/lit/ - Literature

>>14439317
Greeks - Hegel

>>14439317
Plato - Aristotle - Hobbes - Descartes - Spinoza - Locke - Hume - Kant - Hegel - Marx

>>14439330
you forgot Feuerbach you absolute fucking faggot, you degenerate, you piece of shit subhuman
seriously, kill yourself

>>14439317
You really only need to read the man himself, since he is the capstone of human philosophy, no others are needed.

don't forget to read smith and ricardo too

>>14439357
No, I didn't want to include him. Kill yourself maggot.

>>14439377
fuck you got dubs guess i was wrong then
you're still a fag though

i'm about half way into this and find it pretty easy for an entry level fag like me.

>>14439317
Main Kampf. Hitler brought Marx's ideas to their logical conclusion.

Start with this.

>>14439974
Sad but true

Not the communist manifesto, its a brochure for laymen

>>14440238
OP BTFO. Sowell actually understands how the economy works unlike that hack who never had a real job

>>14440260
agreed. also feels pastiche

>>14440260
It also was written when marx was younger, and a lot of ideas he had that were reformed or updated.

>>14440238
This book is good, but it doesn't refute socialism.

>>14440312
guenon retroactively refuted socialism

>>14440625
Explain.

I have a syllabus from a class I took in Marxist Theory

>>14440647
does this look like the face of someone who would lie to you about retroactively refuting something?

>>14440659
His face isn't long enough for me to trust him.

>>14440658
here's the selections from marx we read

>>14440672

>>14440238
fucking based

>>14440668
what about now?

>>14439317
Communist Manifesto, the german ideology, critique of the gotha programme

>>14440680
>>14440672
>>14440658
implying students understand anything from what they're taught

>>14439357
Holy shit, kill yourself you braindead stalinist, you don't even fucking pass.

>>14440238
How about you start with Mises or Bohm Bawerk instead?

>>14439317
How about you start with Mises or Bohm Bawerk instead?

Start here.

Also buy a helicopter.

>>14442081
Wasn't that thread from /lit/?

>>14442085
actually on /his/

>>14439317
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
Manifesto of the Communist Party
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
The German Ideology, Chapter I
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm
Comments on James Mill, 'Éléments D’économie Politique'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/
Wage Labour and Capital
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
Value, Price and Profit
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm
Capital, Volume I
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=3A7C252A6E89CC23A1EBC955B6E22FFA

>>14442084
>Hobbes -> Liberty, Games and Contracts -> Viking Age Iceland
Sorry where did Iceland come from

>>14442116
Medieval Iceland was an anti statist society with private law

>b-b-but you can't implement private property without a state REEEEEEEEEE

>>14442101
Why haven't you bootlickers killed yourselves yet?
Honest question.

>>14442084
>Capitalism with even less restrictions
oh boy

>>14442158
Boot licking towards what?

>>14442160
Oh no, the working class will get to work less and get to consume more and will actually have savings for once how horrible!!

>>14442152
But thats under the refutation section

>>14442166
The state

>>14442166
Totalitarian statism or an anarchist "collective" where you are forced to bootlick the commune instead of trading with them on your own terms.

>>14442171
The layout of this image is kind of wonky.
The refutation section showed non-libertarian books and the refutation of those books below them.

Marxists will never learn

>>14442158
>>14442174
>>14442177
I'm in favor of abolishing the state. And I'm not an anarchist. Read a book you dumb fag, you sound like /r/libertarian, which is much below the level of even an average /lit/ lurker.

>>14439385
holy cringe..

>>14442222
See
>>14442217

>>14442217
Socialists will never learn.

>>14442222
>I'm in favor of abolishing the state. And I'm not an anarchist.
LOL WHAT?

>>14442222
>I'm in favor of abolishing the state. And I'm not an anarchist.

>>14442222
>I'm in favor of abolishing the state. And I'm not an anarchist

>>14442222
>I'm in favor of abolishing the state. And I'm not an anarchist.
Dumbest thing Ive read all day

>>14442227
Yes, I saw this many times. Intellectually lazy anarchist retards aren't able to read a book so they explain everything that goes wrong by "it's bcus muh state existed". Literally worthless.

>>14442237
>>14442245
>>14442251
>>14442260
Oh no, did I just break your brain you retarded reddit shit? Read a book.

>>14442260
You're right richard.

>>14442262
>realizes he's lost the argument
>has to resort to one liners

>>14442260
>>14442251
>>14442245
>>14442237
>brainlets ITT who do not realize that abolishing the state is a long term goal for the Marxists/communists too and that you can be in favor of abolishing the state in the long run while maintaining them in the transitory period
jesus christ, /lit/ has seriosly gone downhill lately

>>14442271
Yes, I got owned by the kid past his bedtime who posted a bunch of reaction images.

>>14442276
>long term goal for marxism
that would be Anarchism.

>>14442276
So you admit that in the long term you are technically an anarchist? So yes, you are INDEED an anarchist you stupid fuck.

Marxist leninists are the lowest bottom of the barrel of IQ, they don't even deserve to live.
Thankfully they will never ever get their way.

>>14442283
>>14442281
You aren't fooling anyone anymore

>>14440238
yikes

>>14442276
lmao why the fuck do unironic communists still exist?

>>14442288
>lol im not an anarchist, but I technically am but I'm still not xD
Just get in the helicopter you petulant manchild.

>>14442291
cringe

>>14442288
>>14442276
>he ACTUALLY thinks the state with "wither away"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How are you religious dogmatists even real? lmao

>>14442084
>>14442302
triple yikes

>>14442306
Now you are just moving goalposts

>>14442283
>>14442277
once class conflicts are eliminated there will be no need for the state. anarchists are ethically opposed to the state as a concept whereas Marxists are smart enough to realize the utility of it in winning the class struggle for the proletariat. read Lenin's "State and Revolution" midwits, your posts reveal that you're both painfully average and probably don't read anything except wikipedia articles in order to feel more superior and literate than the normies

>>14439357
>>14439385
>troon's first day on 4chan

>its an ancap vs marxist thread

>>14442084
Can't believe anyone reads this trash

>>14442315
>once class conflicts are eliminated there will be no need for the state
jesus christ you people are unironically this fucking stupid
Do you think the working class is infallible?
Do you think people wouldn't kill and rape each other?
Are you actually one of those people that thinks every single bad thing that happens in the world is the fault of capitalism and getting rid of capitalism will solve this?

You don't create a stateless society by creating the most authoritarian state in existence you absolute fucking retard.

Do you understand why people want to kill you people now?

>Marxists are smart enough
yikes

>>14442281
No.
>>14442283
>technically an anarchist
What does that mean? How about you read a fucking book and learn what anarchism is, because "yeah uh so anarchism is when there no state" is the level of "understanding" I would expect from a 13 year old redditor.
>>14442283
I don't know about him, but I'm not an ML.

>>14442310
Libertarians support killing pedophiles, but okay lefty.

>>14442336
>What does that mean?
Exactly what I fucking said it means you dumb fuck.
>How about you read a fucking book
Why do leftists constantly say this whenever they get btfo?

>>14442329
>I got indoctrinated into left wing authoritarianism, I can't believe anyone would read anything else

>>14442348
Are a bunch of literal whos and Ayn Rand all you have?

>>14442353
ancaps and libertarians hate ayn rand
you people are brainwashed and won't read critics of your bootlicking ideology

>>14442335
>Do you think the working class is infallible?
No.
>Do you think people wouldn't kill and rape each other?
Sure, that will always happen to some extent.
>Are you actually one of those people that thinks every single bad thing that happens in the world is the fault of capitalism and getting rid of capitalism will solve this?
No, but it's a great start.
>You don't create a stateless society by creating the most authoritarian state in existence you absolute fucking retard.
Sure, it will only be most authoritarian towards the bourgeoisie.
>Do you understand why people want to kill you people now?
Which people? If you mean yourself then yes, you seem moderately retarded and mentally unstable, so I can understand that you can be somewhat murderous.

>>14442345
Well if you're hearing that you should read a book this often then this is probably because your retarded comments make it very obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>14442345
because your lack of erudition as well as lack of familiarity with essential foundational texts of both Anarchism and Marxism are showing, better question still would be how the fuck do people in 2020 still think that they can refute any political ideology lacking basic knowledge thereof

>>14442353
>Locke, Hayek, de Soto, de Jasay, Murphy
>Literal who's
fuck off

>>14442356
Yet you included her in the studies

>>14442358
>No.
It seems like you do if you think creating an authoritarian state is perfectly fine as long as your "class" is in charge.
>Sure, that will always happen to some extent.
What happens when people do this? Do they just get away with it? There's no state to stop them.
>but it's a great start.
It's not a great start, dictatorships are a stupid bootlicking idea. You are a legitimate cuck.
>Sure, it will only be most authoritarian towards the bourgeoisie.
HAHAHAHAHA Holy shit, it's extremely authoritarian towards the working class as well, you completely take away their rights and control all of their actions.
How the fuck do you actually believe this garbage?
Do you enjoy being enslaved? Do you have a BDSM fetish?
>Which people?
The vast majority of the working class.
Truth hurts doesn't it.
>you seem moderately retarded
You're actually dumb enough to allow others to enslave you just because they're the same class as you.
People as dumb as you don't deserve to live.
>you can be somewhat murderous.
Are you projecting? You're a marxist leninist.

>>14442360
>r-read a book
It's so cute when you bootlicking leftcel manchildren pretend your critics haven't read leftist intellectuals.

Socialists, especially tankie cumdrinkers have to be the dumbest humans who have ever walked the earth.

>>14442379
You guys didn't even know Marxism was against the state 10 minutes ago

>>14442358
Why do tankies still exist?
I mean, how can someone unironically be this stupid?

>>14442383
We knew, we just knew how retarded it was that tankies thought they could ever achieve it without turning into authoritarianism like what has happened in literally every communist country

>>14442158
>>14442177
>>14442356
>>14442375
>>14442379
>>14442390
samefag

>>14442383
>You guys didn't even know Marxism was against the state
But we did.
We were mocking the utter stupidity and contradiction in your statement.
Marxist leninists are technically anarchists.
Claiming you are not an anarchist but you want to abolish the state is why we laughed at you.

>>14442397
dumbfag

>>14442391
They're actually this stupid and gullible anon.
Just sit back and watch them seethe, they will never get their way.

Why is marxist class based dogma so fucking stupid?

You can tell these people are in a cult, it's kind of sad. They base their entire worldview around these insane theories and it allows them to justify authoritarianism.

Marx is quoted as saying

>collectivism is the only philosophy a human is allowed. Individualism is evil.
Authoritarian
>to make a revolution the proletariat must hate the bourgeoisie
Thats why the wealthy were murdered and raped
>communism and its authoritarian centralised control is a necessary step to achieving socialism
Lay down your weapons and do everything we say..we promise well return your freedoms once we achieve socialism *holding back laughter*

These three quotes are all you need to realise Marx was a complete retard.

>>14442413
>marxism is about justifying authoritarianism
I don't know what you are trying to get at with all these strawmans and not actually bringing an argument to the table as to why it leads to authoritarianism

>>14442420
Can you source the pages he said these things so I can use this in future arguments.

>>14442398
>e-heh I-I knew all of this I just w-was trolling r-right?
nice cope. you haven't read a single book about neither Marxism nor Anarchism and trust me - it's visible. you have to engage in some serious right wing mental gymnastics to postulate that an ideology which advocates for an immediate abolishing of both state and capitalist hierarchy is literally the same as an ideology which advocates for abolishing capitalism through revolutionary means and establishing a proletarian state which later whiters away in the process

>>14442375
>It seems like you do if you think creating an authoritarian state is perfectly fine as long as your "class" is in charge.
Yes, that's right.
>There's no state to stop them.
You don't need a political state to stop a rape and a murder. You just need a social organ that deals with crimes. We can even call it "police" if you want.
>dictatorships are a stupid bootlicking idea
Well, if you're not a part of or a supporter of the ruling class then they sure can be, for you.
>you completely take away their rights and control all of their actions
No we don't. We're helping it realize its won historical program.
>How the fuck do you actually believe this garbage?
For starters, I understand it.
>Do you enjoy being enslaved? Do you have a BDSM fetish?
Nope.
>The vast majority of the working class.
The vast majority of the working class wants to kill me?
>You're actually dumb enough to allow others to enslave you just because they're the same class as you.
You still don't understand what slavery is.
>You're a marxist leninist.
I'm not. I'm a bigger critic of Marxism-Leninism that you can ever imagine to be, because I actually study and understand the matter at hand, which is a first prerequisite for being a proper critic of anything.

>>14442390
I'm not a tankie.

>>14442425
>can you spoonfeed me!?
Do your own work

>>14440238
Based Balck man xddd

>>14442422
>>marxism is about justifying authoritarianism
Not exactly, but that's what it ends up doing 99% of the time.
Denying this is stupid.
>>14442429
Hey 15 year old, I've been debating with marxists and left anarchists for the past 10 years. You're an ant to me.
You're actually dumb enough to think creating an extremely authoritarian "muh werkers" state will allow it to wither away somehow magically.
Even other socialists laugh at you delusional bootlicking tankies.

Why haven't you culled yourself yet?

>a proletarian state which later whiters away in the process
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Literally every example in history disprove this.

>>14442438
>I'm not a tankie.
Yes you are.
>Yes, that's right.
So you're a bootlicker who is totally fine if the state restricts your rights, controls your speech, controls who you can associate with, prevents you from trading, forces you to work for them.
You're the ultimate cuckold, it's not even funny.
>social organ
You mean like a state, because that's exactly what you're proposing, a distinction without a difference.
>Well, if you're not a part of or a supporter of the ruling class then they sure can be, for you.
They're a terrible idea for the working class as well you low iq sperg lmao
>No we don't.
This is exactly what ML states do though, you're just pretending them doing this is something different because you're a stupid person.
>I understand it.
You don't. You're just a true believer.
>Nope.
But you do, as you are advocating this.
>The vast majority of the working class wants to kill me?
True, they hate communists and fight against them. If you people ever tried your revolution again, the people would rightfully slaughter you and it will be glorious.
>You still don't understand what slavery is.
You still don't understand what slavery is and you're apologizing for complete state control over the individual because you're a dumb bootlicker.
>a bigger critic of Marxism-Leninism
LOL What you advocate for is ML by another name. Another distinction without a difference.

>>14442429
>the state will wither away
Why in the world do you people actually believe this shit?
Why would the rulers of a marxist dictatorship ever give up power?
Do you understand human nature at all?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

>>14442444
>I've been debating with marxists and left anarchists for the past 10 years

Why dont you try reading the source material first

>>14442422
The 10 planks of the communist manifesto are extremely authoritarian, especially the central bank shit.
kys

>>14442467
>Why dont you try reading the source material first
I have. Why don't you read some of marx's critics like Bohm Bawerk or Mises or Popper?
It's quite funny when marxists get backed into a corner and can't defend their arguments so they tell others to read marx(which they haven't read themselves)

>>14442425
Google marx quotes. They are from his manifesto and in the letters he wrote to other intellectuals. Took me 10 mins to find enough for these silver bullets.

>>14442472
>Bohm Bawerk
BTFO by Hilferding, Shaikh and Cockshott
>Mises
BTFO by Lange, the aformentioned three and many others, even bourgeois economists are somewhat embarassed by him
>Popper
muh bourgeois invididualism muh human rights muh personal freedumbs

>>14442476
Well can you post them then

>>14442496
You have to learn to read between the lines with Marx, that snake

>>14442460
>if the state restricts your rights
>prevents you from trading
The spirit of rights is private property. I want the abolition of private property, so I also want the abolition of rights and of trading.
>controls your speech
>controls who you can associate with
>forces you to work for them
As long as the state realizes the communist program then it doesn't control my speech, because I'm in full agreement with its political line. If it isn't realizing the communist program, then I'm not "totally fine with it", but just the contrary, I'm it's biggest opponent. Bigger than a clueless moron like you could ever imagine.
>You mean like a state, because that's exactly what you're proposing, a distinction without a difference.
There is a distinction between a political organ like the state and a purely administrative organ.
>They're a terrible idea for the working class as well you low iq sperg lmao
The working class is the dictator in that scenario.
>This is exactly what ML states do though
ML states were capitalist.

>>14442466
>Why would the rulers of a marxist dictatorship ever give up power?
Because it can't stay in power unless it pushes towards the realization of the communist program. But the latter also leads to it withering away. The proletariat dictatorship is condemned to disappear one way or the other.

>>14439317
If i had a time machine i would kill this kike and europe would have been spared so much fuckin pain. No WW1 or 2.
Prove me wrong. Protip: You can't.

>>14442872
All wars since 1871 were caused purely by capitalism.

>>14442084
>the rich should have more freedom and power than the poor
Why the fuck do ancaps exist?

>>14442513
Your going up against the wall capitalist.

>>14443183
You people will never get your way and will be thrown from helicopters lmao

>>14442486
>BTFO by Hilferding, Shaikh and Cockshott
No they didn't lmao
https://mises.org/wire/mises-vs-austro-marxists

>lange
Holy shit you retards actually don't understand the economic calculation problem
You truly are bootlickers
Lange didn't btfo anything lmao

https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth/html/c/7

https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited-0

>muh personal freedumbs
You're actually ADMITTING you are against personal freedoms HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Those is why people want to kill you animals.
You will never get your way, the people will rise up to slaughter you.

>>14443106
All wars since 1871 were caused purely by statism.
Marxists desire more statism.

>>14442513
This is what a brainwashed indoctrinated cultist actually believes.

Religion is a hell of a thing.

>>14442486
>cockshott

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://cdn.mises.org/qjae7_1_6.pdf

How do communists deal with the fact the USSR's industry was almost entirely BUILT and funded by western capitalists?

https://capx co/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-technology/

>117 posts
>30 IPs

>>14439362
lol

>>14444277
Transition is a thing.

>>14444286
And it was dependant on capitalists.

Living standards in the USSR were garbage compared to the west.

>This picture of the generally low living standards suffered under Soviet Communism between 1917 and 1991 darkens further when one includes the evidence of the widespread poverty that existed among old people and the inhabitants of some of the most backward former Soviet republics. Thus according to Ilja Zemstov, a former professor of sociology at the Lenin Institute of Baku (Azerbaidjan), writing in 1976, one in two retired persons in the Soviet Union lived in poverty, and in the Soviet republic of Azerbaidjan, 75 per cent of the population lived below the poverty line and there were more homes without water, electricity and toilets than in the whole of Western Europe. Other scholars, also writing in the 1970s, calculated that about half of all housing in the Soviet Union was without running water or sewerage, and living space per person was only about half that available in Western Europe.

>>14444214
>You're actually ADMITTING you are against personal freedoms HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yet another proof that you haven't touched anything written by Marx. Here's what he writes in "On the Jewish Question" (which even student cucks read as a school assignment):
>The practical application of man’s right to liberty is man’s right to private property.

>>14444218
The modern nation-state is a product of capitalism.

>>14444277
By recognizing the fact that the USSR was capitalist.

>>14444277
The USSR was capitalist. Communism doesn't happen over night

>>14444305
Communism doesn't happen ever because it's not theoretically possible.

>>14444305
>>14444302
>b-but it wasn't real communism
you bootlickers are just a parody at this point

>>14444302
>Yet another proof that you haven't touched anything written by Marx. Here's what he writes in "On the Jewish Question" (which even student cucks read as a school assignment):
>The practical application of man’s right to liberty is man’s right to private property
Okay?
So you're literally admitting your against personal freedom in general and the state should control all of your actions.
You people are beyond stupid.
How do you even know how to breathe?
Bootlicking cucks like yourself need to be killed.

>>14444319
Source?

>>14444302
>The modern nation-state is a product of capitalism.
No it's not, there are endless socialist failed states too.
Or are you going to call them all capitalist?

>By recognizing the fact that the USSR was capitalist.
You defend all the things ML states do but claim you aren't an ML for some autistic reason.

Don't bother arguing with commies. They are too indoctrinated into their bootlicker cult

>>14444328
Every socialist country in history.
Or
Just reading marx's works and realizing he was insane and super contradictory.

>>14444305
I bet you're one of those brainlets that thinks capitalism will "collapse" soon.
Enjoy waiting you're whole life being a loser.

>>14444300
Yes capitalism comes before socialism. How did you know?

>>14444319
All families apply communism. It has always existed and it has always worked.

>>14444340
>Indoctrinated

>>14444383
Seeing how marxism is dogmatic garbage, it isn't.

>>14444386
It only works on extremely small scales with people that actually know and care about each other.
We need economic calculation if we have more than like 5-10 people.

>>14444393
>had to kill of bunch of their own people and neglect food production just for some symbolic victory
>ignoring that innovation in general was garbage compared to the west

This is why people call you indoctrinated.

>>14444321
>you bootlickers are just a parody at this point
How was it communist?

>>14444326
>So you're literally admitting your against personal freedom in general
Yes. Abolition of bourgeois individual liberty is the condition of human freedom.
>and the state should control all of your actions.
No.

>>14444337
>there are endless socialist failed states too
There was one, but it was only socialist in the sense that it was a proletarian dictatorship, and that only for less than a decade. Economically it was an undeveloped capitalism.
>You defend all the things ML states do
You mean like use of state power? I only approve of it if it's employed as a means by the proletarian dictatorship. When it's used in a counter-revolutionary fashion, like in all the "ML states", I completely oppose it.
>but claim you aren't an ML for some autistic reason.
ML is another name for Stalinism, which represented an anti-communist counterrevolution in the Russian state and in the Third International. I don't claim that for any "autistic" reason but for the reason that as a communist I'm diametrically opposed to anti-communism.

>>14439317
Background: Adam Smith, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Key works:
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The German Ideology
Capital, Volume I
Capital, Volume II
Capital, Volume III

>>14439317
>>14444419
>not starting with the greeks

>>14444419
How do you pronounce proudhon?

>>14444402
The difference between small scale societies is the information of who needs the resources, why and how to distribute them. Your cellphone knows more about you than yourself. In a not to distant future resources will be allocated and produced with greater efficiency and precision than ever before, making the level of scarcity irrelevant. At that point, were resources and information are abundant, there is no need to distribute the goods through a capitalist system.

>>14444433
proud-hon

>>14444402
hey you are that retard from the other thread; cringe

>>14444459
Are you one of the shit eating marxists that got btfo in the other thread?
Cringe

>>14444411
>Inovation compared to the west.
Inovation that the west developed through their own government and military with tax payer money.

>Had to kill a bunch of people.
Enlighten me on how many people directly died for the sake of space exploration (symbolic victory t.mediocre)
The people that died due to the industralization process is less than those killed in the name of the industralization of the west.

>>14444433
In English? PROO-dahn.
In French? https://howjsay.com/search?word=Proudhon

Communists deserve to be killed.

>>14444415
>bourgeois individual liberty
It's not bourgeois individual liberty, it's individual liberty.
If the state can force you to do things, prevent you from voluntarily trading, prevent you from speaking freely, prevent you from associating with who you want to you don't have freedom.
Look at all of these mindless justifications for slavery you are coming up with.
>No.
Oh just most of your actions? lol
You ARE a bootlicking cuckold that will never get your way.
How does it feel?

>There was one
There were countless socialist states. You literally claim you want a socialist state yourself.

>I only approve of it if it's employed as a means by the proletarian dictatorship.
So a normal dictatorship with a small group of people who call themselves the working class and have the ability to completely control your life.
You're an extremely stupid individual.

>ML is another name for Stalinism
Wrong, it's leninism and all its offshoots.

Marxists literally believe if you change economic variables you can fundamentally change the nature of man.
As if his instincts don't exist.
They completely deny human instincts. They were seething in the last thread about this too.

They think the new soviet man is a real thing.

They're actually this retarded.

>>14444553
You made a thread about this bro

>>14444568
I know and the commies in that thread seethed really hard.
Even when one of them actually tried to debate with me about it instead of whining "read marx!!" he still got btfo.

Imagine being dumb enough to think the material conditions can magically change human nature and that instincts are irrelevant.

Neuroscientists laugh at you people

>>14444506

>>14444553
oh no, it's another "I don't have the intellectual capacity to tell the difference between "material conditions" and the "material conditions of society"" episode

>>14444576
>t. Eternal brainlet.

Material conditions change human behavior all the time.

>>14444576
>>14444576
>Imagine being dumb enough to think the material conditions can magically change human nature
case and point lmao

>>14439317
Start with severe brain damage. You'll need it to be a proper Marxist.

>>14444596
Your girlfriend keeps complaining about your premature ejaculation cock sucker. Maybe if you stop watching porn you will get better.

>>14444592
>Material conditions change human behavior all the time.
They can only change a small PORTION of human behavior. The underlying instincts still exist

>>14444596
Another non argument from the marxist bootlicker that enjoys living in poverty.

>>14444589
Explain the difference and why it's relevant so I can laugh at you for grasping at straws.

>>14444530
>If the state can force you to do things, prevent you from voluntarily trading, prevent you from speaking freely, prevent you from associating with who you want to you don't have freedom.
To do what? To speak about what? To associate with whom? This is all form without content.
>Oh just most of your actions?
No, "state's control of the individual's actions" is simply not a description of socialism for two reasons: socialism is stateless and the individual no longer exists there as a historical subject.
>There were countless socialist states.
There was one, but it was only socialist in the sense that it was a proletarian dictatorship, and that only for less than a decade. Economically it was an undeveloped capitalism.
>So a normal dictatorship with a small group of people who call themselves the working class and have the ability to completely control your life.
No, that's not what a proletarian dictatoship is. Go read a book you dumb faggot.
>Wrong, it's leninism and all its offshoots.
Wrong. Even wikipedia gets this part right:
>As an ideology, it was developed by Joseph Stalin in the late 1920s based on his understanding and synthesis of both orthodox Marxism and Leninism. It was the official state ideology of the Soviet Union and the other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc as well as the political parties of the Communist International after Bolshevisation. Today, Marxism–Leninism is the ideology of Stalinist and Maoist political parties around the world and remains the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

>>14444579
Every commie that got btfo under pinochet deserved it.

>>14444609
Yes, instincts that kick in once the material conditions change. You don't get angry out of the blue(unless you have mental problems and trauma) and you don't feel fear just because. "Human nature" is not to hoard resources and be a greedy insecure manchild just because you feel like it. This behavior gets internalized as a means to survive in certain conditions.

>>14444615
>To do what? To speak about what? To associate with whom? This is all form without content.
About anything.
>we're only going to prevent people from speaking about bourgeoisie stuff
No you're not, marxist states use massive state violence to prevent people from freely living their lives.
>socialism is stateless
No it's not you dumb manipulative liar. Communism is supposed to be stateless, socialism is a state
>Economically it was an undeveloped capitalism.
LOL So you're saying all of these socialist countries that used massive authoritarianism we actually capitalism's fault?
Kill yourself retard.
>that's not what a proletarian dictatoship is.
That's literally what you are advocating for though, stupid.
Tell me how your system is different.
>Go read a book
Coming from the indoctrinated tankie retard that justifies totalitarian statism because he's a cuck lol
>Wrong
People who call themselves MLs are simply people that support lenins version of marxism.
Do you not support lenin?

>>14444618
And the generals that spent the rest of their lives in jail with dementia and shitting themselves untile they dropped dead deserved too.

>>14444640
>Yes, instincts that kick in once the material conditions change.
Wrong, this is pseudoscientific garbage.
>You don't get angry out of the blue
People still get angry over countless things. You can just socially engineer away things like anger.
> "Human nature" is not to hoard resources and be a greedy
This is just false, people are greedy and look out for themselves all of the time. You can't socially engineer away greed.

Also capitalists don't hoard resources, they save money, not resources, this means actual resources are being utilized. You brainlets always confusing the two.


You people dont even understand how instincts work.

>>14444656
awww, a few generals vs tens thousands of dead communist authoritarians
I say we did a pretty good job.

Score one for the good guys.

>>14444492
thank you!!!

>>14444671
A good so you are not only a traitor to your country but to your "saviors" too. Enjoy being a dickless coward.

>trying to argue with marxists

They don't argue in good faith and are too indoctrinated and brainwashed to be reasoned with.
Let them REEEEEE and justify their totalitarian dictatorship.
They will never get their way anyway.

Marxism is Satanism

>>14444666
>Instincts
>Behavior

Learn the difference between them two.

>>14444695
>you are not only a traitor to your country
How? I support mass murdering authoritarian human garbage being slaughtered for the good of my nation?
>Enjoy being a dickless coward.
Funny coming from the communist bootlicker.

I'm so fucking glad your ideology is dead and you people will never gain power ever again lmao

>>14444707
Instincts are responsible for a large portion of behavior.
Marxists are completely clueless as to how the brain works and all the research that has been done since his time.
>muh material conditions
LOL

>>14444712
You support the killing and torture of your own people while licking the boots of the army.

The ideology isn't dead retard, in fact it has you and your brainlet peers with nightmares all the time. Communism with naturally develop, sooner or later. And I my happiness does not depend on the score card of Wich ideology is winning, because I am not a retard. Enjoy your happy meal faggot.

>>14444722
Still, behavior is maleable and instincts can be repressed or manifested in different ways, depending on the culture.
If communism is against human nature please explain to me how tribes and families work as communists societies?

>>14444609
>Explain the difference
I did, more than once, and somehow you kept coming to the unfounded conclusion that instincts are a matter of the material conditions of society rather than material conditions of the brain. you are a retard and I will not waste any more time on you

>>14440238
Has any communist attempted to prove this based black guy wrong? I'd be interested what they'd have to say about it.

>>14439385
lol

>>14439317
Where to actually start with Marx: Chapter 1 of the communist manifesto for Marxist historiography, the pamphlets ‘Wage, Labor, and Capital’ and ‘Value, Price and Profit’ for some of Marx’s theories of finance and political economy, look for a brief crash course in the Base/Superstructure concept anywhere online, Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto for an example of what the political programmers of Marxists looked like, Chapter 3 of Communist Manifesto as well as Critique of the Gotha Program for Marx’s refinements of what defines real socialism against liberalism liberalism (Engels’ paper Socialism: Utopian and Scientific may be a good supplement for this), and finally The 18th Brumaire for an example of how Marx thought as a historian, how he applied his theories to history

>>14444955
Thank you anon

>>14444955
>look for a brief crash course in the Base/Superstructure concept
No need to look for it in the internet. It's already summarized in the prologue to the critique of political economy in one or two paragraphs

>>14444648
>marxist states
No such thing.
>Communism is supposed to be stateless, socialism is a state
They're the same thing. At most socialism can sometimes refer to just a lower stage of communism, but in that case it's still a stage of communism, and as such it Is stateless.
>So you're saying all of these socialist countries that used massive authoritarianism we actually capitalism's fault?
I don't think they were the "fault" of anything, but they were all capitalist.
>That's literally what you are advocating for though, stupid.
I'm not advocating for a small group of people controlling anybody's life.
>Tell me how your system is different.
I don't have a system.
>Coming from the indoctrinated tankie retard that justifies totalitarian statism because he's a cuck lol
How am I a cuck? The totalitarian statism will be used against people like you to realize the historical program of my class. You'll be the one getting cucked in this scenario.
>People who call themselves MLs are simply people that support lenins version of marxism.
No, they're people who support Stalin's "version" of Marxism and his "version" of Lenin. But you lack the understanding to talk about this because you haven't read Marx and Lenin.

>>14445056
>No such thing.
cringe

>>14444772
He (Thomas Sowell) didn't understood surplus labor.

>>14445056
>They're the same thing
oh nononono read Marx

>>14444480
The majority of innovation in the west came from the private sector.

The ussr was an authoritarian shithole that relied on capitalist technology.
Imagine not supporting human rights and the rule of law.
Braindead tankies never learn.

>>14445192
Surplus value isn't real and does not manifest itself anywhere in the real world.
Marxists don't even understand something are simply as supply and demand.

>>14445204
>expecting braindead marxists to have read marx

>>14444958
You're going to go down the marxist rabbit role and become a brainlet indoctrinated into an extremely flawed and illogical ideology.

>>14445192
What's more, Sowell criticize Marx critique of Capitalism from a Capitalist point of view. That's like criticizing the jews using Talmudic rhetoric and examples. Or criticizing a republic using republican values. Sowell makes an apology of the class based society, saying the Capitalist has knowledge and support risk.
The point of being Marxist, is being against a class based society, even if you are yourself a successful Capitalist. Indeed what's the point of having success in Capital if you have a shit life. Many successful Capitalists, even here on 4chan say that they are depressed and their life is shit. Indeed the most damaged anons are on /biz, and i think some are not LARPing when they say they are rich but miserable.

>>14445295
So having all their shit taken away will make them happy?

>>14445247
If surplus value is not real, how is new wealth created? Surplus value comes from Adam Smith and Ricardo. If surplus labor doesn't exist, how can some people live on welfare? Indeed they live on the labor of others, on the other side of the spectrum.

>>14445309
That's not how it is supposed to work, but the answer is yes, they'll be happier in a classless society.

>>14445353
I'm not convinced.

desu OP if you wanted a serious answer you should have posted at a time when the Americuntts are asleep

>>14440238
I'm already on advanced economics plen.

>>14445247
The form in which value appears is price. Surplus value manifests itself for example in the total price of new machinery that is employed to expand production.

>>14445484
Well it isn't the americone dream for nothing. Only when the whole america will look like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore in about 20 years (it's coming fast), will you understand.

>>14445828
Which is?

>>14445869
Your condescension isn't doing Marxism any favors.

>>14445878
Vol. 3 of Capital probably.

>>14445247
>You're going to go down the marxist rabbit role and become a brainlet indoctrinated into an extremely flawed and illogical ideology.

Wrong sweety. Stay mad, brainlet boo:3

>>14445204
Marx didn't make a distinction between communism and socialism. he made a distinction between DOTP and communism/socialism and and between a lower and upper phase of the latter.

>>14439317
Start with the dilating.

>>14445932
By Sowell?

>>14446191
Marx was a retarded statist

>>14439317
Marx--------------Bin---------Shop---------Dawkins---------Mein Kampf---------Wife--------4 White Children------Gun Shop
Yes anon please follow this chart.

>>14446191
I don't think you understand what Marx meant when he talked about communism lmao. capitalism is a lower form of communism too

>>14446274
>t. someone who has stopped at communist manifesto
>What is critique of the Gotha program?

>>14445957
You're actually reading flawed and debunked theories and pretending they are legitimate. It's pretty sad.
It's like reading l ron hubbard
brainletchan:3

>>14445325
>how is new wealth created?
underconsumption, planning the emergent structure of production.

>>14445353
>>14445295
But the workers taking over the means of production will not actually benefit them.
Why don't you understand this?

>>14446650
So youre admitting marx was contradictory?

>>14446443
>a lower form
You people are religious cultists and these terms don't mean anything concrete.

>>14445866
Price? lol
Why does it not manifest itself as actual physical goods?
The workers would be getting back NOTHING by getting their "surplus labor" back.

>>14446704
>But the workers taking over the means of production will not actually benefit them.
>Why don't you understand this?
why don't you make an argument for your position anon? Marx is (whether you like it or not) extremely influential. people have written entire books trying to elaborate flaws in his system. just saying "lol no" on an anonymous Finnish fish fermenting forum doesn't prove anything

>>14446726
>Marx is (whether you like it or not) extremely influential.
yeah on the internet, thats about it
>people have written entire books trying to elaborate flaws in his system
Like bohm bawerk? Yeah, marxism is flawed.

If the workers got the profits from the firm instead of the capitalists and went to spend that money, it would just cause massive price increases and shortages because the workers are ALREADY under capitalism receiving virtually all of the consumer goods and services in the economy.
You wouldn't get anything from taking over the means.
"Surplus value" doesn't manifest itself as actual resources in the economy.
You people confuse money for resources.

Why is marxism so easy to see through?
It's an empty theory filled with holes used to brainwash pseudointellectuals.

>>14445957
>>14446684
Not me
>>14445932
>3

Not me either.

>>14446443
antecedent /= lower phase, at least in the sense Marx uses it.

>>14446832
>Like bohm bawerk?
yes, exactly, I'm the anon that told you von Bawerk was my favorite Austrian economist in the last thread. did you think this was a gotcha or something? be more like von Bawerk and read books
>If the workers got the profits from the firm instead of the capitalists and went to spend that money
lmaoing at your brain. you know what I'm going to tell you right? that you have never read Marx? here's why that is extremely obvious: what you are describing is what Marx called vulgar socialism. Marx wrote some of his most famous work dismantling this idea as a utopian fantasy. what you are imagining is keeping capitalism going, but splitting up all the money/profits equally. this is NOT the same as the workers owning the means of production. if you want to know more about why Marx thought equality of outcome and redistribution are utopian, the Critique of the Gotha Program would be a good start

>>14446969
you are imagining communism as an end state to history but this isn't what Marx meant, he defined communism as the [historical] movement which abolishes the real state of things.

>>14446980
meant for
>>14446951

>>14446969
>vulgar socialism.
LOL this is just another excuse as to why your theories dont work in the real world

>what you are imagining is keeping capitalism going, but splitting up all the money/profits equally.
If surplus value was exploitation, CERTAINLY taking some of this surplus value and giving it back to the workers would have SOME benefit to the working class, no?
You marxists claim that government intervention in capitalism resulted in workers improving some of their living standards. How is this possible if you're telling me that it's impossible for the workers to get any benefit from getting their surplus value back in a capitalist system?

>this is NOT the same as the workers owning the means of production.
Yes, I know.
Even if they owned the means of production, they STILL wouldn't be able to consume any more goods than they currently are or work less hours.

>>14446980
>you are imagining communism as an end state to history but this isn't what Marx meant
when did I imagine that

>>14447002
>If surplus value was exploitation, CERTAINLY taking some of this surplus value and giving it back to the workers would have SOME benefit to the working class, no?
>You marxists claim that government intervention in capitalism resulted in workers improving some of their living standards. How is this possible if you're telling me that it's impossible for the workers to get any benefit from getting their surplus value back in a capitalist system?
this was already explained to you in the thread yesterday.

>>14447002
>LOL this is just another excuse as to why your theories dont work in the real world
okay so Marx agreeing with your criticisms of redistribution makes him wrong? how you keep managing to btfo yourself?
>You marxists
I'm not a Marxist but you are an ideologue for sure, undeniable at this point. read a book please

>>14445233
Man it must be hard being this deluded.

>>14447007
by saying capitalism is antecedent to communism rather than a lower stage you are implying it exists as an end stage which comes later

>>14447025
>this was already explained to you in the thread yesterday.
But it wasn't. Explain it here.
The workers wouldn't benefit from taking over the means, they would have to work the same amount of hours.
The workers receive virtually all of the end product of production.
>>14447043
>so Marx agreeing with your criticisms of redistribution
He wasn't. Marx was very clever in coming up with insane justifications for the contradictions in his ideology.
>I'm not a Marxist
Yes you are.

>>14447053
>USA did bad things
>therefore the USSR was good and never did bad things
Man it must be hard being this deluded.

>>14447057
read this five times and have no clue what you're saying, sorry.
>>14447075
>But it wasn't. Explain it here.
just reread our dialogue yesterday starting here: >>14440749

>>14447123
>just reread our dialogue yesterday
I refuted this yesterday desu.

I dont know why you would want to take over the means of production when it wouldnt actually benefit you.
I don't understand why you people want to live in poverty.

>>14447150
>I refuted this yesterday desu.
you refuted the idea that the theory doesn't turn on whether or not workers "benefit" from replacing an exploitative production process? no you didn't. you just said "wow that's a dumb theory." which is fine. you don't have to accept the theory. that's not my point.

>>14447053
I don't get the reasoning. If the United States is bad for being callous with human life, then the USSR was also bad.

>>14447182
Let's start again.
If the workers are exploited, why would taking away this exploitation not allow them to increase their consumption or allow them to work less?
It would probably mean they would have to work MORE hours.
Obviously the capitalist is providing some benefit here. The capitalist is barely consuming any of the end product of production, the workers are doing that.

>>14447193
No, the USSR was good and did no wrong because it was a proletariat state hurrdurrr

>>14447082
>Communism did bad things, therefore communism doesn't work.
>Capitalism does bad things, bad is just human nature therefore is the only system we can have

You sure are one brainwashed biased dense retard.

>>14447222
you're still mistaking the term "exploitation" as an ethical one. I don't know how many times I have to explain this.

>>14447193
That is exactly the point. People rave on how the USSR did bad things but are unable to do the same with the US.
This proves that human rights violations and fuck ups is not a valuable argument against ideology.

>>14447232
>>Capitalism does bad things
Capitalism didn't do these things.
You brainlets always confuse capitalism for statism and it's fucking embarrassing how dumb you are.
Go move to north korea you subservient bootlicker.

>>14447247
>I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
how about you explain it once and tell me where my logic is flawed?

It doesnt matter though, you people will never get your way and marx's predictions will never come to pass.

>>14447275
>It WaSnt ReAl caPitaLism.

Dude just stop and go help your mother by cleaning your room and getting out of the basement. America bombed and killed 2 million people in Irak to grow the bank accounts of some fat faggots.

>>14447280
>how about you explain it once and tell me where my logic is flawed?
you're committing a fallacy of equivocation w/r/t the term "exploitation." you think he's using it in the ethical sense. he's not. everything you're saying about workers' benefits is completely irrelevant to the actual theory.

>>14447296
>>It WaSnt ReAl caPitaLism.
No, it was lol.
It was also real breathing oxygenism, and real gravityism.
You people are unironically dumb enough to confuse correlation with causation because you're indoctrinated violent shit eating incels.

>America bombed and killed 2 million people
Okay? I hate america's imperialist foreign policy.
You're the one that defends statism as long as it's "da working class" you dumb cultist.

>>14447298
so what is it if not the ethical sense?
How else could they be exploited?

>>14447296
Gravity killed a bajjillion people.
We need to abolish gravity.

>>14447317
imagine arguing against Marx when you don't even understand what he meant by exploitation lmao go sleep anon you have a school bus to catch in the morning

>>14447317
it's just used as a technical term referring to the process by which capitalists appropriate surplus value. that's it.

>>14447333
>seething anger and literally no argument
Why do marxists always do this?

Guess I win again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

See you in 50 years from now when your illogical religious theories never actually occur in reality lol.

>>14447340
>heh explain Marxism to me because I am uneducated and don't read
>no
>heh, I win again!

>>14447339
if this is true why do marxists constantly whine that they're being exploited?

Also even if it is a technical term, this doesn't change the fact that the capitalist is actually giving them a massive benefit and thus isn't exploiting them, even technically.

>>14447346
>I don't even NEED to have an argument to refute your points

You don't understand how free markets work and we don't autistically ask you to read rothbard. We actually supply arguments from our theories when we're debating with others.

You're actually extremely stupid and going to stay a self hating incel you entire life never accomplishing anything lmao

>>14447346
Imagine being dumb enough to have indoctrinated yourself to support totalitarian dictatorships with no freedom and claiming you're intelligent at all.

>>14447347
>marxists
you are like an atheist who thinks they know things about the bible, then are proven wrong but appeal to what they heard their retarded fundamentalist cousin with fetal alcohol syndrome say. inference from what "Marxists" say is not a substitute for reading Marx

>>14447347
>if this is true why do marxists constantly whine that they're being exploited?
because they've misunderstood the theory in the same way you do. probably because they've never read it. or maybe because they personally believe exploitation is unethical. which is fine.
>Also even if it is a technical term, this doesn't change the fact that the capitalist is actually giving them a massive benefit and thus isn't exploiting them, even technically.
when you say "exploitation" in that sentence, you're still using it in the ethical sense, not the technical sense in which Marx uses it.

>>14447357
you didn't make a point, you asked what basic terminology means
>>14447361
not a Marxist, try again

>>14447308
Your are either an edgy teen or a dumb motherfucker that lives under a rock. Capitalism has been sustained and protected by the wars waged or backed by America. Irak is one example of many, where they sacrificed lives so companies make money of the rebuilding of the infrastructure and the supply of the war. If capitalism is so pure it wouldn't need the support of imperialism. But it does because it needs to protect the interests of capital that are in other countries, therefore intervention is absolutely necessary.

I don't see how you can bash communism in light of the human suffering it produced, but not capitalism. You are either a troll a dense moron.

>>14447362
Are you actually saying you need to read the bible in order to refute it?
I understand plenty of marxist theory, enough to debate people online.
>>14447365
>because they've misunderstood the theory
No shit, marxists don't actually read marx.
>when you say "exploitation" in that sentence, you're still using it in the ethical sense, not the technical sense in which Marx uses it.
You're not elaborating at all.
How can someone be "technically" exploited but not actually exploited?

>>14447368
I asked anon to clarify.
Even HE admitted that most marxists get this exploitation point wrong.
Holy shit you truly are a retard.
>>14447370
All marxists are teenagers like yourself. Grow up.
>Capitalism has been sustained and protected by the wars waged or backed by America.
How? We can have capitalism without imperialistic wars.
These wars were fought to protect the american state, not capitalism.
>If capitalism is so pure it wouldn't need the support of imperialism.
It legitimately doesn't, that's why us libertarians want to minimize the state as much as possible.

>but not capitalism
Literally everything you claim is capitalism is actually statism and I am opposed to those things.

>You are either a troll a dense moron.
You're an anti-capitalist, you don't have a brain.

>>14447331
Lol you are the ones arguing against communism because of the deaths. But somehow it only matters when is one way? Guess licking lead and fetal alcohol syndrom sucks.

>>14447383
>No shit, marxists don't actually read marx.
neither have you!
>You're not elaborating at all.
>How can someone be "technically" exploited but not actually exploited?
I already explained that here: >>14447339

Even christians make more logical sense than marxists, I swear to fuck these people are deluded morons.

>>14447383
>Are you actually saying you need to read the bible in order to refute it?
yes, that is literally what I am saying. what sort of ignorant retard critiques something he hasn't read?

>>14447403
>Lol you are the ones arguing against communism because of the deaths.
Wrong I was arguing against brainlets like yourself that defend the atrocities in the USSR just because they aren't capitalists.

Statist violence is statist violence.
Tankies are just as bad as apologists for american imperialism.

>fetal alcohol syndrom
But I told you I'm not a marxist teen.

>>14447404
>neither have you!
Hardly anyone has read marx. I've read bits and pieces of marx, even to get a general understanding and argue against marxists.
Marxists themselves constantly contradict each other and claim many different things anyway.
>I already explained that here: >>14447339
That's not explaining it at all, you just claimed it's technical. If it's technical does it not make it REAL?

>>14447418
>yes
Then you have extreme low IQ.
I'm sorry anon.
You can refute something by getting a general understanding of it.

>>14447447
You can refute something by getting a general understanding of it.
duh, but you literally cannot know whether you have a general understanding of something without reading it. case in point, (You). you don't understand Marx in the slightest, but you assume you have a general understanding. do you know how to correct this mistake? fucking read him.

>>14447442
>Hardly anyone has read marx. I've read bits and pieces of marx, even to get a general understanding and argue against marxists.
no offense but you really don't have a general understanding of the theory.
>That's not explaining it at all, you just claimed it's technical. If it's technical does it not make it REAL?
I mean I explained how the sense in which he's using it is non-ethical. to understand the phenomena to which it actually refers, you have to read the books. but you don't need to understand that phenomena in order to know that it's not being used in an ethical sense, which is my only point.

>>14447479
>but you literally cannot know whether you have a general understanding of something without reading it
It's impractical to read every book in history. If you are aware of the core theory behind certain ideologies is false then you don't need to read the entire book to understand why.

>you don't understand Marx in the slightest
But I do, brainlet.
Anon just made a point I wasn't aware of.
Which is strange because the countless other marxists I have argued with do NOT make this point.

Also I guess free markets are perfect and infallible because you haven't read rothbard.
You don't understand what free markets are.

>>14447501
>you really don't have a general understanding of the theory.
Except for the fact I do. I've been arguing with you cultists for 10 years, you come up with the same illogical shit over and over again.

>I mean I explained how the sense in which he's using it is non-ethical.
But you didn't elaborate, you just said it's technical. Okay? How does that change my critique. There exists no physical manifestation of the surplus value in reality and taking over the means won't benefit the workers.
By technical did you mean "doesn't actually exist"?

Thesis: Capitalism
Anti-thesis: Communism
Synthesis: ??

>>14447531
The idea that communism is something that will radically change human behavior is beyond retarded lmao

>>14447479
>>14447501
Here's a question.
How do you expect normies to come around to support your side when like 60% of you people literally advocate totalitarian dictatorships where freedom is destroyed?

Are you honestly this retarded?

>>14447506
do you plan on trying to debunk every book in history? because I am only telling you to read the books you want to critique
>core theory
you know know what Marx meant by exploitation, there isn't much terminology MORE core to Marxism than exploitation lmao. it's like trying to debunk Plato and not understanding what he meant by "good"
>you haven't read rothbard
I have actually; you tried to pull this in the last thread too. nice projection though

>>14447549
>your side
I'm not a Marxist. please stop coping, you don't need to be a Marxist to have an education

>>14447520
>But you didn't elaborate, you just said it's technical. Okay? How does that change my critique.
it changes your critique because your critique uses "exploitation" in a different sense than it's used in the theory.
>There exists no physical manifestation of the surplus value in reality
you haven't demonstrated that but it doesn't matter to what we're talking about.
>and taking over the means won't benefit the workers.
which, again, only matters if exploitation is being used in an ethical sense, which it isn't.
>By technical did you mean "doesn't actually exist"?
no by technical I mean "in a sense distinct from the colloquial sense in which the word is used."

>>14447550
>you know know
you don't know*

>>14447550
>because I am only telling you to read the books you want to critique
I plan on reading more marx in the future.
In the meantime reading summaries of his works by marxists and debating with them works just fine.

>you know know what Marx meant by exploitation, there isn't much terminology MORE core to Marxism than exploitation
Except I DID know lmao, I've debated with marxists countless times and this is the first time someone told me exploitation means something different.
How am I supposed to argue with you people if you all have different interpretations of marxism?
>I have actually
No you haven't you compulsive liar lmao

>>14447608
>I've debated with marxists countless times and this is the first time someone told me exploitation means something different
so you would agree then that what you have been doing hasn't given you an accurate idea of what Marx actually thought
>How am I supposed to argue with you people if you all have different interpretations of marxism?
for like the fourth time in this thread, I'm not a fucking Marxist I just read books

>>14447562
>I'm not a Marxist.
Yes, you are.
>>14447573
>in a different sense than it's used in the theory.
How is it used in the theory?
Come on, you should be able to answer this one, you seem like you're deflecting.
>you haven't demonstrated that
I did. There exists no consumable goods the working class could receive which could manifest as the surplus value. It's almost as if it's not even real. The working class receives virtually all of the end product of what they produce. Do marxists not even know this?
>which, again, only matters if exploitation is being used in an ethical sense, which it isn't.
So you're saying I can use this argument against marxists who use this argument in an ethical sense and I would STILL be correct?

>>14447623
>so you would agree then that what you have been doing hasn't given you an accurate idea of what Marx actually thought
No, I understand the general theory, there are bits and pieces that may not be perfectly accurate, but that's where debating with you cute gullible brainlets comes in.
>I'm not a fucking Marxist
Yes you are.

>>14447626
I have a degree in political theory you fucking moron. you think reading Mises and Rothbard makes you intelligent when that is literally shit you read in like first year economics. you are uneducated on Marx and it shows very clearly

>>14447633
>I understand the general theory
well you don't understand his theory of exploitation, you don't understand his theory of materialism, you don't understand his theory of history, so really anon, let's be honest, what DO you understand about his general theory?
>Yes you are
see >>14447635

>>14447395
>The face when I live in the most neoliberal country, went to an elite private school where they teach neoliberal policy since 5th grade and went to the best and most neoliberal University in my country.
Your system is doomed and destined to be replaced sooner or later. It is not static and can't hold itself because after a few years the winners are a small bunch of people who rig everything in their favor and don't give a fuck about your precious market system, securing the implosion that will come after people realize that competition is a sham and the elites won't budge an inch.

>Have you read the history of America and why it intervened in the countries it did? United fruit company can be a start. Also what about the war industry? If you believe that you can separate the economic interests of the elite from the interests of the state they control you are nothing but a dreamer. People with money sooner or later will have to capture the state, otherwise their competitor will and use the power against them

>Then build your libertarian society without the presence of a state or an impotent one.
You can't because the economic interests will need to be protected somehow and the law would need to be clear and fair for your precious libertarian world to work. Who will guarantee that? A company specialized in justice? Who will enforce those laws? The state can't enforce those laws if is weaker than the companies, wich will quickly turn your entire system into a sharade. America already is to various extents, where to big to fail companies are above the law.

>Then who would protect your property when a communist warlord decides to expropriate your company stationed in a third world country that sold cheap labor?

>I am not anti-capitalist.
I recognize and understand the value of capitalism. But at the same time know that it has an expiration date, it can't be static and last forever. Is just an economic and pol. system that will be unnecessary when production makes the scarcity of resources irrelevant and information allows for a better allocation of resources. I am anti morons who are emotional invested in an ideology and can't fanthom changing their perspective due to the fear of having to seeth for the rest of their lives. If you had an ounce of a brain you wouldn't delegitimize communism for it's atrocities while turning a blind eye on capitilasim. But that is all you are capable of.

>>14447395
>Even HE admitted that most marxists get this exploitation point wrong
if all you care about is Marxists why even bring up Marx in the first place?

>>14447654
>neoliberalism is a "system"
lol brainlet, the rest of your post is garbage too

>>14447626
>How is it used in the theory?
>Come on, you should be able to answer this one, you seem like you're deflecting.
I've answered that like four times. for example: >>14447339
>I did. There exists no consumable goods the working class could receive which could manifest as the surplus value. It's almost as if it's not even real. The working class receives virtually all of the end product of what they produce. Do marxists not even know this?
again, this isn't relevant to what we're talking about so I'll just leave it.
>So you're saying I can use this argument against marxists who use this argument in an ethical sense and I would STILL be correct?
no you'd both be wrong in that case. but since you're just interested in btfo-ing some kids online and not in actually being right, I say go for it.

>>14447635
>I have a degree in political theory
that makes you even more retarded anon
>you think reading Mises and Rothbard makes you intelligent
It objectively does.
Marxists should actually try it sometime
>>14447650
I understand it quite well.
Maybe if you actually had an argument I could refute it, but no. lol

People are too hard on Marx. He had good intentions seeing how he lived in one of the worst periods in history for workers rights but he failed to understand basic human nature.

>>14447671
>Live in
>Your

Lack of reading comprehension skills and denial of reality. Definitely a moron.

>>14447674
>I've answered that like four times
that's not a fucking answer, you're just deflecting
How exactly can someone be "technically" exploited?
Explain yourself. Elaborate and stop hiding behind terms you don't understand.
>this isn't relevant
Of course it is.
>but since you're just interested in btfo-ing some kids online
Well marxists ARE children so yeah.

>>14447661
>if all you care about is Marxists why even bring up Marx in the first place?
because marxists claim to believe in marxism

>>14447654
>I recognize and understand the value of capitalism. But at the same time know that it has an expiration date, it can't be static and last forever. Is just an economic and pol. system that will be unnecessary when production makes the scarcity of resources irrelevant and information allows for a better allocation of resources. I am anti morons who are emotional invested in an ideology and can't fanthom changing their perspective due to the fear of having to seeth for the rest of their lives. If you had an ounce of a brain you wouldn't delegitimize communism for it's atrocities while turning a blind eye on capitilasim. But that is all you are capable of.
Imagine thinking capitalism is going to "collapse" any time in the future like a retarded sperg.
Imagine attributing statist atrocities to an economic system like a low iq sperg.

>>14447679
not a Marxist, and I have not only read them, I studied them in university. von Bawerk is better than both of them.
>I understand it quite well
honestly if I had outed myself as a brainlet this bad I would probably have not looked at 4chan for a very long time out of shamed. you admitted you don't know what Marx means by exploitation. I am so amazed this didn't trigger something in you, this is literally central to his whole economic theory, and you pretended to know he was wrong. now, you still think you know he's wrong even now that you know you don't understand the theory. anon, this isn't some superfluous thing, you literally goofed his ENTIRE economic theory

>>14447688
>People are too hard on Marx
People aren't hard enough on the man.

The only marxists that exist are true believers that will get killed if they ever tried to pull their little revolution in any country ever again.
They're old news, the dustbin of history.

>>14442169
Were you one of the kids who wrote his essay on how Brave New World was actually a utopia?

>>14447691
>that's not a fucking answer, you're just deflecting
>How exactly can someone be "technically" exploited?
>Explain yourself. Elaborate and stop hiding behind terms you don't understand.
I really don't know how to explain it any simpler, I'm sorry. I think you're looking for an explanation of the referent of the term, but that's not relevant because we're talking about the SENSE of the term.
>Of course it is.
it's not relevant because we're not debating the accuracy of the theory. I think maybe you want to, but all I'm doing is trying to clear up a misunderstanding you have about it. I could hold the theory itself to be true or false - it doesn't matter.

>>14447698
>because marxists claim to believe in marxism
oh, well you must have clicked on the wrong board then. this is /lit/, where we discuss books, like the ones Marx wrote. we don't discuss what some neckbeards on twitter with gender pronouns in their bio think about

>>14447703
>you admitted you don't know what Marx means by exploitation
Wrong, dummy. I was just questioning YOUR interpretation of marx because it seems to be different from the countless other marxists I've debated with.
Are you honestly this stupid.
You can't even explain basic marxist principals to me lo

>>14447706
Philosophy isn't something you just accept completely or dismiss entirely. Its supposed to be taken as a progress over time

>>14447711
>Were you one of the kids who wrote his essay on how Brave New World was actually a utopia?
No, but that's literally what socialists want.
That and 1984.
>>14447721
>I really don't know how to explain it any simpler
Simpler? No, that's all you did you fucking retard. I'm asking you to elaborate because you're oversimplifying it.
God you're dumb.

>>14447723
>admitting that 99% of marxists are wrong and he's the "real marxist"
autism lol

>>14445295
Sowell isn't criticizing Marxism from a "capitalist point of view." The fuck does that even mean? He's criticizing Marxism based on an objective criteria of what works and doesn't work. Ironically Sowell understands Marxism better than most Marxists. In his book which is dedicated to debunking Marx's ideas, he actually spends a considerable portion defending Marx against common strawmen and making a case for him, right before knocking it all down.

The problem with Marxism is that it's treated as infallible, which means it's an ideology, not an economic system or science. Saying Marxism is really about classless society to ward off its criticisms isn't new, Sowell knows that. You'd know all this if you'd read Sowell. He used to be a Marxist himself well into his 20s.

>>14447733
>Philosophy isn't something you just accept completely or dismiss entirely.
lol that's why 90% of philosophy is bullshit and actual scientists laugh at you people
almost none of what you say is logical in any way

>>14447736
Oh okay, you just didnt read it at all. Better than the shitpost essay!

>>14447698
>Attributing statist atrocities to an economic system.
You started with that faggot. Stop wasting my time. Prove that capitalism can exist with out a state. You can't. Also, capitilasim is not only an economic system. But I guess you are to smart to spot your own contradictions.

>Imagine thinking capitalism is going to collapse.
Imagine seeing it with your own eyes and deluded retards keep insisting that is not happening. Don't worry Anon, it will happen in your own country too sooner or later.

>>14447738
Based.

>>14447747
I did read it, it's about authoritarian statism, the thing most marxists desire.

>>14447736
>Simpler? No, that's all you did you fucking retard. I'm asking you to elaborate because you're oversimplifying it.
>God you're dumb.
I encourage you to read the rest of my post. it explains why the explanation you're looking for isn't relevant to what we're talking about. I don't know why you're getting mad.

>>14447757
>Prove that capitalism can exist with out a state.
Is this a joke? lmao
How fucking pathetic are you people?
https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west
Also medieval ireland, medieval iceland, neutral moresnet etc etc
I'm not even an ancap and I know about these places

>Also, capitilasim is not only an economic system.
Yes, it's also a marxist strawman argument used to pretend that all statist wars are somehow the result of business owners.
Imagine thinking every single war that a country that uses markets does is somehow magically the fault of capitalism lmao

>Imagine seeing it with your own eyes
I see the collapse of central banking creating gullible socialist brainlets like yourself that don't know what's actually going on.
Dont worry kid, you'll get yours when the time comes.

>>14447769
So basically what you're saying is every single example I can give of the extraction of "surplus value" not actually manifesting itself in the real world is irrelevant?
How is this not a direct refutation of surplus value extraction? It's not a real thing in the real world and removing this so called exploitation won't allow the workers to improve their living standards.
It seem like the capitalists are doing nothing but helping the workers.

>>14445353
Dostoevsky BTFO'd this idea that everyone would be happier if all their materialistic needs were met. If I lived in a classless society and wasn't allowed to succeed over other people, I'd be depressed as fuck.

>>14447763
I was talking about Brave New World, not 1984

>>14447810
im still right
it's more about government intervention than pure socialism, but still

>>14447795
>So basically what you're saying is every single example I can give of the extraction of "surplus value" not actually manifesting itself in the real world is irrelevant?
if true, it'd be relevant to whether or not the theory is accurate, but that's not what you and I specifically are talking about.
>It's not a real thing in the real world and removing this so called exploitation won't allow the workers to improve their living standards.
It seem like the capitalists are doing nothing but helping the workers.
but again that would only matter if exploitation was being used in an ethical sense.

>>14447724
okay. let me explain the labor theory of value to you. first, let me reflect on how much time I have wasted on you today. second, let me reflect on how spectacularly embarrassing it is to have to break this shit down for someone who brags about debating "Marxists" and has been critiquing Marx on /lit/ for two days straight (you never once thought to read an encyclopedia article on him? or read one of his short works or something? it would have taken less than two days).
Marx believed in the labor theory of value. he thought the price of a commodity would always tend towards it's value over time (value here being the social value of congealed labor, called labor value). under capitalism, a certain percentage of that labor value is appropriated by the owners of the means of production, this what Marx calls exploitation. the surplus in value between the the value created by the laborer and the wages he receives is what he called exploited labor. it's exactly what the other anon said, a technical term referring to the process by which capitalists appropriate surplus value.
you can get emotional about it but Marx had a lot of good things to say about capitalism. he claimed it was the most productive system we have ever seen and has given many impoverished countries wealth, the moralistic soap-boxing about the evils of capitalism isn't in Marx's theory, it's much more ambiguous. again, not a Marxist, just have an education

>>14447736
>he's the "real marxist"
please stop calling me a Marxist, I'm not a Marxist

>>14447816
Aren't you the same person who thinks corporations should have more influence so working-class people can consume more? I assumed you were >>14442169
but you may not have been

Arguing with a Marxist is like arguing with a flat-earther. All of their theories/ideas have been objectively and empirically debunked, and are not taken seriously by any reputable academic of that field, and yet they still insist that they know something you don't and that you simply don't see the truth.

It's all an abject waste of time.

Why don't you think there hasn't there been a revolution in the west? This is moreso just a rhetorical question. There are so many dissatisfied people in the west, more people are depressed and wanting change than ever, and there is no shortage of committed leftists. How come Islam and Incels have caused more societal disruption than radical leftist politics? Do leftists even actually want a revolution anymore or is it all just a nice ideal?

>>14447889
There just really aren't as many "committed leftists" as you think, and the idea is a contemporary boogeyman because people on the internet make wild leaps without testing reality. Islam has "caused more disruption" because we've been fucking with the middle east for fifty years. Incels have caused a little disruption and only within the past two years (unless you want to lump all individuals who don't put in the effort to be happy and then project their demons onto marginalized groups, which has been since the dawn of time)

As to why no revolution, I guess our goofy western system has worked. A little push, a little pull, sometimes harder on one side, but always stable

Ban Americans from participating on /lit/, please. Their stupidity and willful ignorance is pretty irritating.

>>14447884
Thats like a serf saying anything past feudalism has been empirically debunked. Communism is easy to imagine in a futuristic space age of post scarcity

>>14447743
Science doesn't deal with existential problems

>>14447938
This. They are all retarded tankies

>>14447936
You make good points. But what is so odd to me is that one of the central tenants of orthodox Marxism is based around revolution. It is not incidental to the identity of the ideology. Thus, it strikes me as odd that we have not seen a single major leftist incite violence in a way like many modern right-wing revolutionaries/terrorists, for whom violent change is incidental (although still admittedly important) and not absolutely necessitated for the realization of their ideological end. Am I missing something? Surely at least one leftist would think that his actions would set off a domino effect, but such an individual has been nowhere to be seen in contemporary society.

>this thread

>>14448034
>But what is so odd to me is that one of the central tenants of orthodox Marxism is based around revolution. It is not incidental to the identity of the ideology.

Strange that Marxists don't consider the Communist Manifesto canon and the communist revolutions "real communism" when the revolutionaries had successfully implemented the violent aspect of communism (revolutionary terror). How is it not canon when the document was created for mass consumption and Marx himself advocated violence?

>>14442084
Are ancaps the peak of cuckery?
They know they aren't going to be the ones at the top but they still want to give lucky randos all the power to lord over them.
It just pathetic.

>>14445233
The majority of innovation came from a private sector that was all but entirely bankrolled by the State.
Pretty much all tech development has been bankrolled by one state or another.

>>14447889
There were multiple revolutions throughout the West in Latin America. They were just snuffed out in the cradle.
Really the existence of the US stopped the growth of leftist revolutionaries in the West. It had enough capital to give a decent quality of life and to spend that capital elsewhere to maintain the stability of other nations that were more susceptible to revolt.

>>14446704
>Price? lol Why does it not manifest itself as actual physical goods?
What manifests itself as the actual good is the surplus PRODUCT. Surplus VALUE is the value of the surplus product, so it manifests itself by their PRICE.

>>14447783
>https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west
That wasn't capitalism but a colonial economy of small producers. Capitalism developed in the East when the migration to the West couldn't keep up with the immigration to the US. Marx, Capital Vol. 1:
>The essence of a free colony, on the contrary, consists in this, that the bulk of the soil is still public property, and every settler on it can therefore turn part of it into his private property and his individual means of production, without preventing later settlers from performing the same operation. This is the secret both of the prosperity of the colonies and of their cancerous affliction — their resistance to the establishment of capital.

>medieval ireland, medieval iceland
Not capitalism.
>all statist wars are somehow the result of business owners
Capitalism is not limited to "business owners".
>Imagine thinking every single war that a country that uses markets does is somehow magically the fault of capitalism lmao
Read "Imperialism and World Economy" by Bukharin if you want to understand that. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/

>>14447799
Communism is not directed at materialistic needs. That's capitalism. It multiplies those needs that can be exploited for the valorization of capital, and those most often happen to be just those vulgar materialist needs that your cuck writer whines about.

>>14447783
>>14448746
Oh shit I'm sorry, I forgot the "neutral moresnet" which apparently had a population of 3000 in 1900. Wikipedia lists is as a condominium. I would be interested to hear what its supposed statelessness and capitalism consisted in.