/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15665164]

>Step 1-we make capital go away
>Step 2-we make bad stuff go away
>Step 3-we make the state go away almost all by itself because we made capital and bad stuff go away
How could anyone honestly take marxism seriously? Do they honestly believe the words that come out of their mouths?

[Anonymous No.15665182]

>>15665164
Six months ago this was the Guénon board. Now it's the Marx board. Thread after thread about Marxism. I'm getting fucking tired of these people

[Anonymous No.15665210]

What is it about Marx that motivates people to make threads about him despite never having read his work, or even read about his work?

[Anonymous No.15665230]

>>15665210
It's called being an American.

[Anonymous No.15665232]

>>15665210
You don’t need to taste shit to know its shit. A good whiff should do it.

[Anonymous No.15665242]

>>15665182
Unironically better than when it was a Deleuze/Gualtieri board.

[Anonymous No.15665265]

>>15665230
Is that the best defense for marxism you got?

[Anonymous No.15665282]

>its another Marxist makes a thread as false flag bait to get people to come in and disprove him and actively think about Marxism
You aren't fooling anyone

[Anonymous No.15665361]

>>15665232
>>15665265
Read Marx and come back here, lil Timmy.

[Anonymous No.15665372]

>>15665164
Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.15665379]

>>15665361
Explain why the state would disappear if communism hits the proletariat just right. Dont pull that “if everything is the state nothing is” bullshit that twitter trannies like to use either.

[Anonymous No.15665387]

>>15665242
Double cringe.

[Anonymous No.15665393]

>>15665379
Stop reading Twitter and start reading Das Kapital. It's not as difficult as you might imagine.

[Anonymous No.15665403]

>>15665379
Learn to type without buzzwords. I genuinely have no clue what you're asking.

[Anonymous No.15665405]

>>15665393
>start reading Das Kapital

[Anonymous No.15665407]

>>15665393
How will you ever educate the workers to revolt if all you say it “just read this obnoxiously long 100 year old book, I don’t have to educate you bigot lol”

[Anonymous No.15665425]

>>15665407
>Twitter is real life
This is genuinely the worst strawman. Workers aren't fucking illiterate my man.

[Anonymous No.15665436]

>>15665425
>Workers aren't fucking illiterate my man
You know how I know that you’ve never interacted with the proles in your life? Because they may not be illiterate, but they might as well be.

[Anonymous No.15665440]

>>15665425
Never said they were, but if I heard someone say this in a debate as some sort of circular logic argument i’d call you a huge faggot. No different then a christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15665441]

>>15665232
good analogy, it's a shame analogies are the retards alternative to an argument

[Anonymous No.15665443]

>>15665164
i think even Marxists agreed that Marx himself was unnsure of the necessary steps to go from A to C
>so, comrade, how do you propose we actualize this marxist utopia? like, actual concrete steps?
>well, there will be a uhh, proletariat revolution
>yes, yes, you spoke about that, but then what?
>and then ummm, you know, there be like this in between phase, and then voila we eventually transition to the final stage: WORKER PARADISE

[Anonymous No.15665446]

>>15665436
I am a prole you fucking smoothbrain, and yet somehow I've read Capital and you haven't.

[Anonymous No.15665467]

>>15665446
>I am a prole
Not going to lie, I cringed. Who the hell calls themselves irl.

[Anonymous No.15665471]

>>15665446
Ah yes, the infamous ol’ Marxist principal of even the most privileged middle class student and the most wretched factory worker being of the same social class because they technically work for employers. Genius, that man.

[Anonymous No.15665481]

>>15665446
>He thinks journalists are also le epic proletariat comrade
Reddit’s down the hall to the left.

[Anonymous No.15665485]

>>15665407
>How will you ever educate the workers
Almost all educated people are workers, dumbass. If you collect a paycheck, you are a worker.

[Anonymous No.15665486]

>>15665471
>everyone on this site is like me
Projecting much? I'm not a middle class college kid.

[Anonymous No.15665490]

>>15665481
See: >>15665486

[Anonymous No.15665496]

>>15665485
Is Dwayne Johnson also a worker?

[Anonymous No.15665499]

>>15665467
>>15665471
>>15665481
Cringe brainlets outing themselves as having never read Marx.

[Anonymous No.15665501]

>>15665485
>The state of "Marxists"

[Anonymous No.15665506]

>>15665486
Are you a nigger? Because if so Marx hated you too.

[Anonymous No.15665507]

>>15665443
>i think even Marxists agreed that Marx himself was unnsure of the necessary steps to go from A to C

There is literally and 10 point plan in the communist manifesto.

>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
>4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
>8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
>9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
>10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

[Anonymous No.15665510]

>>15665501
Read Marx.

[Anonymous No.15665517]

>>15665510
You should too buddy. You're purposefully being retarded so you can le own some retard. Reminder that you will be killed come the proletariat revolution, bourgeoisie scum.

[Anonymous No.15665518]

>>15665485
I can get a pay check for stocking shelves but that doesn't mean I can also perform heart surgery, or be a teacher, or invent a cure for cancer but can’t because I work to feed myself and buy netflix subscriptions (not slavery btw). Don’t know what you were trying to say bro, this whole thread is probably a troll anyways.

[Anonymous No.15665519]

>>15665507
>10 point plan
Cringe. Read Das Kapital, mouthbreather.

[Anonymous No.15665533]

>>15665519
If you quote huge blocks of incomprehensible text from Capital at people you will just be ignored. The communist manifesto is supposed to be read by layman.

[Anonymous No.15665536]

>>15665490
>No u
truly the champion of workers everywhere.

[Anonymous No.15665540]

>>15665517
Do you earn millions from dividends and interest? Or do you support yourself by selling your labor for wages? It's not rocket science, cumguzzler.

[Anonymous No.15665547]

>>15665507
>no timeline
>no specifics
>no instructions as to how to achieve any of the goals listed in the points

[Anonymous No.15665549]

>>15665533
This. Exactly the reason leftists fucking suck at memes and recruiting people.

[Anonymous No.15665557]

>>15665507
Notice how everything here would require heavy government coordination. Why would the state just wither away under such a system?

[Anonymous No.15665560]

>>15665540
Found the middle class LARPer who thinks he'll lead the revolution

[Anonymous No.15665561]

>>15665547
If you want that read Capital, or other Marxist works. The Manifesto is just the basics, its designed to be read by uneducated workers.

[Anonymous No.15665569]

>>15665560
>middle class LARPer
Read Marx.

[Anonymous No.15665573]

>>15665540
You don't have to be a marxist to oppose usery and wage labor lmao

[Anonymous No.15665574]

>>15665549
see
>>15665533
This nigger seriously thinks some walmart employee is going to read THREE volumes of capital, this guy is either a middle class stooge or just stupid.

[Anonymous No.15665575]

>>15665569
Sorry buddy but I have, and you're going to be shot come revolution

[Anonymous No.15665576]

>>15665547
It's a propaganda pamphlet, not a Microsoft Project file.

[Anonymous No.15665579]

>>15665569
read theory [or insert whatever term you fancy to name drop, like Marx]
is the retard's version of
>have secks, incel

[Anonymous No.15665584]

>>15665561
Ok but it just calls for a bunch of nationalizations, basically what all of the western countries did in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.15665590]

>>15665574
Das Kapital is for scholars interested in understanding how capitalism works. You're on a literature board, not a Walmart workers meeting. The prospect of reading shouldn't be so repugnant to you.

[Anonymous No.15665596]

>>15665232
Yeah and by taking a good whiff at your post I know you're a piece of shit and a retard.

[Anonymous No.15665597]

>>15665590
>"Marxist' who looks down on workers
YIKES

[Anonymous No.15665605]

>>15665507
>1. Abolition of property in land and
>application of all rents of land to public purposes.
How is this not already self-contradictory? It's suddenly not property if the state is your landlord?

[Anonymous No.15665607]

>>15665557
You misunderstand the nature of the state, and what is meant by the term "state," in Marxism. The state exists to protect private property and enforce class hierarchies. But without capital or private property it lacks a purpose, if workers control the means of production directly what is the purpose of more layers of abstraction above that? The ten points are about establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, once that is in place there is no longer a need for a state.

[Anonymous No.15665608]

>>15665590
Because marxism is supposed to be a WORKER’S movement, run by and for the workers. Otherwise you’re preaching vanguardism, leninism.

[Anonymous No.15665609]

>>15665575
You used the term "middle class" as if it had any meaning. You also seem to think that the only activity that counts as work is the lowest level of blue-collar gruntwork. You've never read Marx.

[Anonymous No.15665616]

>Read marx
>Critique
>YOU DIDNT READ MARX
>Read marx some more
>Critique
>DIDNT READ IT DIDNT READ IT

[Anonymous No.15665617]

>>15665579
Do both.

[Anonymous No.15665624]

As evident in this thread, even Marx LARPers haven't read Marx

[Anonymous No.15665625]

>>15665609
This post actually gave me brain damage. You're probably some low level management staff, not a fucking member of the proletariat LARPer.

[Anonymous No.15665626]

>>15665607
>His ideology redefines words

[Anonymous No.15665628]

>>15665590
>Workers are to retarded
>So a marginal class must speak for their “best interest” on the account of their own cynical biases for regime change.

[Anonymous No.15665630]

>>15665597
>>15665608
Are you unemployed? I don't understand what you're trying to say. There are people who work for a living that are not illiterate.

[Anonymous No.15665634]

>>15665605
It means public, as in direct worker ownership. The ten points is also about establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, not the system that comes after it.

The main issue with debating Marxism is online is that's its not really a debate. People who critique Marxism can't even be bothered to google basic things so they can at least pretend they've read some. Its just a tedious combative lecture.

[Anonymous No.15665637]

>>15665628
So you're unemployed? Fascinating how many anti-Marxists are unemployed.

>>15665625
Read Marx, moron.

[Anonymous No.15665642]

>>15665637
You keep sayinf read Marx, I have. Explain what I'm wrong about exactly? Wait you can't because your only "argument" works on illiterate morons.

[Anonymous No.15665643]

>>15665630
>There are people who work for a living that are not illiterate.
Do you even understand what the concept of a normalfag is?

[Anonymous No.15665648]

>>15665642
If you actually made any points it was lost in a sea of inanity.

[Anonymous No.15665652]

>>15665642
You haven't made any arguments. You're just calling people names and hoping that will be enough.

[Anonymous No.15665653]

>>15665648
Still no argument

[Anonymous No.15665654]

read 18th brumaire of louis bonaparte

[Anonymous No.15665655]

Marx was right about everything. Capitalism is a positive feedback control loop. The signals that run through this circuit are concrete labour and capital is the controller which allows abstract labour to be maximized at the output

[Anonymous No.15665658]

>>15665652
I have, I'm saying middle class managers aren't proletariat and this guy just keeps saying "Read Marx" when I have.

[Anonymous No.15665669]

>>15665642
he keeps saying "read Marx" because he himself has never read Marx, but he knows no ones actually read Marx, and that by saying "read Marx" he can pat himself on the back and call it a day
notice how he doesnt come up with anything substantive

[Anonymous No.15665670]

>>15665625
>proletariat LARPer
If you work for a living, you're proletariat. You don't have to be a ditch-digger to be a worker.

[Anonymous No.15665678]

>>15665634
If it's public ownership then who pays renbts?
>The main issue with debating Marxism is online is that's its not really a debate. People who critique Marxism can't even be bothered to google basic things so they can at least pretend they've read some. Its just a tedious combative lecture.
I don't think you understand what it means to have a conversation. Differing knowledge is a requirement of having a meaningful exchange in the first place. Do you want people to make all your points for you? I'm loose tongued but I genuinely would like to know how property abolition works, I'm not just here to stir shit.

[Anonymous No.15665682]

>>15665669
>Nobody here actually reads this dumb fuck besides skimming through a wiki page.
Kek

[Anonymous No.15665685]

>>15665670
Read theory

[Anonymous No.15665696]

>>15665682
I've read him. He makes a lot of sense even if he is wrong about some stuff but good lord is he a bad writer. It's so bland that it feels like it takes an hour to get through one page.

[Anonymous No.15665697]

>>15665658
Even the PMC are technically proles since they live off wages rather than interest and dividends. Your average middle-class 'manager' is certainly proletariat. It isn't about the kind of work you do, it's about whether you work at all.

[Anonymous No.15665702]

>>15665696
Probably because he was influenced by hegel, no doubt about it.

[Anonymous No.15665708]

>>15665685
Sorry, I'm not a homosexual.

[Anonymous No.15665718]

>The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living
discuss

[Anonymous No.15665719]

Everybody talks about Marx. But nobody talks about Engles. Did he write anything worth reading?

[Anonymous No.15665730]

>>15665719
Literally the same as marx but he’s written about genocideing Hungarians kek.

[Anonymous No.15665736]

>>15665719
i read excerpts of the condition of the working class in England by him. he argues that medieval peasants lived better than the urban workers, their workload was lighter and they had more free time. is he right?

[Anonymous No.15665741]

>>15665719
he paid for marxes drugs, which we all agree is an important contribution

[Anonymous No.15665744]

>>15665736
>is he right?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15665772]

>>15665164
step 3 happens before step 2

[Anonymous No.15665784]

Is Das Kapital still relevant today, insofar is it is important to understanding modern political philosophy based on Marxist systems/principles? What is it relevant for, and what's the overhead in understanding it?

I'm reading Empire and so far I haven't had any issue in understanding the mindset and position of the authors.

[Anonymous No.15665787]

>>15665744
based tedposter

[Anonymous No.15665821]

>>15665736
He may have been, but this in itself is evidence of how wrong Marx was. Marx's philosophy is a kneejerk sensationalist reaction to the poor condition of the working class of England (who went on to pass the 10 Hour Act). Marx believed the condition would further deteriorate and the middle class would stratify into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and, as we can see 150 years later, it hasn't.

Marx was wrong.

[Anonymous No.15665846]

>>15665821
This, material conditions have changed A LOT from that of the the start of the industrial revolution, so much so that people do not feel the need to revolt.

[Anonymous No.15665871]

>>15665821
a society is not a fixed system. ruling classes threw us some bones in the 20th century to avoid a revolution from happening in europe and usa like it happened in russia.
but now that ussr is gone, so is the threat of revolt.
middle class is being destroyed right now, what do you think are the austerity programs in europe and usa for?
if things go on like they are, we will all end up part time temporary workers enslaved by apps like uber. so yes, conditions are deteriorating, it just happened at later date

[Anonymous No.15665902]

Every time some retard tells you the Labour Theory of Value is wrong, send him this way:

https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/why-the-labour-theory-of-value-is-true/

[Anonymous No.15665936]

It's quite simple.

[Anonymous No.15665938]

>>15665902
>Every time some retard tells you the Labour Theory of Value is wrong, send him to my blog
lol

[Anonymous No.15665961]

>>15665938
yes the correct action to take is to insult their ancestry and move on

[Anonymous No.15665970]

>>15665938
It's not my blog retard, it's the blog of a Professor at The Open University of England.

[Anonymous No.15665984]

>>15665970
Doesn't make it less retarded.

Learn basic economics.

[Anonymous No.15666002]

>>15665230
OBSESSED

[Anonymous No.15666007]

>>15665984
>Learn basic economics.
yes I agree, everyone should read capital

[Anonymous No.15666009]

>>15665871
But in the interim, which is not only a drop in the pond of history, even the proletariat have enjoyed immense improvement to quality of life. I've only read the Manifesto, still haven't read Kapital (asked this question here: >>15665784
), but we haven't seen the continuing and worsening crises that Marx/Engels describe at all really, contrasted with for example "Communist" nations like the USSR and China, which funny enough more closely seem to mirror what Marx describes in the Manifesto. We haven't seen the break of political parties that Marx describe in the United States, for example, and in other countries with Labour parties, they don't have the support or manpower that Marx describes.

A lot of what he writes is pretty hauntingly accurate, I admit, but at a point isn't accounting for all that's happened as reason for why revolution HASN'T occurred more self-serving and not so honest? Except for the poorest demographics (quartile or quntile), upward mobility between generations has been fairly consistent, though today it seems like it might be in the balance.

[Anonymous No.15666013]

>>15666007
>doesn't even understand what subjectivity is
oh no no no no

[Anonymous No.15666020]

>>15665984
lol, can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.15666026]

b-but the LTV will work this time around

[Anonymous No.15666031]

Wasnt marx a mathlet?

[Anonymous No.15666054]

>>15666026
see >>15665902

[Anonymous No.15666074]

>>15666054
Already seen, it's utterly stupid. Basic economics is so so simple, how can you still not understand such a simple concept as supply & demand or price systems?

[Anonymous No.15666094]

>>15666074
yeah, well, you better tell that to the PhD on Economics who runs the blog I linked

he'd get a good laugh for sure

[Anonymous No.15666145]

>>15666094
that's fallacious, are there no PhDs in economics who disagree with that blogger?

[Anonymous No.15666168]

>>15666145
Of course it's fallacious. But it's ok because this stopped being a logical discussion the moment you said "learn basic economics". And I don't know. Probably most PhD on Economics disagree with it, but merely on a ideological basis. The point is that they can't disprove it.

[Anonymous No.15666204]

>>15666074
stop jerking off about a thousand year old concept like it's ultimate profound truth

[Anonymous No.15666252]

>>15666168
Wasn't that guy, but doesn't the entire premise of Marx's work and the LTV rely on one having been convinced sufficiently by Marx? In other words, it is not built on solid foundations supported with solid evidence as much as it is supported with persuasion, and it isn't proven either?

Would you agree that competing viewpoints (ie, the ones that most with PhDs in economics typically have), especially those with history of implementation, typically have a better track record in implementation than yours? If yeah, why is that in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.15666319]

>>15666252
Empirical data has shown that the LTV is right. It's not any more or any less proven than, for example, Einstein's Laws of Relativity or Darwin's Theory of Evolution. You need no more convincenment than what the empirical data shows you.

And implementation doesn't mean anything. You can implement milenia-lasting institutions based on theories that are pretty much false. See: churches, kingdoms, etc.

[Anonymous No.15666441]

I haven't read any economics, is LTV specifically marxist? Couldn't capitalists argue LTV based on the following two principles
>a good supplied to the market must be sustained at labor-cost or higher, if the price drops below the cost the supplier self-destructs
>free competition serves to reduce the profit margin of goods on the market to the lowest tolerable level, the lowest tolerable level being the labor cost (including the actual supplier's labor)
>therefore goods on the free market should naturally all correct to labor value
Sounds like something I'd hear in a Mises talk.

[Anonymous No.15666460]

>>15665164
perhaps you could try reading him to find out

[Anonymous No.15666482]

>>15665936
Doesn't matter if they were right(they were).

[Anonymous No.15666497]

>>15665984

[Anonymous No.15666499]

For replicable goods (commodities), the LTV is the only possible theory that makes sense. For truly 'unique' things like Lady Gaga's last turd, maybe you have to supplement with some sociological approach. But for explaining the prices of standard things like food, housing, manufactured goods, health care, petroleum, books, haircuts, etc., LTV is all you need.

[Anonymous No.15666513]

Reminder the only people that say "basic economics lolol" haven't read Marx. He constantly cites "basic economics"(the Wealth of nations)

[Anonymous No.15666555]

>>15666499
>conflates price with value
lol, not a typical failing of marxists

[Anonymous No.15666569]

>>15666555
Did your even read his post fucking smoothbrain?

[Anonymous No.15666609]

>>15665507
Sounds like it’d be needed a fucking totalitarian state to make this happen. But surely communism doesn’t degenerate into totalitarian regimes, no sir.

[Anonymous No.15666617]

>>15666609
Read theory

[Anonymous No.15666642]

>>15666513
>Thinking that economics hasn't evolved since Adam Smith

[Anonymous No.15666655]

>>15665605
Well, it removes the middleman. Why pay a landlord, who then pays the state-when you could just pay the state directly? That would mean cheaper housing for the tenants, and it would also mean the state gets more funds to redistribute into better things.

Or you could have the the alternative from state-ownership, which would be communal ownership. Tenants could democratically self-manage their own housing collectively, which again, would make housing a lot more affordable for everyone-because they’re paying rent for the sole purpose of managing the property, not to keep a landlords pocket fat. They would also get a say in where their rent money goes.

Either way, there is virtually no reason for landlords to exist. Either system would be more preferable than the current one.

[Anonymous No.15666657]

>>15666642
Right please explain in great detail how much BASIC economics have evolved that they totally disprove Adam Smith and Marx

[Anonymous No.15666660]

>>15666499
>books
IDIOT.
How can you even try to apply LTV logic to books? or haircuts?

[Anonymous No.15666670]

>>15666655
Rolling

[Anonymous No.15666673]

>>15666660
I genuinely feel bad you're this retarded, what's it like for your parents?
>>>15666666

[Anonymous No.15666681]

>>15666655
Found the poorfag. Have you paid your rent yet?

[Anonymous No.15666691]

>>15666681
Not an argument. Landlords are literally out of feudalism, there's no denying this. It's hilariously a bad and outdated system.

[Anonymous No.15666763]

How do LTV believers consider the technological advancement of price and the Internet? How can you measure the value of an advertisement by the labor that went into it and not in a more utility-oriented manner?

[Anonymous No.15666826]

>>15666763
They can´t. The fact that marxist can´t admit that something a guy wrote in the 19th century about the value of commodities(commodities from the 19th century, by the way) is a flawed concept just shows that these people are clearly ideologically possesed

[Anonymous No.15666841]

>>15666673
Not responding the questions just shows what my point was.
Sorry to give you the reality check but the 'new' left has accomplished more with progresivism than the marxist left ever. You guys lost the war.

[Anonymous No.15666852]

>>15666826
90% of the far left is willing to admit that he was wrong on some things dude. In fact, 90% of the far left has never read das kapital and doesn’t care about the LTV.

[Anonymous No.15666861]

>Imagine having your labour-value theory debunked by onlyfans

[Anonymous No.15666865]

>>15666852
I meant marxists on /lit/ i've had plenty of debate with marxists irl. I even agree with him on a philosophical standpoint, his economic insight is complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15666882]

>>15666861
What?

[Anonymous No.15666923]

>>15665393
u gotta read a bit of marxs other work before you hit up capital

[Anonymous No.15666944]

>>15665210
The same people who do these again and again, because it generates a lot of posts. Almost everything has been said. Maybe people should read/finish to read Marx, and come back when this is done, so in a few years.

[Anonymous No.15666961]

>>15666826
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.15666975]

>>15666865
His economic theories remain unrefuted to this day.

[Anonymous No.15666981]

>>15666252
If you stay in the application field of the LTV (newly output goods, tradable, reproducible), the LTV is mostly right, with a small marginal error.
LTV doesn't apply to handcraft goods, or monopolies. Other than that, it works pretty well.

[Anonymous No.15666995]

>>15666981
But in what? Indicating value, or indicating price?

[Anonymous No.15667008]

>>15666763
An advertisement doesn't creates value. It enters into what Marx called the faux frais of production. Same for facebook and social networks (which are data mining).

[Anonymous No.15667034]

>>15666995
Regarding newly output goods, tradable, reproducible, the amount of time of factory workers used to produce the goods correlate with the exchange value, so the price. Paul Cockshott proved this, no matter how much seething he caused.

[Anonymous No.15667049]

>>15665164
I know, right?

He used a dumbed-down, over simplified model of society to create over-simplified "solutions" which, while I am sure that he meant well, just make things worse.

I am not trolling when I say that Marx' main prob was that he had never had to work for a living. He had no real, visceral feeling for the way working people think and feel. He was an outsider, looking in, with little thought-projections inside his head about what "the workers" MUST be feeling.

We all go through this as kids watching adults at work, maybe listening to the grown-ups belly-ache about it so that we think we have some grasp of their lived experience...

But we never really UNDERSTAND until we, too, experience what it is to work with others, whether that labour be mental or physical. Marx never learned that, never gained that aspect of mature experience.

Thus a certain inherent childishness in Marxism, and its adherents.

[Anonymous No.15667056]

[Anonymous No.15667057]

>>15667008
So how does that relate to exploiting the working class and price
Or does it not exploit the working class?

[Anonymous No.15667068]

>>15667049
The reason a minor Hegelian like Marx is relevant at all is because one of the biggest empire's of the 20th century made him the foundation of their state religion. That is all. If the Germans had never sent Lenin back to force Russia into surrendering out of WW1, Marx would have be about as well known as Babeuf. That's the true facts of the matter.

[Anonymous No.15667079]

>>15667056
Cartoonist BTFOs entire economic theory in 1 speech bubble

[Anonymous No.15667107]

>>15667057
An ad technically exploit the working class: the wage workers who are paid to make this ad. But work spend to create the ad doesn't create value in itself. It only contributes to increase the selling of goods of real value, thus allowing more of the items who have value to be sold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_frais_of_production

[Anonymous No.15667126]

>>15667079
>What is an application field?
>What does he means by new output by producers of traded, reproducible labour-products?

[Anonymous No.15667133]

>>15665164
I see the validity in marxism because it is nothing new. Our perception of the world is created through our society and the structures that are in place. Call it capitalism, call it whatever. Ideology shapes our perception of the word

[Anonymous No.15667138]

>>15665736
Depends on the metrics, really. On the one hand they had more free time because there wasn't much to do for a substantial chunk of the year except indoor activities but on the other hand the same developments that allowed labor to be performed throughout more of the year (reducing free time) also led to things like greatly improved medicine, greater food security and variety and higher quality food, access to wider markets for both import and export purposes, many goods that were previously manufactured domestically (literally, as in "in a house") became available for purchase and so on. You might work an extra 60 days a year but you also got bread that didn't have millstone grit in it, medicines that actually worked, better fertilizers and more productive cultivars of plants, etc.

[Anonymous No.15667145]

>>15665164
The state would go away because it would no longer be materially necessary and would be getting in the way. It wouldn't be overnight though, this would be a drawn out process.

[Anonymous No.15667186]

>>15667138
People had better quality food in the 15th century than during the industrial revolution. Also, about medicine, it's scam, since them crammed people into unsanitary factories, and crammed small working class appartment, they got sick, and then claim that modern medecine save them.
Longevity in the middle age (not life expectancy, longevity, that's not the same thing), was around 70 years.

[cc No.15667203]

>>15665164
man, more people seriously think that they believe in jusus, god, think what they do is praying, think they will be saved, think some dude walked on rivers and lakes and made alcohol from them, fish excluded, man, how can you seriously think people are not stupid faggots?

[cc No.15667224]

>>15667145
state would go away only if everyone becomes a state on his own. but states tend to compete and fight. communism is nothing than a promise of communism, salvation, for stupid pederasts.

[Anonymous No.15667242]

>>15667224
It would dissolve into anarcho-communism because that system would become practical enough for the centralized state to be more of a burden than an any kind of aid. Marxist-Leninists and tankies hate ancomms because they think they're a bunch of naive utopians who want to jump right into the endgame when the material conditions are not there.

[Anonymous No.15667246]

>>15667056
>>15667079
>people who never read Marx literally believe this

[Anonymous No.15667250]

>>15666655
Is this post a sneaky joke? Because it just describes public housing projects and co-ops. Two things that have existed for half a century. Worth noting, the state owned housing aka "projects" were an absolute shitshow and are gradually being torn down.

[Anonymous No.15667277]

>>15667250
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.15667294]

>>15667277
Imagine thinking owning a co-op with a bunch of nosey Karens, or living in public housing along side a bunch of felonious neets, is better than just renting an loft downtown.

[Anonymous No.15667448]

>>15665605
>he thinks the government becomes a rent seeking enterprise
You don't pay any rent to the state dingus

[Anonymous No.15667549]

>>15667294
>dude, just rent an English country estate, it's way better than the ghetto

[Anonymous No.15667555]

>>15667448
>application of all rents of land to public purposes.
So where do the rents come from?

[Anonymous No.15667561]

>>15667250
>>15667294
>public housing projects are shit and they’re filled with “criminals”, therefore perusing this idea is stupid
1) Public housing has often been seen as a “last option” for people who have nowhere else to go, and that’s why it’s filled by people with criminal records, drug addicts, and other similar people. It’s just basic statistics. They’re the only ones who use it. However, if EVERYONE lived in government-owned housing, then those people would quickly become the minority.

2) You’re ignoring the other option. Communal ownership.

[Anonymous No.15667586]

>All of Marx's writing
>150 years of thinkers critiquing, improving and progressing Marxian ideas
And yet you have read neither. Great.

[Anonymous No.15667600]

>>15665936
Ad hom

[Anonymous No.15667924]

>>15667049
>We all go through this as kids watching adults at work, maybe listening to the grown-ups belly-ache about it so that we think we have some grasp of their lived experience
This is why Marxism is so prevalent among people that, for the most part, don’t fucking have a working experience: college students, intellectuals, and people that still leech off the state/their parents after 30.

[Anonymous No.15667931]

>Step 1-we make capital go away
no. We take control of it.
>Step 2-we make bad stuff go away
Yes. Because we're in control of it.
>Step 3-we make the state go away almost all by itself because we made capital and bad stuff go away
Yes. Because once the bad stuff has gone away, the machine will manage itself, it will be automatic.

[Anonymous No.15667959]

>marx's ideas don't work!
>marx's ideas don't reflect reality!
Can someone explain this to me, in light of the fact that many leftist revolutions happened? And in the countries that they did happen, productive capacity, population, overall prosperity dramatically improved?

>b-but the gulags!
But rightist states in Marx's time, and still to this day imprisoned, enslaved, genocided, starved, invaded, and deprived countless more people. If you're saying that mass violence against peoples is bad, this is inherently arguing for leftism, because rightists always do more of it.
>b-but leftist states became rightist later! China is capitalist now! USSR became right wing Russia!
This is just a roundabout critique of Capitalism. You're saying that the previous leftist projects were not sufficiently leftist enough, because they became something bad; Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.15667963]

>>15667186
>People had better quality food in the 15th century than during the industrial revolution.
Again, depends on how you measure it.

>Also, about medicine, it's scam, since them crammed people into unsanitary factories, and crammed small working class appartment, they got sick, and then claim that modern medecine save them.
I was talking about MEDICINE, retard, not health. Isopropyl alcohol is going to be way better at disinfecting a cut than an herb poultice regardless of how you get the cut in the first place and surgery is going to be more successful with chloroform as anesthetic instead of opium.

>Longevity in the middle age (not life expectancy, longevity, that's not the same thing), was around 70 years.
And industrial medicine has greatly improved the quality of life of pretty much everyone at some point. But hey, have fun living the last four and a half decades of your life as a gimp because your leg was amputated without anesthetic due to gangrene setting in after a cut got some cow shit in it.

[Anonymous No.15667976]

>>15665164
That was the most retarded explanation of Marx I've ever heard. You can point out flaws in the writing but maybe actually know what it's about first.

[Anonymous No.15667979]

>>15667924
You can say that about every intellectual endeavor. Doesn't mean all higher learning should be abolished.

[Anonymous No.15668697]

>>15665655
>using buzzwords to say practically nothing of substance
why are theory cucks so cringe

[Anonymous No.15668712]

>>15665164>>15665182 >>15665372 >>15665443 >>15665772 >>15666460 >>15667049 >>15667133 >>15667145 >>15667203 >>15667976
Step 1- be a good goy, work hard, change nuffin, but cope by thinking that if you shill in the internet for tax change by 0,000001%- you are a revolutionary
Step 2- be a good goy, work hard, oppose change, risk nuffin, but cope thinking that if you die you hair red- you are special
Step 3- be a good goy and die of old age or disease.
KYS, stupid, boring, centrist scum. THE REVOLUTIONARIES (sunless sea)/UN THE SUN THE SUN THE SU>The Imperium of Man/Oceania 1984>commies/fash/anarchists>urine and fecies>centrism

[Anonymous No.15668716]

>>15668712
>you die you hair red
dye*

[Anonymous No.15669151]

>>15668712
ok

[Anonymous No.15670201]

>>15667561
Based workers selfsegregating from scum by being in control of means of production.

[Anonymous No.15670251]

>>15665821
"Middle class" in 1880 and in 2020 mean two very very different things

[Anonymous No.15670443]

>>15667963
>But hey, have fun living the last four and a half decades of your life as a gimp because your leg was amputated without anesthetic due to gangrene setting in after a cut got some cow shit in it.
Have fun living depressed all your life because of alienation, taking pills because you can't stand living, and ending killing yourself or dying of cancer.

[Anonymous No.15670600]

>>15667931
>We take control of it
What do you mean by “we?”

[Anonymous No.15670772]

>>15665936
>Writing isn't work - Thomas Sowell, a writer
Clearly Mr. Sowell is a welfare queen by his standards

[Anonymous No.15670812]

>>15665616
Just no, there's a difference between critiquing the works of Marx and just making up bullshit because you didn't understand it. A valid critique of Marx is a valid critique, if you say "Marx wants free stuff" then you clearly didn't read his work

[Anonymous No.15671258]

>>15668697
>t. hasn't read Dad Kapital