/lit/ - Literature

>>5301949
You START with Theses on Feuerbach, Critique of Gotha Programme, Socialism: Utopian and scientific.

Then Condition of the Working Class in England 1844, Family private property and the state, value price and profit.

Then come back and ask again.

>>5301955
Sounds like the stuff Karl explained in chapter III, "Socialist and Communist Literature"

but okay I trust you /lit/, will get on those

>>5301962
Manifesto isn't a great read. Nor is it particularly useful in developing proletarian praxis.

What do you guys think of this piece?

>>5301955
>>5301962
just read These on Feuerbach and taking advantage of /lit/ to ask questions:

In reductionist terms, can Feuerbach, and Materialsm, be seen as a sort-of bridge between what Marx describes as "German or 'True' Socialism" and Marxism?

>>5301949

You read everything else Marx wrote, silly. It's mostly straightforward.

>>5302006
Yes, materialism was an intellectual bridge for german intellectuals. But does that make materialism necessary for the class to develop its revolutionary consciousness?

This is the next step if you want to really get into the thick of: http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

Decidedly the best orthodox reading of the Marx that is in 'Marx'-ism. There are other Karls to speak of, but not necessarily all of them have much to do with the -ism.

>>5302043
Yes, because knowledge of the philosophical and historical progress of revolutionary thought as well as the bourgeoisie and it's attempts to eradicate revolutionary ideas is necessary to the communist in his/her endeavor to aid the proletariat?

I guess?

In which case I do have lots of pre-Marx reading to do

After reading Marx other stuff I've come to wonder why he thought the manifesto was a good idea, or why we still have students read it. I mean it has absolutely no substance on its own and when you compare it to German ideology or capital I mean holy shit.

Read on what organization he wrote the manifesto for. Read about why Marx wrote most of his stuff.

so you can see he was just chandala engaged in rabble rousing. His works are propaganda to stirr up the masses. It's bullshit for the people to get them mad. the man had real philosophical talent, but he squandered it on petty politics.

>>5302068
>is necessary to the communist in his/her endeavor to aid the proletariat?
I'm proletarian.

1) Why do _I_ need German materialism as opposed to introspection on my circumstances of being
2) Why would I take your aid if you are not a fellow proletarian?

>>5302078
Can't answer that.

I'll read more and come back and ask again later I suppose

>>5302085
You can't answer because they're good questions, genuinely good, useful when considering Marx's writings, Thesis 11, the relationship between theory and workers, the relationship between theorists (inside or outside the proletariat) and the proletariat.

The historical works will help, after Socialism, Utopian and Scientific and Critique of Gotha. I gave you the smallest works first ;).

If communism is so good, how come it always fails in practice?

>>5302109
>it always fails in practice?

There are self-sufficient communes in every state and territory in the world, living out true, non-utopian socialism as it was envisioned by Marx. Now, why does it always fail /state-wide/ as it's conceived by a vanguard is another question and probably a more productive one.

>>5302123
>state
>communism

>>5302129
What term would you like to describe the entities occupying the territory Marxism has been practiced universally within?

>>5302143
Perhaps "territory" is too charged as well

Go fish.

>>5302143
>Marxism has been practiced universally within
Would you like to dig this hole deeper for yourself?

Kolakowski himself recognises Stalin's tenuous connection to Marx.

>>5302123
It works in the smaller communes because everybody there voluntarily chooses to be a part of the socialist community.

If it is to work state wide then it needs to be enforced because not everyone will want to work twice as hard to subsidise the lazy and inefficient.

It then breaks down because it is very difficult to enforce and the lack of incentives to work leads to inertia.

I think one of the defining quotes of communism in practice is: "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".

I think we're on the right track with market incentives with a stronger government and growing social redistribution (health care etc).

>>5302183
I actually agree there's little to no co-linearization of desire between the writings (and the stipulations for their implementation) of Marx and any of the "actually existing Marxist 'states'". Both had radically different starting and ending points.

>>5302195
>I think we're on the right track with market incentives.

I want so hard for you to stop thinking this. But I can't really think of anything I could say to convince you to move thought otherwise to it.

>>5302210
That would be an indication that you need to change your thinking.

If you cannot articulate why you feel a certain way about something then you should question why you think this way. It is likely to not be from rational thought or study.

Without incentives, people do nothing. Doesn't mean it always has to be material but it needs to be significant.

The pricing system is also a good allocator of resources on most occasions, in ensuring that people produce what people want, unlike Soviet Russia. Of course, what we want might not be good for everyone e.g pollution causing industries.

>>5302225
>That would be an indication that you need to change your thinking.

Haha, no, no, I was appraising your deluded obstinance from the start, not mine. There's nothing to be said in a space like /lit/ for a topic like this. Already, per its customs, I have begun my address to you through antagonism and radical closure of our potential connection. I am a slave to it, or rather, I am not me to it who is also enslaved. Maybe we could have this talk somewhere, but it's not here, never will, (un)fortunately.

>>5301949
You should read Capital. No, really. You don't need early Marx to understand it, and it's easily the most important thing he wrote.

>>5302195
You fundamentally misunderstand Socialism if you think it removes work incentives. Socialized production increases work incentives, because in Socialized production, the return on your labour is directly related to its value, rather than related to the wage you are paid.

Example. A worker produces, say, 300 dollars worth of goods or services over an eight hour period and is paid at a rate of ten dollars an hour. Ignoring taxes, lets say he is then paid eighty dollars, with the owner of what he used to produce those goods/services covering the production costs of, say, 100 dollars. The excess value of that labour is then 120 dollars, which is appropriated by the Capitalist in question. By contrast, in say a Social Market system, the excess value goes to the worker, which is direct incentive to increase production, because the value of doing so is then immediately apparent.

Half of the United States works in dead end jobs, where the only incentive for them to increase production or provide better service is a desire to move up the ladder at wherever they are employed, and then it really only applies to a minority of people who are either naturally predisposed to succeeding or delusional enough to think the United States has anything resembling economic mobility. The average person does as poorly a job as they can get away with without being fired while looking for opportunities to advance. Market incentives don't filter down to the average worker.

Its a fundamentally broken system, and increases in production can largely be attributed to efficiency in workplace design (Taylorism/Forism) and technological increases.

>>5302260
I guess you're talking about MRP (Marginal Revenue Product) but you're ignoring the market forces which determine wages, the supply and demand for the position in the labour market.

>>5302260
Yes, this is fair, basic, troublesome-for-capitalism sort of writing, and we could go so, so, so much further (has any general theory of political economy been as deep and complicated as Marxism's?) but I'll be damned if anything comes of it other than each side only intensifying their positions.

>>5302268
And you're ignoring the stagnation and decline of wages co-extensive with this anon's described phenomena

>>5302277
What stagnation?

>>5302236
You also decided to write more formally, an indication of insecurity and general lack of argument.

The reality is that Kapital was written almost 150 years ago in an entirely different world. Parts of his argument have been incorporated into modern economic thought (the idea that labour is not paid it's marginal produce) but most of it has been forgotten about due to it's inaccuracy or irrelevance.

The problem is a lot of Marxists have read little except for Marx and those that follow him and think that reading the Wealth of Nations or Marginalism is a good way of learning about modern capitalism or anything that economists do today.

Understanding modern economic thought will require you to become adept at mathematics. It is not something that you can begin to grasp just through literature.

Theories of consumer choice is a good way to begin.

>>5302286
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/wages-arent-stagnating-theyre-plummeting/

Pick literally any graphing of wages, I don't care. You're not going to find any positive trends on the whole.

>>5302295
Oh, I thought you were talking about an actual economic principle. Sigh.

>>5302268
>you're ignoring the market forces which determine wages, the supply and demand for the position in the labour market.

I'm aware of how economic models function, it wasn't the point of my post to address them because well be here all night. I simply wanted to address the idea that Socialized production kills incentive, because its false.

>>5302288
>but most of it has been forgotten about due to it's inaccuracy or irrelevance
>irrelevance

You can say a lot of things of Marxism, but you can't say that it hasn't always been relevant. Capitalism lacks every self-critical reflex to its totalizing effects and at least relies on the wishy-washy "as if people mattered" capitalists to pull from Marx and remind it that it's reckless at every level of society, as well as those who stand outside it.

>>5302198
From this point I'm willing to admit that anarchist and communist workers societies, ie: actual workplace councils, mainly failed due to external military intervention (Commune, 1905, Seattle Soviet, German Revolution, Shanghai Soviet, 1936, 1956, 1968).

Though they can also be internally repressed by new bourgeois (1917-1921, Hungarian 1919).

>>5302260
This is incorrect. The owner of what he used to produce the good is the capitalist. The owner of the means of production. There are two parties.

It is very hard to determine how much each individual worker produces. How much $ worth does a product checker in a factory produce. Wages are then determined arbitrarily and without the pressure to price people's labour appropriately, it breaks down. Capitalism is built on the idea that someone's labour is worth what a capitalist is willing to pay for it. This is efficient but mostly leads to unfair outocmes.

The idea of the socialist system is to replace the capitalist with the state i.e the state owns the means of production. Thereofre excess produce is retained by the state and redistributed back to the community.

It sounds nice, but fails in practice because the state has no incentive to produce what society wants in the most efficient way. The market forces the capitalist to make products people will buy and do it the cheapest way possible. This is how he/she makes money.

The problem is it's unfair, workers get paid shit. That's why you need the state to tax capitalists and create regulations to stop workers from being exploited.

There is more to it but cbf

>>5302297
>sigh

Sorry the despair of millions does not move your being which is seemingly tied up in fetishizing broken, infinitely-variabled models and obscuring violence based on "economic principle."

>>5302320
This is the post 1960 Social Democratic, Centre and Right Labourite, Progressivist and Social Liberal vision of socialism.

The pre-1960 Social Democrat, Left Labourite, Anarchist and Communist vision of socialism is of a "lower" stage of communism where armed mass self-defence by workers councils is still required due to external or internal capitalist armed forces.

These are two very different conceptions of how and why people produce, which incidentally are associated.

>>5302323
>Marxians talking about the despair of millions

>>5302320
It is hardly arbitrary, it is determined by supply and demand on the labour market.

>>5302328
>I'm supposed to be ideologically blinded to my preferred economic theories' horror

I assure you, I mourn both with equal fervor. Still doesn't resolve you of your responsibilities either.

>>5302343
Yeah, but like most of the Marxist butchers, you would kill 10 to save 100. Above one 2. it would be just statistic anyway. Of course, you feel deeply for the fallen.
>top kek

>>5302354
Then I am not like most. What can I say here that won't look reactionary? I will go to bed. Nothing else to say, per usual. These threads are always dreadful whether I watch or participate.

>>5302339
I think history has shown that the labour market equilibrium does not exist if the state is the entity purchasing the labour. It is similar to one large monopoly.

>>5301949
I'd start with more Marx, preferably his Introduction to the Critique of of Hegel's philosophy of right. Then I'd move on to The German Ideology, which is particularly relevant to all the Stirner fanboys out there.

From then on, you're faced with the choice of wether you want to deepen your knowledge of Marx himself, in which case you'll have to dedicate a copious amount of time to reading Capital, or wether you want to broaden your knowledge of marxist thought in general.
In the latter case, I strongly recommend Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man under Socialism, whcih is not really a marxist piece, but helps understand what kind of world marxists want to build.
Anything after that is pretty much up to you, as there are too many different currents to get any consistent picture, so you'll have to pic those you find most appealing. For me, that was the Frankfurt School in general, and Adorno's Minima Moralia in particular.

Read Hegel.

Read Stirner.

Marx & Engels did but they didn't understand it like typical liberals.

>>5302692
I suspect the majority of the people that pretend to have read Stirner on /lit/ are liberal anarchists in the sense of people who directly identify with the ego-ideal of American individualism.

You could go straight into Capital, but I wouldn't recommend it without a couple primers before hand: Ben Fine's Marx's Capital is short but very, very good.

>>5302717
It saddens me that the popular perception is that this is the only kind of egoist individualism. That being said, I'm not a stirner-fag.

>>5302746
>couple primers
>only recommend one
I'm an idiot:
Marxism: For and Against by Heilbroner is also pretty good. He's not a Marxist but he gives a good, fair overview of the major concepts within Capital. It's pretty simplistic, but I think for someone new to Marxist thought this and the Fine book I mentioned previously are good introductions to the concepts most problematic to people new to the topic.

>>5302320
>The idea of the socialist system is to replace the capitalist with the state i.e the state owns the means of production.
There are many socialist systems, some with or without the state. I would not claim that capitalist systems are strictly defined by free markets.

>>5302354
If we are going by what Marx himself would have done, we'd do nothing at all.

Do not think killing 10 to save 100 is strictly Marxist as well.

>>5301949
Although he was a rabid child of stalinism and his view of Marx is deformed by the cold war, Kolakowski's Currents of Marxism, despite the polemical filigree, is still basically un-surpassed and valuable reading for comrades.

>>5301949
Bakunin and the anarcho-syndicalist movement is better. Gotta watch out for states' inherent penchant for violence

>>5302846
Kill yourself with all expedition.

>>5302109
It worked to force capitalist economies to reform themselves to the point of being able to sustain a large and prosperous middle class while fostering an unprecedented level of social mobility.

It's not a coincidence that neoliberalism and the degeneration of western capitalism coincide quite well with the fall of Communism as a serious force in the world.

When people compare communist and capitalist economies of the post-War 20th century they are comparing communism to a kind of capitalism that communism forced into existence. Let's see how the 21st century turns out as western nations start to more closely resemble the Brazil model.

>>5302861
>Keynes was a communist
W-what?

>>5301955
this
too many guys stick with the Manifesto (which is actually the only work by Max/engels I wouldn't recommend if someone wants some serious indepth stuff) and think they're able to undestand/debunk maxism

also, don't be a purist. Read other works too, by more contemporary maxist/post-marxist philosophers. For example frankfurt-school stuff.

Fuck communism!

>>5302869
Keynesian thought and pro-labor policies were embraced because the masses had to be bought away from socialist, which was a real political movement during the first half of the 20th century. Capitalism had to provide a better standard of living than it naturally tends to. It no longer needs to do that and we'll see what happens.

It would definitely have been better to live in a western capitalist nation than a communist nation during the post-War decades. But those capitalist nations were only as good as they were BECAUSE of the threat of communism.

>>5302882
No, Lenin tried it.

>>5302882

>>5302889
What did any of those, except the Shah, do wrong?

>>5302882
epic pic man, we totally respect your opinion on our ideology. :)

>>5302889
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes

>>5302890
Are...are you retarded?

Pinkertons=Violent strike breakers
Leopold II= Read fucking Heart of Darkness
Pinochet= Caravan of Death

>>5302898
Why is it that in the 21st century it is deplorable to call yourself a Nazi, but communism is largely accepted? Is this a reaction against McCarthy?

>>5302890
Do you seriously think shooting at striking workers is an okay thing to do?

>>5302913
Nazism is inherently destructive authoritarian and reactionary, while communism is not a consistent ideology. Seriously, why am I even explaining this to you?

next you read a history of communist russia and then you put communist manifesto in the bin

>>5302911
Pinkertons and Frick were not responsible for the violent strike.
The Congo Free State was not 'bad'.
Pinochet made Chile the most successful nation in South America

>>5302918
I wonder which ideology is also authoritarian and destructive. I wonder which ideology killed more than ten times that of National Socialism.

>>5302926
stalinism, obviously.
So what? Do stalinists represent every communist ?

>>5302932
And Leninists, and Trotskyists, and Maoists and Marxists.

>>5302924
what was pinochet's term of office?

>>5302936
I don't remember Trotskyists being in the ruling position at any point in history, while maoism is stalinism with muh peasants.
And what the fuck, Marxists? really?

>>5302942
It's based on ideology, not practice.

>>5302940
>has never heard of the Miracle of Chile

>>5302951
Yeah it was pretty good once a social democrat government came into power after Pinochet left.

>>5302957
>I don't know economics
Thanks for sharing, Marxian

>>5302849
You'd like that, wouldn't you? Less resistance for when you commie pukes begin to crush the revolutionaries who started the revolution you all hijack. Disgusting

While it is already possible for socialist/communist economic models to exist nationwide or internationally, it remains in doubt whether these models are reliable. What are the typical arguments for/against the reliability of socialist/communist models in national or international scale? Can someone summarize it, or refer me to some books that deal with it? Kinda like >>5302260

if you REALLY wanted to be a dirty, filthy, idiot communist,
you would start by burning all of your books

>>5302691
>Read Hegel.
No.
There is no Aufhebung/sublation in Marx. The contradiction is the law and in effect permanent. It is absurd to think of the Aufhebung when consciousness is in the middle of the struggle. Hence, Aufhebung means nothing other than going back to the starting point. Meanwhile, the concept of Aufhebung is so central in Hegelian thought that rejecting it means rejecting the whole Hegelianism. At least the standard one. Thus, the entire Hegelian system is useless to understand him, or might even obfuscate the understanding (we see this effect in some Zizek's thoughts).

Communism is the Christianity of political systems. Fuck it to hell.

Leszek Kolakowski - "Main Currents of Marxism"
José Guilherme Merquior - "Western Marxism"
Paul Gottfried - "The Strange Death of Marxism"
Roger Scruton - "Thinkers of the New Left"

>>5303260
And Raymond Aron - The Opium of the Intellectuals, for an analysis of Marxists themselves.

>>5302768
But that is not how human nature works. What he wrote resonated with a lot of people, many of whom are very smart and motivated and are men of capabilities. You cannot expect those who had seen all the "injustices" as well as the supposed end-game "correction," to do nothing, especially when Marx had laid out the so-called progression of such "correction." They would try to expedite it, and it is human nature. Many of those who tried may have noble intentions and genuinely care for the people. But in the end, like all processes in nature, if one is to expedited, obstacles must be removed.

It is just how it is. Marx greatest fault was that he had written anything at all.

Anarchism > Marxism

The Lord warns you of making false idols, in hope that you will gain salvation by constructing it with your own hands. You, a being which is defined by your sin, can never redeem yourself. Only in God will you find salvation, for He is the Source.

I think Karl Korsch was a very interesting Marxist writer as well. Wrote from the 30's-50's, wasn't a Trotskyist or a Stalinist.

>>5302924
>The Congo Free State was not 'bad'.
Please explain how mass mutilation, murder and exploitation isn't 'bad.'

>>5303297
Marx believed that the ultimate fate of society was stateless so really the two aren't mutually exclusive.

>>5303235
>There is no Aufhebung/sublation in Marx
of course there is, revolution is the aufhebung of the class antagonism.

>>5301977
^^^^

Did I say something wrong there, or is no one familiar with this?

>>5303124
christ nigga u witless

God, people who hate Marx bring the level of this board down a lot, don't they? It's like there's never one of them here that is even slightly intelligent

>>5303931
What's it about? Do I need to have read Capital to get the most out of it?

>>5303986
Hate? Why hate? Disagree with his ideas sure, but why would you hate him? That's silly.

>>5301955
>>5302055
these two, OP.

>>5303235

The progression through the modes of production is an aufhebung. Aufhebung does not mean "return to start;" it means simultaneously to preserve, to lift, and to cancel. Each successive mode of production is a development of material forces to a new level of productive capacity, but a preservation, in part, of several of the features of the preceding system--the one "grows out" of the other, like a sprout from the trunk of a dead tree.

>>5302109
You mean socialism, of course, but you're still wrong. The USSR only failed after it went full capitalist. China still functions despite having gone full capitalist and will overtake the US, assuming the US doesn't nuke it before then. Cuba is going on quite well for being illegally embargoed by the US, who doesn't mine taking baseball talent from the island but finds it reprehensible to share cancer treatments with them. The Bolivarianist states are also bretty good against the CIA's best attempts. And of course, there's the fact that the European and American powers survived to this point only because they incorporated socialist concessions (a fact that deeply embarrasses the US, of course, which is why they're racing backwards in time to erase all the gains made by labor).
Time to open your eyes, son.

>>5303995
I hate him. He was a demagogue and his seething hatred and resentment for the bourgeoisie was unwarranted. He is a corrupter of the youth and should drink the spiritual hemlock and die forever.

>>5304028
Marxism is a failure.

>>5304040
No, it's been really successful. You just don't know what its aims are (not happiness).

>>5302889
Amazing how if you reverse every /pol/ image around (like this one does) it actually displays the truth.

>>5303169
Every excerpt I read from this book further convinces me that it's the greatest book of the 21st century so far.

>>5304050
>falling for the dialectic this hard

>>5303995
I was just wondering if any Marxist ITT had read it, and if they could put their two cents in about it.
I'm a newb on Marxism, but I bought it a bit ago

Also pictured, but I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy this one.

>>5304040
Clap your hands enough, say you believe, and it'll become true!
>>5304046
Yes, because capitalism produces happiness.

>>5304063
>"I just believe what the TV tells me yes I do."
>another unthinking trip
Wow, what a shocker.

>>5304040
I guess in the sense that we don't live in a Communist society right now, yeah maybe. But history isn't over.

>>5304122
The same can be said for feudalism. Keep on mental masturbating.
>>5304046
underrated post.

>>5304137
Well, no, feudalism was a period of development and societal organisation which turned into capitalism. You can't go back to feudalism, idiot.

>>5303690
Not him, but you're both correct and incorrect. Anarchism and Marxism have the same goal, but not the same means to achieve the goal. Anarchism is libertarian while Marxism is (usually) authoritarian.

>>5304240

>You can't go back to feudalism

Such is the naivete of the vulgar dialectical materialist.

>>5302195

> "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"

Sounds like capitalism to me.

>>5304302
Why are you pseuds always so belligerently so?

>>5304621

Please identify the law of progress that prevents the disintegration of nation-states in the future and their replacement by, for example, corporate entities that are structurally similar to fiefdoms.

Marx was only a determinist in his polemical writings (it is, of course, politically useful to contend that history is on your side). He makes it quite clear in his other work that Socialism and Communism are not inevitable, even though he supposed that Capitalism had a definite expiration date.

>no one has mentioned the Anti-Dühring

>>5304299
The libertarian vs authoritarian split is bullshit, see: http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism

https://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-marxism-few-notes-old-theme

>>5304014
Yes, I understand that. But you missed my point that saying something like that is literally hiding a reactionary intention. Your explanation is what I was pointing at, i.e. getting caught inside the Hegelian system. You're missing one key point that Marx has taught toward all subsequent philosophers or thinkers: That without praxis it's all just thought. An activity called 'thinking' produces 'thoughts' and nothing else.

Hegel's Logic is relational logic. It means, it sacrifices the notion of matter as such, barring it as necessarily conceptual (hence a thought). When I think about 'matter', I think about 'matter' as concept, and therefore my thinking can relate to it.

Regarding the Aufhebung, this is where Hegel failed to get out beyond his system. I repeated my point: How is it possible to think of Aufhebung when you're in the middle of class struggle, which is defined by the law of contradiction? Do tell me how, because if we think of it under this condition, I came to the conclusion that the Aufhebung necessarily points to nothingness, since it's in the future, and any attempts to think it as something other than nothing, this 'something' is a product of your past material experience. This is why it's 'overthrowing', not 'preserving' like you said, if I'm permitted to be a little bit sardonic, sorry.

>>5303713
Ding-ding. The revolution is Nothing, the unthinkable in the Capitalist system.

All those tryhard academics over the last hundred analyzing in excruciating detail the intricacies of Marx's theory (a sham to cover-up his demagoguery), and it's a simple priest that writes the most insightful book about Marx.

People misunderstand Marx in so many different ways.

You have the people who swallow the dumbed down account of him being a "commie" and that's all they know about him.

You have the useful idiots he think he was a hero, a Spartacus, champion of the downtrodden.

You have the academics who view him as a very intelligent and influential man whose theories can be adopted or discarded but who all agree that he's "a very important figure".

The only people that seem to have ever understood Marx are the leaders of the Communist Parties and this one guy, Richard Wurmbrand, apparently: Marx was a psychopath and - you should pay attention here - NONE OF HIS WRITINGS WERE SINCERE, HE DIDN'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE SHIT HE WROTE, he knew full well the EFFECT of his writings, and his writings were all written in code (the exoteric idealism for the useful idiot proletariats, "you get to revenge yourself on the evil bourgeois oppressors!"; and the esoteric true meaning for the Party Members, "you get to rule these idiots as cattle once they willingly give you all their property").

>>5304786
forgot pic

>>5304786
It's also pretty telling that some of the wealthiest and most powerful "capitalists" have been funding Communism/Socialism from the start? Why would they do that if Capitalism and Communism were really at war?

Atheism and hatred of religion is quite a central part of Marxism too. It tends to get downplayed a bit because Marxism is supposed to be about economics and politics, but its hatred of religion is one of its core tenets.
I think the main parts of Marxism are:

- diabolical hatred for and envy of the wealthy
- strict metaphysical materialism (reality is purely material, no spirit) (this feeds into the envy of the wealthy; if there is no spirit then all that matters is this world, which makes wealth of supreme importance)
- a belief in a materialist Kingdom of Heaven, the idea that the key to happiness in this life is the fair distribution of wealth (compare this to all religions or even just the decent ancient philosophers who all say rightly that virtue is the key to happiness, not wealth).

>>5304785

I think you are confusing Aufhebung as a concept that can be used to describe, in abstract, a process, and the material process itself which the term merely designates or attempts to circumscribe. No one need think of Aufhebung to actualize it, just as no one need think of cell division for it to occur.

Your orignial argument was that "there is no Aufhebung/sublation in Marx," which is just factually incorrect. Marx makes full use of the concept, only applied to "material processes" and not the movement of thought or Spirit, as in Hegel.

Your original arguments was that "that there is no

>>5304786
>>5304797

A lot of words about straw men and absolutely
nothing of relevance to Marx's philosophy.

Try reading a book some time, that isn't written by christian fundamentalists.

>>5304860
Marx didn't have a philosophy.

>>5302078
Well, i havent read any german philosophy other than marx, but it seems like german materialism would just point you in the right way. Itd be a guide to say "look the answer doesnt lie in changing this or that but rather in this other thing here. By using historical analysis through materialistic methods we can see that these dilemas are inherent patterns that will never go away unless you change this and that (the roots of the dilemas." And no, people arent going to figure it out by themselves so dont say that you can through your individual introspection. These subjects are supposed to be very complex which would obviously hijder you from finding it out yourself.
I dont know maybe some anon could say it better or completely say something else which is correct (this being wrong). Hope there arent too many kistakes.

OK, I admit, Marx had a philosophy, but he doesn't openly state it in his books. If you want to know Marx's philosophy you'd be better off reading the Talmud.

>>5304875
How so? I'm not being sarcastic. Your point is genuinely interesting.

>>5304680

>Please identify the law of progress that prevents the disintegration of nation-states in the future and their replacement by, for example, corporate entities that are structurally similar to fiefdoms.

Because the evolution of technology as well as the historical political and material conditions that had led to european feudalism are not the same as in any other period that has existed or will exist.

It is you who has fallen to the basest of historicisms.

>>5304881
>>5304875

This is a shitty /pol/ troll, ignore him and his samefagging.

>>5304901
Wut. I'm not Jude.

>>5304897

Technological progress can deteriorate. We have several examples of this throughout history--take a gander at the archeological findings around Tazmania and Eastern Australia, for example. But anyway, I did not argue that we would "return to Medieval Europe." I am arguing that there is nothing about progress itself that prevents the future development of politico-economic corporations that are organized internally in a similar way to fiefdoms and which stand in feudalistic relation to each other. One can imagine very large companies filling in the power vacuum left behind by fallen states, for instance. At this point, the future is wide open.

You guys only hope is to pander to SJWs and lump all oppressed individuals into one economic class and play up how shemales and stuff aren't given jobs because of their bourgeois ascribed status. They don't know shit all about pol pot, they think robert mugabe was kinda cool.

>>5304786
[citation needed]

>>5304875
back to your playpen

>>5304945
I'm amazed how many buzzwords and meaningless shit you fitted into one post? What the fuck are you on about? People are oppressed in all sorts of ways, but class is the meta system that all these other conflicts operate through. Pol Pot was funded by the CIA, he shouldn't even be mentioned in a Marxism thread. Try harder.

>>5304933

Globalised capitalist corporatocracy is miles apart from feudalism or even political oligarchy/aristocracy.

The argument that humanity would return to a pre-industrial level of technology stands only under the scenario of a global disaster. Capitalism collapsing on it's own would not contradict Marx, since the conditions would be just so that there would be a groups powerfull enough to globaly or even localy to change it.

>>5304881
Well Marx is quite in line with a Jewish tradition which seeks for an earthly Kingdom of Heaven where the Jews rule over the goyim (goyim is a pejorative term for Gentile; this isn't an antisemitic fever dream, you can look it up). See, Jesus Christ said that the Kingdom of Heaven is spiritual, and instead of making Jews kings of the world (which is how many of the Jews interpret Messianic prophecies) he died on a Cross. This is why they call him a "disappointing Messiah", and refuse him. They don't WANT a spiritual kingdom, they want an earthly kingdom. Coming from a line of Rabbis, Marx also preaches an earthly kingdom.
It's not hard to see what "Marxism" is if you read between the lines. The blue-eyed goyim will interpret it as a cry for justice in their typical, naive, goyim fashion; the shrewd Rabbis will see it as a subverter of goy civilization, goy religion, goy property, etc., etc., etc.; it's more or less the incitement of the goy masses against their own leaders and their own civilization. That's the formula. Look up how many Jews there were in the Bolshevik party that took over Russia.

Maybe there is a way to write this without coming across as "a shitty /pol/ troll", but I am too tired right now to discover it.
I don't think that Jews are unequivocally evil, it's just that their traditions are unequivocally evil and most of the Jews have been corrupted by that tradition to some extent (the central part of which is this permanent idea drilled into the young Jew's conscience at an early age that Jews are outsiders in the world and will always be apart from the goyim).

Marx isn't totally wrong. Like every good liar he mixes in just enough truth with his lies to make it edible. He is fundamentally a liar though, and that's the point. He's right about the "bourgeoisie" TO AN EXTENT - yes, they (if they even exist anymore, I think it's just a spook now) are corrupt; no, that does not mean we should murder them. Marx appeals to people that see evil in the world; but Marx himself is a cunning wolf and the naive idealists that believe in him or his message are poor dupes.

>>5304970
>Pol Pot was funded by the CIA, he shouldn't even be mentioned in a Marxism thread.

You don't think the CIA is on board with Marxism?

>>5304977
>>5304991

kill yourself

>>5304991
No, the CIA was created to combat the Soviet Union, a 'marxist' state, but would also attack real Marxists, like in South and Central America.

>>5304995
You don't get it. There is no "Capitalism vs. Communism" and there never was. The USA was subverted by the 1960s.

>>5304991
>You don't think the CIA is on board with Marxism?
What the fuck does that even mean? Do you mean they were "on board" with the Soviet Union and other with them aligned foes of the Wes during the Cold War?
Why in the everliving fuck would they be on board something that could nuke them into the stone age anytime?

>>5305016
>but would also attack real Marxists, like in South and Central America.

Probably they just wanted their man as dictator, that's all.

step one) report/hide/ignore the tripshit poster
step two) block the tripshit poster

>>5304977
>implying Christianity isn't trying to realize the Kingdom of Heaven with the Church, literally the anticipation of 'thy Kingdom come'.

>>5305040
How stupid do you have to be to think that the Communists have noble intentions? After time and time again they have been shown to be brutal worshipers of power?
You prove everything the Jews say about goyim being dumb.

>>5304970
>Pol Pot was funded by the CIA, he shouldn't even be mentioned in a Marxism thread.
Your working class is completely cognizant of this.

>>5304977
Leszek Kolakowski claims instead that Marxism is an heir to the tradition of German mysticism, itself a Christianized form of Neoplatonism.

The central core of Neoplatonism as defined by Plotinus is that man has fallen from a state of perfection but he can be purified through "gnosis". Then this thought passed through Eriugena, Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Jacob Bohme, Angelus Silesius and other German mystics until it reached Marx, who just adapted it as "man has fallen thanks to labour alienation but can be emancipated through communism".

Eric Voegelin also links communism to gnosticism but i never actually read him.

>>5304975

I can easily imagine a company, with no external coercive force to prevent it from doing so, instating a type of corvee system, demanding those that work within its political purview to dedicate a certain allotment of hours to the company "gratis" in exchange for squatting rights and access to resources the company owns.

The kind of rigid system of categorization that a crude Marxist framework imposes hinders even the simplest of lateral inferences.

>Capitalism collapsing on it's own would not contradict Marx, since the conditions would be just so that there would be a groups powerfull enough to globaly or even localy to change it.
>just so

And there, you've hit it. It's all one big "just so" story. It's reading teleology into the haphazard convergence of very broad trends. It's just bad history.

>>5301949
>>5301955
OP,

Read Capital by Marx and then Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism (Lenin). That's the most simple way to understand the concepts of, and arguments proposed by modern Communism. Then, go back to Marx and Engels for a more detailed pre-Leninist argument for why it is needed if you so wish.

>>5301949
Read the newspaper and see what a failure communism and liberalism are in general.

>>5301949

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZj1emEb1-g

>>5305216

>>5305222
>>5305216
why is it that stormfags can never say anything for themselves and rely solely on pictures they saved on the internet for their "arguments"

>>5305222
>>5305216
So what?

>>5305089
It sounds like Leszek is making a huge claim there, particularly as this would link not just Marx, but the entire tradition of post-Kantian political philosophy. As for Marx's belief in a "golden age", his claim is only that the end of the Paleolithic saw the introduction of forms of labour which — demonstrably — .introduced for the first time a separation from man and nature, the growth of agriculture affording large populations where "work" and exchange "value" arose. The hypothesis is far from a utopian fantasy. It has been held by the most serious scholars and anthropologists of early human history, particularly in western antiquity.

>>5305229
Cause they are dumb.

>>5305240

The JEWS, dude, don't you GET IT?

>>5305240

>>5305240
The deeper you digg, the more you find about the truth that Jews are behind it.

>>5304831
>but its hatred of religion is one of its core tenets.

Not really as long as a religion conforms to materialism it is 100% compatible with marxist analysis even then you still have those liberation theology chaps. As for the hatred that probably has more to do with the rather important but declining role played by religious institutions during the times of these writers. Hence its anything but a central part of marxism.

>diabolical hatred for and envy of the wealthy

Not really, some of the greatest revolutionaries and left wing writers came from wealth backgrounds or could have been very wealthy and powerful under the existing system. Likewise the marxist analysis can still function *perfectly* without any discussion of justice or related moral concepts.

>strict metaphysical materialism (reality is purely material, no spirit) (this feeds into the envy of the wealthy; if there is no spirit then all that matters is this world, which makes wealth of supreme importance)

It feeds action, as its adherents realize that change must come from human agency and that if they wish to progress society. This is one of the post powerful parts of the ideology as it shatters the illusions of a just world which keeps most people complacent.

>a belief in a materialist Kingdom of Heaven, the idea that the key to happiness in this life is the fair distribution of wealth (compare this to all religions or even just the decent ancient philosophers who all say rightly that virtue is the key to happiness, not wealth).

This seems to be a rehash of your previous point and neglects the aspect of marxist analysis that states that the downfall of capitalism is inevitable (not just something that would be nice) and that happiness and that the communist end game goes far beyond a simple redistribution of wealth or some imposed concept of happiness.

Honestly have you read any of Marxist or left wing literature beyond the manifesto? If so which works were they, because Im curious as to how you got such a warped view of marxism. Its like you have based your view of the a shallow understanding of the USSR and a few conversations with college students.

The main parts of marxism are

-Historical and Dialectical Materialism
-Class struggle
-labour theory of value.

and of these 3 the first two by far outstrip the third.

>>5305257
Far-right religious figure says thing to make his dick feel big - clearly proof of a Jewish conspiracy to run the world.

You know Protocols of the Elders of Zion was Tsarist propaganda, right?

>>5305300
What do the Protocols have to do with Jews openly admitting that non-jews are to serve the G-ds chosen?

What do the Protocols have to do with the fact that the mastermind behind communism was 90% Jewish?

>>5305300

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-xjLa9xrOo

Almost everybody knows of the “original” Protocols of Zion—and their historical background. They were probably complied by Czarist agents towards the end of the nineteenth century as a weapon in their war against the large-scale Jewish Communist uprising which they faced. The Protocols have been derided as a forgery, slander, and lies—yet remain one of the most widely read books in the world on the Jewish Question.

In my new book, I show that it is actually irrelevant if the original Protocols were written by Czarist agents or not. In fact, as I point out, they are in reality a highly predictive work of “fiction”—much like George Orwell’s 1984, or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Although the characters and storyline in both those works are “fiction”, the idea which underlay both those books was most certainly fact. Thus, they were works of “fiction”—just like the Protocols of Zion.

I show that in the case of the protocols, truth is stranger than fiction! For in this illustrated book, I show documents, quotes, photographs and facsimiles of Jewish Supremacist extremism that far exceeds even the assertions contained in the Protocols.

>>5305333

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-xjLa9xrOo

The original Protocols claim Jewish control over international banking. The Illustrated Protocols proves this in both text and illustrations.

The original Protocols claims that the Jewish extremists control the press. The Illustrated Protocols proves this with Jewish headlines and illustrations.

The original Protocols claims that Jewish extremists control major governments. The Illustrated Protocols proves this with illustrations, examples and quotes from leading Jewish Supremacists themselves.

The original Protocols talked about Jewish dictatorship through a tyrannical world government. The Illustrated Protocols quotes the most famous Jew of the 2oth Century, David Ben-Gurion, where he states his vision that the Jews will be worshiped in their world headquarters in Jerusalem, and that Israel will possess the Supreme Court of mankind. Truth is stranger than fiction!

>>5305300
Whoever wrote the original Protocols possessed a remarkable insight into how Jewish Supremacists operated—and because it contains that remarkable predictive power, it remains a resource study for anyone wishing to gain an understanding of the psychology of Jewish Supremacism.

>>5305341
>>5305338
>>5305333
The protocol was written as a satire to make fun of conspiracy retards like yourselves

>Marxism thread
>ends is anti-semitic shit posting

it is 2014
come on people
why is this still happening

I don't know if you guys know this, but many of the original Zionists were Jewish. Hell, Israel is run by the Jews

>>5305361
anti-semetism has been around for literally millenia, its not going to go anywhere

>>5305361
>>5305359
>I know, I'll post "xD stormweenies!"
>That'll show them

>>5305361

>Communism happens
>Why is it all Jews behind it?

its 2014
come on people
why do Jews still exist

>>5305370
but a cliche this blatant? I thought even idiots were self aware enough to avoid that
>>5305379
when you /pol/ shut in jackasses start a fascist paramilitary group and start hanging people on meathooks, maybe I'll bother to start arguing with you. Until then you're harmless children that barely even warrant memearrows

>>5305243
Yes, but his claim that this separation is the origins of contingent social structures he associates with labour alienation, as religion and violence has been empirically falsified by discoveries like Gobekli Tepe, that proves religion predates civilization and agriculture.

>>5305389
>but a cliche this blatant? I thought even idiots were self aware enough to avoid that
I don't what you're getting at here. Im just pointing out that whatever your notions of 'progress', this is not a trend thats reversed very much throughout history

>>5305370 see >>5305311 pic

>>5305300
And "The Capital" is communist propaganda. It doesn't stop it from accurately portraying capitalism, just as the Protocols accurately portraying Jewish clannistic behavior.

>>5305389
Epic, simply epic

>>5305361
When you have an entire body of theory where Jews, who comprise circa 0,5% of the population of the world, making the majority of the contributions to it, we have to ask ourselves what the fuck is happening for it to be that way. It's not shitposting, it's a field of scholarly research investigated by serious people like Kevin MacDonald and Yuri Slezkine.

>>5305413
this

>>5305413
Yeah well I've been taught to mindlessly defend people who don't care about me from all criticism so please look at my cool hyperlink I'm about to post

>>5305418
oy very

>>5305413
It is shitposting though when you hijack a thread. If you would simply start your own ones people wouldnt not mind.

>>5305382
>China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea

Mao is a Jew

>>5305487
Says the commie who wants to "hijack" the means of production.

>>5305502
?

>>5302072
He was commissioned to write it for the Communist League.
It wasn't his "idea" it was a job.

It all returns to nothing, it all comes tumbling down tumbling down tumbling dooooowwwwn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4VvHWdJ9yU

Why do anarchists hate Marxists so much? I don't think Marx was really that set on what a future Socialist society would look like, remember he did say "he doesn't write recipes for future kitchens" yet Anarchists seem to think that Marxists are worse than Capitalists.
Is it that Anarchists are just mad that Marx and Engels and Marxist analysis and theory in general is just heads and tails ahead of Anarchist philosophy and analysis in every regard?

This video is a pretty definitive debunking of Proudhons theories from a Marxist perspective, care to refute?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Oknr5kZ6b8

>>5307207
are /co/ and /v/ the only boards that can sing?

>>5307228
That tickled my funny bone :)

>>5304299
the leninist strains are. The vast majority of self proclaimed marxists however is strictly anti-authoritarian

>>5305229
you really believe /pol/lack stormfags are capable of doing anything besides reposting?
Fucking hivemind

>>5307228
They don't, most anarchists are communist and make good allies

>>5307228
Because a proletarian dictatorship is the opposite of anarchy you know