can read the section criticizing right wing fallacies if you want even more explanation of why you're a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.4563609]

>>4562020

>the historical-material, i.e. the empirical

historical materialism is not an empirical, or at least purely empirical, methodology. it is dialectical, so largely speculative. it ironically shares quite a lot with praxeology, which is perhaps a part of what the op was driving at.

>Hayek avoids discussing actual proletarian pre-figurative forms
>pre-figurative forms
read this again. how can a form form itself prior to its formation? or is this historical materialist irony?
>actual
>pre-figurative
this is more dialectical silliness, and completely unrelated to empiricism

[Anonymous No.4563633]

>>4558055
Took thee theory classes for my MA in English Lit, never once read Hegel.
Did have to read Marx though. Twice.

[Anonymous No.4563645]

>>4558055

I was referring specifically to philosophy departments. Just look up the curriculum for any of the top 10 philosophy programs in the US--Yale, NYU, whatever. Very little Hegel, and where you do find him it's usually only to serve as context for some other thinker, like Marx. No direct or deep treatment, though.

[Anonymous No.4563662]

>>4563609
>historical materialism is not an empirical, or at least purely empirical, methodology.

This is like suggesting instrumentalist sociology isn't empirical because it draws conclusions.

>it is dialectical,

No, that's diamat. Do bother to learn about what you decide to speak about.

>so largely speculative. it ironically shares quite a lot with praxeology, which is perhaps a part of what the op was driving at.

Maybe you should read E.P. Thompson's Poverty of Theory.

[Anonymous No.4563666]

>>4563645
Top 4 Australian philosophy departments teach Hegel.

[Anonymous No.4563712]

>>4563662

>This is like suggesting instrumentalist sociology isn't empirical because it draws conclusions.

what? it's nothing like that, and what a goofy example). you're misrepresenting my point. you equated the "historical material" to the "empirical", which is just flatly wrong. for one, historical materialism is a methodological framework that presupposes fundamental structural relationships that obtain in social formations, which simply cannot be verified.

dialectical materialism is the metaphysical foundation for a historical materialist epistemology. the latter is shot through and through with dialectics. if you don't understand something this basic then you don't understand what historical materialism is about.

you might benefit from reading less and thinking (slightly) deeper.

[Anonymous No.4563817]

>>4563712
Intentionalism
>presupposes fundamental structural relationships that obtain in social formations

My friend. Maybe you had better wait for that fourth year course on social science methodology, or advance your reading.

>dialectical materialism is the metaphysical foundation for a historical materialist epistemology.
Stalinism, stalinism everywhere. If you'd like to strawman Marxism, at least do so on the basis of Kołakowski's main currents. Our mate Kola at least is aware of the division between diamat and historical materialist marxisms.

If you don't understand that the social relations of being precede the formation of ideas about them, then perhaps you couldn't identify an empirical phenomena with two hands and a guide to finding your own arsehole written by Robert Hooke himself.

You might benefit from basic reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.4563824]

>>4563817
>intentionalism
>instrumentalism

fuck this shit, pub.

[Anonymous No.4563832]

Post your face when you realize that Sweden has more equality than Soviet Russia

[Anonymous No.4563857]

>>4563645
I'm a student at Northwestern taking a philosophy course which, in part, directly deals with Hegel (we're reading Elements of the Philosophy of Right)

Gotta say though his ideas of 'hurr durr if you're a slave it's your own fault you un-self-possessing fuck' are terrible.

[Anonymous No.4563858]

>>4563817

>Intentionalism

yes, what about it?

>If you don't understand that the social relations of being precede the formation of ideas about them

This is from the guy accusing Hayek of empirical bad faith because he didn't consider the "pre-figurative forms" of proletarian worker collectives, whatever the fuck those could possibly be.

It doesn't really matter what Marxists, or former Marxists, think about what historical materialism does or does not commit them to. When you actually read the work of self-professed historical materialists, you find them dragging with them a great train of dialectical baggage.

If you think condescending to your interlocutor makes you sound wise or sophisticated or superior, you're quite wrong. You just expose your insecurity, and make yourself out to be a total asshat.

[Anonymous No.4563868]

>>4563858
>This is from the guy accusing Hayek of empirical bad faith because he didn't consider the "pre-figurative forms" of proletarian worker collectives, whatever the fuck those could possibly be.
Hayek had access to strike committees, UK unions, and workers cooperatives. If you're unaware of common terminology like "pre-figurative forms" it pays to ask, rather than assume and make yourself an arse.

>It doesn't really matter what Marxists, or former Marxists, think about what historical materialism does or does not commit them to. When you actually read the work of self-professed historical materialists, you find them dragging with them a great train of dialectical baggage.

Go read EP fucking Thompson.

[Anonymous No.4563880]

>>4563868

Why don't you just summarize Thompson's fucking point?

As to "pre-figurative forms": it's a nonsense term for anyone even half-assedly attempting to be a consistent empiricist, which you are failing to see because you have your head aufhebunged so far up your unconsciously dialetical colon.

[Anonymous No.4563921]

>>4563817
>>presupposes fundamental structural relationships that obtain in social formations
perhaps i should have been slightly more concrete.
historical materialism presupposes structural relations that are of a dialectical nature, meaning structural elements stand in a kind of symbiotic opposition to one another, the resolution of which effects system-wide change. it is a theory of social evolution that allows its a priori assumptions and deductions to do most of the heavy lifting.

[Anonymous No.4564070]

>>4563592
idiot, it's in the matters of things that /lit/fags are more leftist than /pol things, shit happens with literates

other shit happens with functional analphabets

[Anonymous No.4564312]

>Bakunin quote on Ancap flag

Fucking hell AnCaps are the biggest fucking shit heads out there. I swear to god their entire movement exists to troll Socialists.

[Anonymous No.4564409]

>>4561494
So how about that whole private property contract?

[Anonymous No.4564448]

Because Marxses ideologies don't care for right and wrong. They can be easily tempered with and are quite flexible. Plus they are not followed, I think he just predicted what was going to happen. It's not just one persons philosophical ideologies that lead to acceptance of a system worldwide. It was not just Shakespeare that brought upon romanticism. They just adapted to the changes. In this way, Marx was just a person who saw and predicted the future and it's political economic system. After intellectualism came romanticism and after that came materialism which is now ending to give way to consumerism. It's a result of hundreds of years political and economical decisions. Most Austrian economists and political thinkers aim for utopia, which cannot be achieved just by thinking up philosophical ideologies. The number of humans is growing and so is economy and materialism. This all will collapse on its own and once again like a natural forest , civilisations will rebuild. It's all just a phase.