/lit/ - Literature

Nope, there isn't

>>19851724
He's useful, in part because he's completely unfalsifiable.

Like, I was even thinking of Marxist analysis concerning capitalism's devolution into fascism, according to which capitalists, after causing economic turmoil as a result of exploitative economic policies, scapegoat various minorities as being the cause of said turmoil.

This is exactly what's happening in the US, except against whites. The economy has been gutted and everyone is suffering. The capitalists, in turn, have built an entire ideology, i.e. white privilege and systemic racism, around blaming whites for the failures of everyone else when, in fact, these failures are a result of out-sourcing, wealth inequality, and so on, especially in light of the fact that whites are suffering too.

>>19851786
>I was even thinking of Marxist analysis concerning capitalism's devolution into fascism, according to which capitalists, after causing economic turmoil as a result of exploitative economic policies, scapegoat various minorities as being the cause of said turmoil.
But that's neither what Marxists said, nor what fascism is.
The idea of "fascism is capitalism in decline" was an outright lie that was created by Marxist intellectuals after Mussolini rose to power. Since he was their enemy, they assumed HE HAD TO BE a capitalist, and accused him to be a puppet of the bourgeois, but any reading about that time period reveals these was all fan fiction and propaganda.
Mussolini was just a socialist that had realized that an international worker revolution would never happen, and that a national based revolution was the correct path to a fully functional socialism.
Race didn't enter the equation of the fascist party until 1938, a full 16 years after they rose to power, and only as a token friendly move to get closer to Germany.
Fascism is a quintessentially Italian ideology, and since Italians don't share a clear common race, the idea that fascism is rooted in racism is pure lunacy, derangement of the left.

>>19851786
>The capitalists, in turn, have built an entire ideology, i.e. white privilege and systemic racism,
That's an invention of marxists, you dumb fucking retard. Scholars who came up with these dumb concepts are neither capitalists nor funded by them.

>>19851807
>Mussolini was just a socialist that had realized that an international worker revolution would never happen, and that a national based revolution was the correct path to a fully functional socialism.
Hitler's nazi party had similar origins too. It was initially some worker's party that split from a marxist one.

>>19851807
>Race didn't enter the equation of the fascist party until 1938, a full 16 years after they rose to power, and only as a token friendly move to get closer to Germany.
tell that to the Libyans lmao

>if you just "accelerate" capitalism and go authoritarian, you will end up with socialism
Marxists are the most smoothbrained faggots on this planet. They literally have no idea what they even want.

>>19851834
Brutality in a regime =/ racist thought
Propaganda from the state encouraged to welcome the Ethiopian colony, and how the Italians would free the poor black slaves from the Negus.
Of course, it was propaganda, but it shows the mentality was not one of instigation of racial hate.

>>19851724
Envy. Envy never changes, and Marx was all about telling the envious that they were right.

>>19851902
They refuse to imagine what kind of society they want so different marxists end up different things. You have lenin with his state capitalism thing. You have Italian autonomists with their crypto anarchism. You have mussolini with his fascism. Then there are accelerationists. Other than hating capitalism, there's not much substance in their ideology. They have no definite goal other than some vague "free association of individuals" that none of them believe in anyway. They have no restriction on strategies because anything goes under the banner of achieving the vague goal of communism. This is the primary reason they'll never succeed in whatever it is that they want.

>>19851918
they expelled half the population of Cyrenaica and resettled their towns and cities with Italians the year after they took power. and then there was the ethnonationalist irredentism in the balkans, and maybe some other stuff i'm not familiar with. they already had their own ideology of lebensraum from the beginning, and lies to colonial subjects doesn't change that

>>19851724
>Is there any hack philosopher more overrated than Marx?
Engels is far worse than Marx, it's not even close. Only leftists who are bearable to read are Mao and Stalin.

>>19851955
>GRAMSCI: The significance of mass emigration of workers is this: the capitalist system, which is the dominant system, is not capable of giving food, housing and clothing to the population, to a not insignificant part of this population which is forced to emigrate …
>ROSSONI: So the nation must expand in the interests of the proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1925/05/speech.htm
Point being there was economic motives for the Italian Colonialism and Italian Imperialism. Also the fact that Italians wanted to 'show off' their power to Europe(Europeans didn't appreciate it) and redeem themselves from the First Italo-Ethiopian war. What can I say? Men back then liked going to war. It's no use moralizing over it.
Italian Imperialism, as bloody as it was had progressive effects on the Economic and Social relations in Ethiopia, which was backwards and feudal. Quit moralizing.

Read Marx's 'The Future Results of British Rule in India'.

>>19851988
>Read Marx's 'The Future Results of British Rule in India
Is this where he argues British rule was a good thing for Indians?

>>19851955
Wrong, but nice try.
80 000 people died in cyrenaica during the fascist colonial period.
Some historians quickly dismissed it as an ethno genocide, but it was Graziani killing civillians to halt the rising lybian indipendent movement. It wasn't about lebrensaum, nor any shit like that, it was just Mussolini basically telling one of his general to do whatever the fuck he wanted as long as the rebellion disappeared.
Keep in mind I'm not defending these actions, it was genocide, and Graziani is a war criminal that should have been processed together with the nazis, I'm just clarifying that there is no evidence nor reason to believe these massacres were racially motivated, rather they were "payback" for the attempted resistence in cyrenaica.
>By 1934, Libya was fully pacified and the new Italian governor Italo Balbo started a policy of integration between the Libyans and the Italians, that proved fully successful
https://www.liquisearch.com/history_of_libya_as_italian_colony/mussolini_and_libya

>>19852015
He claims it would supplant a industrial consciousness and that this will create progress in the area, which is progressive because it will destroy the traditions and backward nature of India for the next progressive stage. No matter how brutal it might be, he supports it.

>>19852036
Lol instead brits actually codified their traditions and made sure they don't change their administrative techniques. They were the first rulers of India who formalized the caste system and assigned ranks/tasks based on caste.
The whole subcontinent devolved into barbarism because of low literacy rates maintained by brits and continuous avoidable famines.
They were better off westernizing on their own like Japan.

>>19852070
*made sure they don't change through their administrative techniques

>>19851988
every Gramsci quote i find out about confirms my dislike for him more and more
also Marx had no idea how the British didn't liberate Indians from feudalism but actually introduced them to new forms of bonded labour instead of proletarianization, and also dropped his stageist views of "primitive accumulation" in Capital

>>19852036
why was Marx such a heartless bastard

>>19852070
the British also destroyed native industry like in Bengal, while chaining the natives and forcing them back into the countryside to grow cash crops for them

>>19852090
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm

>>19852019
the Senussiya were a minor sect in the mountains, and all of the primary sources for their atrocities comes from Italian colonialists themselves

>>19852036
I just don't understand where this view of backward Indians being cavemen throwing javelin at 18th century brits come from. They were kicking ass with rockets and this compelled brits to fund rocket artillery research. Sure there was caste system but it wasn't any less retarded than aristocratic bullshit in Europe(in fact recent historical scholarship shows that castes were actually fluid before British raj).

>>19852115
Yes, the killings are recorded, there is just no evidence or mention that any of that was racially motivated.
It's quite clear from the situations that it was just the hand of a brutal regime suppressing a rebellion.

>>19852118
It was also connected to the larger Islamic world which was advanced than European backwaters until 18th century

>>19852070
Kinda a over-simplification, we do know that even before the British period, the concepts of caste "purity" and endogamy were not alien to the Indian masses. But the English did bring a rabid Economic change and developments, which is what matters. Marx also openly mocks and criticizes the traditional indian culture as being despotic and full of primitive mysticism. Most importantly however is what he writes in the ending portion. The quotation of interest;

“England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution."

He states that British influence in India is causing a revolution within their society, which within Marxist theory means economic development, which Marx obviously sees as positive. As a necessity of historical materialism.

>>19851724
>he's modern Jesus and his works are modern Bible
Couldn't have said it any better. There is an attraction among his "bourgeois" for extremist thinking, and, by radicalization, believe are apart of an elite subculture that venerates meaning and substance in contrast against the supposed rich they believe they are fighting against. They are akin to the Christians of old, and instead of philosemitism, they venerate materialism.

>>19852152
>But the English did bring a rabid Economic change and developments, which is what matters
They just built infrastructure to extract resources. They destroyed traditional industries and forced Indians to either dig mines or grow cash crops. India wasn't industrialized at all.

>>19852090
Beforehand, he does use a lot of moralistic rhetoric to appeal to peoples' sense of decency about how bad and exploitative the English are to the indians. There's no more to this than just rhetorical appeals though, since Marxists obviously reject the idea of morality because it's a creation of the capitalist superstructure that aids in maintaining capitalism. It’s a very violent movement.

>>19852152
What a fucking retard.

>>19852185
It doesn't fucking matter because he's factually wrong about everything here.

>>19851828
Socialism has been co-opted by the left, but fascism is just non-bioleninist socialism.

>>19852177
>They just built infrastructure to extract resources
Still progressive.
>They destroyed traditional industries.
The whole point is to bring the economy to a cosmopolitan nature which would be mercantilism, “national industries” are irrelevant to the market so newer industries that focused on mass consumption was more efficient for both parties. The British also sought out to educate the Indians in British modes of thought and stamping out cultural practices such as sati—the practice of immolating a widow on the death of her husband.

>>19852230
>Still progressive.
Very progressive that they do all the slave work to build Glasgow or London

>The British also sought out to educate the Indians in British modes of thought and stamping out cultural practices such as sati—the practice of immolating a widow on the death of her husband.
Sati was a minor practice performed by certain castes and most cases localized in one particular area, and brits only banned it under pressure from Indians. Their policy isn't to interfere in local traditions unless they're forced to. I've already mentioned how they actually strengthened traditional caste system.
If brits were educating Indians, their literary rates wouldn't be that abysmal when India gained independence. They only educated upper caste Indians so that they can team up with brits to carry on the subjugation and extract resources.

>>19852177
British rule brought Western technologies that improved medicine, transportation and logistics, warfare, and production of goods. They had to build it up from the ground up to their standards to reek any benefits that a national economy (Like Feudalism) could not do, this is typical.

>>19852230
>>19852152
This is the reason no one takes marxoids seriously.

>>19852152
>He states that British influence in India is causing a revolution within their society, which within Marxist theory means economic development, which Marx obviously sees as positive. As a necessity of historical materialism.
not even. and this was still just a one-off newspaper article that he wrote without knowing much about the situation, as he later did when researching and writing Capital and rightfully repudiating the so-called "progress" of colonialism espoused by bourgeois political economists

>>19852295
Brits took control of India in fucking 18th century. Colonization of India was vital to industrial revolution in Britain. Technological explosion only happened in 19th century. India wasn't a total backward country with oogas boogas. Colonization did more damage than anything good. It's better for any country to industrialize on their own.

>>19852320
He didn't. He always maintained that colonization is a progressive force.

>colonization is actually good for the colonized
I expected better from commies

>>19852358
this illiterate take would be a mighty convenient smear for anti-communists

>>19852396
Marx is illiterate. Everything he said is wrong.

>>19852230
India already had something similar to mercantilism. They even had their own version of Jews. They had banking and complex network of trading. I mean Europeans had nothing to offer to them in exchange for spices and luxury goods so instead they were forced to pay in gold/silver and hence the rush for precious metals.

>>19852421
i'll take your word for it
here's some wrong stuff to read on a lunch break or whatever while shaking your head:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

>>19852486

Dear dummy: me working as an accountant for Apple and them making a profit is not them benefiting from the excess value of my labor. If I so the exact same job at Motorola and they lose 2% that quarter it doesn't mean I am exploiting them. Because there is no correlation between labor, value and profit

>>19851813
the ideas may have originated in academics, but at this point they are merely tools for capitalists to sell "wokeness" as a commodity, and it wouldn't be as ubiquitous if not for this. this is why it permeates all media these days: it sells

>>19852522
>Because there is no correlation between labor, value and profit
there is, it's called capital, and marx even wrote a book on that with the exact same name

>>19852540
and of course you can't exploit them, your labour exists only so far as your own individual subsumption into the social totality of capital

>>19852540

>there is

Nope! I can do the exact same job at three different companies with three different outcomes for value and profit, yet my labor was. consistent. You will learn this if/when you enter the workforce (unlike Marx)

>>19852592
Read Micheal Heinrich's introduction to capital or science of value. No one said value is proportional to labor expended. Marx's labor-value framework is convoluted mess and it's supposed to explain the workings of capitalism, not his opinion on labor.

>>19852627

>No one said value is proportional to labor expended

Oh so they aren't correlated; capitalists AREN'T collecting the excess value of my labor.
Good to know.

>>19852641
They are correlated but not proportional. He Introduces the concept of abstract labor for a reason. Concrete labor expended by an individual producer doesn't matter in capitalist market exchange.

>>19852592
that really doesn't refute marx at all. a big point of his critique of vulgar bourgeois economy is that labour becomes more and more alienated from value with more complicated variables and magnitudes owing to increasing industrial division, and that's especially in the case of monopoly tech corps
>>19852627
heinrich's intro is lame like all of them, i dropped it. don't remember my grievances with it though

>>19852641
Why do you hate democratic control of workplace and democratic management of profits? Why do you want to be babysit by capitalists?

>>19852654
btw your "work" exists on the back of miners and sweatshop workers in peripheral countries, and you take part in pocketing the real value created by them through your "wages"

>>19852654

>labour becomes more and more alienated from value with more complicated variables

They have little to do with each other. If the demand for oranges goes up, allowing me to widen my profit margin, my labor at the fruit stand did not somehow become more valuable. Marx's idea became obsolete a long time ago, and only the unemployable see them as still relevant.

I run a cloud managed services company with remote workers. should they seize their own laptops (the means of their production)? Marx was wrong, and now he is obsolete.

>>19852662

>democratic management of profits

Because that is suicide for a business's strategic growth. How would you, Joe Janitor, calculate the viability of an two year R&D investment?
Give me specifics.

>>19852694
Why would a janitor do that shit lol
People relevant for that job will do that job. No one jew has to own everything.

>>19852684
idc about your small business with unproductive "workers" who create no real value and only exists to funnel fictitious capital through a complicated apparatus of banking separating you from your real industrial capitalist masters while handing fake jobs out to lumpens and petty bourgeois

>>19852720

>democratic management of profits

>>19852729

we built a system that provided remote access to healthcare for immunocompromised people during the pandemic while you seethed about Jeff Bezos's stock price on a discussion forum for owners of autistic pets.

>>19851724
There is.

>>19852744
congrats
i don't follow the stock market

>>19851724
Marx is highly underrated (c) Murray Rothbard

>>19851786
Retard, the American working class paid to make the whole world a better place from Europe to SEA to Argentina.

>>19851828
>It was initially some worker's party that split from a marxist one.
this is the most obvious bait - or the most retarded take ever - from this thread.
the four founders of Drexler's German Worker's Party - which Hitler usurped - all had backgrounds in organizations like the Thule Society, the Aldeutscher Verband, or other affiliated volkisch-nationalist groups. there was no trait of marxist socialism in their origins. if you're claiming the origin of the DAP of Germany is the same as the DAP of Austria-Hungary, then you'd still be wrong, since the latter was formed just to further minority rights in German Bohemia (ie what would later become the Sudetendeutsch).

The problem with Marx and Marxism is the same issue that plagues all ideologies and all Western inventions in the modern world: arrogance. Marx interpreted very specific historical circumstances and material conditions and applied that to a universal analysis of political economy. To this day most people presume that economics are the most vital thing in the world while ignoring all the values and philosophies which continue to sustain capitalism far after most socialist countries collapsed. He was a notoriously arrogant person and his ideas only became a religion because humanity was desperate for an alternative to the soul-crushing industrial despair of capitalism. It’s hard to thing of anything more chauvinistic than thinking your specific analysis of the economy is the ultimate truth of humanity and everyone must accept it, even though most Marxists themselves today care more about trannies and black people than economics

>>19851724
Marx isn't a philosopher. didn't even read the rest of your post.
>Where speculation ends — in real life — there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence.
>>19851786
fascism isn't when "minorities are scapegoated". your inventions are unrelated to Marxism
>>19851807
>The idea of "fascism is capitalism in decline"
fascism is not capitalism declining but capitalism progressing
>Since he was their enemy, they assumed HE HAD TO BE a capitalist
that's just your retarded supposition because you don't understand what distinguishes proletarian position in the class struggle from the bourgeois one. back to books with you
>>19851828
it's the basic characteristic of fascism that it's a bourgeois reaction against the communists organizing the working class against capitalism. so it's very obvious why the first thing fascism does is it presents itself as a movement for workers and tries to organize workers itself, dragging them away from the influence of actual socialists.
the end point of this are regime trade unions, completely under the control of the bourgeois state, and the virtual absence of any independent unions. which is also the situation in today's democratic bourgeois states: in this respect (and others) they've also been fascisized.

Good to see everyone is still falling for low quality bait threads

>>19854104
>the same issue that plagues all ideologies and all Western inventions in the modern world
Must plague you as well, to make such a sweeping claim.

>>19854191
It’s not an arrogant claim to anyone who actually has a system of belief outside the western paradigm and beyond politics.

>>19851724
yes, all other philosophers

>>19854162
>fascism is not capitalism declining but capitalism progressing
Except it isn't , unless you mean as a consequence of capitalism, but in that case marxism is also capitalism progressing.
The second part of your post is honestly ridicolous, telling me I don't understand something without actually having any counter argument just shows you have nothing of value to say.