/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15400856]

Are there any marx critics who actually read his work?

[Anonymous No.15400873]

>>15400856
They’re all leftists

[Anonymous No.15400894]

>>15400873
And /thread.

[Anonymous No.15400897]

>>15400856
The farce is happening with fascism at the same time. Prepare for the NazBol synthesis.

[Anonymous No.15400901]

>>15400856
Mises clearly read Capital

[Anonymous No.15400907]

>>15400901
Hahahah. What, upside down?

[Anonymous No.15400934]

>>15400907
You, rather ironically given the subject of the thread, have clearly not read Mises.

[Anonymous No.15400946]

no

[Anonymous No.15400974]

It's not happening with Marxism. NO IT IS NOT.

Everyone is talking about how shit Marxism was for the human race. They can look back 100 years ago and see how shitty everything became.

Honestly, at this time last century, we would've been in a war killing each other. Maybe we're going in the right direction by at the very least shitting on everything Marx put out, and going towards socialism, in a free market style? With no violent revolutions? Thank you, yes please.

Read Joseph Schumpeter.

[Anonymous No.15400983]

>>15400934
Go on.

[Anonymous No.15401025]

>>15400901
where can I read his actual critique? All I see is some stupid articles

[Anonymous No.15401041]

>>15401025
Read Capital and then read Human Action

[Anonymous No.15401057]

>>15400974
>neoliberalism with socialist characteristics is how we emancipate man from capital
I would join the fascists or communists or whoever if it gave me the chance to bury people like you

[Anonymous No.15401064]

>>15401025
you'd want to first read Capital and Interest by Bohm-Bawerk, then Mises' Socialism

[Anonymous No.15401090]

>>15400974
Americans need to be erased from this world

[Anonymous No.15401104]

>>15400856

[Anonymous No.15401107]

>>15401090
Thats not American, Americans fetishize violent revolution

[Anonymous No.15401117]

>look to my left
>faggot pseudomarxists who think marxism = "say 'bootlicker' a lot on the internet, listen to chapo trap house, and force yourself to like 'feminine penis'"
>look to my right
>faggot astroturf libertarians who think that freedom = "a jew owns everything and you pay rent and credit and mortgages and student loans to a jew, but you can be a jew too if you try really hard with these bootstraps, and then you can jew others instead of being jewed, we swear"
>look to the left
>faggots
>look to the right
>faggots
>become a national socialist

[Anonymous No.15401148]

>>15401107
As long as it doesn't happen in their homeland

[Anonymous No.15401158]

>>15400856
Spongebob writers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-x_Wajxxw

[Anonymous No.15401166]

>>15400856
Elon just needs a hobby xDD

[Anonymous No.15401199]

>>15401166
Women always have such interesting things to say about how people are/aren't popular or socially acceptable or "normal" or "fitting in." I value women and their contributions to discourse. I always want at least several women around to say things like "ummm that's not very cash money lol" or "wowww bet u get invited to lots of parties haha" or "lmaoooo it's weird that you care so much about trucks lollllll maybe u should put more effort into having cool hair." I WANT women to VOTE and TALK MORE! I WANT TO HEAR WHAT WOMEN HAVE TO SAY! WOMEN ARE CITIZENS AND MY equals and should vote and have a say in politics. I Can't wait to see what women have to say, today. I bet it will be something all-new and never before said by a woman.

[Anonymous No.15401201]

>>15400856
The thing is, most people aren't even criticizing Marx when they pretend to. Marx never described how communism would actually work. He barely talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat and only considered it viable in certain countries. If you want to "debunk" Marx, debunk his labour theory of value and its philosophical premises. People spend their time trying to debunk authors like Lenin, Trotsky, etc. instead of Marx, because they simply never read Marx (and I'm talking about mainstream criticism, of course Böhm-Bawerk for example gave a good and sound criticism)

[Anonymous No.15401214]

>>15401199
"ummm i think you have MANY hobbies and probably have a lot of sex!" - a female friend as she read your post

[Anonymous No.15401215]

>>15401201
what about the ten planks of the communist manifesto?

[Anonymous No.15401224]

>>15401090
Europeans need to start a Marxist revolution while we watch this time, with Nuclear arms pointed at any country that tries to fuck with us in the process.

[Anonymous No.15401247]

>>15401215
they were basically relinquished following the Paris Commune, see the preface to the 1872 German edition of the Manifesto

[Anonymous No.15401281]

Friendly reminder that Marx was right

[Anonymous No.15401294]

>>15400856
it would help if his works weren't massive fucking tomes. even marx couldn't finish kapital.

[Anonymous No.15401383]

>>15401281
Just because he was right about one thing doesn't mean he was right about everything.

[Anonymous No.15401442]

this fucking Marx idolatry is weird, he's not some messiah who would never say anything wrong
Marxism evolved after Marx

[Anonymous No.15401473]

>>15400856
Bakunin
/thread

[Anonymous No.15401483]

Every person who has ever actually read his work

[Anonymous No.15401559]

>>15401281
That's probably the only thing about which Taleb agrees with Marx. And it doesn't even take Marx to understand that point.

[Anonymous No.15401632]

The tragedy comedy quotes comes from Hegel which was just an observation on Greek plays usually starting as a tragedy and then having a comedic version redone

[Anonymous No.15401636]

>>15401483
>howling in pain, the liberal tries to protect his shekels from the inevitable collapse of this sick game

[Anonymous No.15401646]

>>15401383
No one claims Marx was right about everything. In fact Marx was necessarily wrong about something. This is what led Althusser to propose an "epistemological break" in Marx's work.

The young Marx often contradict the old, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.15402024]

>>15401646
Faggot
https://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5334/2235

[Anonymous No.15402041]

>>15400856
I really wish that all communists on this planet would actually fulfill their dream and create their utopia together on a separate country away from all useful societies so that they can all die at once when their retarded society collapses.
If I get enough money one day I'll personally try to fund their retarded dream so that we can at least corral these parasites.

[Anonymous No.15402055]

>>15400974
why do you write like this

[Anonymous No.15402238]

>>15402024
So what? Kolakowski is denying that we can separate the good Marx from the bad Marx by saying the good Marx is scientific, and the bad Marx is unscientific. This, article, among others, is what led Althusser to the pessimistic position that being a Marxist required you to contradict yourself, because Marx' contradicted himself, where Althusser previously believed we could "scientifically" (in the Marxist sense) separate the good from the bad.

Kolakowski would be the first to tell you Marx contradicts himself. At least the young Althusser had the ambition to fix it.

[Anonymous No.15402260]

>>15400974
>everyone
Echo chambers of academics, podcasters and their paypigs

[Anonymous No.15402277]

>>15400974
>going towards socialism, in a free market style? With no violent revolutions?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm

>In speaking of the impossibility of realising the principles of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism, I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage and determination. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world. That is why I would like, once again, to emphasize the point that my conviction that planned economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism, does not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities, talent and courage of President Roosevelt. But if the circumstances are unfavourable, the most talented captain cannot reach the goal you refer to. .

>Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded. .

>But what will this "socialism" be? At best, bridling to some extent, the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.

[Anonymous No.15402418]

>>15401559
Taleb is a moron, in that case.

[Anonymous No.15402530]

>>15401199
you had me going for a second there

[Anonymous No.15402715]

>>15401199
you almost had me going for a second there

[Anonymous No.15402736]

>>15401199
you almost has me going for a second there almost

[Anonymous No.15402741]

>>15401199
you almost has me almost going for a second there almost

[Anonymous No.15402750]

>>15402277
>>But what will this "socialism" be? At best, bridling to some extent, the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.
Reminds me who has a better economy, USA or Russia?

[Anonymous No.15402752]

>>15401199
almost! you almost had me almost going for a second there almost

[Anonymous No.15402754]

>>15401442
True enough. Some of us are just defending that he’s still quite relevant

[Anonymous No.15402759]

>>15401199
almost! you just about almost had me almost going for a second there almost

[Anonymous No.15402766]

>>15401199
almost! you almost just about almost had me almost going for a second there almost

[Anonymous No.15402823]

>>15401117
....

[Anonymous No.15402840]

>>15401117
>national socialist
>not a bootlicker
oxymoron but nice try dumbass

[Anonymous No.15402849]

>>15401117
if there are faggots on both sides of you, what's more likely to happen is you getting pounded in both ends

[Anonymous No.15402869]

>>15400974
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.15402930]

>>15401166
>Louise Mensch
>British blogger, novelist, and former Conservative Member of Parliament.
> Mensch, as well as her website Heat Street, has published multiple unverified claims, and promoted hoaxes and conspiracy theories about the Trump administration and its ties to the Russian Federation
>USSR and Russian Federation are 100 years old crypto colony of England
The British are a nation of liars, thieves, bastards and thugs. Never trust them.

[Anonymous No.15402955]

>>15402766
very funny cancerous nigger fuck

[Anonymous No.15402960]

>>15402750
Clearly the solution is a system that combines the efficiencies of capitalism with the controls of a state, and not some bizarre extreme wherein either the state or the people have no real control. But that would be racist.

[Anonymous No.15402979]

>>15402750
>good economy is when green line goes up!
the ussr had no homelessness and no unemployment and apart form constant paranoia that person following you might be kgb (which is entirely the fault of later era revisionists anyway!) was generally less stressful as well.

The only valid metric for how good your economy is is how well your economy is meeting the needs of its people.

[Anonymous No.15402991]

>>15402979
the ussr was gay and retarded

[Anonymous No.15403002]

>>15402991
On the contrary, homosexuality is caused by capitalist derangement syndrome and inevitably leads to transsexual fascism.

[Anonymous No.15403011]

>>15400856
Its funny how little critics of Marx actually read him and engage with his actual arguments. I used to be very left-wing and am now more right-leaning, but even then I am embarrassed every time I hear a right wing person bring up Marx. It's clear they never engaged with his ideas in any intellectually honest way.

It's like listening to Leftists talk about Milton Friedman. Another thinker who is quite flawed, but few of his vocal critics engage with his ideas in an honest way.

[Anonymous No.15403017]

>>15403002
no it was gay
>hurr durr daddy has to ration out stuff for everyone, u have to share children
GAY

[Anonymous No.15403073]

>>15403017
no, capitalism makes you gay, anarchocapitalism makes you a pedophile, and fascism makes you want to be a girl. It is known

[Anonymous No.15403086]

>>15403011
Marx is an intellectually nobody, nonentity. All of his ideas were borrowed from the works of charlatans such as Ricardo and Hegel, who were incredibly inflated by english agents. The real role of Marx is the role of the puppet, the executor of english errands. And there is nothing more behind the name of Marx.

[Anonymous No.15403088]

>>15400856
You don't need to read Marx to critique his work, what a brainlet take you have anon. You can critique his axioms (materialism) and disregard anything that comes out of it

[Anonymous No.15403145]

>>15401636
>y-you'll collapse any day now, I-I swear
Hundred years and counting mate
>>15402960
China does it right now
>>15402979
>t. never had a relative from former soviet states
It's shit

[Anonymous No.15403233]

>>15400856
Reminder Elon Musk is a 115 IQ who got rich off of a website and now acts like Steve Jobs, throwing money at people to do things he wants to see get done. Anyone who calls him a genius is either a moron or gullible.

[Anonymous No.15403411]

>>15402960
dumbass

[Anonymous No.15403430]

>>15401104
The *nglo mind cannot untangle the Marxian contradiction. Only the Italian, whose mind is likea spaghetti, can untie the knot.

[Anonymous No.15403443]

>>15403430
be quiet you smelly manlet

[Anonymous No.15403452]

>>15400856
Althusser.

[Anonymous No.15403459]

>>15403443
The *nglo mind is alikea bangerdamash. No subtlety.

[Anonymous No.15403501]

>>15403145
i have directly received first hand accounts in a balanced unbiased fashion which generally concludes some things were better and other things were worse

most people with 'family' were dirty kulaks who got what was coming, or else retards who, despite their retardation, received excellent materialist schooling and then when unleashed on the mid-wits of the west excelled not realizing it is only natural for a soviet man who become king amongst liberals. But this does not last. For if you live with liberals, you become them.

[Anonymous No.15403551]

>>15400856
The rich Satanist kid Elon Musk gives his opinion about an autor he didn't read.

[Anonymous No.15403554]

>>15400856
Kolakowski

[Anonymous No.15403559]

>>15403501
>most people with 'family' were dirty kulaks who got what was coming,
kek you piece of trash

[Anonymous No.15404220]

>>15401025
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=769C554FE7D120A393FCA3ACDE3EAFE8

[Anonymous No.15404231]

>>15403559
burning grain is no light matter anon. people died because of their actions

[Anonymous No.15404275]

>>15402979
The economy is not the same thing as the markets you dumb nigger. Markets are an abstraction and justb1 element of the economy

[Anonymous No.15404302]

>>15401201
https://mises.org/wire/three-arguments-debunking-marx’s-labor-theory-value
Value Is Subjective
> First, Wicksteed informs us that value is not measured by something inherent in each commodity, but rather by the subjective evaluations of the end user. “Now the ‘common something’ which all exchangeable things contain, is neither more nor less than abstract utility, i.e., power of satisfying human desires,” he wrote. “The exchanged articles differ from each other in the specific desires which they satisfy, they resemble each other in the degree of satisfaction which they confer.”
>Commodities exchange for like amounts not because they contain the same amount of labor, but because the users value the ends they satisfy with similar intensity.
>“If I am willing to give the same sum of money for a family Bible and for a dozen of brandy, it is because I have reduced the respective satisfactions their possession will afford me to a common measure, and have found them equivalent,” Wicksteed wrote.
> A key insight of Austrian economics is the use of marginal analysis and the concept of diminishing marginal utility. In other words, goods are evaluated by the needs-satisfaction of the next unit of that good, not by the value of all existing units of the good. In other words, the more of a good you already possess, the less important the need that the next unit of that good will satisfy.
>For instance, if you have one gallon of water, you will use it to satisfy the most important use of water according to your priorities — drinking, for instance. If you acquire a second gallon of water, you will use that to satisfy your second highest priority for water usage, such as bathing. The third gallon of water will satisfy yet a less urgent use for water, and so on.
>Obviously, the price you are willing to pay for a third gallon of water will be lower than the price you are willing to pay for that first gallon of water. You value it less not because of the amount of labor required to produce it, but because it has a lower needs-satisfaction, or utility, according to your priorities.
Marginal Utility
>As Wicksteed explained, “Now in a community every member of which possessed two coats already, a further increment of coats would (ceteris paribus) satisfy a less urgent need, possess a less utility, and therefore have a lower exchange value than would be the case in a community each member of which possessed only one coat.”
>In sum, the value of coats will have fallen, not because it takes less labor to produce them, but because the utility of the additional units satisfies less urgent needs.

[Anonymous No.15404308]

>>15404302
Collectibles
>Wicksteed closes his argument with an example of exchangeable items whose amount of labor is “powerless to affect.”
>These items include “specimens of old china, pictures by deceased masters, and to greater or less degrees the yield of all natural or artificial monopolies. The value of these things changes because their utility changes. And their utility changes … because of a change in the desires to which they minister,” Wicksteed declares.
>“I cannot see how any analysis of the act of exchange, which reduces the ‘common something’ implied in that act to labour can possibly be applied to this class of phenomena,” he concludes.

[Anonymous No.15404314]

>>15400873
this

you literally cannot read the works of marx and still come to the conclusion that any system other than communism is a preferable society. No human being is that moronic or evil.

[Anonymous No.15404318]

>>15404231

[Anonymous No.15404319]

>>15400897
Based

[Anonymous No.15404326]

Does Marx ever cover the transfer of wealth from the consumer to the bourgeoisie via surplus value?

[Anonymous No.15404333]

>>15404302
>conflating value with price
do liberals ever learn a new trick?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htm#law

[Anonymous No.15404349]

>>15404318
The wonderful thing is where various moralists might see one or the other as 'right' and the other as 'wrong', the proper historical materialist can only applaud the audacity of the kulak for so magnificantly defending his class interest and the efficiency of the red army for so masterfully securing their own.
Everyone is the hero in their turn, thats the nature of progress.

[Anonymous No.15404352]

>>15404314
it doesnt work tho

[Anonymous No.15404384]

>>15404231
Maybe rethink collectivizing ;)

[Anonymous No.15404418]

>>15402055
No joke probably autism

[Anonymous No.15404949]

>>15401117
You sound like an impressionable moron who is more concerned with how he looks on twitter than on doing the reading for himself

[Anonymous No.15404989]

>>15404314
I think that regulated capitalism akin to NEP, or even having working antimonopoly should last us for a decent amount of time

[Anonymous No.15404995]

>>15402260
Wake up buddy, everyone who is IN ACADEMIA ARE MARXISTS

[Anonymous No.15405564]

>>15401117
based retard

[Anonymous No.15405647]

>>15401224
No please murdering commie or being tortured to death by commie does not sound amazing.

[Anonymous No.15405669]

>>15400897
Extremely based

[Anonymous No.15405673]

>>15401117
Let me know once you stop living in 20th century Germany

[Anonymous No.15405688]

>>15400856
No because every critique of him is extremely ham fisted. Marx was like every philosopher ever, he said some profound, very correct things and some entirely off base things.

[Anonymous No.15405696]

>>15400897
hyperbrains

[Anonymous No.15405710]

>>15404302
>>As Wicksteed explained, “Now in a community every member of which possessed two coats already, a further increment of coats would (ceteris paribus) satisfy a less urgent need, possess a less utility, and therefore have a lower exchange value than would be the case in a community each member of which possessed only one coat.”
Coats wear out and need to be replaced. New people get born who need new coats. How retarded is this guy?

[Anonymous No.15405850]

>>15404333
value doesn't exist outside of price

[Anonymous No.15405898]

>>15405850
Not even a communist but this is basically the problem of our time.

[Anonymous No.15405924]

>>15404349
>the proper historical materialist can only applaud the audacity of the kulak
No, you need to read or leave.

[Anonymous No.15405933]

>>15405898
Lacan had some excellent ideas here.

[Anonymous No.15406052]

>>15401199
good post

[Anonymous No.15406067]

>>15400856
Yes, Keynes and Camus.

[Anonymous No.15406100]

>>15401199

[Anonymous No.15406101]

>>15400856
Musk thinks Marx was a capitalist

[Anonymous No.15406103]

odd thats hes dating a former tankie

[Anonymous No.15406106]

>>15406101

[Anonymous No.15406190]

>>15400974
Marx is cringe and the best thing about the last century has been the complete destruction of his ideas and the triumph of liberalism over them.

If those pitiful subhuman degenerate Slavs had not fallen for his Jewish lies, they would be in a far better state now instead of being riddled with AIDs and krokodil.

[Anonymous No.15406210]

>>15406106
This is like reading discipline and punish and thinking Foucault thought prisons were good

[Anonymous No.15406222]

>>15404352
What do you even mean, USSR, Cuba, China are/were all extremely successful countries

[Anonymous No.15406232]

>>15401166
>Mensch

[Anonymous No.15406243]

>>15405850
Yes it does. The discrepancy between value and price must exist because production and sale exist separately as two distinct moments. Value is what it would take to reproduce the commodity while the price is how much you get for it.

[Anonymous No.15406370]

>>15406222
Who the fuck was/is happy in those countries? Speak against them and they will kill you.

[Anonymous No.15406928]

>>15400873
this desu
but I think it's because the kinda poncy conservative /lit/ might approve of is too busy huffing their own farts to read marx
it's only mildly psychotic postmoderns who actually bother to read him so they can epicly show how outmoded his narrative is

[Anonymous No.15406933]

>>15400974
>at this time last century, we would've been in a war killing each other
just wait senpai

[Anonymous No.15407051]

>>15402238
Did you e en read the article?

[Anonymous No.15407069]

>>15402238
Did you even read the article?
>Kolakowski would be the first to tell you Marx contradicts himself.
Clearly not.

[Anonymous No.15407629]

>>15400897

[Anonymous No.15407696]

>>15405710
>(ceteris paribus)
Nah man, you were the retarded all along.

[Anonymous No.15407710]

>>15400856
amazon.com/Marxism-Philosophy-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688029639

[Anonymous No.15407724]

>>15407069
Kolakowski is famously anti-marxist ... Are you seriously fucking retarded? Kolakowski belies that Marxism has broken down and is finished.

[Anonymous No.15407725]

>>15406222
That does conveniently ignore the entire Eastern bloc, which were hardly prosperous states

[Anonymous No.15407729]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.15407736]

>>15407724
I think you need to actually read the article instead of relying on your presuppositions.

[Anonymous No.15407745]

>>15407736
I'm not going to defend the view that Kolakowski rejected Marxism, because it so so obviously true. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15407797]

>>15400897
Brothers forever.

[Anonymous No.15407997]

>>15406370
This is far from true.

[Anonymous No.15408210]

>>15405924
Commies get the bullet

[Anonymous No.15408287]

>>15407745
I think you should read where this chain of posts began.

[Anonymous No.15408390]

All "marxists" I've ever met are lazy faggots that can't stop consoooming. Don't bother telling me that I need to read Marx. I studied china and Russian communist history and even if you think they didn't practice "real communism", learning about how braindead retarded the countries were was baffling. I can't believe any of you would rationalize their reign. I would rather be ruled by the Tsar's.

[Anonymous No.15408409]

>>15401383
Yes, it's called nuance. Most people these days should learn it.

[Anonymous No.15408664]

>>15408390
read marx faggot

[Anonymous No.15408675]

>>15407710
just give us the name instead of posting an american link filthy burger

[Anonymous No.15408676]

>>15400856
Me.

[Anonymous No.15408718]

>>15408287
I said
>Kolakowski would be the first to tell you Marx contradicts himself.
and he answered
>Clearly not
What else is there to say? Kolakowski, the great anti-Marxist, would of course be averse to Marxism. He basically considers it a religion.

[Anonymous No.15408724]

>>15400897
holy based

[Anonymous No.15408753]

>>15407696
No, you're retarded. My point is that this idiot abstracts from the essential facts of the situation and then pretends to have proven something about the real world. Once you start asking questions such as "how did it happen that they now have 2 coats instead of 1", it'll turn out you have to bring all the things that have been illicitly abstracted away from back into the equation, and the imbecile will have to promptly shove the (ceteris paribus) back up his ass where it belongs.

[Anonymous No.15408761]

>>15401473
Based

[Anonymous No.15408779]

>>15403459
>Who was Shakespeare alex

[Anonymous No.15408790]

>>15400897
Basé et rougepillé!

[Anonymous No.15408805]

>>15408790
Why would fascists team up with Bolsheviks? Serious question. Capitalism operates at efficiency and allows expression. The health of the people is the concern of the fascist state. What could bols contribute that necessitates an alliance?

[Anonymous No.15408884]

>>15408805
It was just the “right Marxism“ that triumphed in Russia, which obtained the name of “bolshevism”. But it does not mean, that only in Russia the matter was as such. The similar tendency is present in all communist parties and movements all over the world, if, certainly, they do not degrade to the parliamentary Social Democracy, conforming to the liberal spirit. Thus, it is not surprising, that socialist revolutions have taken place except Russia only in the East: in China, Korea, Vietnam etc.. It emphasizes once again, that just traditional, non-progressive, the least “modern” (“alienated from the Spirit“) and, correspondingly, the most “conservative”, the most “right” peoples and nations, have recognized the mystical, spiritual, “bolshevik” essence in the communism.

The national-bolshevism takes turn of just such bolshevik tradition, the policy of the “ right communism “, which was originated by the ancient initiatic societies and spiritual doctrines in remote ages. Thus the economic aspect of communism is not diminished, is not denied, but is considered as a gear of the teurgic, magic practice, as a particular tool of a reality transformation. The only thing that should be rejected here is an inadequate, historically exhausted Marxism discourse in which the accidental, inherent to the past epoch, humanist and progressist themes are often present.

The Marxism of the national-bolsheviks means Marx minus Feurbach, i.e. minus evolutionism and sometimes appearing inertial humanism.

Beyond “rights” and “lefts”, there’s one and indivisible Revolution, in the dialectical triad “third Rome – third Reich – third International”.

The realm of national-bolshevism, Regnum, their Empire of the End, this is the perfect accomplishment of the greatest Revolution of the history, both continental and universal one. It is angels` return, heroes` resurrection, the heart’s uprising against the reason’s dictatorship. This last revolution is a concern of the acephal, the headless bearer of the cross, sickle and hammer, crowned by eternal sun fylfot.

[Anonymous No.15408903]

Socialism does not work.

Communism does not work.

Marxism does not work.

[Anonymous No.15409011]

>>15408903
The Communist Manifesto is a fucking pamphlet yank. A fucking joke for stinky, illiterate, nasty Lumpenproletariat. Stop pretending you know anything about Marxian economics by pointing out that fucking piece of garbage.

[Anonymous No.15409118]

>>15401025
critique it yourself dumbass

[Anonymous No.15409138]

>>15408790
sankara wasn't a nazbol dumbass nationalism in an imperialized nation is completely different from nationalism in a imperial core

[Anonymous No.15409139]

>>15409011
there will never be a stateless classless society larger than a small tribe, which in any case would not be a fun place to live for the genetic specimens that end up being communists.

[Anonymous No.15409145]

>>15400897
>>15405669
Anyone who doesn't take race into account isn't fascist.

No one at all takes National Bolshevism seriously.

[Anonymous No.15409157]

>>15403088
>Most people in history were religious so materialism isn't true
>Despite these scientists expecting to be able to explain and predict the universe using measurements, an idea compatible with if not required by materialism
The only toilet brain is the person who made this image, as well as people like you who think it represents anything near a critique of Marx. Retard.

[Anonymous No.15409262]

>>15408779
>tries to name one example of an *nglo who doesn’t have porridge brain
>names a black woman

[Anonymous No.15409277]

>>15401199
>I value women and their contributions to discourse
Not fooling anyone.

[Anonymous No.15409287]

>>15408805
>Capitalism operates at efficiency and allows expression.

citation needed

[Anonymous No.15409291]

>>15408718
I suppose I'll have to spoonfeed you. In that article, Kołakowski opposes Althusser's position that Marx contradicts himself through an epistemic break (your original contention), instead maintaining that there was a clear evolution in his ideas throughout his writings.

[Anonymous No.15409294]

>>15403088
>You don't need to read someone to critique him
bet you're american too

[Anonymous No.15409311]

>>15406370
No one is happy nowadays

[Anonymous No.15409330]

>>15409277
>
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm incel much? yikes

[Anonymous No.15409332]

>>15401117
yep

[Anonymous No.15409343]

>>15409330
have sex

[Anonymous No.15409371]

>>15409145
>No one at all takes National Bolshevism seriously.

[Anonymous No.15409379]

>>15400856
Color was created by Crayola to sell more crayons.

[Anonymous No.15409394]

>>15409291
As I already made clear (guess I'll have to spoon feed you) Althusser left that position for his aleatory materialism, not because Marx does not contradict himself, but because his contradictions can not be explained (away) by an epistemological break. ("To be a Marxist is to contradict oneself.")

You need to better your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.15409407]

>>15409291
Cont. >>15409394

You are confusing the (young) Althusser of For Marx and Reading Capital with the (mature) Althusser of Marx at His Limits.

[Anonymous No.15409419]

>>15403088
isn't this an ad populum argument? there are plenty atheists who made advancements but just listing people doesn't make either argument logical or sound.

[Anonymous No.15409453]

>>15401199
Almost, for a second, you had me going

[Anonymous No.15409465]

>>15409291
Cont. >>15409394 and >>15409407

I'm just going to SEP at this point:

>In 1978 and as a response to what he saw, yet again, as the theoretical and political misdirection of the Communist movement, Althusser authored a piece, “Marx in his Limits,” which was intended to separate the good from the bad in Marx’s philosophy. In his classic work, Althusser had tried to accomplish this goal by separating out ideological concepts and by bringing forth the scientific ones. However, in “Marx in his Limits,” he now argued that such a method of separation cannot work because—within Marx’s writings and throughout his oeuvre—both good and bad, materialist and idealist concepts, are hopelessly intermixed and many are underdeveloped.

[Anonymous No.15409516]

>>15408903
Most people who read Thomas Sowell probably have no idea that he is a shill for the Hoover institute

[Anonymous No.15409662]

>>15402849
that sounds really gay

[Anonymous No.15409721]

>>15409145
>Anyone who doesn't take race into account isn't fascist.

Soo .. Mussolini wasn't a fascist?

[Anonymous No.15409747]

>>15400856
Good ideas that Marx had:
(1) the subordination of use value to exchange value has been a disaster.
(2) alienation as the significant phenomenon of modernity
(3) the hopeful, idealistic aspect of the revolution

Bad ideas that Marx had:
(1) dialectical and historical materialism, which leads to
(2) total relativism, which leads to
(3) the heterogenesis of ends, and the suicide of the revolution, which leads to
(4) neo-bourgeois nihilism, neo-capitalism, iatrogenic acceleration of alienation and exploitation.

Happy to elaborate on anything.

[Anonymous No.15409896]

Jordan Peterson has some decent refutations

[Anonymous No.15409953]

>>15408884
At last I truly see. Excellent analysis thank you. Looks like I have more reading to do.

[Anonymous No.15409960]

>>15409262
What can I say other than based

[Anonymous No.15409988]

>>15409721
If you're trying to convince me he believed blacks, jews, or even Germans were functionally interchangeable with Italians you're only lying to yourself.

[Anonymous No.15409998]

>>15402754
The whole point is that he isn't.

[Anonymous No.15410001]

>>15408884
Nice hebephrenia.

[Anonymous No.15410035]

>>15409953
You are welcome.
>>15410001
Nice non-argument.

[Anonymous No.15410038]

>>15409371
This ain't the aughts, bro. In the West it's just an epithet for jews pretending to be nazis to throw at nazis. In Russia it's just a performative philosophy in service to the state.

As an idea? Not in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.15410053]

>>15410035
There are two types of statements you can't argue with: correct ones, and those with no semantic content.

[Anonymous No.15410524]

>>15406222
>USSR, Cuba, China are/were all extremely successful countries
who all abandoned state-level Marxism in favor of trading goods and services with other nation-states, except citizens can't do it, only authorized government oligarchies can.

[Anonymous No.15410576]

>>15404314
*socialism not communism
This is why when right wingers read Marx they just become Fascists.

[Anonymous No.15410759]

>>15409516
oh no, he's affiliated with a think tank. Those damn neoliberals/cuckservatives/fascists/whatever else retarded bullshit you believe

[Anonymous No.15410785]

>>15400897
Well they rose to prominence together, it's only fitting they would rise now together as well.

[Anonymous No.15411486]

>>15401199

Almost, ALMOST had me unironically going there for a sec

[Anonymous No.15411551]

>>15401117
t. a faggot

[Anonymous No.15412179]

>>15409747

idk if I buy

> (1) the subordination of use value to exchange value has been a disaster.

is this based on some notion of perfect commodification?

[Anonymous No.15413758]

>>15412179
From McIntyre in Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity, citing Meikle:
> In order to capture the difference between capitalist economy and pre-capitalist ‘economy’ the distinction required is that between use-value and exchange-value. The most fundamental question to be asked about a society is which of these predominates in it. A capitalist society is predominantly a system or exchange-value; economics is the study of the developed forms of exchange-value and of the regularities in its movement, or ‘actual market mechanisms,’ and it can come into being only with the appearance of full-blown market economy, that is, with markets in labour and capital, Antiquity was predominantly a system of use-value, partially administered, and if it had regularities, these were nothing like the cycles, laws, and trends which characterize a system of exchange-value.
Further:
> [W]hat agents learn from both success and failure in market transactions is the importance of increasing whatever money they have, by selling for as much as possible, by buying as cheaply as possible, by saving, and by investing, and this no matter how much money they may have already. So they learn to want more and then more and then more and become consumed by their own desires. Moreover, it is by how good they are at increasing their stock of money that others measure their success or failure, admire them or withhold their admiration. So the trait that the Greeks called pleonexia, acquisitiveness, a trait that both Aristotle and Aquinas took to be a vice, comes for the first time to be treated as a virtue by large numbers of people and money becomes an object of desire, not only for what it can buy, but also for its own sake. Yet this is not all.
Every economic order is an order of producers who are also consumers and what distinguishes one such order from another is in part how those who inhabit it understand the relationship between their activities as producers and their activities as consumers. The paradox of capitalism is that, while it requires that consumption should serve the ends of expanding production, it imposes on many a way of life in which their work, their productive activity, is thought of as valuable only because it serves the ends of consumption. It creates consumer societies in which its products can be successfully marketed only if the desires of consumers are directed toward whatever consumable objects the economy needs them to want. So the seductive rhetoric of advertising and the deceptions of marketing become necessary means for capitalist expansion, means that shape and elicit desires for objects that agents qua rational agents, directed toward the ends of human flourishing, have no good reason to desire.

[Anonymous No.15413801]

>>15409011
No commies have read capital.

[Anonymous No.15413805]

>>15404352
Only someone with no economic or understanding of dialectics would say this

[Anonymous No.15413816]

>>15413805
>understanding of dialectics

top kek

[Anonymous No.15413828]

>>15400897
Fascism would need to be on some way comparable to Marxism, fascism is nothing more the metaphysics with larp aesthetics and lacks any kind of theory.
>>15400901
I have read Mises and they in no way solve the problem of the falling rate of profit or wage labor expropriation
>>15408903
Engels was literally a business owner and the manifesto is in no way actually related to Marxist theory

[Anonymous No.15413833]

>>15409747
Explain how dialectical materialism is wrong and what the alternative might be

[Anonymous No.15413992]

>>15409896
quality bait

[Anonymous No.15414014]

>>15401199
She almost saw this bro. Keep up the good work!

[Anonymous No.15414061]

why is the prose here so boring? mad turbo autists are so obsessed with economics and how others live when they cant even fix themselves

[Anonymous No.15414063]

>>15414061
That's not a argument against Marxist theory

[Anonymous No.15414086]

>>15414063
>NOOO AD HOM IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS VIEW ON REALITY
if he doesnt understand people he's got no argument

[Anonymous No.15414127]

>>15414086
Read Kapital and make a critique if not you are just making yourself seem increasingly less intelligent

[Anonymous No.15414304]

>>15401117
Based retard, you're making the right observations though

[Anonymous No.15414482]

>>15413833
There are a couple of reasons why I dislike dialectical and historical materialism, but we can start with the objection I raised in my post, which is that it amounts to total relativism.

[Anonymous No.15414509]

>>15400873
lol, shut the fuck up anglo

>>15400856
yes.

[Anonymous No.15414526]

>>15413758
Production only occurs for the purposes of consumption though. You don't just make commodities for no reason. MacIntyre seems like just another Communist who wants to go back to serfdom. To be fair, I think he WAS a Communist for a long time, and there's a large contingent of Catholics that basically advocates Communism nowadays.

[Anonymous No.15414563]

>>15408884
>But it does not mean, that only in Russia the matter was as such. The similar tendency is present in all communist parties and movements all over the world, if, certainly, they do not degrade to the parliamentary Social Democracy, conforming to the liberal spirit. Thus, it is not surprising, that socialist revolutions have taken place except Russia only in the East: in China, Korea, Vietnam etc.. It emphasizes once again, that just traditional, non-progressive, the least “modern” (“alienated from the Spirit“) and, correspondingly, the most “conservative”, the most “right” peoples and nations, have recognized the mystical, spiritual, “bolshevik” essence in the communism.
I think it's because functional State Socialism is closer to serfdom than to Western capitalism, as they are in theory defined by the abolition of money and markets and by a planned economy in which the Party distributes goods - since those societies had never undergone Western modernization, socialism was less of a leap for them in terms of change than it might have been for e.g. Britain or America. Similarly, we note that in the West the countries with the strongest Communist parties in general were the ones where Catholic/Orthodox Church was prominent - the Party replaces the Church. Predictably, Communism is least popular in Britain and America, where it only gains traction among the gentry and even then it is closer to "a theory of Niceness". Communism in this framework is an extremely reactionary movement.

[Anonymous No.15414569]

If he really have read 18th of Brumaire and the Communist Manifesto he probably knows more theory than 95% of communists.

[Anonymous No.15414603]

>>15414482
I don't care if you dislike and you can claim it amounts to whatever you want but dialectical materialism is a science find me a replacement or stop complaining because their is nothing relative about the dialectical process

[Anonymous No.15414612]

It's time for the left and right to come together to form a system that combines the best elements of both sides: libertarian market socialism. The free market should be freed of all regulations except for one, all businesses have to be cooperatively owned. Taxation and wageslaving are both theft, and so we will have neither.

[Anonymous No.15414615]

>>15414605
How does that solve the falling rate of profit?

[Anonymous No.15414621]

>>15414615
>>15414612

[Anonymous No.15414770]

>>15414615
>>15414621

I don't know, how do we solve it

[Anonymous No.15414774]

>>15414612
hello Proudhon

[Anonymous No.15414777]

>>15401199
al
most

[Anonymous No.15414797]

>>15406222
>centralized state
>use currency and trade with it for commodities and services
>means of production owned by the state instead of the workers
>hurr this is proof communism sucks even though it doesn't conform to the basic definitions of it
Why can't you retards even bother reading the first wikipedia paragraph on communism? Is even that too much fucking work?

[Anonymous No.15414805]

>>15414770
Through single use labor tokens in an AI centrally planned economy, the OGAS system was developed in the Soviet Union and would have made 90% of administration jobs irreverent and would have solved the all of the problems associated with the Soviet economy.

Paul Cockshott has a series of lectures on the topic I can list below, if you haven't already I am assuming you have read both the Wealth of Nations and the first two volumes of Kapital. If not he also covers thing like the labor theory of value and commodities on his channel. I don't expect you to watch these but here I'll post it none the less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkWnODtS6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI01-5zhwdA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTl4b0w6mpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE-kCZnlGZU

[Anonymous No.15414874]

>>15414805
>Through single use labor tokens in an AI centrally planned economy,
Sounds like it has a lot of potential for SciFi cyberpunk dystopia, do we really need an ultra authoritarian state to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.15414926]

>>15414874
No not necessarily but the bourgeoisie is never going to vote away it's privileges, class warfare is essential for the dialectic to advance. Here are some videos on why change cannot come through non violent reform.

Why democracy and reform is not the answer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHN0foV4Ntk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkdBn6pznw

Don't like the author or agree with most of his beliefs but he gives a good breakdown of why violence is necessary for political change. v=SP5Eeq5y8Bs&list=PLTeHv2rWFci6wlDAQ6OomdZ6WjOMrUXdW

You get through all of the content I have listed here and in my previous post check out The State and Revolution and What is to be done by Lenin and Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

[Anonymous No.15414928]

>>15414926
Link didn't post correctly for the second one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5Eeq5y8Bs&list=PLTeHv2rWFci6wlDAQ6OomdZ6WjOMrUXdW

[Anonymous No.15414932]

Commentators on Marx today, such as Elster or Wolff do critique Marx and reveal its shortcomings in a lot of the minor details of his writings and his ambitions for the development of a communist society or how underdeveloped his idea of ideology can be.

There has to be more

[Anonymous No.15414971]

>>15414926
Direct democracy doesn't work either because most people lack the education required to plan large scale policy decisions, so we have to choose between indirect democracy and something like minarchism.

[Anonymous No.15414988]

>>15414971
I actually believe in Vanguardism until we reach the point of post scarcity that is best summed up and justified in the book What is to be done. But yeah if you get through the material I have given you and I hope it helps you to understand Marxist theory and economics, if not have a good one dude

[Anonymous No.15414990]

>>15410785
>vengeance.exe

[Anonymous No.15415001]

>>15400856
Yeah, a lot of them. One was Leszek Kolakowski, who wrote the most authoritative historical study of Marxism ever written and was also an outspoken criticism of Marxism. There was also the significant failure of Marxism in econ during the early 20th century with the socialist calculation debate. The better question isn't if there are critics who have read Marx but if you have read critics. And no YouTube videos, by the way, can refute centuries of economic thought.

[Anonymous No.15415140]

>>15400856
-Liberals and Communism: The Red Decade Revisited by Frank A. Warren
-Witness by Whittaker Chambers
-The Red Decade: The Stalinist Penetration of America by Eugene Lyons
-The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson

[Anonymous No.15415241]

Walter Benjamin has the best and least appreciated critique of Histmat

[Anonymous No.15415301]

>>15410001
>hebephrenia
My thoughts exactly reading that.

[Anonymous No.15415320]

>>15414563
Which western country had a prominent Orthodox church presence?

I'm for Romania for example - considered East after ww2 finale, and we had literally almost no communist members, everyone hated it and was scared of Russians.. they had to install one-party Marxist-Leninist state by forging the votes and with a regime of terror and secret police.

My point is especially that we had a massive Orthodox presence, and the communists spend a lot of time torturing priests for some reason.

[Anonymous No.15415369]

>>15401201
>Has never read Marx's critique of the Gotha programme.

[Anonymous No.15415400]

>>15404333
>ah, yes, the value must come from the price
Derp

[Anonymous No.15415412]

>>15405850
Then how the hell do we know which price to set, you absolute moron.

[Anonymous No.15415424]

Marx was a Jewish faggot who stole the work of other influential socialist theorists and wasn't even capable of keeping his family alive and well. Anyone who reads Marx is a retard and should better read the works he lifted shit from.

[Anonymous No.15415495]

>>15415424
THE JOOOOOSSS

[Anonymous No.15415500]

>>15409988
He believed Jews were lol. He had a jewess as a mistress.

[Anonymous No.15415504]

>>15409516
What economist is not affiliated with a think tank or political institution??

[Anonymous No.15415524]

>>15408753

Basically.

[Anonymous No.15415589]

>>15402840
Read it again, faggot

[Anonymous No.15415637]

>>15402930
Ocнoвaннo и кpacнoтaблeтoчнo

[Anonymous No.15415638]

>>15401117
This. So much this. Have an upvote, dear sir!

[Anonymous No.15415639]

>>15415495
Why yes, I used a slur towards someone I don't like. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.15415644]

>>15414603
>is a science

What are some of its best predictions?

[Anonymous No.15415711]

>>15402979
>the ussr had no homelessness and no unemployment
Because both were literally illegal.
>generally less stressful
lol
Getting good meat ("good" means "actual meat") or decent boots in the USSR was on par with getting expensive drugs in the 1st world countries.

[Anonymous No.15415738]

>>15400897
The problem with fascism is that it's too one-sided. In order to maintain our advanced civilization, you need to appeal to multiple sides; the operation must be multi-faceted. Our civilization is made up of many different specializations and each specialization needs unique care.

The problem with communism is far more fundamental. The only side it appeals to is the lazy, which is not a side at all, because as soon as the lazy are placed in a position of authority, everything collapses. Only lazy people are communists.

[Anonymous No.15415756]

>>15415738
Your lack of economic understanding is laughable

[Anonymous No.15415789]

>>15409138
Disagree. That makes nationalisim only a means not an ends. So would that mean, once the country becomes prominent it should relinquish its national pride? Seems way to contextual and artificial. The pride isnt real at that point, its a simulated means and it implicitly makes them "less advanced" than the Imperial nations.

[Anonymous No.15415797]

>>15408805
The reason that marxism, or at the very least should be of value to us facists, is that there is evidence to suggest that capitalism does not operate with any real efficiancy compared to say a worker cooperative. (A traditional company except every worker owns a equal share of the company and vote for their bosses and managers.)
People who work in cooperatives, are happier, earn more and most importantly are more productive than their wagecuck counterparts.

Just like the institution of slavery held back the industrial revolution since it was cheaper to keep slaves than build machines, so too does the institution of capitalism hold back the better and more happy economy you would get in a market socialist coop system.

Futher more, the capitalist class provides no real service to those it rules over, other than access to means of production, which could easily be run in a cooperative instead.
All capitalists due is extract surplus value from those they work under, its a inherently parasitic relationship.
Compare that to the feudal lords of old who at least provided protection from bandits and other priviledges for the peasants you worked under them.

Futher more capitalist mode of production and economy degenerates culture, media and information distribution. Plus it results in the genocide of all peoples and cultures in the world through cultural imperialism from the largest centers of capital (in our world the USA)

Sex has been hyper co modified in large part to capitalist interests. Media has been reduced to clickbait vapid nonsense, which fails to educate the people or bring them up to any higher level of being.
Music and movies have also been reduced to consumerist propaganda factories, that seek to reduce us all to basedmouths that cry at seeing the next star wars trailer.

[Anonymous No.15415803]

>>15415756
>China
>not incredibly fucking lazy
They lack creativity. All the blueprints they have, they stole. Their products are knockoffs. They don't maintain their buildings. They don't practice good sanitation. Their solution to every problem is to kill a shitload of people or parts of nature. They are fucking useless, lazy shitheads.

[Anonymous No.15415842]

>>15415803
And they are the most powerful economic entity on the planet yet America the beacon of capitalist virtue has outsourced most of it's manufacturing and is in a state of prolonged stagnation. China is the future my friend if you don't see that then you are burying your head in the stand

[Anonymous No.15415861]

>>15415842
They aren't the most powerful. They just have the most money, because Western industries decided to use them for their manufacturing operations and because Amazon let them exploit their gigantic market share. They are fucking retards that don't know what to use money for, because they're communists, i.e. a lazy and uncreative people. Their horrible work conditions are a further testimony to that fact: they wouldn't NEED sweatshops if their people weren't lazy parasites. They are only productive when they are forced to be. That's pure laziness.

[Anonymous No.15415870]

>>15414526
I don’t think you’ve addressed his argument. He says:
> Every economic order is an order of producers who are also consumers
Read it more thoroughly, that’s not his complaint.
Nor is McIntyre a communist. He stands with the Popes in their affirmation of a subset of Marx’s critique of capitalism. Insofar as Marxism makes reference to an uncreated order of justice, which would include the affirmation of the rights of workers; the renunciation of the dehumanizing and alienating potentialities of capitalism, and its incentives for greed and ruthless competition; and his affirmation that through solidarity a better way is possible.
Where we must part ways with the Marxists is at the central significance which atheism, scientism, and relativism to Marxist thought, demonstrated here: >>15414603
where it’s worst tendencies are on display. And here is where the critique begins: we can see in the light of reason, and have witnessed through history that the relativistic and scientistic tendencies of Marxism are at odds with those tendencies which speak to the innate justice in human nature. In effect, the negations of historical materialism wipe out the revolutionary dialectic using the same means it employs to attack religion, ethics, etc. Through this heterogenesis of ends, Marxism ends up negating it’s own affirmations, and undergoes an observable process of decomposition in which it ends up on the same scientistic, relativistic side of the fault line as capitalism, iatrogenically emulating all of its worst characteristics, and ultimately, and against all of Marx’s intentions, being absorbed by it.

[Anonymous No.15415874]

>>15413828
>the problem of the falling rate of profit
Why is this a problem

[Anonymous No.15415967]

>>15414526
>MacIntyre seems like just another Communist
Oh, lord, do you seriously believe this?

[Anonymous No.15416018]

>>15415967
He was in a few commie organizations and he wanted to somehow combine Marxist revolution with Aristotle

[Anonymous No.15416203]

>>15404333
There is nothing wrong with his analysis.

1)Prices arise from processes of evaluation in opposition. Value judgements by the involved parties define the set or continum of potential prices in a definitive interval from within prices rise as an "accident".
2) The value of a given good is rooted in the declarative mode. It exists as represented relations between objects. A good is a object that is believed to be able to satisfy a necessity and valued as such. Its real relation with the satisfaction of the said necessity defines if it is an imaginary or real good.

There is no dominant or even direct relationship between labour and value. Marx's theory of value is in its given form is simply incorrect. Without it you cant derive a theory of exploitation and the rest of his analysis falls apart. This is why not a single marxist i've meet in academia uses LVT as described by Marx in Das Kapital. They use different versions of it made in the 20th century and then project their own interpretations on Das Kapital in their search for legitimacy.

[Anonymous No.15416261]

>>15404314
>if they read [insert book] and don't agree they're evil
If you read the bible and don't become Christian, you're evil.

[Anonymous No.15416499]

>>15416261
Guess I'm evil guys shit

[Anonymous No.15417146]

>Elon Musk is a Slaveowner
>PewDiePie is a Nazi
>Notch is alt-right
>J.K. Rowling is a TERF

[Anonymous No.15417165]

>>15401199

[Anonymous No.15417196]

>>15401117
>look to my left
>clowns
>look to my right
>jokers
>here I am, stuck in the middle with jews

[Anonymous No.15417401]

>>15414805
Ty for those videos, I'm on part 2 now.

Watching them carefully and cropping out interesting points and also downloading all books he mentions - I hope to read them, at least quickly, still better than not reading them at all.

https://www.amazon.com/Development-Socialist-Economic-Thought-Pollitt/dp/1905007817

I can't find this one, can you help me?

[Anonymous No.15417633]

>>15417401
Glad to help, sorry I had a look around and not been able to find that pdf online

[Anonymous No.15418215]

>>15409747
>>15415870
Could you expand upon (2)? That seems to be the crux of your grievances with Marx -- which I don't necessarily disagree with -- but I'm not sure I see the causal link.

[Anonymous No.15419620]

>>15418215
Carlo Lancellotti In Commonweal, summarizing Augusto Del Noce:
> after World War II Marxism experienced a resurgence in Western Europe, not only among intellectuals and politicians but also in mainstream culture. But Del Noce noticed that at the same time society was moving in a very different direction from what Marx had predicted: capitalism kept expanding, people were eagerly embracing consumerism, and the prospect of a Communist revolution seemed more and more remote. To Del Noce, this simultaneous success and defeat of Marxism pointed to a deep contradiction. On the one hand, Marx had taught historical materialism, the doctrine that metaphysical and ethical ideas are just ideological covers for economic and political interests. On the other hand, he had prophesied that the expansion of capitalism would inevitably lead to revolution, followed by the “new man,” the “classless society,” the “reign of freedom.” But what if the revolution did not arrive, if the “new man” never materialized?

[Anonymous No.15419626]

>>15419620
> In that case, Del Noce realized, Marxist historical materialism would degenerate into a form of radical relativism—into the idea that philosophical and moral concepts are just reflections of historical and economic circumstances and have no permanent validity. This would have to include the concept of injustice, without which a critique of capitalism would be hard, if not impossible, to uphold. A post-Marxist culture—one that kept Marx’s radical materialism and denial of religious transcendence, while dispensing with his confident predictions about the self-destruction of capitalism—would naturally tend to be radically bourgeois. By that, Del Noce meant a society that views “everything as an object of trade” and “as an instrument” to be used in the pursuit of individualized “well-being.” Such bourgeois society would be highly individualistic, because it could not recognize any cultural or religious “common good.” In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels described the power of the bourgeois worldview to dissolve all cultural and religious allegiances into a universal market. Now, ironically, Marxist ideas (which Del Noce viewed as a much larger and more influential phenomenon than political Marxism in a strict sense) had helped bring that process to completion. At a conference in Rome in 1968, Del Noce looked back at recent history and concluded that the post-Marxist culture would be “a society that accepts all of Marxism’s negations against contemplative thought, religion, and metaphysics; that accepts, therefore, the Marxist reduction of ideas to instruments of production. But which, on the other hand, rejects the revolutionary-messianic aspects of Marxism, and thus all the religious elements that remain within the revolutionary idea. In this regard, it truly represents the bourgeois spirit in its pure state, the bourgeois spirit triumphant over its two traditional adversaries, transcendent religion and revolutionary thought.”
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/dead-end-left

[Anonymous No.15419648]

>>15419626
Holy fuck BTFO

[Anonymous No.15420013]

>>15404349
Ok now this is based, moralfags need to get out of here.

[Anonymous No.15420024]

>>15419620
>>15419626
Thank you for the response. That's an interesting angle with some insightful observations, but there's some stuff I'm not sold on. Scattered thoughts:

The quoted excerpts present Marx as a vulgar Marxist -- advocating hard economic determinism, dismissing "metaphysical and ethical ideas" as *mere* ideology, etc. Ideological analysis takes many forms, and the vulgar Marxist approach is by far the laziest and unfruitful. Further, I find this problematic:
>Marxist historical materialism would degenerate into a form of radical relativism—into the idea that philosophical and moral concepts are just reflections of historical and economic circumstances and have no permanent validity.
Marxism does not jettison ideas as invalid because of their contingency, and it's not necessarily incommensurable with other ideas, ethical positions, and schools of thought. The only way I see this part of the critique working is if it was directed at how Marxism *developed*, if that makes sense (which I think it was, from what I understand). However, this bit
>At a conference in Rome in 1968, Del Noce looked back at recent history and concluded that the post-Marxist culture would be “a society that accepts all of Marxism’s negations against contemplative thought, religion, and metaphysics; that accepts, therefore, the Marxist reduction of ideas to instruments of production. But which, on the other hand, rejects the revolutionary-messianic aspects of Marxism, and thus all the religious elements that remain within the revolutionary idea. In this regard, it truly represents the bourgeois spirit in its pure state, the bourgeois spirit triumphant over its two traditional adversaries, transcendent religion and revolutionary thought.”
is very interesting.

[Anonymous No.15421180]

>>15409721
Mussolini beloved in race. He made race laws in 1933 and 1937. He greatly liked and read Evola

[Anonymous No.15421533]

>>15414063
He's not making an argument you retard he's making an observation about autists such as yourself. Do you feel because you've seen others say "not an argument/refutation" you're right to misuse it as well? Your thoughts are unoriginal and your life is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.15421586]

>>15419626
Holy shit!

[Anonymous No.15421664]

>>15414926
When do you think I get to kill people? I really can’t wait to shoot my fellow Americans through the face.

[Anonymous No.15422489]

>>15403088
>you don't have to know what you're talking about
Great job outing yourself as a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15422625]

>>15414127
Mods deleted my comment, just fucking LOL

[Anonymous No.15423023]

>>15415842
They are basically a human mill

[Anonymous No.15423382]

>>15400897
This. Social nationalism will be on the rise in the next decade or so.

[Anonymous No.15423412]

Those of you who say shit tastes bad, have any of you actually tasted it?

[Anonymous No.15423446]

>>15401064
Skip Mises just read Bawerk and Sraffa.

[Anonymous No.15423688]

>>15416203
It's a pity that you have some reasoning capabilities, and are obviously not a retard, yet you make the same mistakes as all mainstream economist: thinking that the creation of value happens in the circulation sphere, and not in the production sphere. It's an illusion. Value is created during the production process. Not during the exchange.

[Anonymous No.15424524]

>>15415412
Supply and demand?
Like we've done since the beginning of time?
How is value even measured outside of price, is there like a value scoreboard?
If X takes social necessary amount of time to be created it gets Y value?!?!

[Anonymous No.15424532]

>>15400873
This

[Anonymous No.15424537]

>>15406243
So value is a fancy and really confusing word for average-time-to-make?
Also, the LTV sounds really circular if that's the case

[Anonymous No.15424559]

>>15406222
One was so successful it stopped existing
Another is trying to distance itself as much from socialism as possible while retaining dictatorship
The last is fucking China
You know, the "sell empty cities to people so that they can later be destroyed to build actually useful shit" guys

[Anonymous No.15424679]

Can somebody give me one (1) reason Marx's historical materialism is superior to Ibn Khaldun's interpretation of history which considers material factors

[Anonymous No.15424776]

>>15424679
It's dialectical ;^)

[Anonymous No.15425142]

>>15417196
nice

[Anonymous No.15425808]

>>15420024
It’s not obvious to me that you can make a distinction between vulgar and non-vulgar varieties of historical materialism without introducing further weaknesses and contradictions into Marx’s critique, but I’m not familiar with the literature so I can’t intelligently claim that such a distinction couldn’t exist.
What I can say is that we do see in Marx, over the course of his life, a motion towards sociologism, exemplified by his abandonment of the idea of alienation. For Del Noce, alienation was Marx’s most beautiful, humane idea, implying that there exists a transcendent, normative ideal of being from which we had fallen away under capitalism. That Marx abandoned this idea in favor of more techne seems to suggest that the process of self-negation was already underway within Marx’s own lifetime.

[Anonymous No.15425870]

>>15415301
Now post your face when you realized the defining works of postmodernism fit that bill

[Anonymous No.15425989]

>>15409988
Maybe not for blacks, but for Jews and Germans absolutely.

[Anonymous No.15426086]

>>15424537
>So value is a fancy and really confusing word for average-time-to-make?
It's a very plain and simple world for socially necessary abstract labour time.

>>15425808
Marx never abandoned alienation. Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.15426114]

>>15415001
>polish intellectuals

[Anonymous No.15426128]

>>15415500
based

[Anonymous No.15426509]

>>15426086
He seldom used the term after 1845, and overtly abandoned the humanistic conception (I.e., that man is alienated from a true human nature, c.f. Feuerbach) in favor of totally sociologistic formulations. This can be seen in The German Ideology, and was expanded upon by Althusser.

[Anonymous No.15427612]

>>15400856
Musk needs to get off Twitter

[Anonymous No.15428006]

>>15421180
Hitler strongarmed him into that. read his statements and policies on race before that, you buffoon

[Anonymous No.15428071]

>>15403088
Marx literally talks about how capital has turned human worth from something divine to profit

[Anonymous No.15428107]

>>15415738
There are no lazy people in communism. Everyone is raised and taught to be a hard worker. There's also a slight increase/decrease in pay for how hard you work -- the concept of passivity is alien to them.

[Anonymous No.15428125]

>>15428107
is this post satire or serious

[Anonymous No.15428145]

>>15428125
>is this post satire or serious
https://youtu.be/zLN-jRZRPrc

[Anonymous No.15428157]

>>15428125
>>15428145
You can clearly see stoic farmboy traits for every one of them with no complaints. This is possible when it's the only culture & thing you've ever known your whole life

[Anonymous No.15428163]

>>15428145
>soijak and a youtube video
nvm I don't care which it was

[Anonymous No.15428169]

>soijak and a youtube video
nvm I don't care which it was

[Anonymous No.15428268]

>>15428163
Serious.
You’ve been brainwashed your whole life

[Anonymous No.15428649]

>>15400856
Like asking me if I've read the Three Little Pigs.

[Anonymous No.15429755]

>>15426509
>He seldom used the term after 1845
So?
>and overtly abandoned the humanistic conception (I.e., that man is alienated from a true human nature, c.f. Feuerbach) in favor of totally sociologistic formulations
No he hasn't.

[Anonymous No.15429827]

>>15428107
>lemme just rewrite human nature so everyone is a hardworker and passivity is completely foreign to them
>what do you mean people will be lazy anyway?

[Anonymous No.15429848]

>>15423688
Production is of course is important to inform the exchange, but regardless of the production, if people dislike the product during the chance for an exchange there will be none; and so for them the product doesn't justify the price or the supposed value appraised in the product. It's not just about production.

[Anonymous No.15430059]

>>15416203
>The value of a given good is rooted in the declarative mode. It exists as represented relations between objects. A good is a object that is believed to be able to satisfy a necessity and valued as such. Its real relation with the satisfaction of the said necessity defines if it is an imaginary or real good.
No, the value of a commodity is the amount of labour society dedicates to its reproduction.
>not a single marxist i've meet in academia uses LVT as described by Marx in Das Kapital
There aren't any Marxists in the academia. Marxists work in communist parties, pre-party groups and trade unions.

>>15429848
If society doesn't need the product then it won't get reproduced, meaning no labour will be dedicated to its reproduction = it won't have value. This amounts to "commodity must be a use-value", which is a triviality that's stated explicitly in some of the first pages of Capital.

[Anonymous No.15430064]

>>15426086
Value is useless then since the socially necessary time to make something has nothing to do with um anything really
It's impractical imaginary points

[Anonymous No.15430068]

>>15424776
And how does that render it superior?
Evidently, Khaldun is still widely read in history courses while Marx might only passingly be mentioned in any economics, political or historical course

[Anonymous No.15430114]

>>15430064
It's useful for explaining the laws of capital. But if by useless you mean useless to non-communists then I have to agree.

[Anonymous No.15431833]

>>15401117