/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6789647]

Is there any Socialist writer in the late 20th, 21st century that actually writes agitation and tries to offer solutions instead of just boring academic philosophical Marxism that makes your eyes glaze over within a few paragraphs?

I'm not a Leninist, but when you read Lenin, it gets your blood pumping, it puts a fire in your heart, he makes you go "Fuck yeah lets fuck shit up" but the thing is, Lenin was writing this shit in the early 20th century about largely actual imperialism in in a agricultural feudal country, his solutions don't really apply to 21st century Neo-Liberal capitalism where there isn't even really a first world industrial proletariat anymore.

I still see the Trotskists still trying to copy Lenin 1:1, printing newspapers, standing on soapboxes, trying to appeal to reactionary Industrial workers instead of the casual service industry which makes up the vast majority of the economy, so why can't I see any Socialist writers in the 21st century who actually write agitation and strategy for the 21st century?

I mean, do people actually believe that Zizek is the person to look towards in trying to find solutions?

[Anonymous No.6789661]

>>6789647
Have you read Castro and Chávez?

[Anonymous No.6789670]

>>6789661
Not Castro, I've read some Chavez. I was under the impression that Castro/Chavez is basically just Maoism-lite.

[Anonymous No.6789715]

>>6789670
Both draw from Mao, Castro no doubt more-so, but neither have identified as such. Castro thinks of himself as an orthodox Leninist and I wouldn't disagree with that, but Chávez is more "practical" and openly took the position that actually existing Socialism was a great achievement but there were mistakes, particularly lack of democratic initiative. Chávez thought of the Bolivarianist revolution as constituting a movement of "Socialism of the 21st Century". Fun facts: Chávez had copies of the Quotations sent to all of his ministers so that they could learn from it, and István Mészáros served as an adviser to Chávez, who greatly admired his book Beyond Capital and, iirc, gave a copy to Obama at some international meet.

[Anonymous No.6789763]

>, trying to appeal to reactionary Industrial workers instead of the casual service industry

This is what I don't understand. I work in construction and the vast majority of people are basically proto-fascists. Incredibly reactionary, blame migrants for all their problems an I've found increasingly anti-Union. The thing is, first world construction workers aren't even on bad wages generally, okay the work sucks and I honestly believe we are not paid well compared to the level of work we do (12 hour days, no benefits, pulling like 60k-70k a year while my friends who have no education above high school went into office work and are getting 90k a year with flex time, full benefits etc etc) but 60-70k isn't something to scoff at and workers at mines and stuff are earning 100-200k a year, while you have retail workers trying to Unionize and are getting union busted, are getting their wages stolen, are not paid overtime, are paid in tips etc etc and they are largely ignored by Socialist groups. it's honestly bizarre. The retail workers today are the exploited factory workers of the 19th and 20th century.

[Anonymous No.6789793]

>>6789763
When the Right found Regan they found their best chess piece allowing them to, first, control the hollywood media industry to brainwash Americans with prop-entertainment and, second, collapse the political field into the entertainment field. It's not wonder that so many American laborers are anti-Labor, their minds have been cultivating contradiction since the day they were born. It's honestly scary. Do you try to agitate your coworkers at all?

[Anonymous No.6789798]

fiery rhetoric isn't a solution

[Anonymous No.6789803]

>>6789798
No, but it's a means to an end.

What matters is if this means gets us the ends we desire.

[Anonymous No.6789822]

>>6789793
I've tried agitating, hell I even downloaded Marxist podcasts for a while, put them on the radio in secret and pretended we were just listening to AM.

Doesn't help, most of them are very anti-intellectual and the only politics they get are far-right wing opinion pieces they skim over after they read the sports at the back of the newspaper.

Who are they going to believe, a 26 year old or "professional journalists and political experts"

[Anonymous No.6789856]

>>6789822
>a 26 year old in construction that tries to "agitate" his coworkers into believing in his ideology
>not a complete retard
Pick le one

[Anonymous No.6789872]

>>6789856
Honestly, most of the time I just wanted conversation to steer anywhere but Sport or Racism against Immigrants.

[Anonymous No.6789891]

>>6789763
As a right wing wage worker I will never bow down to leftist dogs.

>but ur being antiintellectual!

No wonder your coworkers hate you

Personally I shill right wing nationalism and was pleasantly surprised how many people were willing to see the light :^)

I guess it's the benefit of not being an autist

[Anonymous No.6789894]

>>6789803
Utilitarianism is cancer

[Anonymous No.6789905]

>>6789647
Marxists aren't even allowed in the media anymore, the furthest left you are allowed to go is Neo-Keynesian Liberal. Here in Australia we have a show called QandA and I think I've only ever seen a Socialist on it once, that was Zizek and they basically never let him speak anyway yet at least fortnightly they have someone from a far-right wing Austrian Econ think tank.

Hard to get your message out when the real left has been entirely excluded from the conversation and in our steed is Neo-Keynesians who smugly spout Horseshoe theory to justify their inaction against capital.

[Anonymous No.6789917]

>>6789763
>>6789822
>fascists would be anti-union
>you can only be intellectually inclined if you agree with my ideology

Marxists have been trying to tell me "but that's not REAL Marxism!" for years and when I see what would be "real" Marxists on /lit/, oh look it's the fucking same. O I am laffin

[Anonymous No.6789920]

>>6789715
>Chavez
Is that as a 'what not to do' manual? Defending chavez is on the level of those neoreactionaries who say Poland attacked first.

>>6789763
Some of their views are pretty reasonable. Migrants in the 21st century are used as glorified scabs by the bourgeois-liberal establishment, and unions have been coopted as self-serving bureaucracies without any real organizing potential beyond busing workers to gay pride rallies.

>>6789793
It makes a lot of sense from their perspective. They've been told that the establishment which oppresses them is on the 'left', and that the migrant workers who threaten to undercut them into the lumpenproletariat are creatures of the 'left'. Their right-wing beliefs are, fundamentally, a sort of misaimed resistance to bourgeois rule. Yeah, yeah, I know you can say muh propaganda, but doesn't it say something when both you and the far right are complaining that the bad guys have monopolized the media? That suggests to me that the nature of media-promoted ideology is more subtle and varied than either side would have it.

[Anonymous No.6789921]

>>6789905
>waaaah were being le censored :(

Maybe it's because most educated people don't care about your fringe theory, what makes you think you have the right to broadcast what you want?

[Anonymous No.6789960]

>>6789921
Please, Marxism is way more prevalent in Academia and Econ than fucking Austrian Econ and Objectivism.

Nobody in Academia takes Austrian or Objectivism seriously, it doesn't have any public support in Australia aside from the right wing political establishment, yet they dominate media appearances here. 60% of Think Tank Representation alone on our National Broadcaster the ABC, is far-right wing austrian think tanks. Why?

Where groups like the Socialist Alternative as much as I hate them can organize marches with 80,000+ people and have thousands of paying members, They have never been allowed to speak on TV once ever, in fact I've seen QandA literally remove SAlt members from the audience.

It is actual literal censorship, how is it anything else? The Socialist Left are the only group not given a single voice in Australian media.

[Anonymous No.6789992]

>>6789891
The seperation of the Marxist intelligentsia and the labour movement is depressing. Ever since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the end of the Cold War, the Left has been in disarray. What's even more so depressing is that labour is acting against it's own interests, not just by not supporting the 'Left', but supporting people who don't even pretend to act in their interests. It gets even worse when you see leftist intellectuals who actually delusional enough to think they are in any form proletarian despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>6789921
Er, the people who advocate for this 'fringe theory' tend to be people who are educated. The problem arises when this 'fringe theory' advocates for the 'violent uprooting of all social conditions', which turns the media off because they don't want a 'violent uprooting of all social conditions'.

Back before television or even radio, the only way to learning about contemporary politics was through reading newspapers. Back then, the socialist parties had massive influence because of the large amounts of quality newspapers printed out to literate workers. Nowadays, just having a newspaper that prints out to several thousand people won't get you anywhere politically like it used to.

>>6789920
Chavez went nowhere, and we all know that, but have you ever seen him give a speech? He looks the exact way the Left imagines itself, as populists. Even a superficial glance could see that his personality was exactly what the contemporary Left needs. We live in a time when the Left is grasping at straws to be relevant.

[Anonymous No.6790012]

>>6789992
Forgot to add
What makes it worse are people like Zizek who concede our failures but fail to give any viable alternative besides the tired old reformist platitudes.

[Anonymous No.6790017]

>>6789960
The hilarious thing about March in March is that it was some of the largest protesters in Australian history, yet not a single media outlet reported on it, not one, until social media went batshit about no media reporting on it.

Yet literally 7 fascist stormfag deadshits protest the ABC for it's non-existent "leftist bias" and it gets 24 hour news coverage and front pages.

[Anonymous No.6790019]

>>6789960
>please, Marxism is way more prevalent in Academia and Econ than fucking Austrian Econ and Objectivism

This is common sense to anyone who has stepped foot on a first world university campus (I don't think anyone actually teaches literal objectivism, it's seen as a meme just about everywhere)

But you still do not have the right to television time just because YOU earnestly believe in a particular position. The general population just dosent want to accept Marxism as a philosophy any more than say anarcho-capitalism or any other fringe theory that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century. The world as a whole is reaching a type of global synthesis (albeit slowly) with capitalist counties giving more concessions to workers and expanding rights and nations formerly striving for communism relenting and allowing more and more private trade. Both systems will benefit by taking certain aspects of the other and most people are starting to realize this.

[Anonymous No.6790026]

>>6789920
>Is that as a 'what not to do' manual? Defending chavez is on the level of those neoreactionaries who say Poland attacked first.
You are either a scab or just another ivory tower platonic "leftist".

[Anonymous No.6790034]

>>6790017
>Yet literally 7 fascist stormfag deadshits protest the ABC for it's non-existent "leftist bias" and it gets 24 hour news coverage and front pages.


Ironically you (or whoever is crying about right wing bias) sound exactly like them. This will probably go over your head though.

[Anonymous No.6790035]

>>6789960
But Australia doesn't count or matter, mate. Just I-AA England. Anything that happens there is just play-acting at being a country. Enjoy Her Majesty The Queen if things ever get rough. (pats head)

[Anonymous No.6790036]

>>6789647
politics go on /pol/

[Anonymous No.6790046]

>>6789960

Because those groups act like children half the time, instead of putting forth a coherent political programme. Mindlessly chanting slogans and waving placards is the worst possible thing they could do for their own cause, and yet they continue to do it.

[Anonymous No.6790050]

>>6789992
Eh, I don't know if it's a good trait of the Left to think of themselves as populists. It might be a nice ego-massaging power fantasy, but it's racked up a lot of sins for no gain.

And I'd say the Left is in a worse position than trying to stay relevant - the Left is drowning in a society where everyone believes the rainbow-hued hashtagging sockpuppets of the 'left' are in control (endorsed and supported, as they are, by every major corporation except fried-chicken chains). The Left is not just struggling to be relevant, it's been cucked right out of its old homes by the bourgeois media and is struggling to even be remembered.

>>6790012
Zizek can fuck right off - if I ever see him in a Lacanian journal again I'm going to puke on it.

[Anonymous No.6790052]

>>6789992
>The seperation of the Marxist intelligentsia and the labour movement is depressing.

Because Marxist intellectuals have been overshadowed by:
A) HURR muh Jesus ban gays and abortions or
B) Check your privilege cis white scum, don't forget to add me on Twitter

In the United States those are the two factions you can chose from and I understand exactly why many people would be disgusted by liberals in this country

[Anonymous No.6790055]

>>6789992
>Chavez went nowhere
Are you OP? Building socialism isn't going nowhere. I don't get why Leftists have to shit on every inroad and every actually revolutionary moment. Marxism is materialist, comrades, it's praxis.

[Anonymous No.6790057]

>>6790034
Well, noone can really deny that the media, except for the conservative outlets, has a liberal, anti-communist, and anti-nazi slant. It comes with the fact that these outlets are sponsored and funded by liberals, anti-communists, and most of the time, anti-nazis.

What is bizarre though, isn't that we're being 'censored', because that should be expected, but that the 'mainstream' media rarely talks about us, like we don't exist.

[Anonymous No.6790069]

>>6790034
The difference is that the ABC gives plenty of air time to the far-right, as I have said before, 60% of think tank representations alone on the ABC come from the IPA and the CIS, both Austrian Econ think tanks and are both disturbingly reactionary and racist as fuck.

Where the ABC has never once given a voice to the Socialist left.

>>6790019
>any more than say anarcho-capitalism or any other fringe theory

I would argue that AnCapism has actually been massively boosted in popularity since 2008. When did you ever hear about Lolbertarianism apart from Ron Paul 13 year olds? yet now it's a major faction in the Republicans, our Government in Australia subscribes to Chicago/Austrian theory and their policy is literally written by the IPA and they have a larger media presence than ever.

The debate has been dragged so far to the right, that your average every day center-right person is considered "left wing"

[Anonymous No.6790070]

>>6790026
Thanks for the advice, O brave vanguard of the Revolution. Will you sign this picture for me?

[Anonymous No.6790087]

>>6790055
>Marxism is the praxis of throwing resource money at people until your country collapses

Huh. That actually fits with how things went for a lot of "Socialist (Or, Well, We're Trying! Maybe We'll Achieve Socialism Next Year!)" countries.

[Anonymous No.6790097]

>>6790070
No thanks, you look greasy in your pic and your hands are probably sweaty from rubbing your righteous anti-commie hard-on. No offense.

[Anonymous No.6790099]

>>6790050
>The Left is not just struggling to be relevant, it's been cucked right out of its old homes by the bourgeois media and is struggling to even be remembered.

I made the same point in a debate once.

The first world left these days spends most of it's time, arguing that it's wrong that Corporations don't try to market too and exploit minorities. It's bad because Corporations are not being inclusive.

I can see the logic, Corporations basically ignore anyone who isn't white and male, but why is the left arguing for Corporate extended corporate manipulation?! "Why won't Corporations market to and exploit me! I'm being discriminated against, I want to be brainwashed as well!"

That is the first world left.

[Anonymous No.6790108]

>>6790087
You're clearly a scholar, where do you teach professor? :^)

[Anonymous No.6790119]

>>6790108
He has as much authority as anyone else on /lit/

[Anonymous No.6790134]

>>6790099
Yes, and the next problem is when the Second/Third World left actually acts, the first world left show off their idealism and dismiss them, being echoes of the neoliberal machine.

[Anonymous No.6790135]

>>6790099
Not only that but the sheer bourgoisism of the left is phenomenal, the total isolation from any sort of radicalness. In England they think fighting tuition fees (which are arguably progressive) is the height of revolution.

[Anonymous No.6790150]

>>6790099
The liberal left (that is to say, the bourgeois left) exists to aid the replication of capital by dismantling the last structures of the old order, like racism, which prevent capital from accelerating its reproduction. It's exactly as neoliberal economists say - discrimination reduces profit. So, it's natural that a movement to eliminate discrimination would arise in the superstructure to keep profit accelerating. The same with other aspects of the liberal left, like freedom of movement across borders (which is the liberal counterpart to the neoliberal emphasis on free trade). This isn't the whole of it, of course - identitarian liberalism takes on a memetic life of its own and turns into the insanity /pol/'s so mad about - but it's the origin of this liberal co-opting of the old Left.

[Anonymous No.6790155]

>>6790134
Filipino here.

I hate western communists take credit for the exploits of third-world guerrillas. The Left here has all the problems the rest of the world does, except we have a people's army in the mountains that hasn't been making traction in decades. woohoo

[Anonymous No.6790172]

>>6790099
>why is the left arguing for Corporate extended corporate manipulation?! "Why won't Corporations market to and exploit me! I'm being discriminated against, I want to be brainwashed as well!"

Those are just liberals. Don't get liberals and the left mixed up.

By the same token, commies and anarchists (though the former especially) do themselves and others a disservice when they equate all "SJWs" as liberals. Black people are as agitated against the state as ever before and all I can see round my parts is the old left cadres halfway extending their hands while quietly muttering resentment against "identity politics."

Give the fems and trans and such some Mao. The good ones will dig it and the others will be exposed for the liberals they are.

[Anonymous No.6790174]

>>6790099
My favourite is when they fight for women to be included in the workforce in third world countries "Women should have the right to work in Sweat shops!"

Jacobin wrote a brilliant article on it (oh I love how jaded Jacobin has become)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/kristof-globalization-development-third-world/

>The legitimizing of women’s work in the rich Western countries has enabled factory owners in countries like China, Vietnam, and Malaysia to paint their use of primarily women’s labor as congruent with the dominant feminist belief that paid work liberates. Indeed, how often have we heard Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times defend these factories as sites of opportunity for women? Aren’t they better off, he asks his readers, than women scrabbling through piles of garbage to find something to eat or sell?

[Anonymous No.6790185]

>>6790036
To get back on topic, how many other people here have read Lenin Rediscovered?

Has anyone here read "Revolutionary Strategy" by Mike Macnair? Is it any good?

[Anonymous No.6790206]

>>6789803
your "end", if it's the same end that Lenin had, would be another catastrophe. Zizek is right when he says "now is the time for thinking". not endless recursive postmodern self examination, but positive thought.

[Anonymous No.6790216]

>>6790206
Yes sure, you're right, but like what I said, Zizek states problems without addressing answers.

Oh and Lenin was a Communist. His end was, you guessed it, Communism. If you think he somehow didn't want communism, you're a fucking idiot. The point is knowing what he did right and what he did wrong and relate that to the situation now, without letting 'the ghosts of the past linger on to the present', to paraphrase Marx, like the tankies do.

[Anonymous No.6790251]

>>6789894
nigger, to the marxist, action isn't the ends within itself, but only the means to a glorious end. How does this relate to morality?

[Anonymous No.6790269]

>>6790185
I haven't read either but I'll check them out. Thanks for the suggestion.

For publications I would suggest checking out Libcoms publication and Jacobin's magazine as well, I find Libcom tends to waffle on and needs a editor to make more readable works, but I find their stuff pretty enlightening.

Jacobin is hands down the most professional Socialist publication in the world today. There articles are incredibly well written, concise and to the point and gripping, not to mention the just sheer level of professionalism that drips from their design and layout.

[Anonymous No.6790290]

>>6790172
I struggle to explain why, but Liberals piss me off more than any other political group.

I find Lolbertarians too pathetic and deluded to take that seriously and I also at least sympathize with the fact that Lolbertarians do actually acknowledge something is severely wrong with the way things are going, too bad they just go in the complete opposite direction.

Conservatives I can actually sympathize with because they are generally just working class people trying to maintain their somewhat comfortable status quo.

But when I come up against Liberals, I just find myself filled with rage and disgust to the point that it actually lingers often days after a "discussion" always so smug, never takes much to make them start defending Capital and brutal exploitation and then they will throw out nonsense like Horseshoe theory and then say "i'm a Socialist because I believe in healthcare, what we need is Capitalism with a dose of Socialism".

I think what annoys be about Liberals so much is that they are so quick to drop their facade of "progressive ideals" when it comes to defending their own privilege and status, but I'm not sure that is only it, all I know is that Liberals really, really piss me off.

Anyone else have similar feelings?

[Anonymous No.6790318]

>>6790172
Something like a revival of the original Black Panther Party, a 21st Century Maoism, but on a much larger scale, might be the West's only hope for revolution. Maoists are the only ones I see trying to reach out to the people and organize and agitate. Left-coms and Anarchists just show up for the rare riot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsemXOtCFXQ&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.6790331]

>>6789960
>Marxism is way more prevalent in Academia and Econ
Marxism is only relevant in irrelevant departments like literary or cultural studies where they encourage you to do class analysis with gender/race/etc. No university economics dept takes Marxism seriously beyond a historical curiosity the same way psychology views Freudian psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.6790339]

>>6790318
I find this much more rousing that any Socialist meeting I've ever gone to which was just circlejerking over Leninist theory and then talking about what cupcakes we should make for the local markets.

[Anonymous No.6790344]

>>6790331
>No university economics dept takes Marxism seriously
About as meaningful a statement as "No university physics department takes metaphysics seriously". Obviously this is the case, because it's not part of their field. 'Economics' in its present form is the study of capitalist systems and market structures.

[Anonymous No.6790346]

>>6790099
Yea. Enjoy all the benefits and privileges you have and then sneer at those who're trying to gain some of the same. How righteous and smart you are to try and topple what you already have.

[Anonymous No.6790357]

>>6790269
Jacobin is fucking worthless social democratic nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6790366]

OP, you'll want to read on the Situationists. The Left has been castrated and sterilized by the social order, essentially. This process is a function of the spectacle, and it is slowly turning our entire society into one that is shaped to the will of mass media.

The spectacle will have to be destroyed before any meaningful change is possible.

[Anonymous No.6790381]

>>6790346
What I don't like is that 99% of the first world "left" engages only in identity politics and pushes for further corporate exploitation and manipulation. Putting black people in positions of power is going to do very little because they look after their class interests over any sort of kinship with other members of the race, this is why black people in power generally and quickly become Uncle Toms. Look at fucking Seattle, the first Socialist elected in the US since the Red Scare and all the Liberal "Identity Politics" groups start campaigning against her specifically in her seat, why? Why aren't they campaigning against the other Conservatives and Right Wingers? Because Liberals have no sense of solidarity, in reality, Liberals are the Vanguard of the Capital Globalization.

Its not only that, they actively seek to hijack Socialism as well, when Socialist movements started gaining steam after 2008, Liberals quickly came in and hijacked the term Socialism (now to mean very basic social services) and ruined grassroots organizations, not for one second do I think this was coincidental, we saw the Liberal media going "Whats wrong with Socialism? You like healthcare don't you? You like welfare don't you? Socialism isn't a dirty word, Socialism is welfare to help make us strong", that was a complete and utter hijacking and betrayal of everything Socialism actually is and they did it on purpose.

It doesn't help that proponents of Identity Politics tend to be the most thin skinned fucks in existence who will immediately ostracize and ban everyone from their community for the mere suggestion of a Socialist focus on class struggle, "Waah you're just a brocialist!".

I have no problem with identity politics in of itself , I believe in the liberation of all people, but focusing almost entirely on it is just bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6790391]

>>6790344
That's not a good comparison. It would be like physics dept not studying string theory because it's not verifiable (yet). But they do.
The times when economists have looked at Marx, they've shown errors and inconsistencies such as with labour theory of value, which has been discredited.

[Anonymous No.6790407]

>>6790381
All of the world's left is like that. Trying to masquerade identity politics as an exclusively liberal movement "invading the left" is stupid.

[Anonymous No.6790411]

Oh man, the commie tears in this thread are delicious.

Face it guys, your revolution is never coming.

[Anonymous No.6790417]

>>6790290
I suppose my problem with liberals and leftists in general is that almost none could satisfactorily articulate the need for a revolution

but almost all of then could expertly pick wines from a bistro menu or select the highest quality coffee at whole foods

conservatives are misguided but very often more genuine in the ways they stay with what they know, and more often then not their contempt of socialists and the left in general is directed at the cosmopolitan elitism that poisons academia and the press then real bigotry or greed

[Anonymous No.6790421]

>>6790391
>The times when economists have looked at Marx, they've shown errors and inconsistencies such as with labour theory of value, which has been discredited.

Almost all economic critiques of Marx barely even have a barely functional understanding of Marx or his theory of value. Of all the big economic critiques of Marx, I have failed to find a single one that even seemed like it read past page 2 of Das Kapital.

[Anonymous No.6790449]

>>6790097
>doesn't know about le Marxist Naruto Queer Man

[Anonymous No.6790464]

>>6790421
Ah, the one true saviour of Marxism, He is the only true reader and has understood the gospel of Marx. All others are judas.
I'll never understand this cultish anti-intellectualism with the left. Would it kill you to admit that Marx was not infallible? That he might not be Jesus Christ incarnated, the solution to the ails of capitalism?

[Anonymous No.6790487]

>>6790290
I feel you comrade.
My brother is basically the definition of what I like to call "Liberal socialists". He believes that enacting universal healthcare and having total equality between genders is the end goal of socialist revolution.

Anyways, I think the main problem is that liberals have two common traits that are utterly rage inducing. One is the idea that they are on the bleeding edge of political thought and are pushing for incredibly radical action. When in reality, liberals support somewhat radical social change, but almost no economic change.
Second is an unbelievable level of self-righteousness, which when addressed is never acknowledged. This sometimes also occurs when I debate with conservatives, but it is a kind of traditional self-righteousness. A moral code which is half respectable, half silly.
But liberals have a pompous attitude which stems from my first point. This results in liberals always "word-checking" you when a conversation is at hand. It is almost impossible to actually get to the root of the discussion, because you are debating someone who already thinks they are infallible, and who's infallible beliefs stop any substantive talk.

[Anonymous No.6790499]

>>6790464
Would it kill Economists to actually read Marxist theory and Das Kapital instead of just building moronic strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with Marx and then tear them down? As I have said, many of the big critiques don't even have a entry level understanding of Marx's economic theories, they ignore almost everything of what Marx is saying and then pick pieces an take them out of context.

Rothbard's critique of Marx is so bad that I know as a fact he couldn't have read past the first few pages of Kapital.

Most of them don't even understand that Marx's value theory has almost nothing to do with anything that Marginal Utility even deals with.

Doesn't help that Economics generally completely ignores Sociology, History and Psychology and both Macro and Micro engages many assumptions about human behaviour that are completely contradictory to Sociological or Psychological data.

[Anonymous No.6790525]

>>6790499
>Doesn't help that Economics generally completely ignores Sociology, History and Psychology and both Macro and Micro engages many assumptions about human behaviour that are completely contradictory to Sociological or Psychological data.
Well now I know you've never read an economics textbook in your life. How many recent developments in economics have been in behavioural economics?

[Anonymous No.6790554]

>>6790499
Moishe Postone does a half critique, half revisiting of Marxist thought. He has a bias because he is a commie red, but I mean he is pretty objective that being said.

[Anonymous No.6790621]

>>6790525
I know Behavioral economics exists, what's even more hilarious is that one of the major studies done in Behavioral economics by the London School of Economics proves my point, that the underlying "human nature" justifications of Capitalism are largely bullshit, not only that they showed that introducing money and bonuses as incentive, actually vastly worsened performance and innovation.

[Anonymous No.6790659]

>>6790621
There are no "human nature" justifications necessary for capitalism. The only justification of capitalism is that it works insanely well. That all businesses haven't incorporated more intrinsic reward systems that behavioural psychology suggests isn't really a failure of capitalism than just a laggard of business. Have you seen the incentive programs at Google or Facebook though? How many companies are incorporating positive psychology into their corporate culture in order to get performance?

[Anonymous No.6791703]

>>6790487
social change = economic change

Economic relations are based upon social relations. Economic relations are just social relations that are relations of people with other people that take the form of relations with people to objects. A violent uprooting of the current economic system won't just be a transformation of the current forces of production but the very social relations that underlay production. In other words, a communist revolution would be as much social as economic.

You're right about liberalism on your other points, but the problem with liberalism is precisely that they aren't really radically changing much. All liberals do is rebel within the limits defined by the ruling class. They desire to angst and rebel with all that they can without tipping to the point of threatening the status quo. What they get is a Revolution without a Revolution, where they desire radical change but reject the means of doing so.