/lit/ - Literature

protip: because most people haven't read a shit about communism and marx, and they like the system because muh christianity morals

>>6236395
Because he didn't.

>>6236402
>they like the system because muh christianity morals
guess those folks would be in for a surprise, huh

>>6236395
Freud is your best argument against Communism - the cocaine addict who thought everything was dicks and projected his incest fantasies onto everyone else? Not the fact that the labor theory of value is retarded, the calculation problem and reduced incentives makes production drop to famine levels or the fact that the socialist "vanguard" state has no real motive to transfer to classless communism and must use mass violence to suppress the intellectuals and starving masses who suddenly realize how horrible it all is?

Freud had some revolutionary ideas but the vast majority of ideas he had have expired. The only situation I can see communism being beneficial is industrializing a relatively decentralized agrarian nation, and even then the eventual shift to a market capitalist economy will be after a dark period in the history of that nation. Every single Ukranian, Chinese and Russian I've known that lived under communism says that soymilk socialists are deluding themselves.

>>6236402
top kek

>>6236519
>labor theory of value is retarded
I doubt you even know what Marx's iteration of it is.
>the calculation problem and reduced incentives makes production drop to famine levels
This literally never happened.
>Every single Ukranian, Chinese and Russian I've known that lived under communism says that soymilk socialists are deluding themselves.
Yeah, you don't know anybody and you're just trolling. The average Russian lost 10 years of his life from the end of communism, but you'd have no idea.

>>6236395
>this guy BTFO'd it
But he never did that.
Also, ever heard of the Frankfurt School? Because, those guys certainly knew more about both Freud and Marx than you do, and didn't see much conflict between them.

>>6236395
Because shit tons of people have never even read Marx and just call themselves Communists.
Communism is shit, and actively advocates for widespread totalitarianism, mass repressive violence, and throwing out a working system of economics for literally no good reason other than "muh labor theory of value muhfucker" which is empirically wrong.
Also Marx was a hypocritical piece of shit that did nothing with his life other than mooch off of Engels.
Noone who actually read the Communist Manifesto could agree with it as an ideology.
Democratic Socialism is alright though.

>>6236395
Because a certain club of atheist jews already synthesised both him and Marx into one.

>>6236569
>crisis of profitability leads to the destruction of trade unionism
>sovereign debt crisis makes massive austerity programs a necessity
>d-democratic socialism guys w-we can build a good society within capitalism
>mfw Fabians will never learn

>>6236537
>I doubt you even know what Marx's iteration of it is.

Of course I do, I'm a former Marxist myself and it's integral to having any idea of his framework of division of labor and exploitation by capitalists. It's more refined than the earlier concepts used by Adam Smith and such, hinging on exchange, but the basic idea remains the same. It's been totally replaced by the subjective theory of value on all grounds.

>This literally never happened.

Of course, much famine in the USSR was genocide by Stalin against weaker states, but socialism weakened production and allowed for horrible decisions by centralized entities that weren't punished to the extent that they would be by competition in a market system. I guess you probably deny this at all though, being a left-wing mirror image of a Stormfronter babbling on about holocaust denial or a Japanese nationalist ignoring the Rape of Nanking.

>Yeah, you don't know anybody and you're just trolling.

When life experience contradicts your ideology, you deny the life experience. Nice. You might find it hard to believe, but the world is globalized today. People vote with their feet and there is no shortage of immigrants that left the USSR and China to come to western capitalist countries, not the other way around. One family of Ukrainian expatriates is quite close to my own and I have a lot of Chinese acquaintances.

>>6236519
>the fact that the socialist "vanguard" state has no real motive to transfer to classless communism

Do any marxist scholars have any solution for this problem?

They were reconciled quite some time ago.

>>6236592
Democratic Socialism is different than Social Democracy. That person is also a mouth breathing retard because Communism is not an ideology, its a type of society that follows Socialism, I doubt he could coherently define Communism.

Cooperative organizations can exist within Capitalism and represent microcosms of Socialist society, but a democratic and Socialist society requires the abolition of private ownership of the productive forces of society and Capitalism as we know it.

>>6236519
>lived under communism
>he thinks communism and socialism are the same thing
>he thinks he's qualified to talk about marx

>>6236614
Vanguardism is a relic of an authoritarian past that degrades and hinders Socialist construction and transformation, there doesn't have to be a solution to it, because it has been abandoned. China faces the same problem Gorbachev and his reformers did: transferring State power to Workers councils and cooperative enterprises. Luckily, they already have a functioning market system and the Soviet example.

The road to Socialism lies with the cooperative movement and market Socialism, not jingoistic dogma.

>>6236609
>I'm a former Marxist myself
No, you're not. Notice how all you can say is "it's sort of like Adam Smith" and then vaguely appeal to authority.
> much famine in the USSR was genocide by Stalin against weaker states
This is Cold War propaganda, here's a top historian in the field saying you're wrong: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/repeat-after-me-there-was-no-holodomor/
>People vote with their feet
Yes, people moving from countries ass-fucked by imperialism to countries doing the ass-fucking is proof that capitalism is great.

>>6236643
>The road to Socialism lies with capitalist restoration

lol

The oppression of the bourgeoisie is absolutely necessary in order to create a socialist society so vanguardism and authoritarianism is to.

>>6236663
Capitalism and Market economies are not the same thing.

>>6236626
I didn't say I lived under Communism, I said I knew people who did. That is, the actual implementation of Communist ideology, not your bullshit fairytale land without state or class that is touted as the end result but is never achieved. I understand that there is a distinction in Marxist theory between socialism and communism - I made this point in talking about the lack of motive on the socialist vanguard's part to transition between them - however, in practice, virtually everyone who advocates marxist socialism is going to be a communist as well (Juche is a rare exception I can think of, and recently ditched the idea anyway). Marxist communism as a political ideology is not the same as communism as a hypothetical post-socialist form of horizontal society.

I find it hilariously ironic that "historical materialism" claims to study society through the social lens of material production with historical individuals being insignificant, yet Marx and other prominent individuals like Engels personally codified the ideology which was then grabbed by powerful dictators and spread by cults of personality based around them.

>>6236622
> Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

> Communism.

> Doctrine.

> DOCTRINE.

That, from the second most revered Marxist after Marx himself.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

>>6236665
you keep telling yourself that Deng.

>>6236662
>Yes, people moving from countries ass-fucked by imperialism to countries doing the ass-fucking is proof that capitalism is great.

It's always hilarious when commies try to blame their failed states on the West. Communists were in control of the world's two most populous countries simultaneously for half a century, in addition to their satellite states. Despite that fact putting all of the totalitarianism and oppression aside, their economic results were mediocre at best. How did Germany and Japan rise so fast to prosperity after WWII? They were no better off than the Soviet Union or China.

>>6236705
>How did Germany and Japan rise so fast to prosperity after WWII? They were no better off than the Soviet Union or China.
I was going to point out how the Soviet Union and Maoist China were the two fastest periods of industrialization in world history or how Mao doubled life expectancy, but then you outed yourself as a retard.

>>6236740
Nazism led to some pretty impressive industrialization and economic growth as well, it was a house of cards though same as the soviet union and China before the liberal reforms.

>>6236662
>No, you're not.

Gee, why don't you tell me more about the ideological history of anonymous strangers on 4chan you've never met, Mr Omniscient? Statements like this show how knee jerk your thinking is. If I was a former Marxist and became a capitalist, it threatens your dogmatic belief that I'm completely alien to the ideology due to Western propaganda and can't critique it. You're like a radical evangelical who says that ex-christian atheists were never really believers in the first place.

>Notice how all you can say is "it's sort of like Adam Smith"

I notice how you don't use a direct quote here, trying to make me sound more vague than I actually was. I said it was a more refined version of the theory than the one proposed by Adam Smith, in that it was centered around the concept of exchange. Previous formulations of the theory did not distinguish between exchange and use regarding value.

>and then vaguely appeal to authority

Appeals to authority are not always wrong. A biologist or geologist could note the scientific consensus on evolution and global warming when talking to an opponent and it would add considerable weight to his argument because these "authorities" operate within a system of rigid empirical methodology with results subject to peer review, with incentives for overhauling or correcting previously existing theories within their field. I fail to see how economics differs greatly in this respect; it's totally verified that capitalist societies are wealthier than command economies and the calculation problem is a significant reason for this. Not to mention the relatively obvious fact that the purpose of the economy is to satisfy peoples' wants and needs, which are subjective even when almost universal - such as the yearning for food.

>This is Cold War propaganda,

>here's a top historian in the field saying you're wrong: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/repeat-after-me-there-was-no-holodomor/

Robert Lindsay, the pseudo-science touting "racial realist" eugenicist who can't distinguish between phenotype and genotype? Lmao. What credibility does he have? What original studies has he produced and how widely cited are they? I love it how you link me to a wordpress blog instead of an academic journal article. His political circle is notorious for academic dishonesty - David Duke and Kevin MacDonald both got their degrees from diploma mills.

>Yes, people moving from countries ass-fucked by imperialism to countries doing the ass-fucking is proof that capitalism is great.

Please tell me more about the glorious imperialist exploits of Australia. I haven't heard of them before.

>>6236519
>Freud had some revolutionary ideas but the vast majority of ideas he had have expired

I've read this a thousand times on this site, and not one person has explained how or why. They have merely cloaked their utterances in a dogmatic charisma that falls flat because, well, this is an anonymous phillipino bulletin board.

>>6236759

>this entire post

>>6236759
You didn't even read the article, he was reviewing Arch Getty.

>>6236402
yeah all these people who call them self leftwing and never read a book bout marx and probably don`t even know engels
>fucking proletarians are so damn stupid

>>6236759
>Please tell me more about the glorious imperialist exploits of Australia. I haven't heard of them before.

Yeah what does Australia have to do with imperialism? I cant think of a connection

>>6236764

-Freud's idea of traumatic repressed memories is contrary to observable evidence that people suffering traumatic experiences often find them difficult to forget, rather than to remember. Invasive thoughts, nightmares and newly conditioned fears are common. There's a reason war veterans come home shellshocked.
-Dream interpretation is total incense burning garbage. Nobody has ever produced a system of dream interpretation that can reliably interpret meanings from different patients and apply this to problems or repressed wishes in their lives. The entire approach is not falsifiable or verifiable.
-Freud said the vast majority of behaviors were underlined by sexual desire. This is not consistent with patterns of sexual arousal we see in modern behavioral study and neuroscience, which as you would expect is largely limited to the individual actually being sexually excited. Hypersexuality is a possible symptom of cocaine addiction.
- Like Piaget, his theory of childhood development is based on very small sample studies and pretty much totally untested in a way that it can be generalized to the wider public.
- His idea of penis envy and the fear of castration are pretty clearly based on threats of castration that were common for children in his day and are not culturally universal, along with the wider sort of patriarchal society that dominated in his time.

>>6236772

I didn't, because he needs to learn to link to primary sources.

>>6236791

It was a British colony, so yes, it had something to do with imperialism. This doesn't explain how the nation has benefited from imperialism as the aggressor.

>>6236825

>falsifiable

oh, so you're a retard who doesn't read

dropped

https://www.ualberta.ca/~francisp/NewPhil448/HempelEmpiricistsMeaning1950.pdf

>>6236519
Huh, you said pretty much everything I was going to write.
As >>6236764 said though, I do wonder exactly how much of Freud's ideas have supposedly expired and what arguments are to be made against him.

>>6236838
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Arch_Getty

People read this guy all the time in their college classes, but I guess you wouldn't know that.

>>6236843
You could at least summarize your argument and point out where the bulk of relevance is written; I'm not reading that entire pdf for a refutation that might not even be there. I use the term as Karl Popper used it, and the concept is a cornerstone of any legitimate scientific hypothesis. That shows it not being scientific. If you want to criticize empiricism itself fuck off to another thread.

>>6236825

He's not right about everything but he's still pretty insightful. I also take issue with some of your critiques.

> Dream interpretation is total incense burning garbage

Most of my dreams in my 20s have obviously dealt with issues in my life. They're not meaningless. I don't have much more here than personal testimony, but we're talking about psychology, personal testimony counts in this subject.

> His idea of penis envy and the fear of castration are pretty clearly based on threats of castration that were common for children in his day and are not culturally universal

Castration anxiety is a pretty universal male trait even today. The idea of being emasculated and humiliated is a ridiculously universal source of anxiety among men, it's why all this macho swagger type behavior exists. It might be culturally conditioned but to say that something is culturally conditioned doesn't mean it's not real.

> Freud said the vast majority of behaviors were underlined by sexual desire. This is not consistent with patterns of sexual arousal we see in modern behavioral study and neuroscience, which as you would expect is largely limited to the individual actually being sexually excited.

Yeah, guys don't ruthlessly compete for money and status for reasons at all related to sex. Nope. Women don't obsess over fashion and makeup for similar reasons either. Nothing to see here folks. Just keep listening to the guy who's talking about chemical imbalances, he has a pill for you if Freud is freaking you out too much btw.

>>6236825
Also his thoughts on hypnotism and its effectiveness were largely refuted, when the US military did some studies to see if it could be used in an actual, you know, meaningful way. Their conclusion was that there is

>no clear evidence whether 'hypnosis' is a definable phenomenon outside ordinary suggestion, motivation and subject expectancy.

>>6236862

read part 2.2

>>6236863
>Yeah, guys don't ruthlessly compete for money and status for reasons at all related to sex. Nope. Women don't obsess over fashion and makeup for similar reasons either. Nothing to see here folks. Just keep listening to the guy who's talking about chemical imbalances, he has a pill for you if Freud is freaking you out too much btw.
So how do you explain castrated people carrying on to do pretty much anything at all? Some of the most ambitious people at historical courts were eunuchs. Were they trying to get laid? They are castrated early so they don't even develop the hormones that incite sexual desire.

>>6236850
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Arch_Getty

>Wikipedia
>Primary source

Somehow I doubt you're the one who's had a tertiary education. Any crank can point to a historical revisionist or pseudo scientist who agrees with them. How about actually writing your arguments and linking to sources that back them up instead of just vaguely directing me to something you Googled in five seconds, you lazy Marxist fags.

>>6236663
Yes, but how can we ensure this vanguard authority oppresses the bourgeois, instead of merely replacing them and going on the oppress the masses?

>>6236879
It's because if you don't know who Arch Getty is you don't know shit about the field of Soviet history. If you wish to educate yourself there's some of his publications in the footnotes.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v09/n02/j-arch-getty/starving-the-ukraine

More Arch Getty for the onlookers who arn't full of shit.

>>6236898
Again, this doesn't verify his revisionist ideas about the Holodomor. Point to the specific footnotes and explain how they're relevant while not being accepted by the wider historical community, you fag. Of course if you wave your hand at sources for someone who doesn't come from the same ideological backing as you they're not going to follow the exact train of thought you do without guidance.

>lel u are le stoopid read more m8

Literally any fag can say this shit.

>>6236870
Not him, but
a) yeah, true. So?
b) the use of "and" as some sort of bond tying seperate claims together is completely nonsensical when there is no connection of consistency between the two.
c) just a reiteration of a) and b). He can call it overly restrictive all he likes, whining because some existential claims are meaningless doesn't change that.

If you want some actually good arguments against empiricism, read Hume. And Hume's conclusion was that we as humans can't operate without empiricism anyway, so we might as well take what we can get.

>>6236878

Uh, castration anxiety isn't meant to explain all of human behavior, it's just an observation on male psychology. Of course people without high testosterone levels do things. Women do things, and they were never even male at all. But the pattern of intense, violent competition and love of dominance is almost exclusively male. Women and eunuchs rely on passive aggression and cunning moreso than brute violence.

Why would so many men risk their lives to force themselves on others and enjoy chauvanistic supremacy over them? Could it be that their psychology is inspired me some intense... fear? Could it be that they worried that if they don't ruthlessly dominate at all times, they might wind up like their castrated slaves themselves? Maybe? Possibly?

Nah I'm just kidding, that's def. not true psychology is totally all explainable by brain chemistry. Take a paxil, it'll chill ya out.

>>6236825

Your example of war veterans is trauma experienced as an adult. Freud's argument has to do with childhood trauma. The translation of repression into English has muted other connotations of the German word, including "damned" "oppression." etc.

Freud never claimed that his dream interpretation work was a "system."

Libido in Freud is primarily but not wholly sexual. "Ego-libido" for instance, is the ongoing affirmation of childhood fantasies of omnipotence (producing intended results). It has consequences for sexual desire and behavior, but is not only sexual.

>muh stats, muh generalizability, muh falsifiability

not saying these things aren't important, but it is epistemologically narrow-minded to cleave to them in every circumstance.

Freud was very amenable to new data and changed his theories to adapt to them (i.e. his abandonment of abreactive therapy)

>>6236924

SHUT THE FUCK UP IT'S ALL BRAIN CHEMISTRY READ A BRAIN SCAN SOMETIME I CAN'T HEEEEEEAR YOU LALALALALALALALA

>>6236918
Funny how you blab on about testosterone's role in male behavior and then deride the modern approach that psychology is reducible to chemistry, topping it off by implying that medication is a sinister chemical agent for mental placation. You're about as consistent as my friend's schizophrenic uncle.

>>6236825
Let's play.

- traumatic repressed memories : what Freud is exploring is childhood repressed memories, not repressed memories in later life. Also this theory he called neurotica was abandonned by him after 1919, after observing the horror of WWI and shellshock and trying to make sense about it (this will produce the 2nd topic)
-Dream interpretation is not a system of interpretation. It's not a map or a designed thing using a patient dream to understand him. It's the patient interpretation that is useful, not the therapists. Read more closely freud and after that use pubmed and a library there is a lot of contemporary psychological studies backing the use of dream interpretation in therapy and trying to make sense about Freud assertions.
-No. Drive/pulsion/instinct is a very debated question. it's more a theory about the relations between the soma and psyche to help understand where the psychic energy ("libido" in freudian) comes from (the body and it's interaction with the world) and what's happening after that that we can see in language. The desire (and more specifically sexual desire) have nothing to do with behavior, it's more the contrary for Freud. It seem that reproduction and sexuality is for him an anomaly considering it's difficulty. Noone following a rational behavior would do the things we do to reproduce (seducing, etc.) That is this gap Freud is trying to answer.
-Please don't insult Piaget. Studies with wider samples does not equal better science, i'm sure you know that. It's /lit here, the argument science = truth just won't make it. Piaget's observations are marvelous for his time and still true to this day.
-Good argument. To go further, we observe with the decline of patriarchy other psychic constructions (well, less solid) in which freudian psychoanalysis reveal itself useless. It's mainly borderline organisations, and pathologies with a self badly developped.

>>6236924
>>muh stats, muh generalizability, muh falsifiability
>not saying these things aren't important, but it is epistemologically narrow-minded to cleave to them in every circumstance.

Most of your post is good, but this confuses me. Honestly, if someone derides concepts as important as statistics and fallibility is to testing scientific hypotheses with the "muh" meme from /pol/, I seriously doubt their respect for these things at all. What makes Freud a special case? Why should I lift the burden of these epidemiological weights for him and not some random crackpot?

>>6236918
>Women and eunuchs rely on passive aggression and cunning moreso than brute violence.
But they aspire power all the same. Claiming sex is the main drive for power (or pretty much anything, as Freud does) is retarded and, if you ask me, a sure sign of hypersexuality.

Your second paragraph is complete nonsense, too. Your reasoning sounds very contrived. Fear of losing your dick is the only reason you can come up with to explain chauvinism? Sounds like someone has an obsession.

Speaking of obsessions, what's with your remarks to brain chemistry all the time. Was your father assaulted by a chemist or something? Because that what Freud would say

>>6236945

Human psychology is played out in social contexts. Reductionist approaches in such a field are obviously incorrect, regardless of what stupid reductionist mentally handicapped anglo saxon worldview says. Using a bit of biological evidence here and there is not the same as using biology as the main tool of analysis. It's an incorrect "vantage point," it's like trying to study astronomy by analysing the soil on individual planets. Sure, that soil is part of what makes up the universe, but the vantage point of analysis is wrong.

>>6236968

> Le Freud was a pervert.

I'm hardly some hardline Freudian but man this is a blatant dismissal, not an argument.

>>6236864
>>6236864
You know Freud did explore hypnotism and came, half a century before US army, to this conclusion that hypnotism is nothing more than suggestion.
You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about Freud. A lot of his works are debatable, but at least read him closer and stop misunderstanding him at the point of lending him nonsense he debunked at his time.

>>6236996
I made the actual argument before that post. I'm not denying sex is an important drive. Just not THE drive for EVERYTHING.

>>6236685
Hey guys.

>>6236395
Freud thought highly of the Bolsheviks, not sure what you're on about
Also lots of communists who are into continental philosophy are Freudians

>>6236395
He didn't really "BTFO" it. He just said it wouldn't be as great as people thought. Which is perfectly reasonable and doesn't mean it wouldn't be preferable to capitalism for most people.

Any Marxist worth his xir salt will tell you that capitalism is preferable to feudal agriculture.

>there are people in the XXI century who take anything freud said seriously
we might as well say that astrologists refuted capitalism

>>6237209

>all the people in this thread saying Freud didn't critique communism
Holy shit, you illiterate fucks I hope you're baiting me.

>>6236759


Hi, I'm a random stopping in because>>6236769
seemed kinda funny. But your response was good and correct from my stand point, and I hope you keep championing the causes I agree with. I know a little about economics, but obviously not enough to enter or particularly care about the subject. You seem to have your head on straight, and I want you to know that i'm in your corner.

>>6236395
What did he say?

>>6237270
Uh, citation severely needed?

>>6237416
I remember he explicitly made a passing criticism in Civilization and its Discontents. It was like a paragraph long. Something along the lines of "communism can't work, because of human nature".

>>6236614
>>6236643
These Socialists States set up in post-Feudualist peasant country's where famines were common. You will get famines when you have no fucking industry and also the whole country destroyed by a civil war. It breaks my heart fro every single fucking 'marxist' who is against the USSR cause of 'muh famines' while tottaly fucking ignoring the material fucking conditions these states were operating in.

>>6236759
Lindsay is wrong about a lot but he's correct that the facts don't paint the suppose Holodomor as a genocide, and the UN (rightfully) doesn't even recognize it as such.

>>6237430
Oh fuck off. Compare North Korea vs. South Korea. Compare China post liberal reforms vs. China under Mao. Marxism-Leninism is a completely bankrupt ideology and deserves almost as much scorn as neo-nazism does. Also none of the Tsarist era famines killed 5-6 million people like the Second Soviet Famine. The worst one killed like 350,000 people--bad, tragic, but nothing like what happened under stalinism.

>>6237458
>Compare North Korea vs. South Korea.
>Compare China post liberal reforms vs. China under Mao.
Go ahead, anon, compare them for us.

>>6236395
Why do so many people believe in mortifying, imaginary and symbolic theater this guy shit on?

>>6237458
Mao centralised the state, stabilised the currency and created the economic base that allowed the growth in the late 20th century to happen, collectivisation of agriculture in the USSR was absolutely necessary for continued industrialisation and growth and the economy of the DPRK was larger than south korea's until they started to move away from Marxism-Leninism.

You've done exactly what that anon was complaining about you've totally ignored the material conditions, you can't "Compare China post liberal reforms vs. China under Mao" the situations are entirely different.

>>6237486
I'm a Marxist but how do you explain the famine and economic problems afterwards with Mao then?

>>6237270
Freudo-Marxism is one of the greatest projects of Marxist theory in 20th century with analysis of capital/culture relationship,
.

>>6237458
>A lot of people died during a famine that occurred during war-time conditions is worse than a famine occurring under total state hegemony and peace-time
Well, sure.

>>6237486

I don't disagree that Mao was an important historical step in China's economic development. He paved the way for liberal reformers to create an advanced market based economy. But this itself is kind of a point against Marxist eschatology; according to Marxism, capitalism leads to socialism, not the other way around.

And your strategy here is very dishonest. You're picking the weakest link in the examples I cited. The empirical fact that the soviet union had far, far worse famines that Tsarist Russia ever had seems kind of problematic for your position. But you focus on the Chinese example because that's the weakest one I brought up.

>>6237497
>I'm a Marxist but how do you explain the famine and economic problems afterwards with Mao then?
I'm definitely not a Marxist, but from here it looks like after Mao the millenia-old problems of famine and economic collapse were finally solved for good.

>>6237500
I didn't say that Freudo-Marxism didn't exist. I'm not even sure what relevance that has to anything. Yes, people did try to reconcile Freud with Marx. But that doesn't mean Freud didn't have his own criticisms or that Freud saw his position as particularly amiable to communism.

>>6237500
To be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible to reconcile Freud with Marx. I'm only saying that people are wrong to say that Freud had no criticisms of socialism/communism.

>>6237500
Freudo-marxism is the capitulation of marxism as a scientific theory in the west as a consequence of the problems the ussr was facing. Continental marxists basically gave up on marxism as a mean of explaining any real social phenomenon.

>>6237497
What time period are we talking about? The Three Bad Years in particular were a product of three conditions: naturally occurring drought and flooding that Chinese had been suffering since the beginning of agriculture in China; the necessary exporting of grains to the USSR due to the Sino-Soviet Split; the Pests campaign that was intended to increase grain harvests by eliminating certain pests (namely a species of bird) that ended up inviting other pests that were previously being controlled by predation. Regardless, Maoist collectivization is easily creditable with having saved countless lives since since food, being for the first time owned by the peasant workers, was easily distributed. Starvation did occur but it was rare. See Through a Glass Darkly by William Hinton for first-hand account and analysis of this time period.

>>6237497
> Economic problems
The only notable economic issue under Mao's reign was The Great Famine which was a very complex set of ordeal to be reduced down to one or two principal factors. Yet, Mao attacked elements that caused it very soon afterwards -China's infrastructure, labor allocation, bureaucratic administration, reliance on imported food and stagnation in revolution very soon. And no major famines were had since.

Also one has to remember that perhaps the most despicable act in The Great Famine was the way Deng and Shaoqi used the sufferings of millions to elevate their political position and abandon the revolution by introducing crypto-capitalist policies in order to appeal to the remaining bourgeoise and revisionists.

So is this place essentially /marx/ now? We've been averaging about five Marxism threads per day now. If I wanted to hang out around a horde of radical students I would go to Facebook, Reddit, or Revleft.

Can we all just admit that liberalism is the best ideology of all time, and get on with our lives?

>>6237553
newfag
>>>/pol/

>>6236519
>projected
u just got freud'd

>>6237555
No I've actually been here for a while now. Is posting a link to /pol/ really the only defense you people have?

>>6237511
>according to Marxism, capitalism leads to socialism, not the other way around.
No. It would be difficult for actually achieved socialism to revert to capitalism but China's socialism under Mao was a developing socialism. The reversion that occurs after Mao actually proves Mao correct when he claimed that class struggle still continues under socialism. It should be noted here that officially China still claims to be building to socialism but by doing so through capitalism, in line with orthodox Marxism.

>>6236519
>projected his incest fantasies onto everyone else
nice projecting

>>6237554
no.

>>6237541
> Maoist collectivization is easily creditable with having saved countless lives since since food, being for the first time owned by the peasant workers, was easily distributed
This. Whenever one considers Mao's "death counts", one ought to focus on the fact that under Mao's leadership (37 years), China's population grew by 380 million due to improved medicine, agriculture, infrastructure and stability, whereas under Chiang's (21 years) the same number was around 50 million. Mass murderer? Hah. Mass Fertilizer!

>>6237553
/lit/ is 4chan's Marxist stronghold and has been so for years

>>6237563
If you didn't want to be referred to /pol/ why did you use le go to reddit maymay? Fucking faggot.

>>6237581
You cant' deny that there is a high concentration of Marxists on reddit, who also happen to be students who haven't worked a day in their lives.

>>6237552

This is not the prevailing academic explanation of the Great Famine. It's generally blamed on production quotas that were imposed on the farmers--a policy of Mao's government--along with some of the other factors you mentioned. But Mao's policies are generally considered the main cause. Stop running interference for mass murderers.

>>6237588
I can deny that there's a large concentration of Marxists on reddit, reddit is the Mecca of american liberalism.

>>6237588
Post Modernist Liberals arnt Marxist..

>>6237588

...yes actually I can, and you're delusional if you think thats true.

>>6237589
see
>>6237541

>>6237588
Reddit is dominated by Western-Marxist revisionists and Anarcho-queer fanatics who dont give any fuck about working class or orthodox marxism.

OP you have to realize that this board creams over outdated writers their English professors made them read.

Like seriously, they think you're an academic or have any idea of what the fuck is happening in Psychology if you base your foundation on Freud. They honestly think that Marx was revolutionary and made real changes to the foundation of economics.

No, it's not enough that they were inspiring writers trying to address real problems, they have to be right and relevant in today's discussion. Oh, you say that the Oedipus complex is unverifiable and that the Labor Theory of Value doesn't make sense, OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT WELL ENOUGH!

Like honestly, why can't we just respect these writings as historical pieces and not as bloody fucking fact? Look, we all love Aristotle (I'd hope), but I'm not going to be taking medical advice from a guy that lived 2500 years ago. He had a place in history, he wrote very inspiring works, and helped us begin our path onto knowledge, but that doesn't mean he was right on even the majority of the things he said.

If you guys actually want to learn about economics or psychology, pick up a modern textbook. Don't pick up Smith, Marx, Freud, or some shitty Mossburg-esque writer. There are a lot of smart people that have studied these disciplines for centuries.

>>6237626
>someone who's obviously clueless of the world outside America
Freud is in plenty of psychology courses outside the US as well as Marx in economics and political science

>>6237635
>Freud is in plenty of psychology courses outside the US as well as Marx in economics and political science
Yeah, Psychology 101. You go over his theory on the ego, superego, and id, you talk about the Oedipus complex, you go read some of his later works, and then you move on to other psychologists like Jean Piaget and B.F. Skinner.

NO PSYCHOLOGIST IS LEGITIMATELY GOING TO CITE THE OEDIPUS COMPLEX WHEN DIAGNOSING OR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND A PATIENT!

These are archaic ideas that don't work. These were shots into the dark made by brave people that wanted real change in how we address certain issues. Don't over-exaggerate what they are.

>>6236395
>Freud
Nietzsche did it before him.

>>6237654
No, aside from there being plenty of Freudian psychologists in the US (see: APA Division 39) Freudian thought is taught in psychology courses outside of the US in universities such as Belgium and France. But they're more Lacanian, but that's still Freudian.

Freud is taught in some post-grad psychology here depending on the school

>>6237626
>>6237654
CAPS LOCKS GUARANTEE MY AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT

>>6237672
I should add that there are even a few undergrad psychology departments that teach Freudian or Freudian influenced psychology aside from the basics

>>6237672
>No, aside from there being plenty of Freudian psychologists in the US
Psychoanalysis is a historical artifact. It's like a museum piece.

> Freudian thought is taught in psychology courses outside of the US in universities such as Belgium and France. But they're more Lacanian, but that's still Freudian.
Anyone can take a Psychoanalysis course just as anyone can take a course on Free Will and Aristotle and Undergraduate School. Doesn't mean that any significant population of philosophers use Aristotelian metaphysics to argue free will.

Communism and also Socialism have followers the same way that concepts like equality have believers, because there is something about them that levels the playing field in a way that benefits them. i.e. the people who follow those political theories are not doing so good in today's capitalist society.

>>6237686
>Psychoanalysis is a historical artifact. It's like a museum piece.
Nah m8, hundreds of studies say otherwise in it's effectiveness as psychotherapy
>Anyone can take a Psychoanalysis course
That's not true, at least in a psychology department
>Doesn't mean that any significant population of philosophers use Aristotelian metaphysics to argue free will.
That comparison doesn't make sense, Aristotle and his thought is hugely influential on almost all Western Philosophy. There's nothing antiquated about any philosopher arguably.

>>6237712
>Nah m8, hundreds of studies say otherwise in it's effectiveness as psychotherapy
Yeah, and they were all written like 8 decades ago. The last time I read anything about Psychoanalysis was from a interdisciplinary Philosophy journal that tried too hard to connect Freud to Kant.

>That's not true, at least in a psychology department
I can show you the Undergrad Psych program for my school. If you're talking PhD, then you're more confined but you have means of specialization within graduate school.

>That comparison doesn't make sense, Aristotle and his thought is hugely influential on almost all Western Philosophy. There's nothing antiquated about any philosopher arguably.
Philosophy isn't the best example since there's no clear unification among schools (they all accept vastly different premises). Here's another example:

Any undergraduate can take a course on Aristotle's works in Biology, but no serious Biologist is going to use Aristotle's distinctions, definitions, and (most of) his claims to do an observational study.

>>6237729
>Yeah, and they were all written like 8 decades ago.
Lmfao nah m8, check out any modern psychoanalytic journal
or check out Division 39 of the American Psychological Association
or you can look at wikipedia

Anyway you're fucking retarded, go back to whatever shit board you usually post on

here
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735811001863
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/1/15
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0018378
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16096078

kill yourself

>>6236892
im not an expert but isnt the idea of an ideal society to avoid oppressing anyone

>>6237739
>MUH DIVISION 39
Dude, there's a school of Marxist economists in a few universities across the world. And they have their own journals and circle jerk their own bullshit all the time. Doesn't mean they represent any meaningful population of economists. "Hundreds of publications" is a vanity metric.

>>6237744
Those are empirical peer reviewed studies

Also there's plenty of marxist economists outside the US, not just a few universities

but you should still kill yourself

>>6237749
>Those are empirical peer reviewed studies
Bullshit. I keep regularly up to date on most of the top psych journals and I can't remember the last time I remember an essay with a thesis arguing any Freudian system.

Like seriously, just look at the fucking links you posted. The abstract of the first link says:
>In contrast to previous reviews, we found the evidence for the effectiveness of LTPP to be limited and at best conflicting.

>Also there's plenty of marxist economists outside the US, not just a few universities
Yeah, and they're irrelevant outside of economic-historical works. I should know as well since I'm currently doing my masters in econ and moving onto a PhD.

>>6237774
Post keynesians are kinda marxist and are probably the most relevant heterodox school.

>>6238184
Post-Keynesians support a mixed economy, I hardly see how that's "kinda marxist" to anyone but a conservative burgerclap.

>>6237774
>as I should well know
>because I'm less than an apprentice
GJ!

>>6237625
>ha ha y-y-yeah comrade! Fuck those fags! Western decadency! ha ha...

you sir are a fucking idiot

>mfw i'm an intern in psychiatry and can confront clinical empirism of my day to day practice with the schools of psychology i read about
>mfw psychoanalysis is as relevant as cognitivism, behaviorism, interpersonal therapies, etc. just not in the same area of psyche
>mfw everyone working in mental health is well aware of the usefulness of all theories and their contradictions with the reality of clinical practice and trying to reconcile the two because you have to at least have a mental image of the psyche to work with your patients.
>mfw everyone here knowing jack shit about Freud, and contemporary writers in psychoanalysis, condemnig it because muh sexuality
>mfw when i try to answer correctly in >>6236960 and noboy read my broken english

You are pissing me off with your pretentious posturing about stuff you can't even begin to understand. Please stop forcing your uneducated opinions

Marxism is a great a idea, but like all great ideas it fails to take into account the sheer retardation of the average human, and that non-sociopaths never seek political power.