/lit/ - Literature

Depends what you mean by Marxism.

>>14845924
There have been no successful refutations of Marxism.

if the workers ever control the means of production I might read Marx, but until then Im going to write it off as a sort of pseudo-religion

>>14845924
There is nothing to refute because Marxism is a secular religion.

>>14845973
Besides reality?

>>14845973
cope
>>14845924
Mises - "Socialism", "Human Action", "Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth", "Theory and History"
Jon Elster - "An Introduction to Karl Marx"
Bohm-Bawerk - "Karl Marx and the close of his system"
O.D. Skelton - "Socialism A Critical Analysis"
Max Eastman - "Reflections on the failures of Socialism"
Schumpeter - "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy"
Max Weber - "Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism
Hayek - "Fatal Conceit", "Individualism and Economic Order"
Karl Popper - "Open Society and Its Enemies", "Poverty of Historicism"

>>14846002
Cringe

>>14846009
>implying you've read 1/10 of the books included in this list

>>14846002
i'm not specialist but all the works you are mentioned are just as flawed as anything Marx wrote

>>14846002
specially Popper

>>14845924
Hegel. Applying the dialectic to material was a fucking mistake.

>>14846037
elaborate pls

>>14845924
>implying most marxists theories can be refuted lmao

>>148459241

Sowells marx book isn't a takedown btw. It's a pretty balanced critique and a good way for a layman to understand actual marx thinking and now what we associate w/your average vaginal commie

>>14845973
Nooo, you can't own more stuff than me! It's not faaair!

>>14846054
Marx more or less, as a materialist, wholesale took Hegels idea of the giest and replaced it with the materiel.

"Stood Hegel on his head" and all.

>>14845924
Pic unrelated. Sowell is a hack.

>>14846134
yeah, according to Marx
but why do you think Hegel refutes marx?

>>14846149
Im saying the innate ideas were tailor made for the abstract idealist notions of history, so it doesnt quite work 1 to 1 with material.

>>14845924
Charles Darwin's the Origin of Species

>>14845924

Wrecks Marx's shit by offering by offering an alternatives to his views of various topics that include community, labor, and value. No retarded polemics.

>>14846028
>>14846035
and you expect us to accept your opinion without any follow up argument? given that you're not a specialist?

>>14845924
bakunin - marxism freedom and the state

>>14845924
Read Main Currents of Marxism by Leszek Kołakowski.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Marxism

>>14846002
>Schumpeter - "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy"
Doesn't he end up begrudgingly admitting that Marc was right?

>>14845924
Sowells book is very good.

Hayek's Road to Serfdom completely annihilates Marxism as well.

>>14846002
>no road to serfdom
>no basic economics
Otherwise a decent list of books, good job.

>>14846474
yeah but the meaning of concepts change every now and then, there are no "tailor made" concepts that can't be applied literlly no anything else.

i think you are trying to say that Hegel and Marx take quite different ways to philosophy about history and i agree,
but you may have to agree with me that Hegel didn't have just "abstract idealist" notions of history.
they aren't the same
but then, how different they are?

>>14846516
you don't have to
what argument do you need?
Weber never tried to refute Marx, he's seen mostly as a revisionist or a complementary force.

Hayek is just trash, no more words needed.

Karl Popper was a great philosopher of science, but got everyone else wrong.

Marxism falls for his own weight, there is almost no need for direct refutation. it just run off steam and time proved it wrong, stil admirable what a few guys made out of some england economist, german philosophers and french socialists.

can't speak for the others as i've never directly read them.

>>14846714
Hayek is really bad, seriously, you want something good?
read Polanyi, published the same year

>>14846821
>Polanyi
Foudn him extremely boring.

Hayek's arguments are too good not to read. Anyone who thinks they are a socialist should seriously read Hayek, he probably has the best refutation of socialism ever.

>>14846845
he doesn't have a basis for his arguments though
Polanyi does

Marx is wrong because he is materialist. First of all value is not based on labor nor subjective desire it is objective and true value is outside of the material realm and in the spiritual realm.

>>14847138
Are you talking about some form of Platonism where desires exists outside of space and time as an abstract object?

>>14845924
None. He was literally right about everything
>>14846002
All retroactively refuted by Marx. Sad really.

>>14846912
What books have you read by Hayek?

>>14847150
Kind of. Except flip it around. Matter is actually just an abstract concept for describing conscious experience including thoughts about sensory experience as well as the experience itself. For instance shape is not a part of reality it is a thought but matter is a conception that can be used to explain shape, inertia, color etc.

But basically true reality is entirely within consciousness.

>>14847186
Sorry I meant shape is not part of the physical world.

Marxism has disproven itself with its prediction of the future.

There are nonetheless endless amounts of interesting and insightful analysis in Marx' work that still hold up today, and are essentially what keeps post-marx marxist going.

Somebody like Adorno for example, clearly does not follow marxist tenets, but the anaylsis of modern society provided by Marx fuels his work strongly.

The same is true for many conservative or right-wing or capitalist authors of course. Even if a certain teleological framework (of history) is disproven, there is still enough space to make a vast amount of good points, no matter the orientation.

>>14847163
Which of those books have you read?

>>14845924
the first chapter of pic related.

>>14847163
>He was literally right about everything
>All retroactively refuted
>sources cited: 0
>arguments made: 0

At least we now know how much education six figures worth of debt buys you.

>>14847304
>leftists are sensitive and here are my sources
>

>>14846723
roads isn't about marxism

>>14847932
Plenty of critique of socialism as Marx saw it in it

>>14846002
The arguments in several of those books against marxism rely on premises that contradict one another. Not all of them can be successful refutations of Marxism. Did you just google "anti marxist books" and write down everything you found?

>>14847817
>hasn't read it and doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>14846477
>Dear Sir [Karl Marx]

>I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep & important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge, & that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of mankind.

>I remain Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin

Letter dated 1 October 1873

>>14845924
Contemporary anthropology btfo a lot of Marxist assumptions

>>14848267
this. per Kaczynski. Kaczynski is the final end of Marxism. Kaczynski is the ultimate materialist, and totally proves that the rational prediction and control of society is impossible, and it's evolution is subject to the same autonomous forces as in biology.

>>14848264
This is a cope, as it does not refute the point. Clearly what was meant by posting the book is that Karl Marx created his ideas with the premise that human nature didn't exist and was instead just a manifestation of social dynamics. This is contrary to what we know of evolution and natural instincts today.

>>14846912
>he doesn't have a basis for his arguments though
You mean Polanyi? I completely agree, he's a hack.

>>14846474
What the fuck does that even mean? Your posts read like your whole knowledge of Hegel and Marx ends at Wikipedia articles.

>>14846686
Another wikitard. Are you anons Destiny fans perchance?

>>14847138
Marx is explaining economic value in a capitalist society. You're equivocating.

>>14848510
>Karl Marx created his ideas with the premise that human nature didn't exist
Wrong, he explicitly writes that it does exist. Read Marx and try again in a year.

>>14846002
>Pooper
This Popper has been for years, not exactly a stone against which one stumbles, but a troublesome pebble that I must continually nudge from the path, in that he is constantly pushed upon me by people who insist that his work on the "open society and its enemies" is one of the social science masterpieces of our times. This insistence persuaded me to read the work even though I would otherwise not have touched it. You are quite right to say that it is a vocational duty to make ourselves familiar with the ideas of such a work when they lie in our field; I would hold out against this duty the other vocational duty, not to write and to publish such a work. In that Popper violated this elementary vocational duty and stole several hours of my lifetime, which I devoted in fulfilling my vocational duty, I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap. Every single sentence is a scandal, but it is still possible to lift out a few main annoyances.

1. The expressions "closed [society]" and "open society" are taken from Bergson's Deux Sources. Without explaining the difficulties that induced Bergson to create these concepts, Popper takes the terms because they sound good to him[he] comments in passing that in Bergson they had a "religious" meaning, but that he will use the concept of the open society closer to Graham Walas's "great society" or that of Walter Lippmann. Perhaps I am oversensitive about such things, but I do not believe that respectable philosophers such as Bergson develop their concepts for the sole purpose that the coffeehouse scum might have something to botch. There also arises the relevant problem: if Bergson's theory of open society is philosphically and historically tenable (which I in fact believe), then Popper's idea of the open society is ideological rubbish . . .

2. The impertinent disregard for the achievements in his particular problem area, which makes itself evident with respect to Bergson, runs through the whole work. When one reads the deliberations on Plato or Hegel, one has the impression that Popper is quite unfamiliar with the literature on the subject--even though he occasionally cites an author. In some cases, as for example Hegel, I would believe that he has never seen a work like Rosenzweig's Hegel and the State. In other cases, where he cites works without appearing to have perceived their contents, another factor is added:

3. Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says. Through this emerge terrible things, as when he translates Hegel's "Germanic world" as "German world" and draws conclusions form this mistranslation regarding Hegel's German nationalist propaganda.

>>14846114
I'm probably in the 1% and still advocate for Marxism.

>>14849173

you're the only kind of people that do

Fire in the Minds of Men
Hibbing's Predisposed
The Economoc Decline of Empires
The Economics of Control
The Problem of Political Authority
Bertrand De Jouvenel
The Quest for Cosmic Justice and Vision of the Anointed
Red Famine
Fukuyama's Trust
Totalitarianism and Political Religion
Democracy: The God that Failed
The Opium of the Intellectuals
Choice, Contract, Consent
Bernstein - Against the Gods
Incerto
The Totalitarian Temptation
Contours of the World Economy
Carl Schmitt
The Great Leveler
A Farewell to Alms
Charles Tilly
Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are

Historical Marxism is self-refuting, any material examination of history will make you realize how retarded Marx's conclusions were

>>14845924
Marx was a wizard, he can not be proven wrong

Hayek's The Road to Serfdom is not only the best, but it had influenced Thatcher who influenced Reagan then Gorbachev so much. This book changed the course of history for good.

As for me, I'm not impressed by its arguments anymore. There are no free markets. Big cats always fix prices and form all sorts of cartels.

>>14846002
>Bohm Bawerk
Completely btfo by Bukharin

>>14845924
Schopenhauer retroactively refutes Marxism by refuting Hegel

Imperium - Yockey

>>14849182
Your time will come.

There can be only one.

"Let us remind ourselves again that our task is to see, not to evaluate. Where we are seeing, however, it could be objected that we are, perhaps, occupying ourselves with entirely obscure distractions, or minor matters that have become irrelevant, such as that the man in armour was perhaps worth more than the one with the rifle. Life passes over such objections as not worth bothering with, and heroic realism has the task to affirm itself despite, or perhaps even because of them.
The issue for us – as has already been said in several places – does not concern the old or new, the issue is not even one of means or instruments. The issue is rather that of a new language, which is suddenly spoken, to which man responds, or he remains silent – and this is decisive for his reality.
This Other is the great surprise, triumph or death, which life always holds in readiness. It surfaces at certain points and radiates an enchanted circle of annihilation, to which we succumb or which we are able to overcome. The clatter of looms in Manchester, the rattle of the machine guns at Langemarck – these are signs, words and phrases of a prose that is for us to decipher and master. We abandon ourselves if we think this can be ignored, or think it meaningless and have nothing to do with it. What matters is to work out the secret, the mythical commandment, today, as at all times, and have it serve as a weapon. What matters is to have mastery of this language.

If we understand ourselves on this, we need no further word. We also agree therefore that man’s power of surveillance, the highest form of the chase, promises a special quarry, especially in our own time. Critique, unbounded doubt, the unremitting tireless work of consciousness, have brought about a condition which allows for the unimpeded observation of the critic who is nevertheless too preoccupied to see the elemental. We come to see that men are not significant where they hold themselves to be so – in their complex dispositions – but where they are without complexity.
To serve Ahasverus, we would not lead him into libraries where the books are stacked one above the other – or, if we were to lead him there, it would only be to show him how the books are bound, what titles we like and how the visitors are dressed. It is better to take him into streets and squares, into houses and yards, onto aeroplanes and underground trains – the places where humanity lives, fights or amuses itself; in brief, where man is at work. The gesture with which an individual opens and browses his newspaper is more telling than all the lead articles of the world, and nothing is more informative than a quarter of an hour standing at a traffic junction. What, then, could be simpler or even more boring than the automatism of traffic – but is this not also a sign, an image of how the man of today has started to move according to silent and invisible commands?"

>>14849532
"This living realm acquires a clarity, a self-evidence, at the same time, a growing naïveté, an innocence, with which we make our way through this place. But the key to a different world is hidden here.
Now the question arises, whether behind the masks of time there is no more to be found than the death of the individual, which stiffens the facial expression and which, in essence, means no more than, and painfully, the break between two centuries. For this break at the same time indicates the last breath of the old soul, whose dissolution began earlier, with the end of universal classes and before the appearance of the absolute person."

>>14845980
You should write yourself off as a pseud.

There are hundreds of books written to counter Marx by libs and other right leaning people. As for actual good criticisms look up neoclassic economic models, Popper as cited by other anons and also there's a ton of left anarchist literature where Marx is not so welcome.
To refute Marxism you gotta be a bit more specific, there are various currents.
For the cunts that bring up m-muh gulags, nobody sane in their head thinks that's Marxism.

>>14849182
There are plenty of comrades from the working class.

>>14846002
the past 100 years of liberalism only prove marx right

>>14849546
Nothing wrong with being a pseud. if the workers ever take hold of the means of production then I'll be emancipated, and it wont really matter if I have read Marx. If it never happens well then who cares

>>14849398
>no follow up argument
As expected

>>14845924
Just read some of Nietzsche's books
or read Max Stirner

>>14849797
Ironic coming from the likes of you

All kinds of materialism were already refuted retroactively by Berkeley.

>>14849480
>t.

>>14849573
>working class.
Putting in 15 hrs per week at Starbucks doesn't make you working class.

For all the seething marxists in this thread who are dismissing Sowell's book without having read it, it's not what you think. Yes he critiques Marx, but he also spends a considerable number of pages defending him and debunking a lot of strawmen directed at Marx's work. It's a very balanced book.

>>14849315
although his thesis was also disproven by history

>>14845924
If you want non-capitalistic «refutations » of marxism (or rather, new perspectives that overcome it as a modern historical manifestation), read guys like Foucault, Barthes and Lyotard. They lay down new ways to do history/philosophy by thinking about discourse, narrative, statement («énoncé» in french), and knowledge, to mention a few, that shows the limits of many modern theories like marxism.

>>14848651
Dear God, what a load of pretentious trash. You denigrate and project your own perverse interpretations while waffling a load of pure shite.

>>14850690
add D&G to this

>>14850549
This is the bedt post ITT
Commies don't even read Marx tho
Just propaganda from college professors and fucking vox.com

>>14849573
Lel no. They're Trustafarians and baristas

>>14845924
You can refute it with simple logic and common sense. Basically, Marxism is a utopian fantasy where workers magically cooperate together without any conflict to create a utopian society where everyone is entitled to their "fair share". The basis for the philosophy is all problems in the world are economic related.

If you think about it, the whole idea of people magically cooperating together like that is ridiculous. Anyone who's ever worked in the real world before knows the horrors of office politics: workers backstabbing, workers not giving a fuck about other workers, etc. Many people commit robberies and burglaries, often with violence involved. Some people resort to crime even when there's economic opportunity. Marxists blame all of this on capitalism but the reality is bad people are bad people. Blaming it on the system is just a copout.

Now imagine a hypothetical scenario where a communist revolution happens in the US. How would you prevent it from going wrong and turning into hellhole? You can't because there's no way for you to filter out the violent and psychopathic people. It was the same problem that plagued all the communist regimes in the 20th century. Don't blame it on capitalism because committing genocide is a conscious act committed by the people in power.

Give people unchecked power in any system and they very likely will abuse it. There's no way that humanity, having warred with each other constantly and killed off all other hominids, would change its natural instincts without undergoing further evolution.

>>14850068
God I want her to dominate me

>>14845924
read Marx

>>14845924
The best one I know that exposes why marxist governments must be authoritarian and opressive in order to have at least some productivity but still there's never enough, and why the best solution for the problems these systems create is more freedom of the markets, and social freedom for consumers. It's a fictional novel, but it's great for normies to understando some basic economics that refute marxist ideology.