/lit/ - Literature

>I'm an American, I know America has done some bad stuff, but I still love it.
Of course you love it, dumbass. Latin America, Africa, Asia don't love your American way of life though, bro.

Oh China, you so communist! The proletariat has so much power there! I'm glad Santa's little helpers brought a new iPhone to OP and he acknowledges there are "some bad stuff" in capitalism, but he "still loves it"!

>Americans
>having ANY idea of consequences of their way of life
>having ANY grasp on Marx or communism or socialism even slightly related material

>>5915555
>YOU CAN'T SEE THINGS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE LIKE I CAN CLEARLY SEE THEM FROM YOURS
Goddamn; I know the third world sucks but you don't have to be a little bitch dude.

>>5915555
Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians love their ways of life, but I find aspects of them detestable. The Chinese Communist party has no regard for human rights, most of Africa is an undeveloped wasteland, and most Latin American governments are corrupt. America has its flaws, but so does everything else. At least we don't have a Stalin.

>>5915555
latino slave morality

>>5915568
>>5915555
Also, your knee-jerk reaction only serves to prove another point I planned to make at some point in this thread: the Left's narrative of almost universal (except for the West) victimhood is ludicrous and should be done away with if it doesn't want to be completely demolished by the Right in the near future.

>>5915555
>Of course you love it, dumbass. Latin America, Africa, Asia don't love your American way of life though, bro.
You have been reading too much leftist books or magazines lately, anon. It is truly showing.

>>5915525
>/lit/'s Marxists really like to distance Marx's work from any attempts that have been made to build Socialism

Not all of us, some of us are still fighting the good fight.

>>5915555
>third worlders will never know the pleasure of being an American

Yeah sure, complain all you like.

But just remember you'll never know this feeling.

>>5915589
You're a Stalinist unironically?

>>5915555
>Latin America, Africa, Asia don't love your American way of life though, bro.

Bitter losers looking for people to blame for their failures. If America never existed they'd just blame someone else.

>>5915589
>Not all of us, some of us are still fighting the good fight.
Say whatever you want, /lit/, but this guy knows what he is talking about. Stalin is the greatest tyrant in history. He accomplished more than any other tyrant in history. Why does Central Asia always produce these great men?

>>5915602
As a Latin American, I agree with this point. The average person in these lands is always blaming the USA. They aren't saints, but they didn't produce the cultural shit-holes we live in. We produced them.

>>5915603

I just want you to know that I reached about one third of a really large post I intended to write in response before I realised it's fruitless

>>5915593
>rebuilt a nation after WW1 and a brutal civil war
>industrialize one of the most backwards nations in Europe in 20-30 years when it took capitalistic nations 100+ years to do so
>beat back the Nazis who had a massive technological head start
>Make the entire West shit itself in fear of what he might do
>a bad ruler

>>5915631
I'm not saying he was a bad ruler, I'm just wondering how much you love Big Brother.

>>5915631

There's not really anything in Marxism about building communism, he just advocates. Marxism is more a tool for socialists than a political stance of itself.

>>5915651
>There's not really anything in Marxism about building communism

>>5915651
/lit/'s Marxists like to pretend that the USSR or the Soviet Union aren't reflections of anything Marx wrote. Usually the logic is something like
>The USSR was Leninist, not Marxist! The vanguard party wasn't a Marxist idea!
They ignore the fact that every Communist party has attempted to institute a socialist workers' state for the nominal purpose of moving towards Communism, which is exactly what Marx advocated, and attempted to do this by growing the working class, collectivizing land, and using the coercive machinery of the state to do so.
Communism may not have existed yet, but socialism has, and it looks like what Marx advocated.

>>5915642
>implying 1984 painted even a halfway accurate view of what was going on at the time
>not reading Stalin's works

>>5915644
Stay uneducated, pleb. Timur the lame was a bigger asshole than your meme tyrants.

>>5915661
Again, I'm just curious: how much do you actually support Stalin and how far are you willing to defend his policies?

>>5915555
>Latin America, Africa, Asia
Then securing our borders wont be an issue :^)))

>"These conditions of life, which different generations find in existence, determine also whether or not the revolutionary convulsion periodically recurring in history will be strong enough to overthrow the basis of everything that exists. And if these material elements of a complete revolution are not present—namely, on the one hand the existing productive forces, on the other the formation of a revolutionary mass, which revolts not only against separate conditions of the existing society, but against the existing "production of life" itself, the "total activity" on which it was based—then it is absolutely immaterial for practical development whether the idea of this revolution has been expressed a hundred times already, as the history of communism proves."

that's why

>>5915631
>industrialize one of the most backwards nations in Europe in 20-30 years when it took capitalistic nations 100+ years to do so
I laugh every time.

>>5915663
That first meme IS Tamerlane

>>5915675
That's why /lit/ doesn't think Marx was a Marxist?

>>5915579
I'm not saying I am in agreement with the victimhood either, but to treat it like the left's Achilles heel is ludicrous. It's not like this runs both ways. The USA economically exploits other countries, and then tries to limit immigration. The money can flow, but the labor can't. This leads to stark geographic segregation.

The right's future victory, of which I am pretty confident, is not going to be due to an element of truth. It's going to be due to liberal incompetence leaving the right as the only alternative in the Overton window. The left will lose because it has no mainstream narrative at all. Hell, the most accepted narrative of the left *is* that of anti-exploitation and anti-bigotry. Liberals have co-opted that with glee. They just leave out the fraternity and co-prosperity.

>>5915667
Not that anon, but I would defend Stalin's policies until the biggest consequences, that is, being buried in a gulag after working to death.
Stalin knew how things needed to be done. He is the only reason that the Russians weren't exterminated by the Germans last century.

>>5915682
>economically exploits other countries
How?

>>5915677
>meme cap
>on a meme tyrant
Shut the fuck up. That's not Timur the lame. That's just crude bullshit.

>>5915679
No, that's why I am invested in Marxism but only very few of the attempts hitherto made in history to achieve communism or socialism.

>>5915682
>The USA economically exploits other countries, and then tries to limit immigration. The money can flow, but the labor can't. This leads to stark geographic segregation.
True, but I still love America.
>The right's future victory, of which I am pretty confident, is not going to be due to an element of truth. It's going to be due to liberal incompetence
Part of liberal incompetence is thinking that the Right doesn't have any truths to offer.
Liberal and Left aren't synonyms, btw.

>>5915676
In that comment's defence, Russia was a bigger shit-hole before he took over the reins.

>>5915689
Basically how I said. The exploitation is just a natural result of two general policies:

*limitation of labor flow into and out of countries
*reduction of tarriffs and other barriers that limit the flow of resources and money

The result is that one can benefit from low labor costs without the market self-correcting through the migration of labor.

>>5915682
>The left will lose because it has no mainstream narrative at all. Hell, the most accepted narrative of the left *is* that of anti-exploitation and anti-bigotry.
Do we live in the same world? Haven't you been to cinema ever?

>>5915703
>Liberal and Left aren't synonyms, btw.

Did you read my whole comment?

I am saying that the left will fail because it has no mainstream narrative. That "liberal" is as far left as mainstream narratives go, and that the inherent failures of liberalism will condemn the whole of the left.

The collapse of liberal values will be seen as an all-encompassing collapse of all alternatives that are not nigh-fascist.

>tfw no Stalin gf

>>5915689
The phrase 'banana republic' literally refers to American-sponsored dictatorships in Latin America propped up for the purpose of giving American businesses cheap produce. Read up on the 1954 coup in Nicaragua, the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. before the Cuban Revolution, and American-Mexican relations.

>>5915715
>That "liberal" is as far left as mainstream narratives go, and that the inherent failures of liberalism will condemn the whole of the left.
It has a fucked up mainstream narrative, not an absence of it. That's two different things.
Also, in which world do you live? People will become fascist again, once this world of lies implodes upon the failures of the left. History will repeat itself, like it always does.

>>5915703
>Part of liberal incompetence is thinking that the Right doesn't have any truths to offer.
Such as what?

>>5915676
You seem to be unaware of how big of a shithole Russia was before the Soviets took over. I suggest you read From Farm to Factory (http://www.mediafire.com/view/j8uy6mx9fxfrpio/Farm_To_Factory.pdf)) to get a economic overview of the period (its written by a liberal economist in case you are one of those people that don't read things by left wing authors).

>>5915713
What do you mean? Are you implying bigotry isn't a fight totally co-opted by liberals? They love playing that game. liberals delight in praising novels about poor immigrants, enlightening themselves with empty discourse, and patting themselves on the back for drinking fair-trade coffee because god-forbid we exploit the third world coffee farmers.

But even among this class of Keffiyeh-wearing, acoustic-guitar-playing, took-a-semester-of-po-mo-literature liberals socialism is a dirty word.

And socialism has a lot of demons to cope with. But I am convinced it holds answers neither free-market-liberalism or nationalism offer. Answers to some very pressing questions. Answers for questions like: what the fuck are we going to do in several decades when most jobs are obsolete? What will we do when humanity can directly intervene in each other's thought processes? How can we continue to bank on the exponential expansion of markets? Scientism, the doctrine of capitalism, holds no answers.

>>5915716
>tfw I can't be female Stalin's fuccboi.
I love that artbook. My favourite was that girl riding the tank. Because the West never talks about the dictators it supports until they have become uncomfortable allies, I can't remember the guy's actual name.

>>5915738
>Such as what?
Some people are more qualified for certain tasks than others. There are biological differences between men and women, although these differences don't justify taking rights away from one gender. Democracy is flawed. Some cultures are more backwards than others.

>>5915747
Reading your post, I have noticed that there isn't an actual left in wherever you live, then.

>>5915733
And which "truths" are fascism based upon? What answers will nationalism provide? At the turn of the 19th century it took 3 days to travel from London to Glasgow. Now the whole world can between the boundaries of those two cities.

The world has contracted so severely, the idea that nationalism has a place in it is laughable at best. But I guess we'll need a nuclear holocaust before you fuckwits understand that.

>>5915747
Most of the liberals I know like the idea of socialism but either don't know anything about socialist theory or are too busy posting on tumblr to care about socialism.
>>5915762
>And which "truths" are fascism based upon?
The good of one's nation is a good worth dying for.
If you don't think that's a truth, you don't understand nationalism.

>>5915690
You Uzbek by any chance?

>>5915765
>The good of one's nation is a good worth dying for.

It's not true, you should fight and die for your class not for your country.

>>5915706
I'm not really following. Limitation of 'labor flow' isn't exploitative on its own. Reduction of tariffs + outsourcing doesn't require greater 'labor flow' for both parties to benefit. Maybe you can explain a little better.
>>5915728
Brief investigation seems like it has its origins in things other than American-sponsored dictatorships, probably became tied to that later. Though, I'll keep looking into it. I'm less interested in the question of state intervention and more interested in the question of individual business and their overseas transactions. Because the other anon seemed to be suggesting that the very idea of a relationship between a developing nation and overseas capitalists is exploitative (whereas I would agree that sponsored dictatorships are exploitative).

>>5915750
>Some people are more qualified for certain tasks than others. There are biological differences between men and women, although these differences don't justify taking rights away from one gender.
This is called the division of labor. In most prior cases, this division of labor along gender boundaries has wholly resulted in loss of rights. The existence of this division is not contested by the left, particularly Marx.

>>5915705
>>5915738
I'm not so much as saying Russia didn't 'advance' but to compare it to the success of capitalist nations is quite hilarious (see Sutton's work; Russia needed tech transfers and various other sources of aid to keep up) and to try and make it seem like Russia achieved all of this in 20-30 years independent of the rest of Europe, which pathetically took 100+ years, is disingenuous and just reflects poorly on commies in general.

>>5915750
>Some people are more qualified for certain tasks than others.
Already pretty much accepted.

>Democracy is flawed
People have been talking about this for the longest time. Did you forget the "democracy is the worst system except for everything else we tried" or something to that effect Churchill speech?

>>5915750
>>5915786
Furthermore, the degree this is true to is dubious. Most of the gender exclusive tasks that the mainstream left wishes to attack are mental roles - men and women being mentally equal is not something that is debatable. You're going to try to. It is not.

As for menial labor, the difference between the physical capacity of men vs women is grossly overstated, particularly in the modern industrial setting. See: War-time economies in England and the US during WWI and WWII

>>5915794
I never implied that the Soviets advanced with no help at all. Compared to other developing nations they developed the fastest though they way they did so came back to haunt them. It was only really worked at the beginning as in the book after the 1920-1950 period a lot of things changed and flaws began to become more apparent.

>>5915762
Causes that are worth death itself for millions. That's what you fail to understand when you seclude yourself in your little intellectual world. Millions of people are searching for truths that they have never found in a system which has failed them since the day they were born.
And talking about travelling form one place to another at amazing speeds, the janitor who works at Heathrow will probably never visit a town that isn't located in Europe. Life's hard for millions. Fascism seems like a preferable alternative than more bullshit spewed from the mouths of cynical, politically correct politicians, even if in the end it will be worse.
I'd preferred another future, but it seems unavoidable if things go down the same path as before.

What books does /lit/ recommend for the history of 20th century Marx-inspired revolutions?
Particularly interested in the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars, the Sino-Russian split, South American socialism, and so on.

Preferably objective: just the facts. I don't want deluded whitewashing or overbearing "communism will never work."

>>5915807
>is not something that is debatable.
Who says?

>>5915821
>I don't want deluded whitewashing or overbearing "communism will never work."
Knowing lit, you will get the opposite.

>>5915778
>I'm not really following. Limitation of 'labor flow' isn't exploitative on its own. Reduction of tariffs + outsourcing doesn't require greater 'labor flow' for both parties to benefit

Jesus Christ, why am I dignifying someone this fucking retarded with a response? I'll do it anyways.

Let's imagine a thought experiment in two realities.

Town A offers people without an education $10/hr for people where Town B offers people without an education 5 cents /hr. Town B produces most cheap consumable goods for Town A. People in Town B want a higher wage, so they move to Town A. Soon labor shortages require a wage increase in Town B, while labor surplus in Town A drives wages down (or starts to disrupt a market based on welfare, minimum wages, and once cheap consumption of goods from Town B).

Now let's imagine nobody from Town B can move to Town A.

What happens?

There is no pressure to change wages. People's wages stagnate.

In a world based on market exchange, secured borders enforce one of the few command economies that do exist in modern capitalism: the command economy of labor. Nationalists love to bitch about immigration, but it's currently very much in their favor.

>but there's a whole neighborhood of niggers in my town

Fucking kill yourself.

>>5915821
>objective: just the facts

Pure ideology

>>5915794
Funny though, I hate commies, but not Stalin. He was the only commie to understand how the real world worked. That's how he ended enthroned in the Tsar's chair, after having annihilated many of the former Bolsheviks, and millions of the useful idiots (equivalent to the people who nowadays still think that Marxism would work outside a book).

As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to profess Marxist views at this stage of the historical game. In fact, I think a strong case can be made, ethically, that professing Marxism is as ill-advised and immoral as professing National Socialism, and psychologically, that anyone who continues to do so is opaque to contradictory evidence in a literally pathological manner.

>>5915852

>>5915852
What is the most moral and logical view to profess? Your opinion is only as good as the view you replace it with.

>>5915857
Back to reddit with you

>>5915820
>my intellectual bubble
>I work a full work-week barely making minimum wage
>I couldn't afford college so I went straight into the workforce
>I read sometimes
>So I'm a secluded intellectual

Please, kindly, go fuck yourself.

Don't talk to me about how hard life is you pampered whiny I-can-type-on-a-computer-so-why-wasn't-my-life-handed-to-me-on-a-silver-platter-like-it-was-in-the-post-war-boom baby. Every fucking European and leagues of Americans act like this totally predictable end-of-the-post-war-gravy-train is the god-damn apocalypse. And to their weaned on television brains it might as well be, which is why I'm sure you and your bitchy generation will cleanse us in nuclear fire.

>>5915835
Except you do not need to move from one location to the next to see these kinds of effects take place in a market. So the entire idea of needing to move from Town B to Town A is flawed. Merely knowing the existence of one another causes the same effect over time. Thank you for trying though.

>>5915852
One thing about I wonder National Socialism, why has nobody else tried using their Mefo bills concept?

>>5915836
>>5915828
I know. I'd just like to know what happened in the 20th century, not what certain factionalized groups think of it

>>5915857
>>>/soc/

>>5915839
You're a fucking idiot. I mean, you can hate Marxists all you want, but that you can so brazenly present your almost comical misunderstandings of modern history as proof that anyone but yourself is a moron is just beyond-the-pale idiocy.

I actually love these daily Stalinists vs liberals vs rightists threads.

>>5915877
History doesn't really work that way.

>>5915872
>Merely knowing the existence of one another causes the same effect over time.
How? Where are the examples of this in the real world?

>>5915872
>merely knowing that other people get paid higher wages has the same effect

Are you for fucking real?

This has to be the capstone to one of the dumbest debates I've had on 4chan.

You're a complete fucking retard, and you should be aware of this fact and act accordingly.

Wear a helmet, or better yet, just initiate your own eugenics program by offing yourself.

>>5915525
>I've noticed that /lit/'s Marxists really like to distance Marx's work from any attempts that have been made to build Socialism.
It's a common error for post-USSR Marxists. A revelation of crypto-utopians, if anything. The bourgeois revolution didn't happen "overnight", and neither will the socialist revolution.

>>5915555
You know the CCP leadership had a counter-revolution, right? The only reason China is still called the People's Republic of China despite most Chinese being firmly in the communist camp is because the leadership dresses up socialist language and justifies the current capitalist stage via Marxist rhetoric.

>>5915898
It's mostly just to buy into the hegemonic narrative of the 20th century. That whole century was about the rise of the United States, and all history about it presents it as such.

Capitalism won because the one non-devastated world-power after World War II was the USA. It didn't win because of ideology. It won because none of its cities were turned into bombed out husks.

Overnight only one world power was in total dominion.

>there will never be a social-Darwinist/might makes right movement that isn't sullied by blind nationalism

>>5915658
That might be what he advocated, but that was more of a vague outline. The whole point of Marx's general silence on how to do socialism is his disdain for a priori (utopian) political schemes. He drew an outline, but if were alive to see it go to shit, he'd heavily revise. Marxism isn't technically "scientific", but the reason it's called that is because it's supposed to be about only stating what we knew from what is deduced rather than dogma.

>>5915937
The only people I know in real life who espouse might-makes-right as an ideology are complete fucking losers who pine for a fantasy world where they can enact all of their power fantasies. They have all, unfailingly, been overweight gun collectors who weren't good enough for the fucking military. Most of them are lonely virgins, without a shred of fucking charisma, and those that can convince someone to sleep with them can't convince anyone to stay.

Even the most primitive peoples reject such ideologies. Might-makes-right is only tainted by the people who think it's actually worth a second look.

>>5915942
I really hope you're not trying to insinuate that the USSR, and Leninism in general, was an a priori utopian political scheme.

>>5915893
It's a process that can take a long time, similar to child labor in the Western world. It's not until 1938 that the Fair Labor Standards act was passed; by that time only 6.4 percent of children were even in the workforce. Laws follow progress not the other way around. The idea that people in 'Town B', literally South America, India, South East Asia, etc. NEED to move to the West to increase wages is fraudulent. There is competition in their region and the industry is being built there, so anything that happened in America 100+ years ago is going to happen there as well. And when the average household income in a particular area becomes 10k+ and parents no longer need to use their children for labor, capitalists will look for the next area. The idea that people should move and somehow this will affect 'Town B' is counter intuitive.

>>5915937
By might-makes-right you mean silly Ragnar Redbeard stuff, or serious examination of emergent hierarchy and natural law?

>>5915956
We are all dead in the long run. People in Town B want to move to Town A because they don't want to wait decades until their resident capitalists decide to pay them better wages or build buildings that won't collapse on them. That is why places like Singapore are so attractive to immigrants.

>>5915956
>implying corrupt democracies abroad aren't directly under the influence of massive super-wealthy Western companies
>implying strikers in these countries aren't fucking murdered or maimed all the time when demanding a better wage

Your whole idea works, so long as the government these people petition isn't ultra-corrupt, isn't run by western companies, and isn't backed by western weapons.

In that case, movement of labor is the only option, and it is blocked.

Now, I didn't mention the arms and killing of strikers before because it isn't directly advocated by government policy, most of the time. That being said, anti-immigration policies are.

But governments are the most impotent polities in the world today. And that's why nationalism and liberalism are pathetic ideologies. The only demand that will work is the demand to democratize the polities that actually do function: large multi-national businesses.

>>5915985
Your rhetoric suggests you don't really understand, it's not so much that capitalists merely 'decide' to pay them better wages; in order to keep making profits capitalists will have to pay them better wages. It's not simply a matter of what people in Town B want because people in Town A want more money too.

cos we "cultural marxists" now

>>5915890
>cultural marxism
>anything other than a neo-con conspiracy theory

Marxism is a terrible Economic model, concocted out of pure dogma. You may not have wages but you won't have value either. You will starve to death due to massive market inefficiencies.
Capitalism is not only the best have, it is the best we can do.

>>5916009
>value
>market inefficiencies
I'm surprised you even know who Marx is when you're this uninformed and stupid.
shitpost harder

>>5915986
>The only demand that will work is the demand to democratize the polities that actually do function: large multi-national businesses
>make the only functional polities dysfunctional

Marxists are social outcasts and autists. Even the left has moved on.

>>5916013
Why don't you go open up a basic Economics textbook and start reading.

>>5916000
>it's not so much that capitalists merely 'decide' to pay them better wages; in order to keep making profits capitalists will have to pay them better wages.

And its a process that can take a extremely long time as the British working classes didn't start to see benefits such as large wage gains during the industrial revolution until the 1890's. In some cases like Edward Gibbon Wakefield they restricted workers ability to leave for places like Australia lest potential wage-earners try for self-sufficiency before spending “enough” years working for others because nobody wanted to pay them higher wages to get them to stay.

>>5916032
>I read an economic textbook so I am an authority on socialism and Marx
lel

>>5915986
Well, I was never discussing the prospect of 'corrupt governments', I was always discussing (1) limitation of labor flow and (2) reduction of tariffs and other barriers. I already claimed here, >>5915778, that I have a different view on corrupt governments altogether. But that really doesn't have much to do with the concept of increasing wages in the developing world + immigration restriction in the West, which is possible and will happen. As for democratizing multi-national businesses, you can try but I wont be standing there with you. It's like this guy say, >>5916016
>>5916013
He probably read 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Common Wealth' realized how thoroughly it destroyed centrally planned economic models and never saw a decent response to it. Maybe you should try.

>>5916035
It was not the market that was responsible for restricting workers. It was your precious 'State".

>>5916016
How did I know this was coming?

This may be entirely desirable, however. Part of the appeal of the modern liberal state was to make the state impotent. We already have such a productive system, but it is brutally inhumane to a large portion of the world's population, and it may be a completely reasonable suggestion to stop them at this point in time.

Although, this is 4chan, I wouldn't be surprised if you whip out some genius opinions like "fuck the Jacobins, 1789 should never have happened!"

>>5915525
How is it surprising that a marxist would want to distance themselves from a regime which claimed it was connected to Marxism while conducting numerous atrocities? Any Marxist is going to distance themselves from such a thing.

It's true that soviet states weren't remotely marxist beyond claiming to be so, since they weren't formed from the proletarian appropriation of property (they were utterly anti-proletarian right from the inception), they weren't based on any Marxist philosophy like materialistic conception of history etc. Slapping a label on a flag doesn't make you something at the fundamental level.

But even if the soviet societies of the 20th century were initially formed on actual Marxist lines, and eventually became the same horror states, why on earth wouldn't a Marxist denounce them and distance them self from them?

>>5916037
No I am telling you to read them so you stop believing theories which have been falsified.

>>5916040
>It was not the market that was responsible for restricting workers. It was your precious 'State".
Yeah I know. States use the same methods to restrict the flow of labor today.

>>5916040
People tend to conflate the state and the market because of the overlap of powerful capitalists and their interests.
>>5916035
True, it took a long time. I'm sure that are many examples like the one you provided that shows the many setbacks on the way to where we are at the moment, which is still only so-so. However, what's stopping you from using labor abroad for your purposes? This is /lit/, if you're interested in writing, places in Asia are ripe for illustrating (albeit these are often low quality) and printing books in mass. If you want to see the change happen faster than it has historically (and it probably will happen faster regardless simply due to the nature of the world today) then you ought to start contributing. There's only so much good 'theorizing' can do on behalf of these people.

>>5916042
No the appeal was to increase Liberty and Freedoms. This enabled Capitalism to work much better.
Capitalism is the only Economic model, but there are varying degrees of success. The less government intervention (to the point of only ensuring natural rights) leads to better forms of Capitalism.

>>5915883
Say whatever you want, faggot. I have read Life and fate and some Solzhenitsyn, and I still think Stalin is the greatest man to have lived in the twentieth century.

>>5916053
So why do you you think a marxist system where the government has total power would be any less restrictive?

>>5916067
No. I'm not a marxist and I'm not sure what we are arguing about. The thing about Edward Wakefield came from http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-american-land-question#axzz2pk61pfnR

>>5916061
obviously meant it as en masse
>>5916074
Seems we all agree.

>>5916049
Show us.

>>5916135
Are you willing to open an Economic textbook to do so?

>>5916138
What did I just fucking say?

>>5916138
Well? Are you going to show your work or are you going to keep harping about "muh economics textbook"?

>>5916244
ur not gonna enjoy this..
http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Economic%20Calculation%20in%20the%20Socialist%20Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf

>>5916244
>>5916244
I had to go and do something, sorry I have priorities above 4chan.
Once you get a basic grasp of what Economic terms mean (You will be still thinking in terms of marxism), read the following three books:

The Poverty of Historicism - Karl Popper
The open society and its enemies - Karl Popper
Capitalism and freedom - Milton Friedman

This should dismantle any belief in marxism if you are able to understand.

>not a Marxist
>not a capitalist
>not really a communist or a socialist

Definitely better to be a commie than a capitalist, though. No decent thinker should spend his time toadying for the current system.

>>5916285
I believe you were asked to explain how Marxism has been falsified. All you've done is assume that the people you are talking to (yes, I'm not the original person you were talking to) are Marxists and, because of this, beneath you. Your piss-poor attempt here to inflate yourself here probably fools some people but it doesn't fool me, neither do your basic book-drops. Explain how Popper and Friedman falsified Marxism; since you've just made the insinuation that you're an economics expert and we (or, at least, Marxists, real or imagined) aren't, it should be simple.

>>5916265
>mises

o i m laffing

>>5916383
Read those two books by Popper for the falsification. I never implied that I was an expert on Economics. I said that Marxists were not .

>>5916390
>I don't read things that might challenge my beliefs.

>>5916398
>Read those two books by Popper for the falsification.
Assume I don't have time. Explain it, since you understand it.

>I never implied that I was an expert on Economics.
>I said that Marxists were not.
So you're an amateur of economics but you're comfortable with insulting others by suggesting they go and "learn the basic terminology" and you know just enough to know that Marxism is falsified?

>>5916424
You wanted sources, I gave my views before and they were not accepted. What exactly do you want?

>>5916383
>>5916390
See >>5916265
>'Socialists have certainly good reason to be grateful to Professor Mises, the great advocatus diabol of their cause. For it was his powerful challenge that forced the socialists to recognize the importance of an adequate system of economic accounting to guide the allocation of resources in a socialist economy. Even more, it was chiefly due to Professor Mises’ challenge that many socialists became aware of the very existence of such a problem. . . . [T]he merit of having caused the socialists to approach this problem systematically belongs entirely to Professor Mises.' - Marxist Economist Oskar Lange

Of course, Lange's response was dismantled by the likes of Hayek but as you can see, the challenge was taken fairly seriously; probably why most 'marxist' academics neglect economics and focus on cultural, psychological or even entertainment studies.

>>5916427
I very clearly told you want I wanted. I want you to explain how Marxism is falsified and they act all high and mighty for their soundbite. I'm tired of seeing this claim dropped on /lit/ every week by anons. Every time someone actually asks them to defend the claim they disappear, insult their challenger, or evade some other way. You're obviously here posting all this because you believe it and want others to think the same way, right? Explain it.

>>5916405
>listening to economists
>almost 2015

>>5916398
I should add that Popper shows that it cannot be Falsified, but still the result is that it is a flawed model.

>>5916445
It is not my job to educate you, I provided sources that can teach you far better than I.

I have explained why I believe Marxism an impossible theory of Economics and Society.

>>5916037
Just out of curiosity, do you have knowledge of basic,macro and micro, economics?

>>5916445
"The free market solution is the price mechanism, wherein people individually have the ability to decide how a good or service should be distributed based on their willingness to give money for it. The price conveys embedded information about the abundance of resources as well as their desirability which in turn allows, on the basis of individual consensual decisions, corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources." - https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Economic_calculation_problem.html

>>5916461
>I have explained why I believe Marxism an impossible theory of Economics and Society.

when?

>>5915765
What books would you recommend on socialist theory?

>>5916451
>I should add that Popper shows that it cannot be Falsified
You said it was falsified and Popper said so. Now you're saying it's not falsified because Popper said so. Should I assume you don't know what you're talking about, at this point?

>>5916461
>It is not my job to educate you
No, just to shit post on /lit/.

>I have explained why I believe Marxism an impossible theory of Economics and Society.
Perhaps this is the problem: mere statements are not actually explanations. Indeed, yours seems to have been "concocted out of pure dogma". :) But nice try.

>>5916482
*not falsified -> unfalsifiable

>>5916474

my god, its pure ideology.

>>5916485

>>5916485
THE PAIN IS REAL!

>>5916476
I stated that it lacked market mechanisms to set value and ensure against inefficiencies that will bring about inevitable collapse.

An economic model which is inherently unstable is not a very good one.

>>5916500
>An economic model which is inherently unstable is not a very good one.
So you're anti-capitalist?

>>5916482
I was wrong to say Popper falsified Marxism.

Popper shows that it is unfalsifiable. It is not even false, thus it is not a model of the world. You need to read Popper to understand the term.

>>5916514
I understand the term. I like how you tried covering a mistake you made in pompousness with yet more pomposity. Take a seat, kid.

>>5916518
CLASS, IS IN SESSION

>>5916518
At least I can admit that I spoke in error. You are not open to that possibility it seems.

>>5915689
here friendo http://www.e-reading.link/bookreader.php/149187/Open_Veins_of_Latin_America.pdf

>>5915756
Well, there isn't a radical left in the US as far as I can see, only very small, self-centered groups

>>5916504
No, I believe Capitalism is a stable system.

Government intervention into the market in times of downturn lead to more problems than they solve. Recession is at worse cyclical, but this is not a flaw in the system, it is indicative of changing affairs.

Marxism views itself as the end of history. Once the revolution is done everything will have been achieved and all social and economic problems will vanish.

>>5916559
>Marxism views itself as the end of history.

so does late capitolsim? right? Frances sukiyakis coined the term to describe neo liberalism, and the guy in op's pic wrote whole book about how this was seen as retarded in the 80s, but now its the dogma of the left.

>>5916474
Not only is that not true (prices may, but quite obviously do not necessarily reflect resources nor desirability) but it doesn't exactly falsify Marxism.

>>5916577
No it shows why marxism will never work.

I would say the fact that Marx built his theory on the labor law of value would falsify it. This law has been rejected as it is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

>>5916544

That is utter garbage, even the author acknowledge it being so. Just don't recommend it.

>>5916585
>No it shows why marxism will never work.
Meaningless garbage. Why don't you keep capitalism to one state and see how it "works"? Why aren't you complaining about how capitalism doesn't "work" every time monopolization and depression and every other problem in capitalism effectively destroys the society that suffers it?

>>5916616
I think the problems are made worse by government intervention. Recession is inevitable to some degree, it serves a function.

>>5916585
>Marx built his theory on the labour theory of value
Faggot you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>5916643
dude, i hate to break it to you but marx was a minor ricardian, we only remember him today because some russian dictators promoted him to the plebs as an excuse for no freedom in russia

My question is why "late capitalism" is used as a term at all, when capitalism just keeps chugging along no matter how decrepit and rotted the corpse may seem.

>>5916657
>>5916643
Arguing with Marxists is as bad as arguing with Creationists.

“Marxists define the bourgeoisie in economic terms in order to hide from us the fact that they belong to it.”
-Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Some Marxists on this website care too much about "my god pure ideology". I wonder what reading continental theorists and watching French films all day long have done to better the condition of working class.

>>5916651
>marx was a minor ricardian
You know how I can tell that you never even tried to read a single one of Marx' economic writings? Well, yeah, it's because you keep saying shit like this. Try reading Wage Labour and Capital, it's rather short and simple and available for free on the interwebs.

>>5916674
>ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem
Most Marxism since the 60s has been theory based. Fucking deal with it. And the Marxists who are actually out working in unions certainly wouldn't be arguing with you bitch asses on a Saturday night.

>“Marxists define everything in economic terms in order to hide from us the fact that they belong to it.”
wow, revolutionary thinking

>>5916682
>>5916674
also almost forgot
>2015
>Davila
top
fucking kek

thank goodness /lit/ is here to tell you all about REAL philosophers like Davila and Evola and Stirner right?

>>5916682

>deal with the fact we're doing nothing

lol, good for me faggot.

As opposed to caring about nothing and doing nothing about that nothing?

>>5916681
Listen to you. You sound like a Creationists chastising an Atheist. "Oh I bet you have not even read the Bible"

>Try reading Wage Labour and Capital, it's rather short and simple and available for free on the interwebs.

You still have not addressed the fact that Marx built his entire theory on an incorrect law of labour.

“All the intellectual wants in his heart of hearts, is to hold on to what was magically given to him one shining moment a century ago. He asks for nothing more than to remain aloof, removed, as Revel once put it, from the mob, the philistines . . . ‘the middle class.’”
-Tom Wolfe

/lit/ demonstrates this like no other.

>>5916669
Do you understand that >>5916657 is not a defense of capitalism at all? I would know, I made that post. Also, thanks for the non-statement in reply.

>>5916657
I never heard of that term, quite interesting.

After reading through this thread there are a number of points that seem to reoccur which I believe are false.
One system or another is just the expectations of what is promoted openly. Every single day all sorts of shady shit is done by leaders, those in legal powers, and the private citizenry that fucks over everyone else. Their continued existence is because of unobvious and unexplored factors that very few people actually can have a real discussion about.
Example, Apple is well known to most businessmen as a designer brand electronic that is able to sell for such high prices because of marketing. Apple stores make more than Tiffany's per square foot, which means they are more profitable than diamonds. This applies to things like perfume too, which is cheap to make and sells for a ridiculous margin because of the value.

This seeps into politics too, like the whole blacks getting shot by police(sorry, white police) when the numbers and evidence behind the specific cases don't back that up and the media reporting and promoting it as a problem is the more concerning issue. Why is it working? Why does culture or people support these things which have no clear or proven benefit for anyone at all? I cannot know, and neither can you. Until dedicated research of the reality in front of us is done and we know what the people who are actually doing things to keep these things going and the mechanics of why it works.
I think you will initially disagree but ask yourself if you really understand such general things as 'communism works' or 'communism will never work'. Break that down, what exactly are you trying to imply? Where is this communism, when does it matter, who's enforcing the idea, and I think it becomes obvious that political matters are the result of people in politics and what lies they tell to do what they think is right. None of us here is likely in an industry even trying to control for these issues and implications, and without even that level how can anything that you talk about have any merit at all?

>>5916720
dis nigga here

>>5916704
Why would I address an accusation that has no basis in reality? Other than by pointing you tp a nice, concise piece of writing that proves it wrong?

>>5916743
Marxism is built upon a law which is false. What do you think that implies for the rest of the "structure"?

>>5916731
I find it thrown around a lot to describe our current state of capitalism, as if it's on its deathbed. Rather, the situation is quite the opposite. We have capitalism spreading everywhere, in many different forms, taking root wherever it can. Not to be cliche or boring with this reference, but Zizek has a great quote about capitalism becoming harder to kill the more it starts to fall apart. Apple, like you pointed out, is a great example of this. They're lauded for having an openly gay CEO while charging out the ass for electronics made by sweatshop workers in china, and evading taxes whenever they can. And everyone knows about these things. That's one of the glaring issues of capitalism; society ignores abject abuses as long as a need to consume is met.

And I make no attempt to disagree with the point raised in your second paragraph. Using phrases like "communism works/doesn't work" as a way to prove or disprove an argument is ultimately too general and sweeping to have any intellectual merit. It discourages actual deep discourse in favor of generalities that can be digested immediately and without any sort of difficulty. Not to imply that a more obtuse or difficult argument is necessarily more correct, simply that we are never roused from that dogmatic slumber to really examine the issue in full.

>>5916761
Ok, just read the thing, and realize that marxism is on no way based on this false law.

>>5916784
>That's one of the glaring issues of capitalism
Its not an issue its a feature!
>we are never roused from that dogmatic slumber to really examine the issue in full
yeah I was trying to make that point. I've always hated how people will go on about a topic they only have the most general understanding of it becomes so obvious that they are just repeating what someone said about it and did no research yet they still want their speech to matter.

>>5915525
Because different the changes implemented by many of these "Marxist" states/regimes break from Classical Marxism. Whether Classical Marxism would ever work-out is a point of contention on it's own but that's a different issue than the varieties that have come about.

tl;dr
>Cause theyre not "REALLY" Marxist
>Vanguard
>State never disappearing
>Not an international movement (at least not in immediate geography) (Hence USSR being desperate to support regimes anywhere they manage to come about)
>Not letting the necessary mechanisms of capitalism develop first
>yes, Marx liked some things in Capitalism.
>Like high technology for automation to facilitate providing for the social good

>>5916657

pretty sure it refers to post manufacturing capitalism, or truly international capitalism. capitalism as it exists in fully industrialized nations.

>>5916657
Capitalism achieving globalization (or as some would say, empire) and international hegemony

>>5916731
>This seeps into politics too, like the whole blacks getting shot by police(sorry, white police) when the numbers and evidence behind the specific cases don't back that up and the media reporting and promoting it as a problem is the more concerning issue.


what do you mean the numbers don't back it up?

>>5916896
lel
>>5916577
If people are buying at a certain price then yes, they do reflect those things (certainly desirability). I am interesting in hearing why they quite obviously don't reflect it.
As for falsifying Marxism, have you read the critique and responses in full? What will it take for you to consider Marxism falsified or what is your response that saves Marxism (centrally planned economies in general) from this 'irrationality', as Mises would put it?

>>5915555

what a fucking waste of quads

Latin America wouldn't be so shit if it had a free market economy like its northern neighbors

>>5915807
No, I wasn't going to say that. I was implying that identity politics is a leftist phenomenon.
There are leftists who deny women are on average physically smaller than men.

Accelerationism: An idea whose time has come

>>5917397
Nothing good will come of that shit, look at nick land.

>>5917558
Nick Land is a full on fascist now right

>>5917397
don't promote your pseudo-academic attempt at a career here

>>5916009
>marxism
>an economic model

Marxism is a method of multifaceted analysis of a capitalist system.

There is no "Marxist society model"

>>5917565
Exactly.

>>5917052
LITERALLY pure ideology. The why's as to why Latin America remains undeveloped are complex, but the United States has played a major role in destabilizing political and economic development on the continent to further its own goals.

What's interesting is that now capitalism is dying in the West, antipathy is the modus operandi of the day, and governing institutions are more and more out of touch with common people. Further, industrial production and manufacturing have moved overseas.

Latin America is vibrant and young, and now is doing the industrial grunt work for the fat cow living on credit that is the US. They might just hold the germs for change of the system as a whole over there.

>>5915679
>What is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’ [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]

-- Engels' letter of November 1882 to Eduard Bernstein

>>5917807
Thanks for having hope in us.
As long as we don't end up like middle east with drone strikes and internal relationships completely broken to further international goals I'm happy, though.

>>5916761
>Marxism is built upon a law which is false
durp; read chapter one of Capital again after reading this:
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/notes/Law-of-Value.html

>>5915738
such as the idea that equality is not a desirable state of affairs when it comes to man.