/lit/ - Literature

File: 60 KB, 800x567, zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:39:28 2015 No.6441718 [Reply] [Original]

>Marx and Hegel debunked
>Communism defeated 10x over
>Faggots like pic related still cling to their commie ideology

I don't even know what to say /lit/. It's not the pregnant 56 year old crack whore standing on a street corner trying to make a buck that makes me lose faith in humanity, its people like Zizek.

>>	Weed Alliance Wed Apr 22 22:41:16 2015 No.6441724 Irony here is that this is what they teach at so many universities now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:43:41 2015 No.6441731 Who the fuck debunked Hegel?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:44:15 2015 No.6441733 >>6441718 >we aren't currently living in a communist paradise, therefore hegel debunked rofl

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:48:02 2015 No.6441749 >>6441731 >>6441733 Schopy

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:49:52 2015 No.6441754 >>6441749 holy shit rofl.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:51:09 2015 No.6441757 File: 110 KB, 862x926, 1428358315391.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6441754 >I have no argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:53:09 2015 No.6441767 >>6441718 I don't understand a single fucking thing he says. What is wrong with me?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:54:29 2015 No.6441774 >>6441767 Nothing. You should be asking yourself, "What's right with me?"

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:55:30 2015 No.6441777 >>6441733 >Its going to happen, I swear on the ghost of a 200 year old ideologue!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:56:55 2015 No.6441781 File: 106 KB, 765x1021, 819038712931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why are people who hate Marx always so agressive and misinformed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:58:26 2015 No.6441784 File: 45 KB, 559x562, raymond aron.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals.

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:01:32 2015 No.6441795
File: 51 KB, 461x513, ufkngfgt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6441757
Dude, schopenhauer is at best an alternative view and skepticism to the volksgeist of Hegel.

But people of different ages do tend to act within certain patterns. so to call the human will 'totally' directionless qua thing-in-itself (whether or not such a will exists) seems to be less 'evident' than Hegel's version of human will.

So whats which all the "pure ideology" talk if you are so willing to back up on it yourself?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:04:08 2015 No.6441806 What did Hegel actually do besides playing word games?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:06:30 2015 No.6441811 >>6441806 he created a science of metaphysics

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:08:06 2015 No.6441818 >>6441781 politics

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:08:28 2015 No.6441821 >>6441806 most philosophy is just semantics and words

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:10:42 2015 No.6441833 >>6441811 How so? >>6441821 But good philosophy has real life application, like predicate logic, the scientific method, and falsification.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:16:38 2015 No.6441852 >>6441781 Misinformed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:17:53 2015 No.6441855 >Hegel How could such a poor writer get such a following? I feel like his fanbase must have never actually attempted to read any of his shit.

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:18:41 2015 No.6441858

>>6441806
created an entirely new way of interpreting history.

There is a podcast called "the partially examined life" if you know literally nothing about Hegel its a good place to start and see what he was actually trying to do.

That whole "word games" meme is makes you look fairly retarded (no offense)

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Apr 22 23:23:34 2015 No.6441870
File: 88 KB, 315x500, Papa Smurf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6441852
When they see Marx they see a blood thirsty madman. They equate him and his work as Satanic or at best advocating totalitarianism. They think he inspired Stalin to kill millions of Russians.

If they don't actually believe these kinds of things, they actively try to smear the man's image.

He seemed like a jerk, but a well meaning smart dude.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:27:37 2015 No.6441887 >>6441870 >Responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions >nah anon he was a nice guy

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:27:43 2015 No.6441888 >>6441858 Philosophy should be applicable to real life, even Thales could predict good harvests and stuff.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Apr 22 23:31:59 2015 No.6441897 >>6441887 >Hundreds of millions HAHAHA Just keep upping that number, Naziman.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:33:29 2015 No.6441901 >>6441731 Kierkegaard destroyed his arguments

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:34:56 2015 No.6441909 >>6441897 >implying I'm not hostile to Nazi's as well Just as bad. I'm tired of all you fucking extremists screwing up our world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:36:52 2015 No.6441916 you can't really debunk stuff that isn't falsifiable, which is neither an endorsement of Hegel/Marx nor a denouncement

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:39:14 2015 No.6441923 File: 69 KB, 1000x1000, friedrich-hegel-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >history is the dialectical progression of the World Spirit, culminating in the Prussian state and my philosophy Fuck Hegel

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Apr 22 23:43:18 2015 No.6441928 >>6441909 Apologies, we get a lot of extremes in here. I'm not Stalin apologist, but he isn't responsible for killing that many people.

Sage Wed Apr 22 23:58:51 2015 No.6441970

>>6441718
Wooo posting in a shit thread yeahhhh

Firstly: you cannot debunk a philosophical argument, particularly a metaphysical one (as in, the majority if Hegel's arguments). You can make valid arguments against it, but they do not invalidate the previous argument if it itself is logically sound. If this were actually the case, no one would ever discuss any philosopher more than a century old.

Secondly: when a philosopher makes a claim, he is not immediately taken up in the arms of some higher power and placed on some throne (only to be booted off as soon as someone makes a good counter response to his line of thought). Philosophers are not necessarily RIGHT. They cannot be proven as such.

Therefore, this argument is pointless. Thank you, OP, you mighty sage (in all fields)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 23:59:51 2015 No.6441973 >>6441855 Because his ideas are sound. Brilliant. Kant was just as bad.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:01:38 2015 No.6441978 >>6441970 Sound logic didn't even exist in Hegel's time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:06:29 2015 No.6442006 >>6441757 To be fare, you weren't exactly forthcoming with elaborations as to just how "schoppy" demolished hegel

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:12:46 2015 No.6442025

>>6441909

>extremists

Whose to say who is extremist and who isn't? Intellectuals defended the status quo of Rome, and it was an empire of slaves. You don't know shit about whether capitalism or the current social democracies are the best systems in the world.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:16:06 2015 No.6442040
File: 1.63 MB, 2031x2708, karl-marx-statue-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6441852
Marx is basically the Charles Darwin of the social sciences. He explained the evolutionary process of human society through its organisation of production and distribution, and therefore denied any particular society and the people at the top of any particular socioeconomic arrangement the right to see the structures surrounding them as a manifestation of some timeless biological, moral or religious precept. He also laid the groundwork for understanding social, cultural and historical constructs, despite the fact that the people who internalize them take it as a second nature, and explained our "consciousness" as an extension of material reality.

The people who hate him are exactly the same people who think Evolution is a lie, except that they replace God by "Human Nature" and then commit the same fallacies.

During the mid 20th century the comparison between Marx and Darwin was pretty common, both for the nature of their works and the fact that they were often "blamed" by the opposition for the two biggest totalitarian systems of the 20th century: Stalin "discredited" Marx for liberal economists just like back then it was widely repeated by religious people that Hitler, the Nazis and Eugenics had "discredited" Darwin.

It's also important to notice something singular about Karl Marx: he's the only thinker that, in order to stay against him, you *have* to stay absolutely ignorant about his writings and philosophy and how his system has been greatly developed and improved since he first created it. People like OP for example obviously take a weird, cynical pride in this ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:17:46 2015 No.6442045 >>6441909 >extremists Oh, the ideology. This is exactly the type of person who likes to describe himself as a "moderate" because he cleverly chose the middle ground between the two choices offered him.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:19:54 2015 No.6442057

>>6442025

I would say anyone is justified in calling anyone an extremist whose views are so sufficiently distant from one's own perspective that from the point of view of one's own interpretative framework the other's ideas are logically concluded to be both dangerous and irrational.

Convincing anyone else that someone has this property is a case by case thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:20:47 2015 No.6442060 >>6442040 You mean, social 'sciences'.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:21:25 2015 No.6442068 >>6441718 I agree.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:24:37 2015 No.6442075

>>6441870
Well, he was a scum bag, for several reasons. But the character of a person doesn't effect their thoughts or intellectual work. Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves, etc. But trying to strawman those that are disgusted by communism by saying its all ad hominem is futile, because you're wrong. I will say this, because a creepy rapist that never leaves the house means he hadn't the slightest idea how humans interact. Having never had a job or trying to provide for the children of his victims means he couldn't ever know what the conditions in workplaces really were like. So of course, someone so shut off from real human life would think that democracy is great and wonder and never goes wrong, that mobs bring out the best in people, etc.

He was an awful person, but of course that's not related to his awful and stupid philosophy, that enabled literal gangsters to take over governments and kill millions and millions. You brought it down to him as a person, so I'll discuss what a shitty person he was. If you want to make it about the ideas, I'll just discuss how shitty the ideas are.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:28:07 2015 No.6442090

>>6441718
>philosophers

ahh..natures natural debunker. Honestly, philosophy isn't anything but made up bullshit. They're all fucking worthless.

That produce nothing, that create nothing, they progress nothing, they add nothing to society, they add nothing to mankind, and they absolutely add NOTHING worth studying for a degree in absolute made up mumbo jumbo horse cock.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:28:17 2015 No.6442091

>>6441718
>Faggots like pic related still cling to their commie ideology

Zizek is literally the biggest redpiller for commie wannabes today. Watch him call out Chomsky on his Khmer Rouge bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tLz_9xmLKI

Zizek is the hero communism needs, and the hero capitalism deserves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:30:24 2015 No.6442107 >>6442060 >>6442090 Well, OP's fellow "debunkers" of Marx and Hegel have arrived.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:30:54 2015 No.6442110 >>6442040 Holy shit someone actually typed out an intelligent response.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:31:11 2015 No.6442112 >>6442090 Agreed. Ideas -- for example, let us say democracy -- have no bearing on the real world.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:31:53 2015 No.6442116

>>6442091
>Watch him call out Chomsky on his Khmer Rouge bullshit:

On his defense, Chomsky's Khmer Rouge faux pas was very common back then. He belonged to the generation who were raised hearing all types of Horror stories about Cuba and Russia, they'd be stupid if they were not skeptical.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:37:35 2015 No.6442149 >>6441718 >only communist/socialist experiments to exist took a turn to the FAR right into fascism so "communism can never work" >capitalism exists so it hasn't failed us yet This is what conservatives actually believe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:38:09 2015 No.6442150 >>6442149 i hate USA

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:39:05 2015 No.6442154

>>6442040
Lol. marx's theory of history wasn't great. Most of the events that really shape history aren't explained by historical materialism, or whatever cunty term that slime used. The social sciences in general are shit, a whole wing of learning that's meant only to reenforce state domination, as with the rest of marxism.

Yea, all smart people believe evolution. Most smart people aren't marxists. Your point is worthless shit.

The Soviets and the Nazis were both inspired by marx. That the master race idea could even sorta be inspired by Darwin or evolution is laughable then and now. marx discredited himself.

I've read some marx and engles. It all makes me realize how wrong it is and how I'm wasting my time and shouldn't read anymore.

You should read the Bible. You'll become a Christian if you read the Bible. Only people that don't read the Bible disagree with it. Anti-marxists read more marx than marxists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:47:00 2015 No.6442184 >>6442090 >le production meme it's like you haven't even read this thread lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:55:06 2015 No.6442213 >>6442154 wen b8 so gr8 u palpit8 n prostr8 b4 in a st8 of 8/8

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 00:58:49 2015 No.6442225 >>6442154 This entire post is priceless

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:01:45 2015 No.6442231

>>6442040
The comparison between Marx and Darwin is a bit awkward because Darwin didn't go on to claim "and so nature is shit but we'll inevitably evolve into some sort of vaguely-described perfect species that will solve all our current problems". Also, the appropriate comparison for 'discrediting' isn't eugenics = stalin, it's eugenics = Marxism-leninism

If you were to take out all Marx's predictions about muh gommunism, you'd have one of the greatest pessimistic thinkers of all time, but he can't stop gravitating towards handwavey utopian bullshit.

>>	[$$$Weed Alliance$$$] Thu Apr 23 01:08:32 2015 No.6442249 Marx is the shittiest SJW troll of all time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:14:06 2015 No.6442261 >>6442110 I wish /pol/ would be deleted so there would be more posts like this to just wonder at on /lit/

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:22:08 2015 No.6442288

>>6442231
>The comparison between Marx and Darwin is a bit awkward because Darwin didn't go on to claim "and so nature is shit but we'll inevitably evolve into some sort of vaguely-described perfect species that will solve all our current problems".

I think it was already pretty evident for him that man no longer has any "adapting" to do so our evolution on a Darwinian sense was already pretty much over. Marx on the other hand showed up during the twilight of a new mode of production, a new ruling class, a new Ideology, etc. so he understood that the engines behind our advancement as a society are still operating. To put it briefly, our biology stops evolving when we cease to struggle with nature for survival, and our society stops evolving when we cease to depend upon an economic base that leads to a class-based society.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:32:28 2015 No.6442320

>>6442261
/pol/ is the single worst thing that happened to 4chan.

"Hey, how about we create a board, that normalizes activism and politics on 4chan that will blatantly get overrun with Stormfront swarmers and bugs again like the last 3 times!"

I thought after Chanology, everyone realized what a fucking shithole 4chan was for political discussion and activism. Nope, gotta create a megaphone for the stormfags.

If Moot really did believe it would act as a containment board, then he really fucking lost touch with the reality of how 4chan works.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:39:23 2015 No.6442348

>>6442288
agreed strongly with that last bit. Capital is like a detailed description of a plane crash, to the point where I can't figure out why he's so sure (mostly in his other work, incidentally) it'll actually land on a cloud made of puppies and rainbows.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:43:23 2015 No.6442361 >>6442320 You can always go to tumblr if you want to be a left wing activist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:52:19 2015 No.6442387 >>6442361 I don't care about that, I just don't like /pol/'s shitty ideology having a platform.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:53:07 2015 No.6442389 >>6442361 Why would anyone want to be left wing, or an activist, let alone a left wing activist? Kids are so fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:55:24 2015 No.6442400 >>6442387 >Anyone who has a view I disagree with shouldn't be allowed to express it Why are you even on 4chan?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 01:57:57 2015 No.6442405

>>6442348
I don't think he was as deterministic as you're suggesting and although I haven't read it myself, I do remember marxists here saying that he wrote about the possibility of the wealth-producing classes becoming passive and allowing capitalism to remain in place even after it has outlived its usefulness, which seems to be the stage we're living in. And I think the fact he lived in days where revolutions happened all the time might have fueled his optimism a bit.

But yeah, I too don't share his hopes for the future at all, particularly because he didn't live to see our age of "transnational" capitalism, of outsourcing, of economic interdependence and so on. Any revolution today could easily be starved to death without a single bullet fired.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:01:30 2015 No.6442414 >>6442400 Does this look like a lolbertarian board to you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:08:22 2015 No.6442429 >>6442400 Zizek explicitly calls for cenzorsheep. Now more than ever, dogmatically. We should not, as it were, tolerate, even a discussion about rape, except this one you know and so on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:09:29 2015 No.6442433 >>6441901 Example please.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:09:36 2015 No.6442435 >>6442414 >lolbertarian Dude speaking of libertarians, what the hell happened to them? They were everywhere on 2010, but I rarely see one today.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:09:55 2015 No.6442436 >>6442405 the tendency of the rate of profit to decline is pretty deterministic, much more directly so than his broad dialectical work elsewhere. but, y'know, everybody should read Capital, everybody takes different things from it, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:11:15 2015 No.6442441 >>6441970 This post holy shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:12:09 2015 No.6442445 >>6442435 National Socialism is the flavour of the new generation. All those old libertarians grew out of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:13:32 2015 No.6442447 >>6442090 This post is a legitimate 4/10 bait wise. Being angry at a field doesn't invalidate it chum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:20:47 2015 No.6442468 >>6442435 i was a libertarian in 2010, then realized how retarded it is.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:23:26 2015 No.6442474

>>6441718
>>Marx and Hegel debunked
How so?
>>Communism defeated 10x over
How so?
Please, provide a short essay(about 50 pages) of you "debunking" basic premises of Marxism, Hegelianism and communism. Focus specifically on Marxian economics. I'll check back this evening and write you a detailed response.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:23:50 2015 No.6442475 File: 253 KB, 1152x1506, freedom was terrible.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6441781 We know we have to stamp out your stupidity quickly before you get in power and destroy economies and genocide a few million people

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Thu Apr 23 02:23:51 2015 No.6442476 >>6441733 Hegel does not suggest Communism... If I recollect he refers to both Communism and Monarchy, but it was obviously a pre-Feuerbach conception of Communism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:25:06 2015 No.6442482 >>6442474 >Marxian economics M8, no. I'm a Marxist, but Marxian economics is easily the weakest field of Marxism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:26:51 2015 No.6442489 >>6442441 He's right dumbass

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:28:12 2015 No.6442493

>>6442075
This, anons, is what is meant by misinformed.

>implying you have anything beyond a third-hand knowledge of Marxist philosophy

I honestly hope you do, because if you are any more familiar with Marx and would still present arguments like this, you should be in remedial English. Your comprehension would be that bad.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:30:19 2015 No.6442497

>>6441833
But Hegel has a million real life applications... Psychoanalysis, Clausewitzian theory, Marxism, Prussian constitutionalism, foundations of anarchism and fascism, existentialism, egoism are all Hegelian..

Hegel is the single most influential writer when it comes to the field of social sciences. His metaphysics isnt shouting in the evening: its a perfidious, all-encompassing system.

twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Thu Apr 23 02:30:19 2015 No.6442498

>>6441923
He was probably inspired by Fichte.
Because Hegel is only knowing himself to be the eye of God from which he fluctuates between changing and not changing the universe,
then his surrounding State, Prussia,
must also be the state of the "World Spirit".
Either way, every thing he writes is his "Art",
which he is creating so that when Spirit dies it may find itself again in the reading of said Art.

Or some thing.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:33:01 2015 No.6442504
File: 19 KB, 355x360, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6442497
>Psychoanalysis, Clausewitzian theory, Marxism, Prussian constitutionalism, foundations of anarchism and fascism, existentialism, egoism
I said real life. Trying to sound cultured on a Siamese stone carving forum isn't a real life application.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:33:54 2015 No.6442507 File: 14 KB, 312x318, 125789.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6442497 >all-encompassing system Into the trash it goes

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:36:16 2015 No.6442513 >>6442507 read the bible faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:37:39 2015 No.6442517 File: 46 KB, 403x365, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6442513

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Thu Apr 23 02:38:18 2015 No.6442518 >>6442504 How do you mean "real life"? Empirical inferences? Epistemological inferences?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:39:48 2015 No.6442519 >>6442518 You idiot. Applications that improve the lives of others. Fucking Plato.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:40:34 2015 No.6442521 File: 31 KB, 450x329, Blessed Mother Teresa smile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6442517 >mfw these pics have never bother me because I'm simply glad someone suffering with autism has been comforted by religion

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:40:37 2015 No.6442522 twinshia = best new tripfag

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:41:54 2015 No.6442526 >>6442475 > doubling or tripling of GDP in 40 years > Destroyed economy also the goal of socialist econonic policies was not maxing out profit and griwth: why would you evaluate them that way?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:43:13 2015 No.6442528 File: 30 KB, 511x288, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6442521 >mother Theresa >mfw

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:46:33 2015 No.6442532 >>6442528 This picture always makes me cringe. Why would he try to be Camus? Nobody but Camus could be Camus. This is essentially Hitch cosplaying Camus.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:48:04 2015 No.6442535 >>6442493 Lol, I was countering a shitpost with a shitpost. How wasn't the crazy obvious?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 02:48:52 2015 No.6442537 >>6442475 what a fucking scientific comparison, congratulations

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:08:24 2015 No.6442587 File: 64 KB, 152x189, 1407689644639.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6442475 >evaluating socialism by material output

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:17:20 2015 No.6442607

>>6442040
>denied any particular society and the people at the top of any particular socioeconomic arrangement the right to see the structures surrounding them as a manifestation of some timeless biological, moral or religious precept

Except communist intellectuals, of course.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:21:24 2015 No.6442615 File: 103 KB, 600x450, gobekli.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This kills Marxism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:22:29 2015 No.6442621 >>6442587 More stuff = more stuff for each person.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:27:26 2015 No.6442632 >>6442607 You missed the point, which is not surprising.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:29:28 2015 No.6442635 >>6442632 "We're the only smart people. Everyone else is brainwashed by the rich. Except for us of course."

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:32:46 2015 No.6442642

>>6442040
>he's the only thinker that, in order to stay against him, you *have* to stay absolutely ignorant about his writings and philosophy and how his system has been greatly developed and improved since he first created it.

Most people, both pro- and anti-Marx, never read him. In my country, for example, there has been a Communist Party since the 1920s, Marxist intellectuals since the 1930s but his works were only translated in the 1970s. Wheter you like it or not, Marxism is a intellectual cult besides being a social sciences method (if that whole facet didn't die with Kautsky and/or Althusser).

And plenty of people managed to stay against with full knowledge of his writings, pic related for example. It's just that memetics on the right have made shallow opposition to Marx more common, but this is not exclusive to them, if you study history, for example, you will see a lot of strawmaning and shallow opposition to the thinking of Leopold von Ranke, the conservative historian who stands at the foundation of "History" as a academic discipline and source-based science. His importance to History is no lesser than Marx to sociology, and yet he is mostly dismissed with a passing mention by most professors and students do not even bother to read him to see if what they learn about him is true. Of course, the fact that he was a conservative, not a revolutionary radical, contributes to his passing, since it's not useful for anyone to come defending his legacy against stupid naysayers like you do for Marx-sempai for the sake of the communist movement.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:33:50 2015 No.6442650 >>6442635 There's a considerable gap between you misinterpreting something and what is between the quotes there, but whatever

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:35:21 2015 No.6442655 why does Marxism have to be 100% right or 100% wrong? Why be so Manichean?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:38:05 2015 No.6442665

>>6442632
There is little difference between Marxism historical determinism based on class struggle and materialism and other teleological readings of history like the Christian millenialism of Joachim of Fiore or XIXth century British whig history.

Of course, you will say that the difference is that Marx is right, but that's just expected of you. My point is that he wasn't the first to deny the "right to see the structures as some timeless manifestation of something" because he did it too.

By the way, the first to deny the mechanicist view of history that was in vogue during the Enlightenment was François-René de Chateaubriand, not Marx.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:40:15 2015 No.6442667 >>6442650 This "misinterpreting" bullshit really has to stop. Anti-marxists are just as smart as marxists, if not smarter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:40:56 2015 No.6442668 >>6442667 Not on /lit/ though, and I say this as an anti-marxist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:43:45 2015 No.6442674 >>6442621 what is inequality in distribution of wealth driven by capitalism

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:45:06 2015 No.6442678

>>6442642
>Of course, the fact that he was a conservative, not a revolutionary radical, contributes to his passing, since it's not useful for anyone to come defending his legacy against stupid naysayers like you do for Marx-sempai for the sake of the communist movement.

I think if you were really interested in drawing comparison between Marx and any other intellectual to see whether political bias is holding someone's legacy hostage beyond his times you'd logically start with Durkheim and Weber, these two "revolutionary radicals" that share with Marx the title of founders of the social sciences and are about as well known as Marx himself. Of course you didn't, which has to say a lot about your faith on this horrible point

Your first one is not any better - Marx was not only untranslated, but entirely banned in some countries that would end up with communist governments. There are many ways the objection you raised could be countered, like intellectuals maybe being able to read more than one language, oral teaching, pamphlets and works written by local people, internationalist movements, etc. I'm really actually kind of shocked that you bothered typing this

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:46:31 2015 No.6442681 >>6442667 I'm not talking about misinterpretation of Marx himself (which I'm sure you only read a few pages of the Manifesto at best) but of a post that you quoted I'm sorry, but your reading skills are atrocious

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:47:50 2015 No.6442682 >>6442681 "We're the only smart people" again.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:48:32 2015 No.6442683

>>6442665

Are we doing an entire session of replying to things that were not written anywhere? It's like there are two people here battling a ghost.

But congratulations, you must have been eager to drop all that knowledge even if there was no valid target available. Are you relieved now?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:52:46 2015 No.6442690

>get mad at shitty marxists on /lit/
>then realize that /lit/ is a micro kosmos in itself
>realize that capitalism won in the real world
>and it keeps on winning currently sweeping Asia
>realize that most posters haven't even graduated
>realize that you will one day have to earn money
>realize that is the moment when you will see the flaws with marxist ideology
>half of you will turn capitalists
>half of you will be unemployed bums with tumblr accounts

I'm feeling good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:55:51 2015 No.6442697 >>6442690 didn't marx play in the stock market or something also engels was an industrialist

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 03:59:02 2015 No.6442704 >>6442149 >communism doesn't work >well look at capitalism! The thread is about communism

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 04:11:46 2015 No.6442729

>>6442697
Engels wasn't an industrialist. He was upper class and worked in his father's factory when all his playful revolutions in Europe failed. He was basically the equivalent to some middle class Occupy Wallstreet double that keeps on retuning to his Starbucks gig while shit posting about muh capitalism on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 04:34:05 2015 No.6442755 >half of you will turn capitalists doubt it. Most of us will just become wage-workers

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 04:56:12 2015 No.6442788 >>6442681 I done good at the readings.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 04:57:46 2015 No.6442791 >>6442674 The more stuff can be equally distributed. More stuff is always better.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 04:58:58 2015 No.6442793

Marx hasn't been debunked, it's just that economists pushed the labor theory of value out of economics, which was well established, mainly to combat Marx's theories, that way they can't even be argued in economics, because you have accept that they're wrong as a premise from the start.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:17:16 2015 No.6442817 >>6441718 But Zizek is post-Marxist. Nice meme, though

ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 05:22:59 2015 No.6442824

>>6442817
Post-Marxism is Marxism. Marx constantly developed his theories, I don't think he ever wanted them to be dogma...that was the whole distinction between le scientific socialism and utopian. Classes essentialism is less and less possible because of how pension funds work; class is more reasonably considered on a sliding scale.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:26:26 2015 No.6442830

Most based economist to have ever existed, Eugen von Böhm Bawerk, wrote a comprehensive tratement of das Kapital and related essays in his Karl Marx and the Close of his System.

Class struggle, which is perhpas the only interesting point of his writing, was discovered by Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer before Marx and their theories about it about superior in every aspect.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:31:29 2015 No.6442845 >>6442225 >priceless As in worthless?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:34:22 2015 No.6442851

>>6442830
>Class struggle, which is perhpas the only interesting point of his writing, was discovered by Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer before Marx and their theories about it about superior in every aspect.

Man I hate when you guys step out of your league like that

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 05:39:51 2015 No.6442862 >>6442830 The most interesting part of Marx's writing is his analysis of capitalism, not his material dialectics.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:42:58 2015 No.6442869

>>6442116
>I call boy who cried wolf

Not really:

>For example, concerning Stalinism. The point is not that you have to know, you have to photo evidence of gulag or whatever. My god you just have to listen to the public discourse of Stalinism, of Khmer Rouge, to get it that something terrifyingly pathological is going on there. For example, Khmer Rouge: even if we have no data about their prisons and so on, isn’t it in a perverse way almost fascinating to have a regime which in the first two years (’75 to ’77) behaved towards itself, treated itself, as illegal. You know the regime was nameless. It was called ‘alka’ [?] an organisation – not communist party of Cambodia – an organisation. Leaders were nameless. If you ask ‘who is my leader?’ your head was chopped off immediately and so on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCD3hg6OEQw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4pcDLI57c

Also, Zizek is the saviour we all need. Zizek and Stannis. ZIZEK AND STANNIS!

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:52:19 2015 No.6442892 >>6441970 >>6442489 No he's not, Kant was right, Hegel was wrong. Simple as that.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:53:50 2015 No.6442895

>>6442090
>That produce nothing, that create nothing, they progress nothing, they add nothing to society, they add nothing to mankind, and they absolutely add NOTHING worth studying for a degree in absolute made up mumbo jumbo horse cock.
Good, pragmatism and usefulness are disgusting, but it's a shame that philosophy is both of those.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 05:58:18 2015 No.6442904

>>6442320
/pol/ failed as a containment board once people started to come to this site specifically to post on /pol/ instead of it serving as a place where the people who already browse this site could post /pol/ crap.
>>6442435
I used to be a Libertarian until around the end of my senior year of HS.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 06:02:55 2015 No.6442912

>/pol/
>containment board

I dont know why /lit/ has continued to perpetuate this myth.

Neither /n/ /new/ or /pol/ was ever conceived as a containment board. In fact /pol/ is the third largest board behind /v/ and /b/. That is not containment, that is pandering to the majority user-base. You are really to thick in your head to get that. Like true marxists you construct your own little parallell realities.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 06:05:10 2015 No.6442914

>>6442912
>/pol/ was ever conceived as a containment board
/pol/ was literally created as a containment board by moot you fucking retard for fucks sake you fucking newfags are full of shit, and I'm not a marxist.
Why do you think the "no /pol/ shit outside of /pol/" rule exists?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 06:15:34 2015 No.6442925

>>6442912
Its a few people.

While I don't think lit has more "pol" threads than other boards do, we certainly have a tumblresq whinge squad to complain about the few we do.

That being said, while i don't dismiss all "pol" topics, i'm happy pol exists because it certainly does function as a containment board to some extent. But i would say Int is the same to some extent, and even tg qua fantasy shit, if for lit at least somewhat a containment board.

this is stretching the idea of containment to its logical limits however.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 06:19:15 2015 No.6442934 >>6441718 >hegel debunked The reality is more Hegelian than even he himself could've imagined it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 07:03:20 2015 No.6443005 >>6441718 marxism isn't so much debunked as it is irrelevant to the 21st century. As for Hegel, I think some of his ideas will certainly stand the test of time, albeit in a slightly more post-modern format.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 07:06:27 2015 No.6443011 >>6441767 >>6441767 i read two of his books. and am in 800 pages for the third. still dont get everything. you also arent supposed to get lacan. just watch the films. they can be understood

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 08:40:54 2015 No.6443171 >>6441806 Gave birth to Nationalism, the conservative kind.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 08:41:59 2015 No.6443173 >>6441909 Do all extremists screw up the world, or is everyone who screws up the world an extremist? What does it mean to screw up the world? What is the world?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 08:46:45 2015 No.6443183 >>6442704 The sort of historical analysis which confirms the failure of communism must also confirm the success of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 08:47:57 2015 No.6443186 >>6442154 My fucking sides. 10/10.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 08:52:24 2015 No.6443197

>>6442361
>Want to be an activist on 4chan at all.

You miss the point retard, the point is that 4chan for the most part is a terrible website for political discussion and activism because of it's hivemind and the fact the vast majority of the userbase is like 16 edgelords.

/pol/ was overtaken by Stormfront almost instantly, this is fucking fact, you can even go on Stormfront's forums and see the threads on how they did it, then /pol/ since it was 4chans only politics board, started having newfags and retards go there, think "Oh this is how I have to act and this is what I have to believe to fit in" (Hivemind) and that shit spread all over 4chan along with stupid political activism and we get fucking thinly veiled far-right wing cultural crusades like Gamergate out of it.

What happened to "Not your personal army?" Or "raids are the cancer killing 4chan?" not anymore, /pol/ fucking shit up the entire website with a real world political ideology. It doesn't help that /pol/ is probably the single most retarded board on the entire internet that suffers from massive dunning kruger. I would rather discuss politics with a 13 year old girl than discuss anything on that piece of shit board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 08:55:36 2015 No.6443200 >>6442435 They thought they were "strong" and destined for prosperity, but when they realized they were fat friendless basement dwellers they started blaming tha JOOS, niggercucks, and SJWs for holding them back.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 09:06:33 2015 No.6443220

>>6443197
You sound like a whiny edgy teenager. If you dont like a board don't go there. Please tell me how the big bad meanie stormfront corrupted the innocent youths of 4chan /pol/, how they simply couldn't resist all the holocaust denial arguments, and how effective their ad hominems against marxist veiled the simple truth of the one true ideology.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 09:28:01 2015 No.6443266
File: 221 KB, 511x663, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6443220
This, and there is room for substantive conversation. Anybody with a mind to actually discuss politics dodges hyperbole and the rampant racism at least (usually) comes from legitimate concerns and proof of future behavior from past action.

By the way, I'm new to /lit/. I want to become more grounded in philosophy instead of quasi intellectual shitposting.

>>	The cats Thu Apr 23 09:41:25 2015 No.6443289 >>6443266 >I want to become more grounded in philosophy and defend a board that has been garbage since the zimmerman trial Get the fuck out cancer

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 09:45:54 2015 No.6443300 >>6443266 I'm new to /lit/ >Start with the greeks

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 09:53:21 2015 No.6443320

>>6443289
Nice blind hatred. My opinions aren't even representative of the majority of /pol/. In addition, if the majority had there way I'd likely be killed for the whole "being African" thing I do.

>>6443300
Reading through meditations right now. I'll go back to classical thinkers once I'm done.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 09:56:28 2015 No.6443326 >>6443005 the worst format

>>	The cats Thu Apr 23 10:06:45 2015 No.6443337 >>6443320 Browsing /pol/ any time since about the zimmerman trial or even Dorner is shameful. It's just the same threads bitching about tumblr for eternity. Philosophy shitposting is the cancer of /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 10:52:07 2015 No.6443447 >>6443220 >If you dont like a board don't go there. Except they leak everywhere, just look at GG

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 11:55:59 2015 No.6443611 File: 20 KB, 500x500, zizek_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6441718 LEETEL VITE DEEKS

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:00:08 2015 No.6443622 >>6441781 mccarthyism heritage

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:04:46 2015 No.6443629

i warmed up to zizek after digesting his talk on buddhism. his views on that subject are deeply flawed and limited, imo, but i appreciated him focusing on it in the first place. i think he would benefit from a deeper study of the origins of buddhism and early buddhist doctrine. he already seems aware of the differences between pre-mahayana schools and mahayana.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:32:44 2015 No.6443690

>>6442615
>the earliest known human architectural construction was a communally built, used, and maintained structure that was not privately owned by any one and had the purpose of enabling a necessary (for the people of that time and place) public activity
>this kills Marxism
If anything it very solidly confirms Marx's ideas of historical materialism and debunks the popular feeling that capitalist modes of production reflect 'human nature'.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:33:23 2015 No.6443692 >>6442615 >gobekli Are you a Turk?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:46:12 2015 No.6443730
File: 19 KB, 583x293, garl marx.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Daily reminder that Popper is the only guy who criticized Marx in a good way, instead of all those retards like Sowell or your average teabagger.

What is funny is, almost all people who criticize Marx don't even know who Popper is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:53:59 2015 No.6443759 >>6443692 It's the name of an ancient site. If you want to circlejerk about your nationality there's /int/ for that. >>6443730 >popper's political philosophy into the trash it goes

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:55:27 2015 No.6443764 >>6443690 Except that it is a superstructure that precedes the base. >debunks the popular feeling that capitalist modes of production reflect 'human nature' So basically Marxism fights against a strawman.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:56:06 2015 No.6443767 File: 688 KB, 519x680, into the trash I go.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6443759 Nigger please. Popper makes a good point. So far he and that guy who founded socialdemocracy (bernstein?) made good critiques. The rest are pure trash.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:56:31 2015 No.6443768 >>6443730 >Daily reminder that Popper is the only guy who criticized Marx in a good way Which speaks volumes about the quality of the anti-Marxist position.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:00:15 2015 No.6443780 File: 554 KB, 295x221, i'm out.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6443764 >Except that it is a superstructure that precedes the base. No. >So basically Marxism fights against a strawman. 2/10, nibbled the bait but I see it for what it is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:00:27 2015 No.6443782 >>6443764 why would marxism fight against modes of production? he proposes to take advantage to the ones existing and make them better

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:01:36 2015 No.6443785 >>6443730 >>6443767 >>6443768 That's because no one bothers to read Leszek Kolakowski.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:03:07 2015 No.6443792
File: 203 KB, 310x480, trashman 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6443785
>He came to believe that the totalitarian cruelty of Stalinism was not an aberration, but instead a logical end product of Marxism, whose genealogy he examined in his monumental Main Currents of Marxism, his major work published in 1976–1978.[4]

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:03:35 2015 No.6443796 File: 86 KB, 893x875, Base-superstructure_Dialectic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6443764

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:03:50 2015 No.6443798
File: 48 KB, 1000x707, War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6443780
>No

How not? Gobekli Tepe precedes agriculture by milennia, this directly contradicts Marx's writings that things such as religion (or violence, pic related) are a result of the division of labour during the neolithic revolution.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:03:54 2015 No.6443799 >>6443730 most of Sowell is just as unfalsifiable as Marx tbh

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:04:56 2015 No.6443805 >>6443796 >this literally means anything i want to mean Wow, Marxism is really a religion.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:05:34 2015 No.6443810

>>6443447
He thinks /pol/ started GG, it started on /v/, leaked to reddit, reddit shut it down, reddit leaked to /v/, mods started to shut it down on /v/, they took it to /pol/ because it is the only board where anything goes anymore. I followed GG closely in the inception.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:05:58 2015 No.6443812 >>6443792 >wikipedia

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:07:33 2015 No.6443817 >>6443796 >seeing this >implying there isn't cultural marxism If you believe in this and marxism you are literally obligated to destroy the Superstructure. For fucks sake this is stupid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:09:12 2015 No.6443828 >>6442690 >half of you will turn capitalists I doubt that, how will I get all the capital needed to acquire the means of production if my employer steals my surplus value?

>>	The cats Thu Apr 23 13:09:19 2015 No.6443830 >>6443805 It even comes with it's own rapture, The Revolution, like /pol/s The Happening, which is also not coming.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:12:05 2015 No.6443840 >>6442830 >class struggle was discovered by two French guys top kek, what about all the workers in history that saw how their employers were rich as fuck while they barely could eat and revolted?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:13:41 2015 No.6443849

>>6442040
>Charles Darwin of social sciences

I know this is bate, but Marx is the literally antithesis of Mr. Darwin in the field of evolution. His dialectical materialism basically stands against the natural progression held within the theory of evolution.
In fact this stunted actual biological research in the USSR, due to government pressure to introduce the dialectical theory into the field.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:14:34 2015 No.6443853 >>6443840 Mostly, "class struggle" is just one part of the elite using poor people as cannon-fodder, against another part of the elite using poor people as cannon-fodder. Jacqueries happen, but are rare. Mostly it's just Guelphs vs Ghibellines.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:14:37 2015 No.6443854

>>6443828
>I doubt that, how will I get all the capital needed to acquire the means of production if my employer steals my surplus value?

Loans which you later pay back, like most entrepreneurs start off.

However you do not have own major capital to be believe in capitalism - you only have to share the values.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:15:46 2015 No.6443858
File: 115 KB, 451x600, penn and trash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6443767
>muh open society
>totalitarianism is bad guise
Popper's political philosophy is horribly simplistic, if it can even be called that. He has no real insight apart from historicism, which itself is meh.

>>6443792
>t-true communism hasn't been tried!

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:16:15 2015 No.6443862 >>6442704 The thread is not about communism, it's about OP's misguided attempt to equal Zizek's contemporary thought to its philosophical roots and to the political expressions of one aspect of said roots.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:17:27 2015 No.6443868 >>6443858 >>t-true communism hasn't been tried! That pole said stalinism is the logical end of marxism. And communism has been tried in a lots of ways, and not every country is stalinist. See Vietnam.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:21:13 2015 No.6443883 >>6443730 Popper is guy who thinks Jaspers of the 30s is more radical than Heidegger. Can't take him seriously with that and his biased view on Hegel.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:22:25 2015 No.6443886

>>6443868
>That pole said stalinism is the logical end of marxism.

He didn't, that's just wikipedia fucking things up, sourced on someone who probably didn't read him. What he said is that Stalinism is not a distortion of Marxism, but a logical result of his political philosophy (not the only logical result though).

PS: Vietnam was Stalinist until the 1980s.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:22:45 2015 No.6443890 >>6443883 Recommend me a good fag who criticize marx

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:26:01 2015 No.6443906
File: 246 KB, 800x994, anti usa propaganda vietcong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6443886
oh well, then I should read that pole.
>Vietnam was Stalinist until the 1980s.
???
They were maoists, not stalinists.
>inb4 mao is a chink version of stalin

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:26:57 2015 No.6443908 >>6443890 Julius Evola

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:27:46 2015 No.6443913 >>6443890 Sorel.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:27:52 2015 No.6443914

>>6442435

They moved on after the spectacle of 2012. Ron Paul lost, libertarians on 4chan either dispersed or became National Socialists. I was an ancap in 2012. Then I became convinced of the damage that transnational corporations were doing by being allowed to move freely all over the globe, so I became a nationalist (not a national socialist, but I thought international trade should be restricted to keep developing this country with domestic libertarian policies), then I actually read Marx and various older socialists and anarchists, and some newer ones, and I became more of a traditional anarchist/socialist when I realized him and the various strands of socialists weren't as crazy as everyone made them out to be in the libertarian echo chamber.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:27:59 2015 No.6443915 >>6443854 >loans >economic bondage >implying most succesful people don't just pitch to investment firms Who steal your product and company, alienating you from the product

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:28:09 2015 No.6443916 File: 249 KB, 580x304, dilma laughing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6443908 Come on, I'm serious.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:28:36 2015 No.6443920 >>6443906 >They were maoists, not stalinists. They were "maoists" until the war with the US, when they realized that China couldn't support them adequately and switched to patronage by the Soviet Union. They actually went to war with China later.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:30:29 2015 No.6443925

>>6443916
The problem is that no serious thinking will actually "debunk" Marx is the sense of completely disregard his importance, but most serious thinkers do not take him 100% seriously either. So in the end everyone who is worth something criticizes Marx, but not in the way you would expect from the John Birch Society (which is what you are asking for).

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:31:24 2015 No.6443929 >>6443890 Sean Hannity

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:32:40 2015 No.6443932

>>6443920
I know they supported the USSR; but they weren't stalinist. Stalinism is different from what the Vietnam government was.
It was some sort of nationalism, buddhism and socialism mixed with marxism. They didn't attack the religious institutions, unlike the pro-US government.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:34:06 2015 No.6443935

>>6443925
I don't want someone to debunk Marx or claim that Marx is completely wrong, just a good critique that doesn't involve shitty arguments.
I've been reading too many /pol/ recommended books against marxism since I wanted to know what they think about Marx.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:37:18 2015 No.6443940 >>6443935 Karl Polanyi.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:51:56 2015 No.6443991 >>6443849 Lysenko Was Right

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:54:38 2015 No.6444002 >>6443935 For economics: Steve Keen for a readable argument about how economics has progressed since Marx, Keynes if you really need the details For broad politics/philosophy: Popper or Chomsky

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:55:03 2015 No.6444005 File: 71 KB, 721x960, missing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6442107 this made me kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 13:57:09 2015 No.6444011 >>6441724 Universities are liberal breeding houses today

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:00:36 2015 No.6444019 >>6443730 Lel marx got btfo by Sowell. All he was ever good at was spending other people's money

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:04:23 2015 No.6444032 >>6442535 >I was only pretending to be retarded

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:11:34 2015 No.6444060 >>6444002 >>6443940 thanks

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:14:49 2015 No.6444070

>>6443798
>How not?
You haven't explain how it is. First, you're unaware that not only does the superstructure develop from the base but that the superstructure also forms the base. There's no reason to assume this didn't apply to early human societies, examples of art and artifacts would seem to suggest it. Second, you make some claim about the site preceding agriculture as if that explains how Gobekli Tepe is an example of superstructure preceding the base, but this claim is unexplained. Pre-agricultural humans didn't build things? Which part of Marxism prohibits humans from construction before agricultural production? Assuming you're right and Gobekli Tepe shows that early humans came together to magically build something they didn't have the tools, knowledge, and relations necessary to build, how does this "kill" Marxism when it accurately explains how all existing capitalist societies developed? All it would "kill" are some assumptions about early human societies, a subject that is still not perfectly understood.

>religion (or violence, pic related) are a result of the division of labour during the neolithic revolution.
1) Where does Marx say this? 2) Marx =/= Marxism. 3) You're making an unproven assumption about why Gobekli Tepe was made (religion).

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:15:16 2015 No.6444071 >>6444011 >Universities in America are breeding houses of what is considered a 'liberal' in America fixed

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:18:01 2015 No.6444083

>>6444011
And American Liberals are rabidly opposed to actual Marxism/Socialism/Communism, and have been for two decades. Furthermore, most renowned American colleges are fundamentally Keynesian. For example, every University in Southern California I've been to (dozens) has had its Macro-economic courses routed firmly in Keynes with a handful of unorthodox professors strewn about.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:23:45 2015 No.6444100
File: 26 KB, 400x533, Post-modern-philosopher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6443915
No, you sell your idea (intellectual property) in returns for capital to develop the idea. If the idea holds true both will get ROI.

>Also
>Loans is economic bondage

This thread deserved to die a long time ago.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:24:44 2015 No.6444107

>>6443798
>that image
Jesus, mate, how many Jivaroan, etc., people do you think there are in the world vs how many people there were in the US and Europe combined in the 20th century? And why are there no dates specifications for these people other than US/Europe?
>Steven Pinker
Gobkekli, back to your board, the lot of you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:28:42 2015 No.6444121 >>6444083 Keynes is the embodiment of liberal fiscal policy. More state spending, higher taxes, more welfare programs. Give me a fucking break. And socialism remains extremely popular in the academic world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:34:32 2015 No.6444147 >>6444121 >Keynes is the embodiment of liberal fiscal policy. Keynesian economics is neoclassical liberalism, burgerlord. Today's liberalism is Hayek's neoliberalism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:41:01 2015 No.6444178 Holy shit the American brainwashing is strong in this one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 14:44:46 2015 No.6444195 >>6442154 This is the most elaborate and developed bait I've seen. Thank you for writing that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:04:15 2015 No.6444276 >>6442793 No, its just that labor theory of value is shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:07:19 2015 No.6444294 >>6443622 McCarthy did nothing wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:24:32 2015 No.6444343 >>6443810 >they took it to /pol/ because it is the only board where anything goes anymore And then they keep trying to force it back on /v/ with their shitty raids. >I followed GG closely in the inception. lol

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:27:27 2015 No.6444357

>>6444343
Has it ever occured to you that people use more than one board. The people that pushed it back to /v/ was /v/ itself and /pol/ posters that did not want anything to do with GG.

Yes I followed it, not participated, because it is fascinating watching these events unfold live. But whatever you're a fucking faggot what do I care.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:31:00 2015 No.6444376

>>6442793
LTV wasn't really pushed out because of Marx, and Marx's LTV was different than Smith's anyway.
>>6444276
It's not really shit either, it's perfectly consistent. It's also not super useful to predict anything in economics, where as the subjective theory of value ends up making much more definitive predictions.

Marx was wrong that he needed the LTV for most of the stuff in Capital anyway, it survives just fine stripped of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:31:08 2015 No.6444377 >>6444147 I'm sorry but I can't follow all these fucking terms. Maybe you should try explaining what they mean.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:33:02 2015 No.6444384 >>6441718 hella fr*gging epic

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:37:00 2015 No.6444404 >>6444011 Americans try and infect every institution on earth with it's corrosive political discourse. To them every matter becomes reducible to a dichotomy between democratic 'liberal', and republican right, with some US libertarianism sprinkled in.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:39:11 2015 No.6444415 >>6441749 nope. >>6441901 and nope.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:41:40 2015 No.6444429 >>6444415 Kant is right anyways so it doesn't matter if Hegel was debunked or not since he was never right in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:44:55 2015 No.6444440 >>6444404 Well, thats basically because the WASP elite was replaced by the jewish elite in the beginnings of the 20th century.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:45:22 2015 No.6444442 >>6444415 what

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:54:52 2015 No.6444483 >>6444440 WASPs are the worst.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:55:40 2015 No.6444487 >>6444032 My response wasn't even much of a shitpost, lol.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 15:58:57 2015 No.6444501 >>6444376 Nope, LTV is completely incorrect. Relative theory of value doesn't predict anything, in fact its more robust in dealing with random changes in markets and individual valuations. You're wrong in three or four different ways.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 16:05:52 2015 No.6444528

>>6444501
subjective theory of value (I'm talking about the Alfred Marshall curve stuff here) predicts increase or decrease in price/volume with correspondent shifts in demand or supply (given perfect competition, many other assumptions, etc.)

LTV isn't "completely incorrect" as you claim, it's just unfalsifiable. I'm guessing you haven't actually read Marx (or Smith, or Mill, or Locke), so I don't really want to explain how LTV works, but the way it doesn't work is: I work for an hour so something is worth $5 more. Go read if you want to read how it does work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 16:26:46 2015 No.6444615 >>6443854 >being a capitalist is somehow equal to being in favour of capitalism you truly have enlightened me, anon

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:00:47 2015 No.6444752

>>6442435
Libertarian ideology has and always will be an astroturf campaign by corporations in order to roll back labor gains made during the new deal/progressive era.

The fact that the likes of the tea party and ron paul morons were beginning to actually threaten certain aspects of the corporate kleptocracy meant the libertarians had to be reigned in a bit. Hence why they have less of a political presence outside of being a tool furthering GOP agenda.

People should actually read about the genesis of libertarianism, it's fairly amusing. The whole thing is such a transparent fraud but people get drawn to it due to the self serving rhetoric. It's the equivalent of a snake oil infomercial.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:01:53 2015 No.6444763 >>6442482 Perhaps you fail to understand it? Most people have difficulty understanding the LTV.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:03:35 2015 No.6444771 >>6442482 >M8, no. I'm a Marxist, but Marxian economics is easily the weakest field of Marxism. Please provide me with an argumented essay with counterarguments to basic premises of Marxian economics and then we will talk,

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:12:30 2015 No.6444801 >>6444771 Here is a whole book http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf It draws a lot from Marx but in the end tears most of it down to built it back up better.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 17:19:12 2015 No.6444827

>>6444376
Marx's labor theory of value isn't different from Smith's, Smith espoused it, then added, "But of course this can't be totally accurate, or else where would profits come from?" Besides, the LTV was espoused in other forms by Benjamin Franklin (very close to Marx) and Ricardo (not as close to Marx, as his idea of was more akin to something Marx might call the labor-power theory of value).

>>6444501
LTV isn't designed to predict use or exchange value (which Marx also discusses at length), it's meant to contextualize them at the scene of production. If I produce a x market it, x's price can fluctuate considerably, but obviously it still all rests upon the thing the price is attached to and the labor that made its existence factual.

I think there is someone here who said liberal economists would say that if you kidnap someone's daughter and ransom her, you increase her value, which really illustrates well how confused liberal economis is.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 17:23:05 2015 No.6444836

>>6444801
The guy doesn't know what capital is in Marxian terms; it's pretty simple. Capital is something like a commodity or a machine or a money that you acquire through trade and then trade off again with the expectation of getting more and more and more, rather than just spending it. Capital is using something as an investment rather than an expenditure or simple conversion. It's converting one thing to another thing which you will probably contribute back the original thing (generally money) with more than you started out with.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:25:20 2015 No.6444843 >>6444836 >The guy doesn't know what capital is in Marxian terms They spend multiple chapters talking about that because of the similarities in the way Neoclassicals and Marxists view capital.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:29:08 2015 No.6444853 >>6444752 New deal nearly destroyed the American economy. Learns some fucking economics and fuck off

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:29:37 2015 No.6444855

>>6443849
>His dialectical materialism basically stands against the natural progression held within the theory of evolution.

Not it doesn't.

>In fact this stunted actual biological research in the USSR, due to government pressure to introduce the dialectical theory into the field.

Again and again I keep reading this as some kind of evident of marxist "anti-scientism" or whatever

Marx greatly admired Darwin, was influenced by him and wrote letters supporting him and his work. To judge his thought based on what Stalin decided was the proper science is something so illogical that I'm not even sure if you believe your own point.

And like always, you guys start at some fact detached from context and assume everything that lead to it based on nothing but your own conceited ignorance. There was no pressure to introduce "dialectical theory into the field" leading to the choice of Lysenkoism, Stalin's adherence to Lysenko was a matter of keeping unity in a multiracial empire in a time where eugenics and ethnic nationalism were growing popular. It also had something to do with agrarian policiy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:30:00 2015 No.6444858 >>6441718 >marx or hegel but especially hegel >debunked

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:33:48 2015 No.6444870 >>6444858 >implying bertrand russell the philosophy defener didnt BTFO hegel over 100 years ago

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:36:18 2015 No.6444878

>>6444853
>New deal nearly destroyed the American economy

?

Real US Per Capita GDP 1870–2001
(in 1990 international Geary-Khamis dollars)
Year | GDP | Growth rate
1929 | 6899 | 5.02%
1930 | 6213 | -9.94%
1931 | 5691 | -8.40%
1932 | 4908 | -13.75%
1933 | 4777 | -2.66%
1934 | 5114 | 7.05%
1935 | 5467 | 6.90%
1936 | 6204 | 13.48%
1937 | 6430 | 3.64%
1938 | 6126 | -4.72%
1939 | 6561 | 7.10%
1940 | 7010 | 6.84%
(Maddison 2003: 88).

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:37:00 2015 No.6444880

>>6444853
New Deal saved american capitalism and for that alone should be criticized. It was the state fulfilling at best its role of bringing reconciliation between classes and alienating the poor of the possibility of any major significant change.

The fact the dude could actually replace all the apparatus of the working classes that came from below for government or corporation-sponsored ones instead (like the unions) was a strike of genius. I'm not sure why the Right is always butthurt about it, it was a programme that lasted 30 years at best and killed 100 years of Radical tradition before (and probably after) it

Browder and Mussolini were right in calling it american fascism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:37:28 2015 No.6444883 >>6444528 Yea, I've everyone you mentioned, and just enough of marx to know its complete shit. You guys really have to drop this "The only reason you disagree is because you're uneducated/misinformed/brainwashed/misunderstand."

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:38:41 2015 No.6444887

>>6444801
I've heard of Niztan before. His work is not a "debunking" of Marxism, but rather is offering a third way of looking at accumulation of capital. His attack on Marxism is weak from the beginning. I'll cover the basics which I remember reading.
He claims that Marxists are unable to tell us what capital is - capital is a value which generates surplus value as the result of exploitation of wage labour.
He claims that Marxism cannot explain the accumulation of capital - the accumulation of capital is a process occurring through generation of surplus value.
Then, he claims that it is impossible to differentiate productive from unproductive labour. Marx never argued that labour is the ultimate and the only reasonable end - he also included efficiency of labour and cost of natural resources. I don't see why different types of labour are impossible to differentiate.
He claims that Marxism cannot explain the prices of commodities. Price is merely a standard measure of value, and value is determined by measuring its own value against the exchange-value of other commodities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:41:01 2015 No.6444902 >>6444887 >I've heard of Niztan before So have you actually read it or merely heard of it?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:41:08 2015 No.6444903

>>6444883
>"The only reason you disagree is because you're uneducated/misinformed/brainwashed/misunderstand."

The fact we never ever ever read proper rebuttals but only things like "this is SHIT" might have conditioned them to this.

Nearly every intelligent criticism of Marx and marxism comes from marxists themselves.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 17:41:20 2015 No.6444904

>>6444843
"Quantitatively, the dollar value of capital in the Marxist scheme is proportionate to its cost of production, and, specifically, to the amount of abstract labour socially necessary to produce that capital."

But that's not completely true, Marx addresses, for instance, that price fluctuates in the speculation market where the labor doesn't necessarily. Marx only applies this to profit for capitalists at the scene of production.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:45:44 2015 No.6444920

>>6444827
Smith's LTV was for exchange-value, Marx's LTV is for use-value (and he very explicitly distinguishes it from exchange-value). Similar (and equivalent if you collapse Marx's two definitions, as Marxists sometimes, incorrectly I think, do).

>>6444801
This book is great. Was it you who posted it in one of the Marx threads a few months ago? I downloaded it that night and read the whole thing in two or three days. One of the best finds I've ever had from /lit/.

>>6444836
>>6444836
I would seriously recommend reading the whole thing. They go pretty carefully through the advantages and disadvantages the Marxian view of capital, and made me pretty convinced that their view is at least worth considering.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:47:43 2015 No.6444927

>>6444920
sorry, fucked that up. Marx's is for exchange value but specifically within capitalist mode of production, which is really more like use-value. (Smith's is for the exchange-value commanded by the commodity, Marx's is for the exchange-value within the commodity under capitalism).

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:49:06 2015 No.6444937

>>6444903
marxism and other forms of socialism are so simply stupid that criticism doesn't need to be sophisticated. Does an argument against eating a big pile of horse shit have to be complex?

What disgusts me most about marxism is how self contained it tries to be, thus stopping criticism by controlling language. Ideas like "use-value" and "exploitation" existed long before marx, but before than real thinkers already named them "utility" and "usury". So of course only marxists make "intelligent criticism", because they are the only ones that speak the marxist language. marxists does accept outside criticism, because its not in their exact language, their exact world view. Exactly like how the religious won't accept arguments unless its in religious language. marxists are not in the same realm of intellectual discussion as the rest of the world, sooner or later they have to use violence as a form of communication.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:50:51 2015 No.6444943 >>6444878 Second new deal was disastrous. No one debates that. We are still living with economic impediments like social security and still have an enormous government bureaucracy sucking the life out of the private sector

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:51:49 2015 No.6444944 >>6444943 is this an ironypost because it's true within the field of economics that basically no one debates that, but because everyone agrees it was good

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:11:54 2015 No.6445003

>>6444937

It's almost like you're trying to validate our point. Absolutely no arguments, no content, only personal insults and all the childish comparisons with religious people which, just like comparisons with "nazis" and "cults", are the trademark of the ignorant.

Control your anger a bit and read more, it always helps.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:15:57 2015 No.6445015

>>6445003
I'm beyond having to criticize the ideas. They've been disproved for a century and more now. What needs to be analyzed now is why people still cling to false truths. It has to be faith based, because the ideas themselves are so categorically wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:18:27 2015 No.6445024 >>6445015 pathologizing your debate opponents is not arguing in good faith, but I suppose you've openly admitted that you're not arguing in good faith

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:20:40 2015 No.6445031 >>6445024 I just don't get why statists think their type of state would be different than another type of state.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:22:14 2015 No.6445035 >>6445015 You went from "you're like religious people" to "you've debunked, period" how many horrible cliches that only idiots use are you going to drop on this conversation?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:23:05 2015 No.6445039 Zizek - the king of faggots

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:23:15 2015 No.6445040 >>6445031 >statists The guy is a libertarian people, anyone surprised?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:28:23 2015 No.6445051 >>6445031 are you one of those people who read that Milton Friedman blamed the Fed for the great depression and didn't realize he was saying the Fed didn't do enough to stop it

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:38:14 2015 No.6445088 >>6442154 commies of lit will catch this bait furiously!

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:41:42 2015 No.6445097 >>6442288 b-but every attempt to build communist state ended in class-based society.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:46:04 2015 No.6445115

>>6445097
I'm surprised it's not more common wisdom the fact that no communist leader has ever claimed to have arrived at the stage of communism, and the majority believed it wouldn't be possible in their lifetime.

Read more about the debates between the left during the revolution about whether Socialism could be built on Russia or not. It was nearly an universal consensus that it couldn'tt, a sentiment shared by the Bolsheviks, included.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:48:02 2015 No.6445128 File: 91 KB, 786x581, 1365671625505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Amerifat burger empire emerges victorious at end of WW2 >We now have to wait decades before society can progress beyond obscene liberal capitalism

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:55:36 2015 No.6445174 >>6445128 That has more to do with the intellectual bankruptcy of the left. They have had ample chances to change things or at least push them in the direction they desired.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:02:13 2015 No.6445209 >>6445115 Didn't Mao declare that China had arrived there sometime in the 60s or early 70s?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:03:58 2015 No.6445215 File: 19 KB, 288x358, Ayn_Rand1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this entire thread should have not existed. Filthy, hypocritical collectivists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:05:31 2015 No.6445222 >>6445128 I want a square egg!

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:10:44 2015 No.6445250

>>6442435
in the US the economy got better, and gas got cheaper. all the gloom and doom of the financial crisis cleared away. rand paul has to court more traditional conservatives and isn't as libertarian as his father. legalization of marijuana is gaining momentum. the conversation about surveillance and police power has gone mainstream, and the left has reclaimed a lot of that ground with the recent ferguson debacle.

libertarianism has lost the circumstances that gave it popularity. its not entirely irrelevant, but its fan base, apart from the most hardline people, have moved on or softened their views.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:26:09 2015 No.6445335

>>6444855
>you
>they
>you guys
>your
Hate to break this to you bro, but I'm a commie red too. And ya know what, you are right that Marxism doesn't equal Stalinism. But it is undeniable that the dialectical theory stunted growth in the Soviet sciences. Ironically, the dialectical materialism that was applied in the sciences was probably one of the pure implementations of Marxist theory.

But on your statement:
>Not it doesn't.
Yeah, I'm going to need some citations, or at-least an argument from you showing how dialectical materialism works along side the theory of evolution.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:36:16 2015 No.6445385 >>6444011 >people enter a school >they leave liberal it's almost as if educated people tend to lean left

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:36:54 2015 No.6445388

>>6445335
It's pretty funny that you'll ask for citations when you make such a bold, ignorant statement without presenting any. I won't bother with it, instead I'll just direct you to the works of Smith, Levins, Lewontin and Haldane who not only believed in the compatibility of dialectical materialism and mainstream branches of biology but also thought their understanding of such concepts greatly expanded their understanding of scientific ones.

>but I'm a commie red too.

A communist saying something stupid is no different than a capitalist saying something stupid

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:42:40 2015 No.6445421 File: 241 KB, 626x787, pareto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6445385 Or that leftism gives power to educated people.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:45:00 2015 No.6445436
File: 119 KB, 510x321, straight-hall-occupation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6445385
It didn't used to be like this though, universities were evenly divided between liberals and conservatives until leftists made an alliance with street gangs, took armed control of campus and demanded the hiring of dozens of other leftists and expelled every non-leftist.

Now it's easy to say "hurr durr leftists are intelligent because all educated people are leftists". I mean, do you really believe that control over the ideological state apparatuses is meritocratic and still call yourself a Marxist?

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:46:03 2015 No.6445441

>>6445436
>It didn't used to be like this though, universities were evenly divided between liberals and conservatives until leftists made an alliance with street gangs, took armed control of campus and demanded the hiring of dozens of other leftists and expelled every non-leftist.

ahahaha

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:50:38 2015 No.6445454

>>6441781
Cold war hangover. You have to remember that the U.S.S.R. was a totalitarian state, not just a communist one, and a warfaring, nuclear-armed state at that. Everyone is still butthurt. On top of that, you can't formally study Marxism in the US (at least at my university), it's complicated I guess.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:51:39 2015 No.6445457 >>6441784 >Person said a thing. >Person went to a university once. >Therefore, a thing is true. checkmate analyticals

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:53:31 2015 No.6445463 >>6441887 >Stalin was a Marxist. >Marx was a Marxist. >Therefore Stalin was Marx. checkmate analyticals (shitty logic arguments is now a meme)

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:56:07 2015 No.6445469 File: 20 KB, 474x528, le wise philosopher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6445421 Wow I’ve never thought about it like that before; looks like it's time to embrace radical esoteric aristocratic warrior traditionalism

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:57:36 2015 No.6445472 >>6441970 you da real mvp

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 20:33:38 2015 No.6445627

>>6445388
>all of dat ad hominem

Oddly I have actually read Haldane already, and if you had too you wound know that he denounced the whole system of dialectical materialism from his scientific work.

Of course he used the dialectical theory in a historical and social context, which is fine. Honestly outside of the natural sciences I think that Marx's theory works wonderfully at showing patterns in history.

But anyways bro, I'm only half trolling you. I see the benefit of materialism, especially in the case of Lewontin.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 20:38:22 2015 No.6445653

>>6441718

I used to hate Zizek but I read some of his shit and this guy is indisputably on to something. His ideas about political correctness as alienating are glorious, it's just what the doctor ordered in our bureaucratic shit culture. He is at least somewhat a religious Marxist and I don't like ideological religions but there's more to Zizek than the orthodox Marxist parts of his thought and besides, as much as I would loathe to egg on any fundamentalist Marxists into thinking I agree with them, Marx can be quite insightful himself when he's not playing messiah. Labels are for cans man. Open your mind.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 21:12:21 2015 No.6445813 >>6445436 Cannot tell if serious or just pretending to be retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 21:19:59 2015 No.6445843 >>6441811 >metaphysics >science Tip top kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 22:38:04 2015 No.6446141 >>6445035 >cliches Some cliches are true...

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 22:39:53 2015 No.6446150 >>6445040 Yea, its shocking that someone that wants liberty and self determination would be anti-marxist!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 22:40:53 2015 No.6446155 >>6445035 Sorry sorry, I didn't mean "like religious people", I meant "religious people". marxism is a religion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 22:44:15 2015 No.6446169 >>6446141 >>6446150 >>6446155 you sound 15

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 22:55:47 2015 No.6446219 >>6445436 Actually that makes a lot of sense, never thought of it like that before. Academia is continuous, the old generation of idiots teach the new generation of idiots.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:01:50 2015 No.6446245

>>6445454
> you can't formally study Marxism in the US (at least at my university), it's complicated I guess.

What the fuck? Are you retarded? Every single college in the west is marxist. Every college has classes and majors in marxism. What the fuck do you think "gender studies" is about?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:05:14 2015 No.6446266 marx is dead, not marxism though that, zizek is an attention whore

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:06:00 2015 No.6446270

>>6446155
Just look at the behavior of Marxists in this thread and compare with the behavior of Christians on /lit/

>no one managed to refute the ontological argument neither the cosmological argument, threfore Christianity is right
>no one managed to debunk historical materialism or the labor theory of value, therefore Christianity is right

>you're bad, your life is worthless and you are devoid of any meaning until you find God
>you're dumb, your thinking is worthless and your work devoid of value until you find Marx

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:07:07 2015 No.6446275 >>6446169 Ageist much? hahah fuck you, I'm going to go cum on my wife's face.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:08:07 2015 No.6446280 >>6441718 >Marx and Hegel debunked Holy shit, dude, pick. Hegel was only ever a heuristic for Marx in understanding the origins of a qualitative change from the quantitative increase. Pathetic and gay, stick muh 1000 guhrillions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:10:34 2015 No.6446290 >>6446270 One of the worst things about marxism/feminism/leftism, is it makes religion look worse!

ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 23:10:37 2015 No.6446291

>>6442231
Marx deals with social evolution, which has somewhat replaced biological evolution for humanity. And Marx's method of investigating history needs to be developed, but is sure superior to the shit we use now. Marx understands social evolution as tied closely with technology, and he thinks "prehistorians" who divide history into stone bronze, iron age, etc. are more scientific than historians. And he's somewhat correct in that regard, even if historical dialectics are a bit dubious.

I don't really know why people think of socialism as utopian; contemporary capitalism would have seemed utopian a thousand years ago. I don't think socialism is utopian at all, I just think making it a normative is a mistake, we should reconsider what we as humans need to feel fulfilled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:12:22 2015 No.6446297 >>6446291 >we should reconsider what we as humans need to feel fulfilled. And what is that, in your opinion?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:14:17 2015 No.6446304 File: 21 KB, 373x464, Joseph_Stalin_in_color.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6443796 Whoever made this is too puss to place language in either.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:15:30 2015 No.6446306

>>6446245
>not going to a Jesuit master race University.

Don't worry anon, we are in a secret war against the illuminati and the Marxists. As you can see the SJW coastal forces have over run our fortifications by 14%. Backlash over the operation's sluggish speed is being held from the public by a concerted effort from Chomsky, Zizek, and the heads of a majority of the Ivys.
Don't worry our network of spies are tracking several potential communist right now, all is well. Don't fear, the Jesuits have your back.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:17:26 2015 No.6446313 >>6445215 Pop quiz: Is individuality alienable? If not, explain it's inextricable link to freedom alongside it's absurdly clinical anatomical definition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:19:57 2015 No.6446328 >>6446270 You sound like the people who say atheism is a religion because they're both "preachy" or that science is a dogma because they both involve "faith" on something.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 23:22:16 2015 No.6446344

>>6446297
Strong ritual and tradition. I also think socialism is far too concerned with freedom as the highest good, rather than duty. Socialism wants to alleviate the amount of work we have to do; leisure is emphasized, which I think is the wrong approach. Greek aristocracy, for instance, did not regard leisure highly, it regarded competition and fitness highly, which took a lot of work. Spartans did not regard luxury highly, they regarded it as gaudy and lower class. Rather than valuing excess, we should imbue more ceremonial value in what we have: compare the sip of wine at communion, with a sip of wine to feel luxurious.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:22:46 2015 No.6446346

>>6446328
Atheism is not a religion, secular humanism has some religious traits but that's all, Marxism definitely is.

Science is a method, Marxism is not a science but it's not clear, see this >>6443796

Do you have any formula on how the "superstructure" maintains the base or any theorem on how the base shapes the superstructure? No? Then fuck off and stop pretending to be scientific, that shit should have died with when World War I BTFO Orthodox Marxism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:23:57 2015 No.6446356 >>6446344 Do you work? Full time/part time? If so, how do you find time to read so much? This has nothing to do with your posts ITT, I just have been meaning to ask you this.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Apr 23 23:24:47 2015 No.6446361 >>6446356 I'm a futures speculator.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:28:27 2015 No.6446380 >>6446306 Man who was that lady, she hasn't been posted in months and months? I used to send her emails too

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 23:39:26 2015 No.6446441

>>6446344
I think tradition grows organically out of any community, so there's no point being for or against it. A tradition can easily outlive its usefulness and become redundant, if not counter-productive, and eventually die. And there's nothing wrong with that imo.

My heart is a bit with you on the idea of self-restraint over leisure and sacrifice over hedonism, but I also think there's an economic dimension you're ignoring here. Elites in a pre-capitalist society where selected on the basis of individual merit and afterwards, family name. That merit had usually a link to martial hability, scientific knowledge or artistic skill, which created the culture of the aristocracy you're refering to: it had to keep discipline, it had to restrain itself, it had to be a role model of sorts. In a capitalistic society, only capital counts. And as we know the prevailing Ideology is nothing but a projection of the class consciousness and class values of the upper class, so we grow as vulgar and hedonistic as they are.

It's actually one of the banes of capitalistic society that in order to sustain itself, the narrative of social mobility has to stay alive, and for that narrative to stay alive the owners of capital have to sacrifice the patterns of behavior the aristocracy used to have.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Fri Apr 24 00:03:55 2015 No.6446567

>>6446441
>I think tradition grows organically out of any community,
It can, but it can be created consciously as well. Church tradition is a good example.

>A tradition can easily outlive its usefulness and become redundant, if not counter-productive, and eventually die. And there's nothing wrong with that imo.
Yeah, no shit. I'm a fascist, not a traditionalist, I believe in creating new, futurists traditions that are compatible with a post-industrial society.

We need to look to churches for a template here: every week you attend (optional, but good attendance record is required to vote), in a uniform, where some cultural hero is celebrated. An official party meet with ceremonies and music. Adults who have been initiated into the party (a process which should be open, but should take as much involvement as getting received into a church) get to vote; adolescents who are received get half-a-vote. The state needs to have vocational programs that are open to the unemployed, which are free if you enroll, but then you are required to work for the state on salary for so many years after so as to pay back their investment; you want to become an electrician? Okay, government will train you and certify you for free (if you are attending party convention), but after that you have to be on call for the state for say five years, for electrical work they need; you get assigned somewhere, just like the military, and you get a state electrician's uniform that looks snappy and makes you feel proud; you learn the electrician's creed; in important ceremonies, you are march with electrician's in a state workers parade.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 24 00:18:18 2015 No.6446616 >>6446346 How can anyone be this dumb?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 24 02:41:57 2015 No.6446983 >>6442791 Jesus fucking Christ, more GDP don't mean shit if the Government don't utlize it and if its hoarded by oligarchs. You can have shit education and shit health care (US) and be the richest nation of the world. Learn basic geography hoe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 24 02:44:48 2015 No.6446993 >>6446983 Why does the economic output have to be distributed by the government? The people who create all the wealth are just as capable of distributing it. The more there is, the more everyone can possibly have, wither equally or not.

Anonymous Fri Apr 24 02:46:16 2015 No.6446998

>>6441718
Does Zizek actually want Marxist revolutions? Thought he just supported the idea that a revolution was needed in this failed system. I think anyone who can see the basic flaws of capitalism would agree there needs a revolution. Zizek himself has no answer to what should be next after capitalism; but that there needs one. To not think so, is being one of those end of history faggots like Fujiyama; I'd just end humanity now if it just stuck in this self-destructing society.

Anonymous Fri Apr 24 02:52:12 2015 No.6447020

>>6446993
Do you believe in liberalism? If you believe governments are capable (more effective) in handling laws and police enforcement then why not money? People who create wealth are profit based, there is no incentive for them to distribute fairly. I agree nation need a foundation economy but pursuing international commerce without socialist policies just screws the population as well as the government. No inflation to be controlled, Banks own the state, growth of inequality and the such.

Anonymous Fri Apr 24 02:56:39 2015 No.6447030

>>6446993
Another problem with totally free commerce is that it actually promote less competition after a specific amount of time. The growth of big companies and billions of marketing means its hard for small businesses to grow. For a free market, I am quite unfree to build my own coke company cause i'd be crushed by Coca-cola and Pepsi. Eventually you can see this on a larger scale where one companies own over 50 or 60 products or institutions at a time. If its a free market why tf is it so difficult to become a bourgeois even with merit. Us is locked in this Lockean state and you guys are fucked.

Anonymous Fri Apr 24 03:53:23 2015 No.6447175

>>6447030
Here's a fun fact: There's plenty of local sodas in the US. And when the market in South America was liberalized, the big soda companies suffered, because the smaller could compete easier. Before the liberalization, the big companies could simply subscribe to a market via the states.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 24 11:40:21 2015 No.6448382 >>6447030 But the reality is much different than theory. With the internet little businesses can compete with big companies because the cost of distribution is effectively zero.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 24 13:29:24 2015 No.6448797 File: 76 KB, 600x700, 1427178820480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6445015 >My face when Zizek BTFOs such a train of thought repeatedly

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]