/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7099855]

Is Marxism actually significantly different from "utopian socialism" or is that a lot of hype?

The way Engels used to go on about Marxism you'd think it was this totally new, game-changing development that's radically different from anything that came before it.

The thing is, when I look at the material written by the utopian socialists, I'm not really convinced that the Marxists are basically different from them in any sense other than having more of a focus on quasi-economic theories. I'm not sure someone who read a ton of Proudhon, Saint Simon or Blanqui would end up favoring a radically different vision of society from that which Marx and Engels promoted. In fact I think a lot of Western socialists are closer to the utopians than to Marxist-Leninist interpretations of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.7099907]

Marxism is just as irrelevant as mercantilism

Not literature take it to leftypol

[Anonymous No.7099932]

>>7099855
unfettered democracy + capitalism = socialism, he was right about that. poor people vote to take money from rich people.

I don't think he was particularly utopian. He was a bad economist with some moralistic positions who was right about a thing.

[Anonymous No.7099978]

>>7099855
>literally being this underaged

Reported for still being in high school

[Anonymous No.7100014]

>>7099978
who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.7100018]

>>7100014
Do something about it, faggot

[Anonymous No.7100125]

You're right in one sense. A lot of contemporary leftists, especially left communists, are utopian socialists in theoretical terms and in terms of their vision of transition.

But don't buy into the Marxism of late Engels. Engels turned Marx into a founder of a science in the positivist sense, as if Marxism was a science on the order of geology or chemistry. He basically turns it into the mirror image of political economy, rather than the critique of political economy it is.

What distinguishes Marx from Fourier and others is: 1)a radical critique of political economy on its own terms; 2)a realization that communism could only develop through the tendencies already present within capital.

Capital undoes itself and communism is the real movement of that undoing.

For Marx, it's not about envisioning the society brought about by the proletariat. It's about determining what the proletariat is within capital and what it tends toward given its position within Capital.

[Anonymous No.7100290]

Marx was brilliant because he unveiled the actual forces behind social relations and exposed what is truly at play in capitalism. Moreover, he paid particular attention to the trans-historical fact that has been a part of every human society -- the production of value and its distribution.

Just as man created God, but than naturalizes Him, forgetting he had created the idea, humanity had assumed value as an inherent quality within commodities. Capitalism has mystified the social relations present in the commodity, deifying it with qualities that are necessary for its reproduction and accumulation. Capital has ushered in the greatest level of freedom in human history -- humanity has realized themselves formally; they are endowed as individuals with the freedom to pursue hopes and interests. However, since the social relations under capitalism are obscured, humanity has also forgone its realization of what they are actually doing: humanity has forgot that it has created the commodity form, and what they are actually doing, constantly, without knowing it -- social reproduction. The question of resolving this question of distribution and social reproduction involves exposing social relations for what they are. It is realizing this intimate relationship between labor and social reproduction that Marx illustrated through his texts beginning on the premise of "a ruthless critique of everything existing."

[Anonymous No.7100292]

>>7099855
>I'm not sure someone who read a ton of Proudhon, Saint Simon or Blanqui
You're describing Marx and Engels there mate.

>I think a lot of Western socialists are closer to the utopians than to Marxist-Leninist interpretations of Marxism.

Generally because they're moralistic middle class liberals with no interest in praxis.

[Anonymous No.7100294]

>>7099855
marxism has nothing to do with the way things "should be". it's a system to describe human relations.

[Anonymous No.7100298]

>>7100290
Marx was also an excellent historian. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) is considered one of his best for its rhetorical brilliance and excellent storytelling infused with insight into the material relations at play.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue."

[Anonymous No.7100329]

>>7100290
>the trans-historical fact that has been a part of every human society -- the production of value and its distribution.
Reread the first three chapters of capital. Value is historical.

[Anonymous No.7101119]

>>7100329
It is historical only so far in how it manifests itself. The fact that value has existed is a trans-historical fact.

[Anonymous No.7102407]

yo niggas need some Hayek

>implying value is not subjective
>implying we don't need a price system to know what to produce

[Anonymous No.7102409]

>>7102407
>But muh feels

[Anonymous No.7102415]

>>7099855
>Is Marxism actually significantly different from "utopian socialism"
Yes. Read: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
>/thread

[Anonymous No.7102428]

>>7102407
this, honestly the fact that so many people falls into Marxist shit in 2015 is beyond me

[Anonymous No.7102433]

>>7100125
>>7100290
bretty gud posts tbh

[Anonymous No.7102437]

>>7102428
the fact that people fall for Hayek's claims that the Nazis were leftists is even more beyond me

[Anonymous No.7102439]

>>7102407
>>implying we don't need a price system to know what to produce
But, we don't

[Anonymous No.7102452]

>>7102407
>DUDE DICTATORSHIPS lmao

[Anonymous No.7102465]

>>7102437
But they were socialist racists and wildly anticapitalist, that is enought to any austrian economist to call someone leftist

[Anonymous No.7102467]

>>7102439
>But, we don't

So how you can do such thing?

[Anonymous No.7102471]

>>7102452
frivolous teenager who never suffered the fear and horror derived from socialist governements detected

[Anonymous No.7102475]

>>7102465
>But they were socialist racists and wildly anticapitalist

[Anonymous No.7102479]

>>7102471
frivolous teenager who never suffered the fear and horror derived from capitalist [governments] detected

[Anonymous No.7102488]

>>7102475
did I say something wrong?

[Anonymous No.7102493]

>>7102479
I'm poor as fuck, but I can't buy or sell stuff without paying large amounts of money, am I fucked by capitalism or socialism?

[Anonymous No.7102512]

all those counter-revolutionaries ITT

[Anonymous No.7102514]

>>7102488
>>7102488
Nazism is a form of fascism, which is an ideology based around state-controlled capitalist production (corporatism, in Mussolini's own words) and totalitarian state control of a homogeneous nationality. Nazism is particularly distinguished by its heavy racialism, whereas Italian fascism is racist but defines race through "spiritual" identification with the nation and not (supposed) biological connection. For Nazism, "socialislm" refers only to " 'Aryan' society" and in Hitler's own words is a misappropriation of the actual terminology.

Socialism, in actuality, is an ideology based around establishing anti-capitalist communal modes of production.

But you might have known that.

[Anonymous No.7102521]

>>7102493
Very clearly, capitalism. Try reading some Marx and Engels with an open mind, you might realize something.

[Anonymous No.7102527]

>>7102514
>Socialism, in actuality, is an ideology based around establishing anti-capitalist communal modes of production.
But the means through which socialism is to be established is eerily similar to fascism.

A dictatorship by a vanguard party, a totalitarian state control of a homogeneous class.

I mean replace "jew" by "bourgeois" in Nazi doctrine and it really sounds similar to the USSR.

[Anonymous No.7102537]

>>7102437
>>7102475
List of some (not all) of the nazi's socialist programs:
>use of imported raw materials was subject to strict controls
>as much as possible, avoidance of the international banking system through barter (eg german tractor for romanian oil) and not taking on long term loans
>Lebensborn program to support unwed mothers
>prohibition of new private issues on the capital market - companies limited in their expansion to the extent that own funds allowed. Companies wishing to expand beyond this extent ha to apply to Reichsbank for permission if it was in accordance with german economic policy. No other possibility to raise the funds existed.
>consumption of goods increased and decreased in line with economic policy by means of publicity and price reductions
>capital investment prohibitions, to prevent over expansion and overproduction and the using up of limited labor and capital
>KdF programs, holidays, VW etc
>all youth regardless of class in the HJ - provision of free hostels, camping, sports etc to all members
>education available to all for free, including the best schools in the country, like Napola.
>Winterhilfswerk and old age pension program expanded
>large scale public housing
>interest free loans for household goods given to newlyweds to enable the to set up their house

Yeah, defending dictatorships in the name of social justice, very nice m8

[Anonymous No.7102542]

>>7102514
>national socialism = italian fascism
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.7102547]

>>7102514
>if it's racist it's not true socialism!

[Anonymous No.7102550]

>>7102537
>Lebensborn program to support unwed mothers

literally sheds for SS men to dump their semen in young unwed sluts.

[Anonymous No.7102554]

>>7102537

Bread and circuses; no-one calls Bismarck a socialist for starting the welfare state.

[Anonymous No.7102560]

>>7102521
No, he is fucked by coporatism, under true capitalism he could sell his delicious waffles in the street without a hundred stupid licenses made mandatory by feeding lobbies

[Anonymous No.7102568]

>>7102554
>implying all socialist governments are not bread and circus

[Anonymous No.7102578]

>>7102527
>But the means through which socialism is to be established is eerily similar to fascism.
It isn't.

Fascism is established by a political party overtaking the political structure of society, reorganizing society toward war economy and through liquidation/genocide, and then building an imperial state through war.

Socialism is established by the peasantry and proletariat seizing the means of production from landlords and capitalists and instituting self-governance and worker-controlled economies, creating a dictatorship of the proletariat (a dramatic turn of phrase against the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie).

The vanguard party (not a body present in all socialism but one present in Leninist socialism, the most successful Marxist trends) acts as a liaison and organizer between workers and tries to build socialism and may or may not be totalitarian. The nazi party has direct control over every facet of production and population and is always totalitarian.

The difference between the "jew" and the "bourgeoisie" is that the latter is a category of people with actual control over society whereas the latter is a mysterious Other in which to channel frustration and fear.

[Anonymous No.7102581]

>>7102560
this, this is an important fact to recognise corporatism from capitalism.
Sadly, socialists call corporatism capitalism and capitalists call corporatism socialism, wich makes the debates a little wingly dongly

[Anonymous No.7102582]

>>7102512
Good.

[Anonymous No.7102586]

>>7102542
>>7102547

>you
>being literate
Always choose one.

[Anonymous No.7102592]

>>7102578
Socialism is established by the peasantry and proletariat seizing the means of production from landlords and capitalists and established by a political party overtaking the political structure of society, reorganizing society toward war economy nd through liquidation/genocide, and then building an imperial state through war.

nice theory but do you even history m8?

[Anonymous No.7102594]

>>7102560
>>7102581

corporatism is literally capitalism, swines

[Anonymous No.7102597]

>>7102578
>Fascism is established by a political party overtaking the political structure of society, reorganizing society toward war economy and through liquidation/genocide, and then building an imperial state through war.
>Socialism is established by the peasantry and proletariat seizing the means of production from landlords and capitalists and instituting self-governance and worker-controlled economies, creating a dictatorship of the proletariat (a dramatic turn of phrase against the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie).

This sounds exactly the same to me. Overthrow the current government, seize the means of the production, establish a dictatorship, and liquidate the opposition (whether they be jews or bourgeois)

[Anonymous No.7102599]

>>7102592
How did you fuck up that badly m9?

[Anonymous No.7102600]

>>7102586
who are you talking about?
Also, how can you really say that italian fascism is the same as national-socialism?

>inb4 same enemy

[Anonymous No.7102606]

>>7102594
>severe regulations
>capitalism

[Anonymous No.7102607]

>>7102597
>This sounds exactly the same to me.
Because you make abstract two very qualitatively different things to the point where you can conflate them easier.

That or you're American.

[Anonymous No.7102617]

>>7102578
>The difference between the "jew" and the "bourgeoisie" is that the latter is a category of people with actual control over society whereas the latter is a mysterious Other in which to channel frustration and fear.

Two of the biggest evils in the world, the banks and the media, are mostly run by Jews.

[Anonymous No.7102624]

>>7102600
see
>>7102586

>>7102606
There are/were no regulations in corporatism, the state simply demanded that certain quotas of production be met, specifically those pertaining to war production. Everything else was left to free market conditions.

[Anonymous No.7102631]

>>7102607
>Because you make abstract two very qualitatively different things to the point where you can conflate them easier.
I think you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. The "working class" establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is absolute fantasy. The only practical way of approximating such a system would be to do the same as what happened in the USSR, i.e. an outright dictatorship, killing off all "troublesome" elements and creating a totalitarian state.

Socialism is inherently totalitarian, and no amount of ideological sophistry will change that fact.

[Anonymous No.7102635]

>>7102607
That was exactly the same argument a fascist gave me some days ago.
You ideologized twats are allways funny

[Anonymous No.7102639]

>>7102606
You think Hayek was wrong, then?

[Anonymous No.7102643]

>>7102624
>the state simply demanded that certain quotas of production be met
yeah, simply, fuck off

[Anonymous No.7102652]

>>7102624
So you can't really tell the difference between those ideologies?

[Anonymous No.7102653]

>>7102639
>Pinochet
>innocents
This is bait

[Anonymous No.7102659]

>>7102635
>A fascist said that socialism and fascism are qualitatively different

Well, he was right and you're still wrong? Sorry mate.

>>7102631
You have a simplistic inherited opinion of USSR history or the history of socialism in general, so I'm not surprised you think so. Try reading Tamás Krausz's Reconstructing Lenin to start with.

[Anonymous No.7102660]

>>7102639
>implying Hayek would ever approve that

[Anonymous No.7102672]

>>7102659
>using the qualitatively different argument to defend you crazy economic ideas and mass killings

Fascists and marxists, everyone! :^)

[Anonymous No.7102676]

>>7102643
>this triggers the capitalist

>>7102652
The problem is I do understand it and am talking to people that choose not to.

[Anonymous No.7102681]

>>7102652
Of course he can't, calling someone illiterate is a solid argument!

[Anonymous No.7102686]

>>7102660
He did, openly. He served in Pinochet's government.

[Anonymous No.7102688]

>>7102676
>I am talking to people that choose not to understand

You are posting in a chinese cartoon imageboard so anyone can read your shit and I'm curious about it, stop being a fag!

[Anonymous No.7102693]

>>7102660
Hayek was all for dictatorship as long as it protected the rich.

[Anonymous No.7102698]

>>7102686
He wrote a lot condemning left and right dictatorships, what are you exactly saying m8?

[Anonymous No.7102701]

>>7102693
I don't want to read Hayek: The Post

[Anonymous No.7102703]

>>7099907
This

[Anonymous No.7102714]

>>7102686
>not a single line in favour of Pinochet
>hundreds of pages written against all forms of dictatorship

Are you guys serious? I don't agree with austrians but are you really that kind of brainwashed leftist?

[Anonymous No.7102717]

>>7102659
>You have a simplistic inherited opinion of USSR history or the history of socialism in general
Oh sorry I haven't gobbled up the required indoctrination material. I'll start right now, comrade.

[Anonymous No.7102721]

>>7102688
NO HITLER=MUSOLINI=FRANCO=EVIL RACIST CAPITALISTS OK?

[Anonymous No.7102722]

>>7102698
I'm saying he literally said "my personal preference leans towards a liberal dictatorship" and that dictatorships like Pinochets are necessary to reverse socialist self-governance and establish liberalism. I'm saying that he served directly under Pinochet and never saw anything wrong with it, saying he butchering of Chileans and their freedom is a good.

[Anonymous No.7102726]

>>7102686
Pinochet was based though.

[Anonymous No.7102727]

>>7102639
God, what a shitty meme.

Syngman Rhee
Sukarno
Ríos Montt
Sese Seko
Marcos
Mannerheim

ur welcum

[Anonymous No.7102731]

>>7102698
>>7102714
>>7102722
https://books.google.com/books?id=t5itdZ7oycUC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=greg+grandin+hayek&source=bl&ots=yJzrb3YduJ&sig=GonAv6w1wQiM5vdwBknys97PZEY&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Anonymous No.7102732]

>>7102672
its allways the same shit, keeping the theory - ignoring historical facts

[Anonymous No.7102736]

>>7102717
>Oh sorry I don't read, I just want to shitpost on /lit/
Sounds like a personal problem.

[Anonymous No.7102749]

>>7102732
Agreed, liberals/fascists/rightists in general are insufferable.

[Anonymous No.7102750]

>>7102736
"Don't waste your time reading garbage, which includes meme ideologies ending in -ism" - Schopenhauer.

I recall a quote something along those lines.

[Anonymous No.7102751]

>>7102722
>dictatorships like Pinochets are necessary to reverse socialist self-governance
He was right.

Also, he isn't defending Pinochet regime, you need to read Hayek a little more to understand the context of his words

[Anonymous No.7102756]

>>7102701
>"As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. [...] Personally I prefer a liberal dictatorship to democratic government devoid of liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government."

[Anonymous No.7102762]

So there are people on /lit/ that defend socialism based only in theory and shit on capitalism based on things the government did? Really?

[Anonymous No.7102768]

>>7102751
>Also, he isn't defending Pinochet regime
read
>>7102756
and sudoku. Or change your opinion since you're wrong, whichever.

[Anonymous No.7102776]

>>7099855
>n fact I think a lot of Western socialists are closer to the utopians than to Marxist-Leninist interpretations of Marxism.
Yeah, and? A socialist doesn't need to be Marxist and for that matter a Marxist doesn't need to be Marxist-Leninist.

[Anonymous No.7102782]

>>7102756
>He doesnt know that Hayek knew that capitalsm overthrowns any dictatorship regime

Just look how Chile looked before and after Pinochet died. Hayek would hate the way Pinochet managed Chilean government

[Anonymous No.7102794]

>>7102768
>focusing on one sentence out of context
>ignoring all his books

nice

[Anonymous No.7102796]

>>7102782
>Just look how Chile looked before and after Pinochet died.
Chile is literally the richest country in Latin America.

Meanwhile, Cuba, which used to be the richest country in the Latin America before the revolution, is now one of the poorest.

Hayek was absolutely right, Chile transitioned from a liberal dictatorship to a liberal democracy.

Yet marxists will still cling on to their delusional fantasies.

[Anonymous No.7102811]

>>7102768
>choosing between the lesser evil makes you a evil apologist
So that's the way you retarded brain works, isn't?

[Anonymous No.7102824]

>>7102776
this is true, anyway if Marx were alive he would see the western as a kind of socialist utopia and would hate the low key intelectuals that run his ideology in a political level

[Anonymous No.7102830]

>>7100290

Fucking Hegelian claptrap will never be purged from human history

[Anonymous No.7102831]

>>7102794
>focusing on one sentence out of context
But it isn't. How about you present a condemnation of Pinochet by Hayek to show us how "out of context" it is.

>>7102811
>actually saying "liberal dictatorships are good" isn't saying "liberal dictatorships are good"
So that's the way you retarded brain works, isn't?

[Anonymous No.7102832]

>>7102796
THIS, why marxists can't into non ideologized history and facts?
John Kenneth Galbraith was right, Marx was a genius but he created a cult.

[Anonymous No.7102839]

>>7102831
see
>>7102796

[Anonymous No.7102848]

>>7102796
>Meanwhile, Cuba, which used to be the richest country in the Latin America before the revolution, is now one of the poorest.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with Chile not being blockaded by the world's largest military power and Cuba being blockaded by the world's largest military power.
>it's literally illegal for a McDonald's in Germany to sell food to Cubans in Germany
>it's literally illegal to treat Cubans with cancer treatment medicine manufactured in the US

[Anonymous No.7102854]

>>7102831
Chile is a democracy, how about all the other socialists utopias around the world.
also
>>7102782
Do you realize that money in the hands of the people is more powerfull that money out of air made byt the guvment, right?

[Anonymous No.7102860]

>>7102854
>Chile is
retard

[Anonymous No.7102862]

>>7102848
>he thinks that a small country can´t be rich by himself if he is economically smart
try again m8

[Anonymous No.7102866]

>>7102756

This is true you cuck, look at Singapore

[Anonymous No.7102868]

>>7102860
wut?

[Anonymous No.7102873]

>>7102831
>I am totally against dictatorships

[Anonymous No.7102876]

>>7102848
>I'm sure that has nothing to do with Chile not being blockaded by the world's largest military power and Cuba being blockaded by the world's largest military power.
That's a piss poor argument.

Cuba was still a shithole when it was supported by the second largest economy in the world, the USSR and the whole soviet bloc.

Isolated South Africa was still rather prosperous despite being an international pariah.

Next you're going to claim that North Korea is also the West's fault...

[Anonymous No.7102887]

>>7099855
I think 'utopian socialism' is in the first instance used to link these thinkers (especially Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen) to their approaches to society's transformation: i.e. bereft of revolutionary class action. I've never heard of Proudhon's anarchism and Blanqui's conspiratorialism being referred to as 'utopian'. I think this difference - their vision of nonviolent transformation - is what most distinguishes them from later socialist thought. This probably stems from the general period, where class antagonisms and the structures of an industrial, capitalist society were still obscured by its adolescence. Saint-Simon envisioned the industrials generaux - an industrial class who would basically rule in his socialist society. Owen, and to some extent Fourier, felt that it was the responsibility of the upper classes to initiate change, and that as it was a benefit to all, all classes would willingly embrace it. Engels says something along the lines of crude conditions producing crude theories. He's probably right when applied here, although his dichotomy of 'utopian' and 'scientific' struggles from there. In fact, Engels even praises Fourier's scientific, systematic thought - and Fourier is anything but scientific and systematic. Marx was clearly influenced by all three: Saint-Simon's attempt at devising a materialist approach to history; Fourier's stages of guaranteeism (socialism) and harmony (communism); Owenite economics ("the more civilised the product, the more barbaric the worker" etc), or atlas a critique thereof. The utopians were pretty explicit in their visions of a socialist society, whereas Marx was more focused on an observation and critique of the present without becoming lost in speculative fantasies. Of course the two can't be completely separated, which I think is what really fucked the positivist politics of the Second International.

[Anonymous No.7102891]

>>7102876
no m8, capitalist and communist dictatorships in both Koreas had the same results! :^)

[Anonymous No.7102899]

>>7102537
social programs are not the same as socialist programs

the Nazis were appreciably nationalist and anti-globalist but certainly not meaningfully anti-capitalist outside of some rhetoric

hell they actively arrested communists and socialists, and were known within Germany as a right-wing anti-communist party

the bullshit "Nazis were socialists" meme only makes sense if you accept the goofy libertarian dichotomy that capitalism is anything people outside the government do and socialism is anything the government does

[Anonymous No.7102903]

>>7102876
>That's a piss poor argument.
It's an objective fact, but we know reality doesn't work for liberals.

>Isolated South Africa was still rather prosperous
>Next you're going to claim that North Korea is also the West's fault...
You kids are too much. Enjoy your weekend, how you don't have too much homework to do.

[Anonymous No.7102906]

>>7102848
>>it's literally illegal for a McDonald's in Germany to sell food to Cubans in Germany
>>it's literally illegal to treat Cubans with cancer treatment medicine manufactured in the US
Well, that is not how Hayek defines capitalism, are you blind or just unable to read Hayek's work on economic theory?

[Anonymous No.7102924]

>>7102891
The DPRK was actually much stronger than the ROK economically during the 70s-80s.
>He probably doesn't even know that ROK was a complete military dictatorship until the late 90s and is still only a nominal republic

[Anonymous No.7102937]

>>7102903
>It's an objective fact,
Kek, it really isn't. Neither is Marxism.

>but we know reality doesn't work for liberals.
You're misusing the word liberal. It has been appropriated by the american left.

>You kids are too much. Enjoy your weekend, how you don't have too much homework to do.
Wow, nice comeback, you sure showed me.

Eat a nigger dick.

[Anonymous No.7102938]

>>7102903
>dictatorships based on happy feelings are great
>but we know reality doesn't work for liberals

I dindn't know we had that kind of retards on /lit/ tbh

[Anonymous No.7102939]

>>7102906
>Well, that is not how Hayek defines capitalism
But it is the capitalism that he supported.

>muh theory, not muh real conditions
Marx was right tbh

[Anonymous No.7102947]

>>7102939
>But it is the capitalism that he supported.
no it isn't, read some Hayek books and find it for yourself

[Anonymous No.7102959]

>>7102903
Marxist rekt bye bye post: The Post

[Anonymous No.7102963]

>>7102947
Where did Hayek voice opposition to the Cuban blockade? Is it in the same place where he said Pinochet was actually a bad guy and he didn't like serving in his government?

[Anonymous No.7102972]

>>7102963
Just read Hayek and you find he is against all commercial blocks, really just read it and the you will be prepared for a decent debate

[Anonymous No.7102981]

>>7102963
>Hayek serving Pinochet

ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.7102985]

>>7102963
Hayek =/= Friedman, you retard

[Anonymous No.7102996]

Hayek is arguably just as much of a utopian as Marx for believing that unfettered competition does not tend toward monopoly

[Anonymous No.7103010]

>>7102903
see for a reasonable and informed critique of Hayek
>>7102996

[Anonymous No.7103016]

>>7102996
but he was right about free market becoming a key tool for prosperity and freedom

[Anonymous No.7103019]

ITT: marxists running out of arguments

[Anonymous No.7103040]

>>7102939
>real conditions
>defending marxism

Are you a real human being?

[Anonymous No.7103050]

>>7102939
>real conditions
ever read about XX century history?

[Anonymous No.7103063]

>>7102467
It's already done.

>implying supply and demand account for modern production

The quintessential shift in agricultural to industrial society is from demand determining production to production determining demand. Y'all niggas need some Eric Hobsbawm.

[Anonymous No.7103075]

>>7103063
and how a price system is not needed to determine how much people is willing to pay for a service or product?

[Anonymous No.7103087]

>>7103063
>Hobsbawm
>not a marxist shill

[Anonymous No.7103093]

>>7103063
please anon answer this
>>7103075
Im genuinely interested

[Anonymous No.7103104]

>>7102985
Friedman travelled to china after his chilean adventure and said the exact same thing there and guess what: no comments against from commies
top kek

[Anonymous No.7103137]

>>7103093
he's not gonna answer, marxists have no arguemnt against the lack of price system

[Anonymous No.7103178]

>>7103063
>industrial society
>production determining demand
you are a wage slave and don't know shit about producing and selling goods, I am right?

[Anonymous No.7103223]

>>7103137
he's right, price system is a solid cornerstone for socialism critique

[Anonymous No.7103262]

>>7103093
BUMP interest also

[Anonymous No.7103275]

>>7103137
I'm not that guy but a lot of socialists (I would consider myself one) favor various types of market socialism, e.g. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/.. More hardline Marxists (I would not consider myself one) probably don't like that stuff though.

[Anonymous No.7103297]

>>7103275
Kim Il fuckin' Sung let the peasants do that shit. If single moms wanna sell menstrual beads on etsy, they can, they don't employ anyone and benefit off of desperation and exploitation.

But, fabian, remember, any talk about "jobs markets" and it's 50 shots in your goofy ass.

[Anonymous No.7103322]

>>7103297
what on earth are you saying

[Anonymous No.7103336]

>>7103322
You don't even know what the fuck your talking about and you run your dum mouth. You just like markets because the ring of it makes porky happy and you're a socialist because you care about poor people too. You're a fuckboy and you can't hang.

[Anonymous No.7103479]

Everything "scientific" about Marx's socialism seems to be in his critique of capitalism. Whether or not you agree with it, shouldn't this be called "scientific anti-capitalism" or something? Whatever else Marx is doing, he is clearly not prescribing how socialism should work, just how capitalism doesn't.

[Anonymous No.7103503]

This thread did a great job showing liberals are the creationists of socio-economics.

[Anonymous No.7103535]

>muh economy is a science!
>unable to predict human action

toppest kekko

[Anonymous No.7103560]

>>7103503
lol yeah it's definitely not the people who talk about "Crusoe economics"

[Anonymous No.7103592]

>>7103560
pls expand

[Anonymous No.7103618]

>>7103592
I suppose I assumed you were using "liberal" as a synonym for "leftist" and not as a synonym for "neoliberal," in which case I agree with you.

In any case, libertarians and Austrians rely on a quite literal (and equally fictional) creation story when they talk about the foundations for the "rules" of economics: https://mises.org/library/crusoe-social-philosophy

[Anonymous No.7103647]

>>7103618
>marxists think that Crusoe's hunger is oppressive

[Anonymous No.7103662]

>>7103647
not sure what you're saying here but I think I can be confident that you totally missed the point

[Anonymous No.7103734]

>>7101119
>The fact that value has existed is a trans-historical fact.

I'm sorry, but you're talking shit.
Get a job.
Join the union.

[Anonymous No.7103767]

>>7103618
Austrian school is not "based on Crusoe's economy", you need to read some Böhm-Bawerk immediately.

[Anonymous No.7103773]

>>7103767
Bawerk is alpha

[Anonymous No.7103778]

>>7103767
I have literally 0 interest in doing that ever

[Anonymous No.7103789]

>>7103773
>Böhm-Bawerk argued that capitalists do not exploit their workers

[Anonymous No.7103846]

>>7103778
do it or stop posting false facts like the pleb you are

[Anonymous No.7103850]

>>7103789
some of them do it, some don´t!
Ding dong!
:^)

[Anonymous No.7103858]

>>7103789
>receiving a salary
>exploitation

you poor childs of the affluent society, the most luckiest bastards in the history of mankind, how happy and sad this is...

[Anonymous No.7103865]

>>7103858
lol be happy with what youve got. people used to die as children so that means you have to accept whatever bullshit from rich fuckers they want

fuck you, this is not an argument, this is posturing

[Anonymous No.7103876]

>>7103865
>that simplistic argument

okay, so 15$ an hour, allright?

[Anonymous No.7103914]

>>7103876
personally I favor just direct transfers - tax capital income more highly (or just capital stock directly) and give the money to people in the form of a UBI

also rather than a minimum wage I'd prefer a federal job guarantee at $15 to effectively set a price floor so that anyone working for less knows they could quit and take a 15/hr government job if they wanted

but in lieu of either of those, sure I'll support the minimum wage if that's what has public support. there are better ways to accomplish that goal though

[Anonymous No.7103942]

>>7099855
>>7102903
>It's an objective fact, but we know reality doesn't work for liberals.
You're rigorless, restate your argument without resorting to ideological spooks or leave.

[Anonymous No.7103970]

>>7103914
> thinks the government created jobs financed by real business won't affect the existing jobs making it harder for everyone

why creating a hiper-regulated world for the sake of security? Don't you see the danger of a government with so much power?

[Anonymous No.7103977]

>>7103858
>your labor generates capital
>boss takes the generated be your labor for himself, gives you a lesser wage instead
>not exploitation by definition

Didn't libscum used to just say that exploitation was actually really a good thing?
>b-b-but massah sed
Why kill yourself?

[Anonymous No.7103987]

>>7103970
>he thinks "real business" "makes jobs"
Holy fucking shit

[Anonymous No.7104001]

>>7103970
but they have already lost, the black market, wich is the true capitalism, works better than ever. Marxist books in a fascist dictatorship, porn in Iran, cocaine in NY, the black market has everything! Even the most regulated environement, the jail, can`t escape from the black market.
So the people will allways have the products they want for the right price, period. Unregulated market is human nature, not fucking politics.

[Anonymous No.7104017]

>>7103977
Do you think that your boss, who invested the capital, had the idea and hired you do not deserve more money than you? Dou you realize there are a lot of costs that must be payed and part of what you produce also must be spent in the business himself? Are you aware that a good publicist is more important than a simple worker and his labor is more valuable?

[Anonymous No.7104019]

>>7103987
>jobs
>not created by business
are you retarded or implying something?

[Anonymous No.7104026]

>>7099855
Have you reds solved the economic calculation problem yet? No? Then fuck off and die already.

[Anonymous No.7104031]

>>7103987
that is your response over your crazy "let's artificially inflate the number of workers and devaluate the price of work, it won`t have unpredictable effects on the cost of living" theory?

[Anonymous No.7104040]

>>7104001
>the black market, wich is the true capitalism,
this is a retarded thing to say.

countries are more profitable when there's a legal system to enforce contracts and intellectual property laws to encourage and reward innovation.

economies grow faster when these systems are in place and abided by

IT's so annoying when faggy, leftist, philosophy and sociology kids try to talk about economics without knowing a single thing about it.

[Anonymous No.7104045]

>>7104001
this, why can't socialists accept this?

[Anonymous No.7104060]

>>7103970
i love hiper regulitin

[Anonymous No.7104061]

>>7104040
hold on, boipussi, no one mentioned who "countries are more profitable", the black market is also "the market", it has forms of enforcing contracts, a lot of them non violent and it exists in every human environment.
also
>leftist

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.7104067]

>>7104045

An unfortunately small but still existent number of socialists are all about that free market. I don't think Agorists would technically consider themselves socialists, but they're definitely left leaning, and their whole thing is "black markets will kill the State."

[Anonymous No.7104078]

>>7104067
I don't know if they kill the state, but the state can't do shit about it.

[Anonymous No.7104095]

>>7104017
no gib free stuff pay 100% of my labor and nothing for you or nobody k?

[Anonymous No.7104097]

>>7104017
Really? Then why isn't the publicist making the commodity that brings in the capital? Why isn't the boss doing it?

[Anonymous No.7104110]

>>7104097
because he spends his time solving problems and looking how to sell the product so you can have your wage, don´t you understand that promotion has an impact in the value of a product?

[Anonymous No.7104124]

>>7104110
Don't you understand that can't sell a commodity until it's produced? Don't you understand that the only value to a commodity is that is is produced by someone's labor? Don't you understand that the boss and his publicist aren't producing the commodity?

[Anonymous No.7104142]

>>7104001
>Unregulated market is human nature
Ya boi that 199,800ish years before capitalism didn't even happen I tell you what.

[Anonymous No.7104166]

>>7104142

only because people didn't have enough to actually have a market.

[Anonymous No.7104256]

>>7102407
This guy gets it

[Anonymous No.7104294]

>>7104166
>real human beans didn't have enough time in their 200,000 years to have human nature until roughly 200 years ago

[Anonymous No.7104300]

>>7104294

No, thats not what I'm implying. Having enough surplus goods to engage in meaningful trade is a function of technology not some progressive human nature.

[Anonymous No.7104321]

>>7104300
>Having enough surplus goods to engage in meaningful trade is a function of technology not some progressive human nature.
>>7104001
>Unregulated market is human nature

Which is it?

[Anonymous No.7104324]

>>7104124
>this silences the capitalist

[Anonymous No.7104326]

>>7104321

Well, I'm the first guy you linked but not the second. I personally think the question of an unregulated market as human nature is worthless.

[Anonymous No.7105330]

>>7104124
You are obssesed with production, you need more people to sell the product you produce, also you are not the only one working on that business. You need more than just "production" to sell a good, you are a fucktard if you don´t understand this.
>>7104324
hurr-durr, production is more important than advertising and transportation! :^)

you socialist allways amuse me with your clueless views of a business.

[Anonymous No.7105333]

>>7104326
no it isn´t, it's the way humans buy and sell even if the law forbids it, you are missing the point.
Also, business is natural human nature, like you can see in EVERY environment.

[Anonymous No.7105337]

>>7104124
don't forget that you get your salary BEFORE all the goods you produce are sold, so your salary is really a loan from the employer, why are you so ungrateful towards the hand that feeds you?

[Anonymous No.7105343]

>>7105337
lol this, this, this, leftists think that money grows out of threes and a produced product is sold de-facto, they don't know shit about how market works

[Anonymous No.7105388]

>>7104124
>a commodity is produced
>everyone involved in selling that good after I produced it deserves 0$ from my labour

ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.7105461]

>>7105330
>hurr-durr, production is more important than advertising and transportation! :^)
First, transportation is a labor position, not a managerial position.
Second, let's give this a thought for more than the .5 seconds you gave it:
>Group A is composed of management that sell and draw profit from commodities they can't make
>Group B is composed of only workers that produce and distribute a really existing commodity they alone make
Now rub those handful of brain cells together and figure out which group is actually important here. Let's go over it again:
>Group A want sell thing but no make thing
>Group B makes the thing Group A wants to sell so it can siphon a profit from it
Wow it's almost like there's nothing a management position can do that workers themselves can't do. It's almost like you don't need the Boss, but the Boss needs you. :0 It's almost like that's exactly why wage labor exists in the first place!!! :O :O :O WHOOOOOA DELLY

[Anonymous No.7105537]

>>7105461
Lol not at all, producing a good its shit compared to selling it, you can easilly replace workers but no publicist and directives which is why their work is more valuable than a simple worker's job

[Anonymous No.7105543]

>>7105461
More like workers make a product that can't sell by themselves kek

[Anonymous No.7105562]

>>7105461
>implying workers woukd know how, what, how much to produce
>implying muscles are more valuable than brains in order to make money out of a product

[Anonymous No.7105565]

>>7105461
>transportation is not managerial

you just went full retard there m8

[Anonymous No.7105572]

>>7103977
>>7104124
>>7105461
see
>>7103178

[Anonymous No.7105582]

>>7105461
what do you think about this harsh reality?
>>7105337
Why do you want your money before selling the product you made? are you that greedy and stupid?

[Anonymous No.7105592]

>>7105562
yep, moving my hammer is way more important than getting deals with enterprises to sell the product, the hammer work by itself has a value because I spent a lot of time working on it mkay?

[Anonymous No.7105600]

>>7105592
this really what marxist think

[Anonymous No.7105611]

>>7105461
>a thought for more than the .5 seconds you gave it
are you talking about your own simplistic and childish understanding of how business work?

[Anonymous No.7105656]

>>7105592

[Anonymous No.7105716]

>HAH FUCKING MARXISTS EXPLAIN TO ME HOW A PILE OF MUD CAN HAVE VALUE
>FUCKING REKT MAN

/lit/ 2015

[Anonymous No.7105741]

>>7105716
>explaining how a pile of mud can have value

[Anonymous No.7105755]

>All this assblasted samefaggotry by an idiot that doesn't understand the difference between a fucking salary and a wage

Letting teenagers read Rand is actually child abuse tbh.

[Anonymous No.7105762]

>>7105562
>implying workers [would] know how, what, how much to produce
Do.. do really you not understand what a worker does? Trust fund baby?

[Anonymous No.7105770]

>>7105537
>producing a good its shit compared to selling it
>I can sell a good that doesn't exist

You can but that generally results in jail-time in capitalist economies.

>Liberals actually think like this

[Anonymous No.7105779]

>>7105762
do really you not understand what everyone who is not the worker does?

[Anonymous No.7105782]

>>7105537
>>7105543
>>7105562
>>7105565
>>7105572
>>7105582
>>7105592
>>7105600
>>7105611
>>7105656

Since the worker needs the capitalist but the capitalist doesn't need the worker why isn't that reflected in real capitalism? Why aren't the owners just making their commodities and selling them in the market without having to pay out workers?

"W-what's a worker co-operative?"

[Anonymous No.7105783]

>>7105770
>what is future value?
>>7105755
>rand
top kek
gtfo

[Anonymous No.7105787]

>>7105782
worker co-operatives are great, but you know that aren't as profitable as a normal business because they lack the brain to do it, that's because they are workers and not entrepeneurs in the first place

[Anonymous No.7105792]

>>7105782
businessmen need workers to do the dirty job, and workers need them too to create jobs.
If a worker is not happy he can allways create a co-operative.

[Anonymous No.7105795]

>>7105782
>internet business
>hardworking rednecks no longer needed

wow, that sure isn't reflected in real capitalism m8

[Anonymous No.7105798]

>>7105779
You don't, clearly, since you actually think workers don't know how to produce the goods they produce. There is nothing done by a salaried publicist or manager or ceo or whomever that can't be done by a wage worker, meaning the only thing they do is redirect profit toward themselves despite the fact that they can't even generate that profit to begin with without the labor of the worker producing the commodity they're selling. How do you not understand how markets work yet you keep invoking it?

[Anonymous No.7105803]

>>7105783
>what is future value?
Not a commodity that will never exist. Something that only exists because of capital generated from material goods.

[Anonymous No.7105808]

>>7105798
>There is nothing done by a salaried publicist or manager or ceo or whomever that can't be done by a wage worker
do you really think that? really?
>implying wage workers want more than just work, get their salary and live confortable lifes

[Anonymous No.7105811]

>>7104097
>ITT: one lone lolibertarian manages to make a thread 200 posts long.

wow good job /lit/

[Anonymous No.7105812]

>>7105787
>you know that aren't as profitable as a normal business
There are plenty of cooperative that are more successful than private businesses.
>because they lack the brain to do it
Show me the study of brain power deficiency in worker cooperatives vs privately owned businesses

[Anonymous No.7105813]

It's really annoying to see non-marxists without any knowledge trying to critique marxist theory.

However it's even more annoying that self-proclaimed marxists are trying to defend marxism with their sciolism on this topic.

Jesus fucking christs do you even Karl Korsch? All categories used in Marx's analysis are specific to capitalism, which means that workers and capitalists are defined by their position in the social totality. Capitalists CAN'T exist without an antagonistic working class and vice versa.
jesus

[Anonymous No.7105815]

>>7105808
this, people dont ususally understand that higher positions on a company are stressfull and hard and must be compensated with more money. If you don`t pay them well others will do it.

[Anonymous No.7105818]

>>7105808
>Assume world where businesses have hierarchical pay schemes, management makes more than workers
>Take same world but now everyone in all business have the same jobs but everyone has an equivalent wage
>"HOYL FUCK LEIK HOW DO YU SELL THINSG AH FORGET???"
>The city of capitalism

[Anonymous No.7105824]

>>7105813
>Capitalists CAN'T exist without an antagonistic working class and vice versa.
Who's denying this?

[Anonymous No.7105825]

>>7105812
>he thinks a wage salve who worked in the same factory for more than 30 years can be compared with a self-made man who was born poor and became rich by having a good idea and working hard on it

Really, have you ever met any succesfull entrepeneur so you can talk to him and then compare him to the average factory worker?

[Anonymous No.7105827]

>>7105811
who, me? :^)

[Anonymous No.7105828]

>>7105808
>wage workers
>get their salary

[Anonymous No.7105832]

>poorfags will defend workers can do all the job all alone
>richfags will defend the workers are not that important because they are interchangeable

They are both correct.

[Anonymous No.7105833]

>>7105825
>he thinks a wage salve who worked in the same factory for more than 30 years can be compared with a self-made man who was born poor and became rich by having a good idea and working hard on it

[Anonymous No.7105834]

>>7105825
How's Business College?

[Anonymous No.7105840]

>>7105833
>pushing a button = being Amancio Ortega

top kek

[Anonymous No.7105847]

>>7105834
I'm the proud owner of some high quality vineyards, thank you.

[Anonymous No.7105849]

>>7105840
So why isn't Amancio Ortega and every other business owner just pushing the button themselves and getting more profit by cutting out every worker's unneeded wages?

[Anonymous No.7105853]

>>7105825
No, because he's a rotting carrot..

[Anonymous No.7105857]

>>7105849
t-they are busy running the business itself?

[Anonymous No.7105871]

this thread needs more Mises

[Anonymous No.7105878]

>>7102407
>THINGS ARE VALUABLE BECAUSE PEOPLE GIVE THEM VALUE OBV.

Bukharin already liquidated you leisure class fuckers and the nonsense of your atomized exchange. Take your weak dish and lay it at the feet of your sovereign lord professional gambler job creators, it has no purpose but flattery and concession to present contingencies.

[Anonymous No.7105887]

>>7105878
>defending value objectivity
>2015

[Anonymous No.7105889]

>>7103016
Wealth is the command of poverty, doofus.

[Anonymous No.7105892]

>>7104026
Been there, done that.

[Anonymous No.7105894]

>>7099855
nah

[Anonymous No.7105897]

>>7105600
You wouldn't pay for something you could pick up off the ground.

[Anonymous No.7105898]

>>7105878
Bukharin and Menger's theories are equally interesting tbh

[Anonymous No.7105901]

>>7105892
amazing pic

[Anonymous No.7105908]

>>7105897
it depends on the quantity and the value market of that hypothetical ground poduct, if I can invest my savings in infrastructure to transform those things, why not?

[Anonymous No.7105909]

>>7105892
So that's a no

[Anonymous No.7105914]

>>7105892
wut?

[Anonymous No.7105927]

>>7105871
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

keep the moralizing prax in your pants. Big boys only ITT.

[Anonymous No.7105930]

>>7105909
Sorry, Gosplan wasn't praxy enough.

[Anonymous No.7105935]

>>7105908
But are you the one transforming it?

[Anonymous No.7105942]

>>7105878
>you buy things everyday based on your subjective value perception
>you still in denial because a marxist said so

[Anonymous No.7105947]

>>7105935
I'm the one investing the capital required to transform it and you are free to work for me. You can also create your own co-operative and be my competence if you want to.