Crritique of Marxism?

[Anonymous No.20786191]

Is there any good philosophical critique to Marxism, Historical Materialism and else? Ok from any other ideology and point of view.

[Anonymous No.20786228]

henry george, weber, nietzsche,

[Anonymous No.20786231]

Read other types of history. Do you buy the great man school of old? Read Braudel’s and refute that. Use your own judgement

[Anonymous No.20786238]

You just have to listen to the marxists really. the marxist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy and hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money & absolute power corrupt absolutely'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.

so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.

This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ie ''because they say so'' lol.

Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.

This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).

Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how christian monarchies are evil

this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.

[Anonymous No.20786268]

>>20786191
no

[Anonymous No.20786277]

Plenty of leftist ones.
The rest are just US corporate and military worshiped, or spooked up religious mumbo about god and sin.

[Anonymous No.20786296]

>>20786277
>If it's not from a totally unbiased leftist source then it's biased and BAD
Lol, grow the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.20786324]

>>20786191
https://youtu.be/EBiz8pmlR8I
https://youtu.be/x5ytyeicV0c

[Anonymous No.20786325]

Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.20786328]

>>20786191
Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution by Fr. Seraphim Rose

[Anonymous No.20786347]

>>20786325

Peterson is what convinced me that arguments against Marxism do not exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20786348]

>>20786191

We could psychologize Marxism and say that it is the work of a resentful little Jew against Christian civilization: the ordeal of civility.

>the labor theory of value is patently ridiculous.
>History has shown that revolutions are never initiated by the laboring class, let alone led by them.
>Marx similtaneously denies the existence of human nature and posits that man is homo economicus.
>Materialism, independent of Marx, is most likely false.
>He made a very specific set of predictions about how things would play out in the 20th century, and as he was almost completely wrong, we can safely dispose of the entire project like we would any other scientific theory.

This last point is incredibly important. All Marxism since 1917, with the exception of a few left-communists, has completely departed from Marxist orthodoxy into third world colored people revolution against the white man. It's become a vehicle for resentment.

[Anonymous No.20786351]

>>20786347
Ignore Peterstein and see >>20786324
>>20786328

[Anonymous No.20786360]

>>20786191
Most of the critiques of Marxism we saw in the 20th century were fearmongering from the west and pure propaganda. Although various critiques of Marx were written in the '70s-'90s, albeit by people who are leftists. A lot of their critiques were centered around Marx's historical materialism and how it sucked. I would say read stuff written by the Post Structuralists, (Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault,Etc).

[Anonymous No.20786363]

>>20786347
Of course he can't argue against Marxism because he's a philosemite and accepts the premises post-war liberalism, which is essentially Bolshevik in nature.

[Anonymous No.20786366]

>>20786347
>I watched the lowest tier, normie clickbait tier "conservative" thinker, so that makes me assured that Marxism is irrefutable. Heh heh checkmate, chuds!

[Anonymous No.20786370]

>>20786360
Ignore all this normie faggotry and read >>20786328

[Anonymous No.20786377]

>>20786363
This desu!!!
https://youtu.be/WXYuqrO8LLo

[Anonymous No.20786398]

>>20786366

I know, I was like that, sorry. I became a communist as my edgy middle school phase thanks to Youtube retards. I seriously turned to the left in these two years but now I am searching for other points of view.

[Anonymous No.20786423]

>>20786398
please come back after you turn 21.

[Anonymous No.20786431]

Historical materialism is the easiest thing ever to reject. If you aren't a secular metaphysical materialist who agrees humans are just evolved social animals and nothing more, you can't be a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.20786437]

>>20786431
what's metaphysical about it?

[Anonymous No.20786443]

Kolakowski - Main Currents of Marxism

[Anonymous No.20786450]

>>20786437
It denies idealist and non-immanently materialist metaphysical positions a priori, as an assumed premise.

[Anonymous No.20786469]

It is impossible for a materialist, on his own grounds, to engage in metaphysics because metaphysics is immaterial. Yet the materialist, hypocritically, has to engage in metaphysics because it is necessary in order to make an argument.
Materialism inherently contradicts its own premise.

[Anonymous No.20786499]

>>20786191
The Open Society and its Enemies

[Anonymous No.20786637]

>>20786348
>the labor theory of value is patently ridiculous.
because?
>History has shown that revolutions are never initiated by the laboring class, let alone led by them.
history shows that they are, both in 1871 and 1917
>Marx similtaneously denies the existence of human nature
no, he's very explicit that human nautre exists
>and posits that man is homo economicus.
he doesn't do that. he only posits that man strives to organize his activity in such a way that his continued survival is assured given the available natural resources and means of appropriating them. this is an incontestable fact
>Materialism, independent of Marx, is most likely false.
what does that mean? point to a concrete thesis of Marx and state why it's wrong instead of hiding behind vague abstractions like "materialism" that can mean 100 different things to 100 different people
>He made a very specific set of predictions about how things would play out in the 20th century
he never specifically talked about the 20th century. what's your source for this? a steven crowder video?
>>20786398
which communist party were you in?
>>20786431
I don't know, self-inducing brain damage to the point that you begin to believe in fairies like some bushman in Africa sounds pretty hard to me
>>20786450
superstition was overcome by the enlightenment and the bourgeois revolution. it's a dead corpse

[Anonymous No.20786651]

>>20786348
/thread

[Anonymous No.20786662]

>>20786348
based

[Anonymous No.20786670]

>>20786238
Nice blogpost faggot. Next time stay on topic

[Anonymous No.20786673]

>>20786662
this post didn't increase the thread IP count

[Anonymous No.20786679]

>>20786450
>It denies idealist and non-immanently materialist metaphysical positions a priori
Yeah, religion can be discarded a priori in a discussion.

[Anonymous No.20786681]

>>20786637
>superstition was overcome by the enlightenment and the bourgeois revolution. it's a dead corpse
What a silly person you are.
Justify the scientific method using only the scientific method. Go ahead and try. And don't say "Because it works". This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.

[Anonymous No.20786686]

>>20786679
Show us the empirical data.

[Anonymous No.20786696]

>>20786469
Or he can just deny metaphysics as the hogwash that it is

[Anonymous No.20786698]

>>20786686
Read Kant

[Anonymous No.20786708]

>>20786696
In that case, as I said in that very post, it is impossible for the materialist to make an argument.

[Anonymous No.20786723]

>>20786681
the proof of the scientific method is in the fact that our capacity to manipulate nature has grown a thousandfold once we've applied science to this. you can even trace particular new abilities directly to particular scientific discoveries

[Anonymous No.20786732]

>>20786723
In other words "it just works," which as I already said, is begging the questions.
Materialists can't even grasp the most basic logical arguments!

[Anonymous No.20786749]

>>20786238
based

[Anonymous No.20786759]

>>20786723
You are a simpleton.
https://youtu.be/KRgqMIqT1Yw

[Anonymous No.20786782]

>>20786732
how is this begging the question? you can apply things other than science to the same problems, for example ritual dances or prayer, and you'll see that they don't reliably lead to the desired effect, while the application of science does. this is a substantive proof that it works

[Anonymous No.20786795]

>>20786238
I agree but Christian monarchies were actually evil; part of the stepping stones of progress and civilization. We just wanted to be left alone fishing and herding our reindeer then Christian niggers come along and turn everything into property, managed assets, and for profit enterprise, and they take away our children for "conditioning" ala Brave New World, or draft them directly into their wars for Israel (even the crusades, and the religious and reformation wars were wars for jews).

That's just how it goes. Now you too are obsolent and get to mingle with the proles. Progress must go on.

[Anonymous No.20786811]

>>20786782
You're talking about "what works" and "what doesn't work" which assumes you have the correct paradigm in the first place to determine what the desired results are. Teleology is metaphysical.
You are assuming that you can interpret the empirical data correctly but that is precisely what is being called into question. The scientific method presuposses all kinds of things like, for instance, the principle of induction, which you haven't justified. >>20786759

[Anonymous No.20786837]

Read Berlin's biography of Marx.

[Anonymous No.20786845]

Marx was fat.

[Anonymous No.20786881]

>>20786191

From the point of view of economics Marxism has 2 big mistakes

-No modern economist of any prestige believes in the Marxist theory of value

-The Economic calculation problem (how socialist dictatorships decide what gets built, produced or made, without free markets)

google those two things if you want to find two issues in which Marxism was/is clearly wrong, even though there are obviously more flaws.

[Anonymous No.20786895]

>>20786679
Metaphysical principles other than reductive materialism, especially Marx's brand of reductive materialism which he openly proclaims is of French 18th century variety (read: the most vulgar and most reductive materialism possible, caricature tier), cannot be assumed a priori. Marx begins from an assumed premise that human beings are simply social, culture-making animals, completely material in nature, and that all of their social and cultural norms and all their ideas and experiences are thus downstream of their base economic behaviors. His anthropology was already dated and already being called into question by the 1750s. It is basically Reddit atheism, it's Stephen Pinker's worldview with the whiggish teleology removed (or rather, attenuated).

You can believe in that anthropology and defend it, you can even defend Engels' hideous Darwinist materialist worldview that wasn't even attractive to many people in the 1880s and actively drove people away from socialism with its aridity. But you do have to defend it. You can't just presume it.

This is a common problem with Marxists though. They aren't interested in proving or defending their "scientific" theses, the essence of which should necessarily be provability. They are mostly bourgeois youths trying to make a personal statement by holding to those theses. They don't actually believe in Engels' metaphysics, scientifically, they just really really identify with Reddit atheism and progress and rationality and so on. But again, this is what drove and what continues to drive people away from Marxism.

It's a fundamentally bourgeois habit and luxury to have your little pet ideology or pet worldview challenged, and to retreat into "you just don't GET IT, square!" because it feels good to be a misunderstood rebel. This is bourgeois, because the bourgeois isn't actually fighting for anything, he's already won, so he has the luxury of retreating into his self-image and LARPing instead of actually trying to convince anyone. His convictions are fashion statements, not actual declarations of war to be carried through to the end. Since Marx himself, Marxism has always been carried out as primarily a fashion statement for this reason. Bakunin noticed this (quote in next post).

>>20786637
How many times have you been called out for doing this, greentext spammer wiki-marxist anon? Nobody wants to engage with this cringe. /lit/ is not that fast a board, people notice when you make low quality Marx threads just to enter into these unreadable greentext exchanges every other (working) day.

We keep having the same exchange where I or someone else tells you that you're being antisocial and unproductive and you reply "i just like shitposting!" But you're doing it for entire days, multiple days in a row. You need help. Did you recently lose another "digital media assistant" job or something and you have a lot of free time?

[Anonymous No.20786909]

>>20786191
Read Adorno. According to him, if Jews are the bourgeoisie, why are they suffering more than the proletariat?

[Anonymous No.20786933]

>>20786637
>because?
Labor-time doesn't inherently add value to an object. It's very intuitive, actually.
>history shows that they are, both in 1871 and 1917
1871 was hardly a revolution. In any case, the leadres were members of the bourgeoisie. Same as 1917.
>no, he's very explicit that human nautre exists
You're wrong.
>he doesn't do that. he only posits that man strives to organize his activity in such a way that his continued survival is assured given the available natural resources and means of appropriating them. this is an incontestable fact
Yes, this is homo-economicus. The walking stomach.
>point to a concrete thesis of Marx and state why it's wrong instead of hiding behind vague abstractions like "materialism" that can mean 100 different things to 100 different people
Fine. 'Historical materialism' as concieved by Marx is most likely false. (again, the 20th century refutes it.) Though he probably didn't intend it the master key to understanding history the entire project falls apart without it.
>he never specifically talked about the 20th century.
You're simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.20786954]

>>20786895
Bakunin quote:
>Marx, Engels, especially Marx, poison the atmosphere. Vanity, malevolence, gossip, pretentiousness and boasting in theory and cowardice in practice. Dissertations about life, action and feeling - and complete absence of life, action, and feeling - and complete absence of life. Disgusting flattery of the more advanced workers, and empty talk.

>>20786723
Holy shit you actually are a terrible Marxist. Are you really invoking the "scientific method" to justify your entire faith in Marxism? Are you even familiar with the decades of critiques of bourgeois scientificity made by German and Russian Marxists? Even if you aren't, are you really not familiar with how the "scientific method" is mostly a phantom of 1950s pro-liberal propaganda funded and spread by Western governments, through people like Popper and Polanyi, as an alternative to Marxist realism?

And even if you aren't familiar with any of that, can you really not understand the obvious epistemological regress the other guy is pointing out, wherein you need the "scientific method" to justify the "scientific method" to justify the "scientific method?" I posted above about the comically vulgar, 18th century vintage positivism and materialism of orthodox Marxism, but your childish knowledge of basic and perennial philosophical problems (how can knowledge justify itself if that very knowledge necessarily also requires justification in order to be used to justify anything?) makes it look like Leibniz by comparison.

You are damaging your own cause by representing it, as always.

>>20786782
This is correct. What's even more jarring is, as I was just saying, that it's not even a Marxist position, it's a bourgeois, whiggish, modified Enlightenment epistemology beloved of the CIA. "Science just works! Trust the science! Expert consensus inevitably develops toward PROGRESS! We don't need any ruptures! 'Scientific' discourse never stagnates!"

[Anonymous No.20786962]

>>20786933
This is what he lives for. Don't give him the satisfaction of the endless greentext war. He'll do it for ten fucking hours. He does it with a new person every two days and they never get anywhere. He has never conceded a single point. It's a deeply mentally ill Discord pseudo-Marxist.

[Anonymous No.20786968]

My philosophy is "Give unto Marx what is Marx's, give unto God what is God's." Marx's ideas have value in the sphere of social science, economics, and the study of history. In fact I will say that in those spheres, I view Marxist ideology as being scientific. When I analyze economic or political trends, I try to map it to Marxist theory.

When people try to extend that to say religion, where Marx's argument is that humanity's relationship with God is some sort of "export of creativity" ala what happens when the artisan becomes a laborer, you lose me. And attempts to map Marxist ideology to other realms of science (like Lysenkoism) have failed disastrously, just as mapping say evolutionary biology to social science was a disaster. (And no, sorry leftists, but epigenetics do not mean Lysenko was right). But that's not Marx's fault. His theory has its place, and as long as is it kept there, I accept it.

>>20786881

>No modern economist of any prestige believes in the Marxist theory of value
Plenty of serious academics in China do so.
>The Economic calculation problem (how socialist dictatorships decide what gets built, produced or made, without free markets)
It seems that for now, the market is indeed how such things are done. Cybernetics are a long way off, and I doubt it will ever happen. But China's economic model is worth studying.

>inb4 "Leftist!!!"
I literally believe in God.

[Anonymous No.20786982]

>>20786881

The development of society and history after Marx also proves Marx wrong. Rich developed industrial countries like Germany didn't have communist revolutions, they happened in underdeveloped countries with large peasantries.
The class he cared most for, the industrial worker, is in complete decadence, and completely lacks the power to start any revolution. And the proletarians of the wealthiest and biggest companies of the world, like Facebook or Google or Microsoft engineers, are so weahtly themselves they would never take part in a revolution. People don't take part of violent revolutions when they have a great life.
Sociaty simply didn't develop as Marx predicted.

Soviet economist Kondratieff (you may know him from Kondratiev's wave) refuted communism, and he was executed for that. The development of capitalism, in which for same decades it focuses on some industries, until it moves its focus to another new sector, which he discovered, goes against the idea of capitalism collapsing in some final crisis.
in 1960 the big companies were car companies and oil companies and metal companies, it evolved into making apple and microsoft and google the big companies, the age of computers, and in the future capitalism will move to a new wave with new big companies, most likely about renewable energy, AI and genetic engineering, and there will be some new wave after that, the hysteria of communists every time there is an international finatial crisis is comparable to christians seeing signs of the second coming.

[Anonymous No.20787323]

>>20786811
>You're talking about "what works" and "what doesn't work" which assumes you have the correct paradigm in the first place to determine what the desired results are
correct for what? I'm saying that science works for the purpose it's used for by the human species, and that purpose is manipulating nature for its needs.
>You are assuming that you can interpret the empirical data correctly but that is precisely what is being called into question.
are you questioning that giant dams, cargo ships or artificial high-yielding cereals exist and fulfill the functions they were created for?
>The scientific method presuposses all kinds of things like, for instance, the principle of induction, which you haven't justified.
I don't care about manufactured abstract problems, I care that the yields in manufacture of food have multiplied once scientific achievement could be applied to it on a mass scale in the second part of the 20th century
>>20786895
>How many times have you been called out for doing this
for doing what? am I bothering you by challenging baseless claims because that makes it harder for you to pretend that they're true?
>Nobody wants to engage with this cringe.
I think many people want to engage, but they know they don't have the basic knowledge required to do it in a normal way so they resort to personal attacks and non-arguments such as "this is cringe".
also I just noticed that you've just been proven wrong again by someone two posts below you who "engaged", or rather attempted to. or maybe you're schizo enough to think that I made that post too
>people notice when you make low quality Marx threads
I've never made a Marx thread lol. do you think there's only one person interested in Marx on /lit/?
>We keep having the same exchange where I or someone else tells you that you're being antisocial and unproductive
what does that even mean? it's not anti-social to write serious responses to claims in other post on a discussion board. and I don't come here to be productive but to entertain myself. I have several other areas where I'm being productive. and if _you_ think you can be "productive" on 4chan, then you're on some extreme copium my brother.
>>20786954
>Are you really invoking the "scientific method" to justify your entire faith in Marxism?
no, I'm invoking the practical effects of applying science to show that science works. whatever garbage you attach to the term "scientific method" is irrelevant to my point
and you don't need any regress to show that science works. you only need to compare the effectiveness of increasing yields through modifying crops using scientific understanding of how they work with the effectiveness of increasing yields through praying hard to a fairy
>You are damaging your own cause by representing it, as always.
my cause isn't providing jerk off material for some pseud intellectual masturbators. back to your philosophy class to talk about "scientificity" and other "perennial problems"

[Anonymous No.20787330]

>>20786933
>Labor-time doesn't inherently add value to an object
true, the value is determined not by the labour time added to the object, but by the labour time that would be necessary to reproduce it
but I'd still like to know why the labour theory of value is patently ridiculous
>In any case, the leadres were members of the bourgeoisie.
some of them might've been ex-bourgeois who passed to the side of the proletariat, but that doesn't mean that they were members of the bourgeoisie. and the leaders are a minority of the entire class that underpins the movement.
what matters for determining the class content of the revolution is the direction it marches in
>Yes, this is homo-economicus.
if that's it, then Marx is correct. no society will survive that can't feed itself and defend itself from the elements.
>the 20th century refutes it
what in the 20th century?
>You're simply wrong.
true, I just realized this when writing the rest of my replies. Marx pretty much predicted the Russian revolution and a condition for its success, namely a successful revolution in the West.
>>20786982
>Rich developed industrial countries like Germany didn't have communist revolutions
Germany did have a communist revolution. it was defeated using leftists and protofascist militias
>they happened in underdeveloped countries with large peasantries.
this happened once in Russia. and what do you know, Marx explicitly said it might happen, and he also predicted that in that case it would only have a chance if it lead to successful revolutions in the West.
>The class he cared most for, the industrial worker, is in complete decadence, and completely lacks the power to start any revolution
the working class being crushed at one point in time doesn't contradict anything he said. if it did, he would've given up in 1850 or in 1871
>And the proletarians... are so wealthy
that's not a thing. proletarians are defined by their propertylessness
>People don't take part of violent revolutions when they have a great life.
no shit, that's why the revolutionary class in capitalism is the proletariat, and not some upper middle class code monkeys that belong to a privileged class thanks to their exceptional usefulness to capital
>Sociaty simply didn't develop as Marx predicted.
it did. he even explicitly predicted the growth of the middle classes. and look, that's exactly what you've just described
>Soviet economist Kondratieff (you may know him from Kondratiev's wave) refuted communism
big if true! how did the refute it?
>and there will be some new wave after that
sure, but this already assumes that capitalism will continue indefinitely. what you're ignoring is that the waves are separated by great catastrophes, such as world wars, which give genuine openings for the proletariat to finish with it, as proven in the aftermath of WWI. the fact is that this will keep happening until capitalism exists. another fact is that the proletariat needs to succeed on only one such occasion.

[One !cwcv5N5qmU No.20787338]

>>20786238
almost correct, you have to remember that christianity is also a grift and Jesus didn't resurrect and you know this deep down and your leap of faith is false

[Anonymous No.20787343]

>>20786968
>>>/discord/

[Anonymous No.20787383]

>>20786968
That's pretty much what everybody does. Marx is one of the founding fathers of social science, and we all think like Marxists when we think of social and economic relations structuring cultural, philosophical, and ideological ones. These ideas weren't original to Marx (they go back at least as far as Rousseau and the Scottish Enlightenment), but Marx made them systematic and forced bourgeois social science to confront them. Notable examples being Durkheim and Weber.

His actual worldview doesn't appeal to anybody anymore though, and his predictions were all wrong, unless you extend them to centuries instead of the decades Marx and Engels thought they would take. That's actually an approach I'm sympathetic to (see Robert Brenner), but it doesn't win many converts.

>>20787323
>am I bothering you
Yes, you're writing unreadable walls of greentext shit in an uncharitable way that doesn't actually engage with what the other person talks about, which is especially difficult considering you have terrible knowledge of Marxism.

I guess what I am really voicing is my disappointment that yet another prolific Marxposter on /lit/ is worthless for conversation and is only interested in talking to himself. I have a lot of respect for Marx, but I can't find any Marxists who aren't just mentally ill terminally online retards, using Marxism as an identity instead of understanding it. You are one of the worst I've seen.

[Anonymous No.20787452]

>>20786499
sad that this is the only valid reply to OP's question so far.

>>20786191
Refuting that the root of historical development is based on economic change/progress? Lots of people stipulate otherwise. For example historical change or progress can be based on progress in systems of social/political control (ideological, psychological, religous). These new techniques of control or social systems that lead to visible historical progress can be psychological and buerocratic (including the use of force) in nature. If humans are ever not economically viable anymore then technological progress will be historic progress
but until then the human factor is just far bigger than the economic or technological factor alone. Governments and financiers are more afraid of their own subjects and other rivals than of their economy collapsing. Controlling humans is also far more difficult than making economic progress. It is easy to see that progressing the means of controlling the population (art of government if you will) is more important than - and often also a requisit - to economic progress.

One could go another step further and simply stipulate that the will to power is driving historical development.

References and recommended reading:
Society of the Spectacle, Debord
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Faucault
Postscript on the Societies of Control, Deleuze
Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze, Guattari
Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard (maybe I'm not sure. cant remember)
Anything by Nietzsche

Practical Cultural Expositions:
Amusing Ourselves To Death, Postman
The Revolution of Everyday Life, Vainegem
24/7, Jonathan Crary
Propaganda, Bernays
Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, Jones
The Shallows, Carr
On Television, Pierre Bourdieu

[Anonymous No.20787534]

>>20787452
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.20787581]

>>20786895
>no! you are the bourgoise!
It's so tiresome

[Anonymous No.20787604]

>>20786191
Marx was a bum who never held a job or worked in his life. Never ran a business. Was never trained as an economist. All the results of his ideas have been either poverty, tyranny or famine. By the way, this thread is going to be spammed by the psued-green texting tranny. Do not waste your replying to the faggot.

[Anonymous No.20787607]

>>20787581

>It's all so tiresome

You are. One of the reason I am running away from socialism Is that a lot of you are always so insufferable.

[Anonymous No.20787622]

>>20786933
>>20786637
Friendly reminder - do not engage this retard. He's the samefagging, green-text pseud Marxist with no life who spams these threads for attention. He's not arguing in good faith; he's just spamming and being a retard. He doesn't have a job, and he likes to waste peoples' time. He's ALWAYS in these threads. Ignore him.

[Anonymous No.20787639]

>>20787607
Maybe you can create a government protected enterprise that exploits those insufferable socialists in their rightful position as wagies, kept securely under climate lockdown in the multicultural wage slave bauhaus architecure 1-room apartment cells, so you don't have to face them irl.

[Anonymous No.20787651]

>>20786982
>The development of capitalism, in which for same decades it focuses on some industries, until it moves its focus to another new sector,
Yeah, this isn't really a tendency for the profit rate to fall. Its a loaded statement - profit rates can not predicted ahead of time. Demand can be stable or rise, which means the profit rate isn't really destined to fall. The theory is also not empirically sound since many studies have debunked it, and every Marxist analysis of the TRPF uses different calculations so the data they use can not even be replicated.

[Anonymous No.20787658]

>>20786191
No.

[Anonymous No.20787672]

>>20787639

I am not a liberal but I also don't need to call everybody who disagrees with me "bourgeois", "reactionary" or the jack of all trades "conservative"

[Anonymous No.20787687]

>>20787672
I just call them faggots. All in good faith. Let's hug and be done with it.

[Anonymous No.20787790]

>>20786191
It depends what you mean by good. There's no good definition of what any of those things are and most are pissing in the wind

>>20786881
>-No modern economist of any prestige believes in the Marxist theory of value
And no paleolithic economists did either? Bohm-Bawerk was the only one that directly wrote a critic and that is the general reference I guess.

>The Economic calculation problem
The general consensus on that amongst "economist of any prestige" of the day (the Austrians were already heterodox by the 1930s) was that the neoclassical economists proved a planned economy is "possible" (i.e. Lange model). The revisionism started in the 1970s when Hayek was awarded a "Nobel" (not really) prize for noting in particular

[Anonymous No.20788156]

>>20786191
Spengler probably has the most coherent hard right wing alternative. Kenneth Waltz devoted an entire chapter of Man, the State, and War to Marxism and it has a fairly decent criticism of Marxism as it relates to international politics. I’d argue there are holes in both critiques but good luck making an airtight argument either for or against Marxism.
>>20786348
>the work of a resentful little Jew against Christian civilization
You could argue that only if you were consummately retarded. Marx was raised as a German Christian and in all likelihood did not know of his Jewish heritage. Was Bruno Bauer also Jewish? He was much harsher in his critique of Christianity than Marx.
>>20787383
>his predictions were all wrong, unless you extend them to centuries instead of the decades Marx and Engels thought they would take
You’d also probably enjoy Hobsbawm’s “How to Change the World: Reflections on Marx and Marxism.”
>>20787452
>Amusing Ourselves To Death, Postman
I’m not sure I’d include Postman, if only because his view of Marxism is a sort of boomer surface level understanding of it. He does sort of promulgate an idealist thesis with the 19th century print culture worship, but at the same time his explanation for what has changed is all about economic changes and new material realities re-shaping public discourse, which doesn’t really cut that hard against Marx IMO. Does raise some interesting practical problems in regards to the masses every breaking out of false consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20788183]

>>20786191
...do you really need one? Look at them...look at these regressive faggots still mentally stuck in the peak whiggism of the 19th century, look how literally nothing remains of the ideology anymore, how outdated it is.

[Anonymous No.20788196]

>>20787604
>Marx was a bum who never held a job or worked in his life
Why do people continually promulgate such an obvious lie? He was a journalist more or less his entire adult life, working for several European newspapers and even an American one. Abraham Lincoln would have spotted an occasional Marx article while reading his daily copy of the New York Tribune.

[Anonymous No.20788212]

>>20788196
>Why do people listen to Marx? He's fucking dumb.
>Yeah well libertarian cardboard cutout #1, #2 and #3 are all dumb too!
Holy shit free market btfo.

[Anonymous No.20788218]

>>20788212
At the time, libertarianism was still a potent force on the internet, and it could be reasonably inferred that the OP was some autistic ancap faggot. Unfortunately that meme aged like milk. Idk if there are any real libertarians left desu.

[Anonymous No.20788220]

my favorite part of marxism is where the two strongest examples are the u.s.s.r. who failed to viably compete with liberal democracy and collapsed (which kinda says something about economic darwinism or something ), and china which realized about that time that it was untenable and basically just became fascistic instead to great success. based deng xiaoping.

[Anonymous No.20788232]

>>20788220
most people who make the claim “gommunism doesnt work “ are retards trying to say it doesn’t work “morally” or something because “muh bread lines”, when the truth is it doesn’t work because it couldn’t manage the strength and staying power to outdo it’s opponents. it is simply not a very strong system, and that is probably why it attracts so many limp wrists and “i’ll design the uniforms!” daydreamers.

[Anonymous No.20788239]

>>20788218
Libertarians either die libertarians or live long enough to become liberty-loving authoritarians.

[Anonymous No.20788256]

>>20788239
Liberty is simply downstream of a minimum of consensus and polite neighbors. Consensus comes from a reasonable degree of ethnic, linguistic, cultural homogeneity, and polite neighbors comes from a culture whose consensus "irrationally" includes the axiom "Don't be a disgraceful degenerate faggot."

[Anonymous No.20788278]

>>20787383
>in an uncharitable way that doesn't actually engage with what the other person talks about
I always engage charitably unless people indulge in their own unfounded fantasy lore or make pretend criticisms by never talking in concrete terms. the reasons should be obvious
>which is especially difficult considering you have terrible knowledge of Marxism
like what? if you count a bunch of leftards as Marxists then your problem might lie there
>using Marxism as an identity instead of understanding it. You are one of the worst I've seen.
that's great, but I've never identified as a Marxist and I've never seen anyone here show me something I don't understand about it. there's definitely a lot, but the truth is that people here are too retarded to identify it, because their understanding of Marx is based on youtube videos and university classes, whereas I've read the some of the things he wrote
>>20788196
>Why do people continually promulgate such an obvious lie?
because they're self-loathing neets
>>20788220
USSR and Mao's China were both capitalist

[Anonymous No.20788358]

>>20788278
>actually capitalist
my second favorite part about marxism, thank you. let’s hear, in concrete terms, how one could feasibly institute marxism in the current age.

[Anonymous No.20788563]

>>20786191
Read Bertrand Russel.

[Anonymous No.20788593]

>>20786191
Pic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Currents_of_Marxism

[Anonymous No.20788657]

>>20788593
added to my list! thank (You)

[Anonymous No.20788672]

>>20788593
Good rec

>>20788657
The first 100-150 pages are quite challenging, I recommend at least starting with the chapter around 190-200 of volume 1 on pre-Marxist socialism, or just reading something a bit easier before jumping right into Kolakowski. However, if you can handle the chapters on the German idealists and Young Hegelians, it gets considerably downhill from there.

For another book that's good for a basic overview, try Tucker's Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.20788687]

>>20788672
dumb as it is i might just skim it and try reading out loud

[Anonymous No.20788779]

man i miss the good old days of comfy marx threads before chuds and nazis took over this board with their meme trad and racist shit. where we could have good intellectual discussions with other high iq marxbros instead of waste time refuting trumptard talking points about capitalism and class. anyone else?

[Anonymous No.20788902]

>>20788779
are you adding anything to the conversation?

[Anonymous No.20789067]

Is it possible that the reason nothing has really been “done” since marxism due to the fact that it never properly got off the ground/was a failure in its own course of implementation? It seems like most of the “philosophical revolutions” all picked up steam and lead, more or less, to their desired outcomes, and possibly it has been taken for granted that each polarizibg, brightshinyandnew philosophy will do just that. Is it possible that the failure of marxism to similarly “sweep the world” has led to a widespread, unspoken paralysis? That somehow we’re stuck in a limbo of stagnation because “well, that wasn’t supposed to happen!”?

[Anonymous No.20789122]

>>20786191
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

[Anonymous No.20789125]

>>20788779

[Anonymous No.20789939]

>nobody posted him
shit board (and no, i haven't read him, so don't ask me anything about him, however I do know that he btfo Marx)

[Anonymous No.20789947]

>>20786191

the best critique is that Marx never had a real job, and didnt realize how to make anything, and that when workers seize the means of production, then production does what? stops. hahah

Thomas Pikkety has some thoughts, but I havent read him yet

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/books/review/capital-and-ideology-thomas-piketty.html

[Anonymous No.20789958]

Piketty - 1000 page book on Marxist Ideology

[Anonymous No.20789991]

>>20789958
usual delusion by leftists that humanism is not capitalism, so they have to create neologisms like hypercapitalism to hide the truth that there never was a new liberalism

[Anonymous No.20790007]

>>20788196
Journalism is essentially humanistic since only secular humanists have created the job of journalist and they love the idea of a journalist as the gatekeeper of secular humanism by denouncing some Human rights violations, political scandals and enlightening the plebs, because journalists like any cockroach humanist cling to their idea that they are the gatekeepers of the truths.

All the journalists 100 years ago were already self righteous atheist assholes addicted to their brain poops.
Journalism has always been pathetic.

[Anonymous No.20790020]

>>20787383
>These ideas weren't original to Marx
That's the interesting thing about Marx. If you look at the components that make up his thought, very little of them are at all original. What makes Marx great was his ability to systematize ideas from many different thinkers.

[Anonymous No.20790021]

>>20786191
Yes, Aristotle's Ethics and secondly Politics.

[Anonymous No.20790024]

>>20786238
shut the fuck up we have all your texts from the last two years dumb ass

[Anonymous No.20790031]

>>20786348
except the secret is that marxism isnt science

[Anonymous No.20790046]

>>20787330
no dude wearing a tie to work adds any fucking value
is there a relations between labour and time?
sure in many ways, but if youve a decent source of income and wealth, you just endeavor to to find the most uninformed workers for your projects - because the labour time value relation is an utter fiction uness youre a fucking farmer in a time before tractors

[Anonymous No.20790085]

Marxism is irrefutable and the lack of counterarguments in this thread proves it.

[Anonymous No.20790100]

>>20786238
Based, marxist's stay seething

[Anonymous No.20790191]

>>20788220
>and china which realized about that time that it was untenable and basically just became fascistic instead to great success. based deng xiaoping.
Depending on how things go this decade and the next in terms of the balance of power and stuff like that, I think you might see China promoting Marxism more.

[Anonymous No.20790295]

>>20786238
Pretty based.

[Anonymous No.20790323]

>>20788196
>He worked as a journalists
Your not really helping the bearded kikes case here, journalism has always been seen a shit-tier proffesion filled with people/failures who like to sniff their own farts. All you have to do is look at todays journalists literally none of them are respected as human beings. Also Marx was a pathetic selfhating trustfund baby like most marxists today. Even his own dad called him out for his hypocrisy and being a little bitch.

[Anonymous No.20790349]

How does Marx being a leech refute Marxism? Seems to me entirely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.20790434]

>>20788196
>He was a journalist more or less his entire adult life
Books that explain why failed academics become journalists?
Was he freelance? So unproductive petite-bourgeois? His only job was being employed by the International Working Men's Association and that's ok, stop trying to make him something he wasn't.

[Anonymous No.20790695]

>>20790349
Yeah, the thing about Marxism is that you don't have to personally like Karl Marx. I'm pretty sure Jim Jones' followers thought he was really swell and then they poisoned themselves.

[Anonymous No.20790751]

>>20790434
He never aimed to be an academic, so he's not a failed one. He was not a freelance journalist for most of his early career, first he was co-editor for Rheinische Zeitung before the newspaper was banned in 1843 and Marx was forced into exile. At this point he moved to Paris and got involved with Arnold Ruge serving as co-editor for the magazine Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, a paper which was once again banned by the German government and censored by the French government. This led to writing again for Vorwärts!, another German-language radical newspaper based out of France and Belgium. This is around the time where he meets Friedrich Engels and the two dedicate themselves to research and creating what we now know as Marxism.

[Anonymous No.20790765]

>>20790751
So he did a doctorate just because?

[Anonymous No.20790779]

>>20786238
Nietzschean atheists aren't like this tho

[Anonymous No.20790838]

>>20788358
if by "institute Marxism" you mean the abolition of capitalism and the organization of associated production, then the path to that is the organization of the proletariat into class and a political party, the conquest of political power, expropriation and centralization of the means of production in the hands of the proletarian state and replacing production for sale according to profitability with production directly for consumption, according to a common plan.
>>20788779
no, leftists who appropriate Marxism superficially say just as much moronic things about it as "chuds" or whatever, if not worse
>>20790046
could you rewrite this in English? I think you might be close to making a point that could be addressed, but not quite there.
there is a relation between labour time and value because value is ultimately a mechanism for apportioning the total labour time society disposes of within a given time frame between different tasks it needs to perform to meet it aggregate needs. but I don't know what wearing a tie has to do with this
>>20790765
maybe he did it to learn something. but it wouldn't matter even if he wanted to be one before finishing his degree. the point is he grew out of it. he could've had an easy career in academia had he chosen to be a bootlicker for the ruling class. instead, he explicitly choose to live in poverty as a genuine scientist and a revolutionary, because he was not a spineless cuck who would be okay for corrupting himself in exchange for base material things

[Anonymous No.20790990]

>>20786881
I whipe my ass with any book on economics, economics is a field of retards who can't accept that they are too dumb to study a real subject

[Anonymous No.20791115]

>>20786881
>-No modern economist of any prestige believes in the Marxist theory of value
and medieval astronomers were heliocentrists.
if you tried asking a random economist to explain why Marx was wrong on value, they wouldn't be able to do it. more, they wouldn't even be able to explain Marx's theory properly before attempting to refute it, because they didn't study it. they know it's wrong the same way you do: they heard that opinion from other economists. that's it. this is not a critique of Marxism, this is repeating a meme like an NPC.
if the rejection by economists has a real justification, then you should be able to cite that justification directly.
>The Economic calculation problem
this is not a problem for socialist production. it's practically one big tautology where they invent conceptions of "rationality" and "efficiency" such that they come out maximized in a market economy, and then--a big surprise--discover that the market economy maximizes them. it doesn't show that capitalism will be able to survive indefinitely, nor does it show that associated production is impossible. it only shows the latter would be "inefficient" according to a notion of efficiency that deems supplying an alcoholic with cheap booze at lowest cost and maximum profit as "most efficient".

[Anonymous No.20791158]

>>20791115
*geocentrists

[Anonymous No.20791161]

>>20786191
Reality.

[Anonymous No.20791188]

>>20790838
>the point is he grew out of it
Where does he talk about this?

[Anonymous No.20791505]

>>20791188
here he describes in summary how he turned from studying philosophy to studying the real world and how this led to a fundamental discovery that took him directly into places that are incompatible with working as an ideologist for the ruling classes
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
>Although I studied jurisprudence, I pursued it as a subject subordinated to philosophy and history. In the year 1842-43, as editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to discuss what is known as material interests. The deliberations of the Rhenish Landtag on forest thefts and the division of landed property; the official polemic... about the condition of the Moselle peasantry, and finally the debates on free trade and protective tariffs caused me in the first instance to turn my attention to economic questions.
>On the other hand, at that time when good intentions “to push forward” often took the place of factual knowledge, an echo of French socialism and communism, slightly tinged by philosophy, was noticeable in the Rheinische Zeitung.
>I objected to this dilettantism, but at the same time frankly admitted in a controversy with the Allgemeine Augsburger Zeitung that my previous studies did not allow me to express any opinion on the content of the French theories.... I eagerly grasped the opportunity to withdraw from the public stage to my study.
>The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life....
>[together with Engels] we decided to set forth together our conception as opposed to the ideological one of German philosophy, in fact to settle accounts with our former philosophical conscience. The intention was carried out in the form of a critique of post-Hegelian philosophy. The manuscript [The German Ideology]... had long ago reached the publishers in Westphalia when we were informed that owing to changed circumstances it could not be printed. We abandoned the manuscript to the gnawing criticism of the mice all the more willingly since we had achieved our main purpose – self-clarification.

[Anonymous No.20791509]

>>20791188
>>20791505
and obviously there's a lot of stuff directly relevant to this in The German Ideology itself, e.g.:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b3
>The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.

[Anonymous No.20791589]

>>20791115
>this is not a problem for socialist production.
It is considering a socialist economy has no incentives to encourage people to work besides threats of violence, or price signals to measure scarcity accurately. There's also no incentive to innovate since no one is rewarded for it, and since communism eliminates the mercantile nature of the economy - there is no way for innovation to happen. That's why the USSR had to steal much of its technology and emulate the West. The USSR and Maoist China are brilliant case studies of it - you're just an idiot in denial of reality.
>nor does it show that associated production is impossible
Every real world of communism has failed, so, yeah we have enough historical evidence to discard it. You need to get a life. I don't even know why you waste hours here. You're not convincing anyone to be Marxists, and your revolution isn't happening - ever. Unfortunately, the clock Is ticking the hours are going by. The past increases, the future recedes, Possibilities decreasing, regrets mounting. Do you Understand?

[Anonymous No.20791594]

>>20791505
>>20791509
Why do you pseuds always spam quotes? Who cares about this word salad? Marx's philosophy was a product of the fact he was a bum who wanted to mooch instead of work.

[Anonymous No.20791607]

>>20791509
>>20791505
He always does this. He just spams walls of text nobody cares about, and shit he read on Wikipedia. Who cares about this crap when it has no real world application? Its just sophistry. Do you even have a fucking job?

[Anonymous No.20791611]

>>20788196
>He was a journalist more or less his entire adult life,
That wasn't his job - Engels paid for that. He literally lived off Engels his entire life after blowing his parents' inheritance - why do you lie? Can you even cite a paycheck Marx received?

[Anonymous No.20791613]

>>20788196
>Journalist
That's not even a real job

[Anonymous No.20791620]

>>20788196
>He was a journalist
That's kinda why your support for him is retarded. He was a fan fiction writer - not an economist. Why the fuck would care what he had to say about a field he wasn't even trained in?

[Anonymous No.20791635]

Marx didn't have a job. He never owned a business. He never worked in finance. He wasn't trained in economics. He lived off his Engels and his parents his entire life. There's literally no reason for someone to engage his work seriously.

[Anonymous No.20791716]

>>20786238
lmfao saving this for future shitposting

[Anonymous No.20791812]

>>20786191
Reminder that Marx himself said that he wasn't Marxist.
Marx is abolition of wage labor, commodity, money. Anything else is cope.

[Anonymous No.20791825]

History is a suitable critique of Marxist theory and practice

[Anonymous No.20792259]

>>20786637
Id recognize sabotabbo and his fucking obnoxious thread-derailing greentext-response-novels anywhere!

[Anonymous No.20792308]

>>20787330
>Labor-time doesn't inherently add value to an object
>true, the value is determined not by the labour time added to the object, but by the labour time that would be necessary to reproduce it
That's retarded.

[Anonymous No.20792318]

>>20791812
>Marx is abolition of wage labor

Uh... no.

[Anonymous No.20792468]

>>20791812
>Marx is abolition of wage labor, commodity, money. Anything else is cope.
So basically Pol Pot - gotcha

[Anonymous No.20792490]

>>20792468
Pol Pot is the only real communist leader in history; funny how internet commies don't praise him like they do all the other incompetent memes.

[Anonymous No.20792505]

>>20792468
That's closer to one giant slave plantation... I think Kampuchea exported crops and other commodities and had money to settle international transactions obviously (e.g. with China). Now that I think about it I don't think there's much written on the economy under pol pot

[Anonymous No.20792539]

>>20792490
There was the "Rural Peoples Party" from the 2000s... I think some of the members went on to be involved in Atomwaffen?


https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=30868

http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/revolution_LRL_interview.htm

[Anonymous No.20792678]

>>20791589
>It is considering a socialist economy has no incentives to encourage people to work besides threats of violence
sure it does. if you don't contribute to the social product, then you don't get to consume part of the social product
>or price signals to measure scarcity accurately
according to what measure? needs can be ascertained in other ways, and sometimes more accurately than prices, since prices will, for example, show a social need for tobacco from nicotine addicts or for slot machines from gambling addicts, as long as they can pay, when in fact those are clearly not only not genuine social needs, but are actually socially destructive, are anti-needs
>There's also no incentive to innovate since no one is rewarded for it
on the contrary, everyone is rewarded for it, because everyone reaps either extra time off or extra materials for consumption for each technological advancement. and the person innovating is rewarded twofold, because they also get to do the work that fulfills them
unless you're projecting your soullessness onto inventors and think they aren't passionate about inventing
>That's why the USSR had to steal much of its technology and emulate the West
the USSR was capitalist. it had to steal technology because the West had developed capitalism (and made possible broad application of science to production) centuries before Russia. but that had nothing to do with socialism. it happened before the word "socialism" even existed
>The USSR and Maoist China are brilliant case studies of it
they aren't. I've studied both and it's clear that they were just developing capitalism rapidly to catch up with the West. they can only teach about socialism through again demonstrating what socialism isn't
>>nor does it show that associated production is impossible
>Every real world of communism has failed
this is a complete non sequitur. it didn't fail because socialist production was impossible, but because the proletariat was defeated politically before it could even take the preliminary steps to organizing production on a socialist basis
>You're not convincing anyone to be Marxists
I know and that's great. do you think people here have anything to contribute to Marxism? lmao
>Do you Understand?
not really. I think you might've turned the projector on and started talking to yourself near the end there
>>20791594
I was asked where Marx talked about something, and in reply I quoted some texts where he did. do you have a degenerative brain disease or are you just so assmad that your rage causes your neurons to momentarily start misfiring?
>>20791607
apparently it has a real world application of continually making you retards sperg out, which I would classify as an entertainment value
>>20792308
because?
>>20792468
>>Marx is abolition of wage labor, commodity, money. Anything else is cope
>So basically Pol Pot - gotcha
Pol Pot ran a big factory of rice for export that employed a few millions of peasants. so no, the opposite of Pol Pot

[Anonymous No.20792734]

>>20792678
>because?
Because "the labour time that would be necessary to reproduce it" is a completely useless non-definition of value.

[Anonymous No.20792785]

>>20792678
>sure it does. if you don't contribute to the social product, then you don't get to consume part of the social product
Nobody is going to contribute in the first place. They're not getting paid for it. They're just gonna be lazy and worthless like you.
>according to what measure? needs can be ascertained in other ways,
In ways that are not feasible or desirable since the price system works pretty well. There is no need to change something that works. Your solution is absolutely retarded. You want to stop people from smoking cigarettes. Ah yes, you're going to stop the illegal drug trade - somehow. Some how, you've figured out a way to force people to do as want them to do. Retard.
>unless you're projecting your soullessness
You say this when you're literally a fedora tipping atheist. You want create an hedonistic utopia where you get to coom and do nothing all day. You want to have the free time to groom children on Discord with HRT. You want to use tax payer money to molest children.
>the USSR was capitalist.
Its was literally called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It clearly was socialist, retard. Do even know what you're talking about?
>this is a complete non sequitur. it didn't fail because socialist production was impossible, but because the proletariat was defeated politically
The shifting goalpost, no true Scotsman - get better arguments instead of extenuating because reality doesn't fit your bullshit narrative.

[Anonymous No.20792789]

>>20786347
Peterson probably couldn't even get past the first few pages of marx's near incomprehensible ramblings in the german ideology. He could barely explain the manifesto to a full blown marxist in a debate.

[Anonymous No.20792800]

>>20786348
His theory of alienation is pretty interesting... why do you think his views on materialism are false? Simply because you're spiritual or something?

[Anonymous No.20792801]

>>20792678
>apparently it has a real world application of continually making you retards sperg out
Imagine being such a pathetic person that this your entire existence. Your entire life revolves around being a punching bag here. I feel so sorry for your parents. They raised a tranny.

[Anonymous No.20792824]

>>20786347
Had the opposite effect on me. The same people calling for Marxism think women can have penises, and that children can consent sexual relationships with school teachers. There's just no way I could take it seriously after that point.

[Anonymous No.20792834]

>>20791611
>engels had him on a private pay roll

>didn't have a job.

[Anonymous No.20792896]

>>20792785
>Its was literally called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It clearly was socialist, retard. Do even know what you're talking about

And so was the national socialist party? Right?

[Anonymous No.20792991]

>>20792834
Ah yes, being a trust fund kid is the same as being working class

[Anonymous No.20793016]

>>20792834
>Complains about capitalists being leeches who don't work
>Defends a guy who just leeched off his wife and his friends because he didn't work

[Anonymous No.20793031]

>>20792785
>Its was literally called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It clearly was socialist
I guess North Korea is democratic because their official name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea

[Anonymous No.20793033]

>>20792896

Yes. Yes, it was. You're starting to get the right idea but you'll deny the conclusion because of your preconceived directionlet notions.

[Anonymous No.20793045]

>>20793016
>>20792991
>Can't argue against marx without bringing up his lifestyle.

That's how I know you have a conservative mindset.

All philosophers are leeches, they either live a life of gutter slum living or leech off some rich family or university or something.

[Anonymous No.20793071]

>>20793033
Lenin even said and sold everyone on "state capitalism" as a means to gain traction to socialism. Stalin kept that trend up.

[Anonymous No.20793077]

>>20793045
>NO YOU CAN'T JUST CALL ME OUT ON BEING INCONSISTENT, CONTRADICTORY AND HAVING DOUBLE STANDARDS!
A philosophy is only worth following if its practical and logical. Marx's life demonstrates he was neither - he was just a worthless bum who wrote about worthless things because he was just filled with poorfag cope like you.

[Anonymous No.20793084]

>>20792896
Mussolini was a socialist, a friend of Gramsci and Hitler was a member of the Bavarian Soviet. Fascism was a merger of nationalism and socialist tendencies, as they admitted, yes.
>"I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit … The difference between [Marxists] and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers’ sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specially for the comprehension of the masses: all these new methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do is take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose."

[Anonymous No.20793140]

>>20793077
>noooo I don't understand the concept of dialectic materialism!!!!

>look marx lived like this!

Who was that guy who used to jack off in public?

[Anonymous No.20793398]

>>20786191
read Why Nations Fail, not a direct critique but the case studies it goes over can apply to every marxist regime in the 20th and 21st centuries

[Anonymous No.20793441]

>>20793084
Socialism has a distinct definition.

The workers control and own the means of production.

Sorry, but nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and the ussr all had slave labor. And pondered to capitalists.

Socialism by name, but not by definition.

[Anonymous No.20793682]

>>20792734
>useless non-definition
it defines value in terms of another thing and it's useful for explaining how production is regulated in capitalism
>>20792785
>Nobody is going to contribute in the first place.
people will rather starve than work? you're a bit extreme even for a NEET. but you shouldn't project your extreme aversion to working onto broad society
>There is no need to change something that works
it doesn't work for working masses for whom it creates poverty and war. that's why they'll abolish it
>You want to stop people from smoking cigarettes.
it doesn't matter what I want. I'm just saying it's obvious that a society in control of its production will not choose to waste working time on something good only for temporarily relieving symptoms of an addiction while at the same time reinforcing the same addiction and for giving people cancer
>Ah yes, you're going to stop the illegal drug trade - somehow.
through common control of the means of production
>you've figured out a way to force people to do as want them to do
no, but the society that controls the means of production will obviously have control over what is produced and hence also over what is consumed
>You want create an hedonistic utopia where you get to coom and do nothing all day.
is that what you got from "if you don't contribute to the social product, then you don't get to consume part of the social product", which says the exact opposite? is the above a description of how your brain got this broken? excessive cooming?
>You want to have the free time to groom children on Discord with HRT. You want to use tax payer money to molest children.
I don't need to know the fantasies you like to coom to, though
>It clearly was socialist
no, the entire state revolved around accumulating capital in industry at breakneck pace in order to catch up with the West to be able to engage in imperialist competition with it
>The shifting goalpost
I didn't shift the goalpost. you just attacked the wrong one because you're retarded. you tried to argue that socialist production is impossible by pointing to a state which economically was at most at the level of capitalism in early stage of development, far from socialism.
>no true Scotsman
this is your second best argument for the USSR having a socialist mode of production. the best was it having "socialist" in its name
>get better arguments
well put
>>20792801
>Imagine being such a pathetic person that this your entire existence
keep projecting

[Anonymous No.20793693]

Socialism is a political movement. When normal people talk about socialism they are refering to the political systems that actually existed in practice, not to the musings of 19th-20th century philosophers.

[Anonymous No.20794009]

dunno

[Anonymous No.20794138]

>>20786191
no
>>20786228
lol

[Anonymous No.20794298]

Not really. Marx can't be surpassed or disproved just like you can't surpass or disprove material reality.

[Anonymous No.20794312]

>>20794298
This is the real problem people can't het past is that how can you argue against his ideas on the material world moving forward human history.

We build technology that only improves over time, just as evolution (in a biological sense) only moves forward with beneficial mutations, and never reverts back. Why would technology be any different? All economists agree that capitalism is based off failure and growth for more beneficial and efficient technology, so it just proves marx correct.

The only people who are against marx are the theists, and religious, or the ones who fall for "western" propoganda.

[Anonymous No.20794315]

>>20786191
Capitalism is already collapsing so might as well give communism a try. Kek at neets and poorfags defending capitalism

[Anonymous No.20794359]

black book of communism

[Anonymous No.20794805]

>>20790838
what does a tie.... shut up bitch

[Anonymous No.20794874]

>>20792824
>and that children can consent sexual relationships with school teachers
I know you feel like you have to do anything you can to try and win this culture war, but don't you ever wonder why you have to tell so many lies, if you are indeed on the right side of history?

[Anonymous No.20794894]

>>20794874
lol we all know its conservative religious cultures that sanction sex with children
the jews and marxists freed children from labor.

[Anonymous No.20794929]

>>20794359
>le 600 million
Non argument.

[Anonymous No.20795314]

>>20794894
>the jews and marxists freed children from labor.
Marx explicitly defended child labor though.

[Anonymous No.20795323]

>>20794315
Communism collapsed in 1989. Why would you get an idea that was tried, and failed so many times, another chance? At least capitalist economies rebound from recessions. Communism is one just long recession to collapse.

[Anonymous No.20795329]

>>20795314
That's pure disinformation. He criticized child labor for dozens of pages in Das Kapital volume 1.

[Anonymous No.20795333]

>>20792678
>POL POT WASN'T ABLE TO KILL EVERY MAKING MONEY, AND WEARING GLASSES HE LET SOME OF THEM LIVE SO HE WAS A CAPITALIST ALL ALONG
Lmao.
>>20793682
"Common control of the means of production" = you will own nothing and you will be happy. Pass.

[Anonymous No.20795336]

>>20793682
>I didn't shift the goalpost.
But you are - you do this all the time. You just say it wasn't real communism, and think that's an argument. Anytime your ideas fail - you shift the blame and complain instead of admitting your beliefs don't work. Stop molesting kids on Discord and get a job.

[Anonymous No.20795350]

>>20795329
But he explicitly did:
>"We consider the tendency of modern industry to make children and juvenile persons of both sexes co-operate in the great work of social production, as a progressive, sound and legitimate tendency, although under capital it was distorted into an abomination. In a rational state of society every child whatever, from the age of 9 years, ought to become a productive labourer in the same way that no able-bodied adult person ought to be exempted from the general law of nature, viz.: to work in order to be able to eat, and work not only with the brain but with the hands too."

[Anonymous No.20795380]

>>20793140
Dialectal materialism is basically a short-hand version of "you will own nothing, and this why you SHOULD be happy and enjoy it!" I'll pass on that tranny shit.

[Anonymous No.20795387]

>>20792539
>There was the "Rural Peoples Party" from the 2000s... I think some of the members went on to be involved in Atomwaffen?
The whole thing was a front group for this guy and some others who, yeah, later on drifted into the neo-Nazi scene. This journalist wrote a lot about both groups (also one of the rare Western journalists to have met Pol Pot, wrote a book about the Khmer Rouge).

[Anonymous No.20795399]

>>20791589
>Every real world of communism has failed
The whole Marxist theory of knowledge is based in iteration from learning through failure so that doesn't mean it's over quite yet ha ha. To essentialize Chinese socialism as the Mao period is also a metaphysical point of view that neglects the changing circumstances.

[Anonymous No.20795401]

>>20794298>>20794312

Marx advocates for hedonism and it's easily debunked

[Anonymous No.20795408]

>>20795399
>Marxists hold that man's social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man's knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and can thus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by "failure is the mother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit". The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality." The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth. The standpoint of practice is the primary and basic standpoint in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.
-- Mao, On Practice

[Anonymous No.20795414]

Yeah, Marx himself said workers are too stupid to know any better on what to do with their children, and that the communists should own them. They were basically the first people to defend child grooming.. They just want to sexually exploit children. In the Weimar Republic, Jewish leftists & Communists ran all the child brothels that prostituted young boys and girls because they needed the money for their terror operations, and comfort zone for "revolutionaries" until the Nazi put an end to it after they came to power.
>>20795408
Mao also molested children too. He had multiple concubines. That's the thing about Communists. You take peoples' works at face value and you ignore their actions. You're easily manipulated by politicians - which explains why you vote for Democrats and kneel for corporations.

[Anonymous No.20795424]

>>20795408
You can tell Marxists are pseuds regurgitating trite. You can't even tell us what he's saying, your own words, because you're just some loser spamming walls of text.

[Anonymous No.20795425]

>>20793682
>it defines value in terms of another thing
No it doesn't. "The labour time that would be necessary to reproduce it" is a completely arbitrary value between zero and infinity depending on any number of other factors such as who is doing the production, what is their equipment and what does their supply chain look like.
It does not define value "in terms of another thing".

>and it's useful for explaining how production is regulated in capitalism
No it isn't. It isn't useful as an explanation and it does not describe how production is regulated in capitalism.

[Anonymous No.20795433]

>>20795414
>until the Nazi put an end to it after they came to power.
The Nazi boss of Munich, Christian Weber, pimped out teenage girls to international celebrities and businessmen in Munich. The Hitler fans don't like to show this.

[Anonymous No.20795465]

>>20795433
History re-enactments of the Homeric epics as a form of national pride, at a single event, isn't the same as the KPD running child sex rings every month.

[Anonymous No.20795518]

>>20795433
Yeah only Otto strasser claimed that with absolutely 0 evidence. Great source

[Anonymous No.20795534]

>>20795336
which of my ideas has failed?
>>20795425
>is a completely arbitrary value between zero and infinity
no, it's not arbitrary at all. in capitalist society producers compare their products on the market, so their production methods converge onto most productive ones available, because those who don't adopt them are outcompeted. and value is determined by the social-wide average of necessary labour time when using this prevailing production technology.
>It does not define value "in terms of another thing".
it does, namely in terms of the average labour time that society needs to put in to reproduce the item using the production method that prevails in that society at a given time.
>It isn't useful as an explanation and it does not describe how production is regulated in capitalism.
it does, it describes how a capitalist society can reproduce itself continually despite not being centrally planned, and instead being based on independent productive units. and this is because the prices at which products exchange are determined by their values, i.e. the average social labour time needed to reproduce them. in that way, when the independent producers sell their products, confirming their social utility, they receive back roughly the money necessary to command just as much of social labour time as is necessary to produce their products again.

[Anonymous No.20795588]

>>20795534
>which of my ideas has failed?
Communism, you know, the idea you keep defending while white-washing the atrocities of the Warsaw Pact, Maoist China, Derg's Ethiopia? Anytime people point what communist policies lead to, in practice, you turn into a massive pseud that gish-gallops and hand-waves it into a nirvana fallacy.
>Ah yes, had they only listened to me communism would have worked!
As if your fucking ideas, and words matter, when they can't be applied to reality. Communism countries were never able to implement your perfect country, and your standards, but that didn't stop them from trying. That didn't stop Stalin & Mao from forcing people to live on communes - causing famines that killed millions of people.

[Anonymous No.20795597]

>>20795534
Stalin and Mao's collectivization policies were an attempt to read communism by abolishing private property to establish common property. You are historically illiterate - you think just because they reserved course after abolition failed means they were never "real communists." Its an extremely retarded argument. Its the equivalent of saying a murderer isn't a murderer because he stopped on his 11th victim. The consequences of your actions don't end when you stop doing them, you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.20795609]

>>20795465
Weber was an actual pimp who got his start in beer halls where the Nazis would hang out. That's who these people were. They were just gangsters who rose up in the chaos of the Weimar era to seize power and they just saw people as objects, man.

[Anonymous No.20795611]

>>20795534
>it does, namely in terms of the average labour time that society needs to put in to reproduce the item
When you're so retarded you think producers produce commodities at the same rate. How do you not understand basic economics? Its not surprising. You're the same fucking retard who thinks "war" and "poverty" are things that unique to modernism, and some politician can abolish the irreconcilable differences of human preferences. We're all just going to come together, one day, and agree on everything because a retard like is going to set the terms and conditions for everyone.

[Anonymous No.20795614]

>>20795588
>Communism countries were never able to implement your perfect country
As Mao put it:

>"To be one-sided means not to look at problems all-sidedly, for example, to understand only China but not Japan, only the Communist Party but not the Kuomintang, only the proletariat but not the bourgeoisie, only the peasants but not the landlords, only the favourable conditions but not the difficult ones, only the past but not the future, only individual parts but not the whole, only the defects but not the achievements, only the plaintiff's case but not the defendant's, only underground revolutionary work but not open revolutionary work, and so on. In a word, it means not to understand the characteristics of both aspects of a contradiction."

Or as Xi put it:

https://youtu.be/Ys6skqxQKMk?t=495

[Anonymous No.20795619]

>>20795609
They rose to power because they fought Jewish gangsters, paid by the Communist International, to use chaos to foment violent revolution in Germany. Jewish Communists would go around murdering small business owners, kidnapping children for ransom, and murder priests in broad day light to strike fear into people. Hitler saved Germany from going down a dark path by eliminating the people behind the decline grasp the Republic had on its people.

[Anonymous No.20795623]

>>20795614
Who gives a fuck about your stupid quotes? We aren't in your cult and never will accept you.

[Anonymous No.20795629]

>>20795623
My worst fear is being accepted by 4chan. But the whole point is that nothing is perfect in the world, so when you start talking about a "perfect society" then you show me you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about Marxism.

[Anonymous No.20795638]

>>20795629
You're an insanely stupid person who quotes autocrats to justify the centralization of power, and down play the atrocities they carried out with that power because you're so delusional, and retarded, you believe the hearsay promises of demagogues. You're the perfect case study of a low IQ individual.

[Anonymous No.20795646]

>>20795629
Marxism is Pol Pot's killing fields. It's the Great Chinese Famine. Its Derg's Ethiopia. Its the Holodomor. Its not your stupid fucking politician making statements that make you feel good because you're stupid enough to be finesse'd by mediocre speeches, you dumb motherfucker. Why don't you shut the fuck up, and history book instead of believing the words of professional bullshit artists?

[Anonymous No.20795655]

>>20795638
I never said anything about any promises.

>>20795646
Nothing perfect in the world is supposed to make me feel good? It's just the truth.

[Anonymous No.20795661]

>>20795655
>I can avoid being held accountable for my actions because nobody is perfect
>Sure, I can rape children and murder people without impunity, I'm only human!

[Anonymous No.20795668]

>>20795661
Believing that you're perfect or part of some master race is what leads to that.

[Anonymous No.20795674]

>>20795668
You finally get it Homo Sovieticus

[Anonymous No.20795764]

>>20795401
How?

I think dostoevsky put it best, that human civilization is nothing more than finding new and exciting ways to excite out senses.

Human psychology doesn't change, its the material world around us that changes, and we adapt to it.

That's one of the foundations of marxist theory. He adds to it by advocating humans are as he put it, can be "species being" and can shape the material world to our liking.

There's archeological evidence that suggests yes, human psychology hasn't really changed at all for thousands of years, at the site of gobekli tepe there's a clear class divide between "conservative" thinkers who wanted to remain a hunter gathering society and had depictions on every wall projecting those values, but moutains of evidence of "progressive" thinkers clearly moving towards agricultural means. How did we go from that, to me shit posting on 4chan and arguing with people on 4chan?

The technology improved over time, because we found new ways to yes, excite our senses and basic human needs.

[Anonymous No.20795784]

>>20795646
Marx didn't ask for that.

Also, marx thought from the chaos of revolution everything would just work out. He was an advocate for basicslly ultimate unfettered free markets.

The abolition of private property was only to seize the root of the means of production which was the natural productions that fed economic movement, peoples hand and mental labor, and the property that which production happens on.

He was obviously blatantly naive towards human nature in this regard, because he genuinely believed in utopia. All it took was some psychopaths to read his material and weaponize it.

[Anonymous No.20795880]

>>20795588
>the idea you keep defending while white-washing the atrocities of the Warsaw Pact, Maoist China, Derg's Ethiopia
no, where have I done that? why would I white-wash atrocities of bourgeois revolutions and capitalist imperialism? they prove my point
>Anytime people point what communist policies lead to, in practice
where was that? what "communist policy" has lead to what?
>you turn into a massive pseud that gish-gallops and hand-waves it into a nirvana fallacy
you can recite as many fallacy names from your debate tutorial as you want, but that won't make Mao's China socialist
>Communism countries were never able to implement your perfect country
what "perfect country"? communism is impossible in one country
>>20795588
>That didn't stop Stalin & Mao from forcing people to live on communes
this had nothing to do with socialism. Russia and China needed to increase productivity in agriculture in order to provide surplus of food and free workers to enable capitalist accumulation in industry. and the first step to increasing productivity in agriculture is combining petty units owned by single families into larger units where labour and technology can be applied more productively due to various effects of scale.
>>20795597
>Stalin and Mao's collectivization policies were an attempt to read communism by abolishing private property to establish common property. You are historically illiterate
no, they weren't communist policies. see above.
also you're historically illiterate, not me. they didn't aim to establish common property. kolkhozes were established as the joint property of the workers of a given kolkhoz, to the exclusion of everyone else. this is not common property, this is private property. common property doesn't designate some people as owners and some as non-owners. that's the opposite of what "common" means.
kolkhozniki, on top of their joint private property, were also assured additional plots of land which weren't to be owned jointly but individually. again, more private property.
>you think just because they reserved course after abolition failed means they were never "real communists."
no, there was never any economic reversal, only switching methods of encouraging the development of capital depending on the circumstances
>Its an extremely retarded argument
obviously, after all you're the one who came up with it. because I never made that argument
>>20795611
>When you're so retarded you think producers produce commodities at the same rate
when producing the same product for the same market, then yes, there emerges a standard method of production, a standard labour intensity, a standard length of the working day, a standard level of worker training, and so on. if you walk into two competing shovel factories, what big differences do you expect to see?
>How do you not understand basic economics?
what is it I don't understand?
>who thinks "war" and "poverty" are things that unique to modernism
I don't, can you quote me saying that?

[Anonymous No.20795945]

>>20795764
Where does Dostoyevsky discuss this idea?

[Anonymous No.20795965]

>>20795945
In his book notes from the underground, the anti hero goes off on a rant about how he despises humans desire for utopia and a perfect world and makes a passing comment about civilization is just humans shuffling ideas around to please our senses.

[Anonymous No.20795974]

>>20795534
>in capitalist society producers compare their products on the market, so their production methods converge onto most productive ones available, because those who don't adopt them are outcompeted.
Mostly correct.
>and value is determined by the social-wide average of necessary labour time when using this prevailing production technology.
Incorrect. Value is not determined by this ephemeral and completely arbitrarily determined joke of a metric.

>it does, namely in terms of the average labour time that society needs to put in to reproduce the item using the production method that prevails in that society at a given time.
No it doesn't. None of the actors in any society determines value in that way.

>it does, it describes how a capitalist society can reproduce itself continually despite not being centrally planned, and instead being based on independent productive units. and this is because the prices at which products exchange are determined by their values, i.e. the average social labour time needed to reproduce them. in that way, when the independent producers sell their products, confirming their social utility, they receive back roughly the money necessary to command just as much of social labour time as is necessary to produce their products again.
Besides your argument here being a tautological failure of an example of begging the question; no. It does not describe any of those things and that is not how capitalism works.
The exchange rates of goods is in no way shape or form primarily a function of some ficticious "social labour time" that you will never be able to compute because all the necessary input values are literally impossible to measure.

Here lemme dumb it down a bit for you by giving you a couple of examples:
The reason why housing prices in the US suddenly fell in 2008 isn't becuase everyone building hoses suddenly got a lot faster at it.
And the reason why the gold price has fluctuated by more than 16% over the last year isn't because all the miners are bi-polar.
Nobody is going around measuring how long time every fucking farmer spends on growing x bushels of wheat and using that figure to set the trade value.

[Anonymous No.20795988]

>>20795880
>killing people and forcing them abolish private property and live on communes isn't real communism!
>this had nothing to do with socialism.!

[Anonymous No.20796000]

>>20795974
>Nobody is going around measuring how long time every fucking farmer spends on growing x bushels of wheat and using that figure to set the trade value

But this is the world we are going towards anon... data is king now.

Also, 2008 happened because of made up wealth, out of thin air. How can you measure that form of value?

Marxist theory doesn't take into account monetary value, it's purely based on trade value. What value does my own labor add to a market? Nothing?

If I'm a plumber and fix someone's sink, does my labor put in not have a set value sorted out by the society I live in?

[Anonymous No.20796012]

>>20795974
Are you not familiar with this faggot? He's been here for months just green text spamming. His standard tactic is to bog down arguments by breaking down every sentence into a reply. His intention is to just to make it time consuming to talk to him so he can Gish-gallop with fallacies.
His favorite fallacies are No True Scotsman "It wasn't real communism" , just using loaded questions to derail the conversation into non-sequiturs to bait you into replying to him. He never responds - he just uses repetition when you corner him in a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.20796027]

Listen OP, it's quite simple:
Economics, in general, is not a hard science and will never be.

Marxists can not measure a single unit of SNALT

There is no group of people in a western country who are: 1. the vast majority of the population. 2. whom society depends upon. 3 who is in dire need. 4. has nothing to lose in a revolution.

the state has always existed and will never go away.

superstructure is more important than infrastructure.

and finally:
Social relations precede material conditions.

Now go read philosophy instead.

[Anonymous No.20796043]

>>20795880
Its so easy to breakdown his arguments:
>why would I white-wash atrocities of bourgeois revolutions and capitalist imperialism? t
Tu quoque fallacies that deflect from Soviet atrocities
>where was that? what "communist policy" has lead to what?
Begging the question when your initial argument is addressed by pointing out collectivization policies of communist countries to eliminate private property and they famines they caused.
>what "perfect country"?
Another loaded question, completely ignoring the fact its response to your constant usage of a No True Scotsman fallacy when it is pointed out the Soviet Union was a communist project that implemented communist policies such as agricultural collectivization and national planning
>this had nothing to do with socialism.
Again, True Scotsman fallacy.
>no, they weren't communist policies. see above.
Again, True Scotsman fallacy.
>no, there was never any economic reversal
Again, True Scotsman fallacy.
The rest of his arguments, on economics, are just loaded statements. He claims. He never backs them up. To him, his economic arguments are "correct" because Marx is right. That's it. No data. No historical evidence. No proof. He uses shotgun argumentation to bait people into loaded statements so he can bog everything down and prevent counter-arguments by forcing you to go over the character. Its the same tactics every-time.

[Anonymous No.20796053]

>>20796027
>Now go read philosophy instead

Anon...

[Anonymous No.20796067]

>>20795974
His argument tactics are just
No True Scotsman
Loaded questions and statements
Circular Reasoning
Shotgun argumentation.
Its fallacy after fallacy. He's a massive retard that ruins pretty much every Marx thread into him baiting people for hours into talking to him.

[Anonymous No.20796073]

>>20796067
Nobody cares faggot.

[Anonymous No.20796083]

>>20796067
>muh fallacies!!
lmao
fuck off back to rebbit

[Anonymous No.20796091]

>>20796073
>>20796083
Why you coping, nigger? Go back to Twitter if you wanna be a tranny. You'll be a woman or own the means of production.

[Anonymous No.20796094]

>>20796083
Fuck off redditor, nigger. Communism isn't allowed here.

[Anonymous No.20796142]

>>20796094
>>20796091
>>20796083
>>20796073
>>20796067
Just fuck already.

[Anonymous No.20796175]

>>20786637
>>20787323
>>20787330
>>20793682
Kid, you have nowhere near the rhetorical skills to deceive people into believing your faggot beliefs are anything but a distraction. Continue crying about being a bitch, maybe your mom will hear you and give you ice cream.

[Anonymous No.20796212]

>>20786191
>Marx succeeded in preaching contempt for work. Perhaps he did not realize this himself. Work—long, hard, tiring work—is for him a misfortune, and effortless gain a blessing. Behind the typically English disdain for the man who lives by the sweat of his brow we can feel the instinct of the Viking, whose vocation is piracy and not patching sails. For this reason the manual laborer is more a slave in England than anywhere else. And his slavery is moral; he feels that his profession precludes his bearing the title of "gentleman." The concepts "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" reflect the typically English preference for business rather than manual work. [20] The former is a blessing, the latter a calamity; the one is noble, the other base. But with their hatred the misfortunate ones say, "Business is the evil occupation, manual labor the good."

>This is the explanation for the mental attitude which gave rise to Marx’s social criticism and which has made him so catastrophic for true socialism. He knew the nature of work only from the English viewpoint, as a means of getting rich, as a means lacking in all moral depth. Only success and money, the visible and tangible signs of God’s grace, were of ethical import. The Englishman has no inkling of the dignity of hard work. For him, work is a debasing thing, an ugly necessity. Pity the poor soul who has nothing but work, who owns nothing without more and more work, but who above all will never have wealth in the future! Had Marx understood the meaning of Prussian work, of activity for its own sake, of service in the name of the totality, for "all together" and not for oneself, of duty that ennobles regardless of the kind of work performed—had he been able to comprehend these things, his Manifesto would probably never have been written.

[Anonymous No.20796215]

>>20786191
>>20796212
>On this matter he was aided by his Jewish instinct, which he himself characterized in his essay on the Jewish question. The curse on physical labor pronounced in the beginning of Genesis, the prohibition against defiling the Sabbath by work—these things made him receptive to the Old Testament pathos of the English sensibility. Hence his hatred of those who do not need to work. The socialism of a Fichte would accuse such people of sloth, it would brand them as irresponsible, dispensable shirkers and parasites. But Marxian instinct envies them. They are too well-off, and therefore they should be revolted against. Marx has inoculated his proletariat with a contempt for work. His fanatical disciples wish to destroy all culture in order to decrease the amount of indispensable work. Martin Luther praised the simplest manual activity as pleasing to God; Goethe wrote of the "demands of the day." Yet Marx dreamed of the proletarian Phaeacian who would own everything without any effort. That is, after all, the meaning of the Expropriation of the Blessed. And as far as English instinct is concerned he was right. What the Englishman calls bliss—business success that saves physical work and makes one a gentleman—is good for all Englishmen. For us it is obscene. It smacks of mobs and snobs.

>This kind of ethics informs his economic thinking. It is the Manchester school all over again. It is exactly like the thinking of Cobden, who at the very same time was leading the Whig free-trade theory to victory. Marx opposed the form of capitalism that derived its justification from Bentham and Shaftesbury and was formulated by Adam Smith. But since he was a critic only, negative and uncreative, he took over his principles from the very thing he was fighting. Work was for him a commodity, not an obligation. That is the core of his political economics. His ethics were the ethics of big business. Not that business is unethical; but we can read between the lines his opinion that the laborer is a fool not to engage in it. And laborers have understood him. The battle for higher wages became a kind of investment speculation: the worker was now a merchant selling his product, work. The trick about Marx’s famous "surplus value" thesis is that it was considered as spoils to be carried off by the successful merchant from the opponent’s stores. It was not to be presented to him for nothing. Class egoism thus became a universal principle. The laborers not only wanted to do business, he wanted the corner the whole market. The true Marxist is hostile to the state, and for the very same reason as the Whig: it hinders him in the ruthless exercise of his private business interests. Marxism is the capitalism of the working class.

[Anonymous No.20796222]

>>20786191
>>20796215
>Consider Darwin, who was just as important to Marx as Malthus and Cobden. Business is conceived of throughout as a struggle for existence. In industry the employer engages in commerce with the commodity "money," while the worker does likewise with the commodity "work." Marx wished to deprive capital of the right to private profit, but the only thing he could think of as a substitute was the worker’s right to private profit. That is unsocialistic, but it is typically English. Marx became an Englishman on one other score as well: in his mind the state does not exist. He thought statelessly, in terms of "society." Like parliamentary practice in England, his economic world functions as a two-party system with nothing above the parties. Within his scheme there can be only combat and no arbitration, only victory or defeat, only the dictatorship of one of the two parties. The Communist Manifesto calls for a dictatorship of the "good" proletarian party over the "evil" capitalist party. Marx saw no alternatives.

[Anonymous No.20796223]

>>20796175
You're saying 'Kid', but he really did just make you look like a retard. Absolutely BTFO. At least TRY and give a counterargument ffs.

[Anonymous No.20796231]

>>20795974
>Incorrect. Value is not determined by this ephemeral and completely arbitrarily determined joke of a metric.
it's not ephemeral and arbitrary. capitalists must command labour on the market if they are to reproduce their products. and if the majority of them is to do that so that society is able to have produced the things it needs to continue, then the quantity of labour each capitalist commands must correspond to the quantity of labour that's necessary to make their products.
so it's not ephemeral, but plays an absolutely vital role in regulating the economy. and it's not arbitrary, because it must precisely apportion available labour between capitals producing different things, so that everything needed for society to continue can be reproduced
>No it doesn't. None of the actors in any society determines value in that way
so what? I determine the height of a tree by using a measuring tape, not by examining its genes, the soil quality, etc. but that doesn't disprove the fact that its height is determined by the latter, and so is the result of my measurement.
>The exchange rates of goods is in no way shape or form primarily a function of some ficticious "social labour time"
yes it is, and I already explained why the successful reproduction under social division of labour between independent economic units mediated by the market proves that it must be so
>you will never be able to compute because all the necessary input values are literally impossible to measure
I don't need to compute it for it to work. the world itself isn't limited by my individual limitations. you keep expressing weird idealist assumptions
>The reason why housing prices in the US suddenly fell in 2008 isn't becuase everyone building hoses suddenly got a lot faster at it.
this only proves my point. prices fluctuate away from values, because market regulates production through fluctuations like a thermostat. it can't magically fix prices as exactly equal to values.
but if house prices stayed below the house value for a prolonged time, then house making capitalists wouldn't be able to keep making houses, and the economy wouldn't be able to function. that's why despite fluctuations, which can be sometimes greatly intensified, for example during crises, prices again tend back to their values
>Nobody is going around measuring how long time every fucking farmer spends on growing x bushels of wheat and using that figure to set the trade value
no, but they use the average cost of production to set the price, which is ultimately determined by value, i.e. the average total amount of labour necessary to produce a unit of product
>>20795988
>killing people and forcing them abolish private property and live on communes isn't real communism
killing people to concentrate smaller private properties into a larger private property in order to increase productivity and enable accumulation of capital in industry isn't real communism, yes, you've got it anon
>>20796043
haha are you okay

[Anonymous No.20796278]

>>20794929
cope

[Anonymous No.20796329]

>>20796223
>ffs smdh he really owned you chud
awww defending your boyfriend, maybe he'll "ERP" with you on discord tonight?

[Anonymous No.20796332]

>>20796212

Best response, thanks. Even though the best argument is the retard who keeps being retarded like all american and western (Italy excluded) communists are.

[Anonymous No.20796341]

>>20796212
>Marx succeeded in preaching contempt for work. Perhaps he did not realize this himself. Work—long, hard, tiring work—is for him a misfortune,
Completely wrong. The problem for Marx was not "work" but its alienation under capitalism. Part of the goal communism was to turn work into "not only a means of life but life's prime want".

[Anonymous No.20796373]

>>20796341
Do you even understand the garbage that you write? im serious mr.r*dditnigger. Or do you even see the contradiction in ur own statement?
>>but its alienation under capitalism.
Let me make this clear to every retarded communist in this thread, ur ideology is solely based around on the emotion of envy.

[Anonymous No.20796417]

>>20796373
It's not... but it does draw in the envious.

Alienation is a pretty interesting theory.

[Anonymous No.20797230]

>>20796373
"Envy" would be the desire the take the capitalist's place, or failing that, if you want to be Nietzchean about it, to turn everyone into a proletarian. When in fact, the goal is to abolish both.

Again, rightards really love confidently exhibiting their illiteracy.

[Anonymous No.20797240]

>>20796231
>it's not ephemeral and arbitrary./.../
The hypothetical statistic of "how much time the average factory floor grunt spent on making a toaster" is ephemeral. It changes.
It changes with weekday, it changes with flu season, It changes with supply chain fluctuations.
It is ephemeral.

It is also arbitrary. The trade value of the toaster is not primarily related to "quantity of labour".
The vendor buying the taoster for resale doesn't give a fuck how much time was spent on putting it together. The consumer buying it from the vendor doesn't either.
Nobody who wants to trade for the toaster gives a fuck about your ficticious statistic because it doesn't matter with respect to the trade value of the toaster.
It is arbitrary.

>so what? I determine the height of a tree by using a measuring tape, not by examining its genes, the soil quality, etc. but that doesn't disprove the fact that its height is determined by the latter, and so is the result of my measurement.
Your analogy is non-sequitur garbage. If you wish to imply a primary causal correlation between "hurr-durr-average-worktime" and trade value of a good you're welcome to try and prove it statistically.

>yes it is, and I already explained why the successful reproduction under social division of labour between independent economic units mediated by the market proves that it must be so
No you haven't. You've just repeated a tautology.

>I don't need to compute it for it to work. the world itself isn't limited by my individual limitations. you keep expressing weird idealist assumptions
A metric that is both inherently UNKNOWABLE and USELESS? How about you just put on a cassock, call it GOD and go molest some chior boys then.

>this only proves my point. prices fluctuate away from values, because market regulates production through fluctuations like a thermostat. it can't magically fix prices as exactly equal to values.
but if house prices stayed below the house value for a prolonged time, then house making capitalists wouldn't be able to keep making houses, and the economy wouldn't be able to function. that's why despite fluctuations, which can be sometimes greatly intensified, for example during crises, prices again tend back to their values
This does not prove your point. This proves prices (and value) are not primarily correlated with some bullshit statistic of average labour time.
It proves the point that supply and demand set prices regardless of your bullshit statistic.

>no, but they use the average cost of production to set the price, which is ultimately determined by value, i.e. the average total amount of labour necessary to produce a unit of product
No they do not use the average price of production to set the price. That is why price can and does fluctuate wildly even when labour availability does not.

[Anonymous No.20797351]

>>20796417
>thinks alienation is a material thing

[Anonymous No.20797357]

>>20797351
?

[Anonymous No.20797377]

>>20797357
imagine telling a buddhist that alienation is when you are not yourself because "your work". its a direct and vital problem of conscience. marxist are retarded and pretty cowards with this concept.

[Anonymous No.20797378]

>>20797351
What?

[Anonymous No.20797400]

>>20797377
Buddhists are pretty aware of the relation between "conscience" as you call it (incorrectly) and the material health of the body and its environment

[Anonymous No.20797417]

>>20786238
marxists dont argue that wealth or the lack of it determines human character, but the mode of social and economic organization
dumbass

[Anonymous No.20797549]

>>20797240
>The hypothetical statistic of "how much time the average factory floor grunt spent on making a toaster" is ephemeral. It changes.
>It changes with weekday, it changes with flu season, It changes with supply chain fluctuations.
>It is ephemeral.
The word you're looking for is "variable", anon, and Marx acknowledges this.
And it's not how much time a single "grunt" works; it's the average socially necessary (abstract) labour time under current conditions.

I don't mind criticism of Marxism but I really wish you retards at least had the basics down of what it is you're critiquing first

[Anonymous No.20797740]

>>20797549
>The word you're looking for is "variable", anon, and Marx acknowledges this.
I use ephemeral in the sense that the hypothetical statistic by its very nature is transient, short lived, fleeting. The workers change, the conditions change, everything that could concievably alter the final sum value of this metric changes. And we have no realistic means of tracking thses changes in anywhere near real time.
"Variable" in the context of this discussion on marxism would seem to imply that we could actively determine it, which we can not.

>And it's not how much time a single "grunt" works; it's the average socially necessary (abstract) labour time under current conditions.

"How much time the average factory floor grunt spent on making a toaster"

versus

"How much time the average factory floor grunt spent on making a toaster [under current conditions]"

Stellar contribution to the discussion anon, what would we do without you?

>I don't mind criticism of Marxism but I really wish you retards at least had the basics down of what it is you're critiquing first
Go back and read the full thread you are responding to before you post next time and maybe you won't experience this problem so often?

[Anonymous No.20797901]

>>20797240
>It changes with weekday, it changes with flu season, It changes with supply chain fluctuations.
there are fluctuations from the average, but that doesn't mean there isn't an average.
>The vendor buying the taoster for resale doesn't give a fuck how much time was spent on putting it together.
I already responded to this. this doesn't disprove that the time necessary for production determines its value, just like me not giving a fuck about the genetic makeup of a tree when measuring its height doesn't disprove that it's genetically determined to have a certain average height.
>If you wish to imply a primary causal correlation between "hurr-durr-average-worktime" and trade value of a good you're welcome to try and prove it statistically.
I already proven it by describing how it's deduced from facts about capitalist society.
>A metric that is both inherently UNKNOWABLE and USELESS?
I already described how you can know that it exists and how it has the indispensable real world effect of regulating production under capitalism.
>It proves the point that supply and demand set prices regardless of your bullshit statistic.
it demonstrates that supply and demand set prices back towards values following any shock that momentarily tears them far apart
>No they do not use the average price of production to set the price.
they do
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060915/what-difference-between-transfer-price-and-standard-cost.asp
>The standard cost is the average or anticipated cost of producing an item under normal circumstances. In other words, it's what a business would normally spend to produce goods or services.
>Because the actual cost of manufacturing an individual item can vary due to operational inefficiencies, temporary shortages, or human error, the simplest way to set a cost-based transfer price is by establishing the item's standard cost.

[Anonymous No.20798057]

>>20797901
>there are fluctuations from the average, but that doesn't mean there isn't an average.
An average that you can not compute.
>I already responded to this. this doesn't disprove that the time necessary for production determines its value
You have not demonstrated any causal link between your hypothetical statistic and value, thus it does not need to be disproven.
>just like me not giving a fuck about the genetic makeup of a tree when measuring its height doesn't disprove that it's genetically determined to have a certain average height.
With the tree; you can show a statistically significant correlation between a large random sample of trees and their respective heights, and thus prove the causal relationship.
With your bullshit statistic; you have done fuckall. Get to work comrade!
>I already proven it by describing how it's deduced from facts about capitalist society.
Your deductions are flawed and have proven nothing of the sort. Repeating a tautology does not constitute proof.
>I already described how you can know that it exists
"I can imagine it but I can not compute it nor precisely define a functional method for doing so". The religious say the same thing about their respective gods. The main difference is your religion seems to be of lower quality.
>and how it has the indispensable real world effect of regulating production under capitalism.
Nope. You haven't even established corelation, much less causation.
>it demonstrates that supply and demand set prices back towards values following any shock that momentarily tears them far apart
It demonstrates that supply and demand determine value for purposes of trade. Does a Van Gogh-painting suddenly become harder to paint a hundred years after the death of the artist? Does someone go back in time and make it harder for him everytime there's an auction of his paintings?
Obviously not.
Value is not determined by your bullshit statistic.
>they do
The link you are quoting from is describing accounting within a single business. But that is not how the value of an item on the market is determined. Neither is it ultimately even how that single business determines the cost of the items it sells.
The average price of production may go down even as the price of the product goes up or vice versa. This is common.
The slashed prices on items in the sale bin at my local supermarket is not indicative of some extremely sudden and drastic labour surpluses somewhere. The supermarket may keep a ledger of costs to procure a good for sale, but that ledger does not determine it's final price. Some goods are sold at a huge markup and some goods are sold at a loss.

[Anonymous No.20798121]

>>20786228
>>henry george

I would expect a refutation of marxism would at least deal with the concept of class conflict, not ignore it entirely

[Anonymous No.20798191]

>>20797740
>Go back and read the full thread you are responding to before you post next time and maybe you won't experience this problem so often?
And yet you post shit like this:

>"How much time the average factory floor grunt spent on making a toaster [under current conditions]"

You are literally illiterate. Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time

>I use ephemeral in the sense that the hypothetical statistic by its very nature is transient, short lived, fleeting. The workers change, the conditions change, everything that could concievably alter the final sum value of this metric changes. And we have no realistic means of tracking thses changes in anywhere near real time.
>"Variable" in the context of this discussion on marxism would seem to imply that we could actively determine it, which we can not.

Again, it's part of the point of the whole theory that it changes, specifically it *falls* as productivity increases. We don't need to know its exact determinate (not at this level of abstraction anyway), only its long-term trend. We test its validity by testing the *predictions* of the whole theory, not every single assertion it makes.