Marxist General

[Anonymous No.6397044]

All Marxists Welcome In The Marxist General!

TOTT: The Labor Theory Of Value. Is It Still Relevant Today, Or Is The Subjective Theory Of Value Compatible With Marxist Theory?

Personally, I Feel The Subjective Theory Of Value Is A Bourgeois Social Mechanism Used To De-Value The Work Of The Working Class According To Their Own Whims.

[Anonymous No.6397050]

contributing.

[Anonymous No.6397057]

*tips beret*

[Anonymous No.6397060]

Marxism depends on the labour theory of value, once you start trying to apply it everywhere you show how unfalsifiable it is. There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.

[Anonymous No.6397066]

>>6397060
Uh, No. Now Fuck Off Back To /Pol/.

[Anonymous No.6397081]

>>6397066
Feel free to show me where that is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6397085]

>>6397057
>>>/Pol/

[Anonymous No.6397111]

What Does /Lit/ Think Of Lenin?

[Anonymous No.6397112]

>>6397066
>>6397085
[tipping beret intensifies]

[Anonymous No.6397113]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6397119]

>>6397112
Stop Memeing Up My Thread, You Fucking Dickweed. Go Back To Your Containment Board.
>>6397113
Marxism Belongs Here, /Pol/ Is For Capitalist Nazis And Libertarians.

[Anonymous No.6397125]

>>6397111
What's most pathetic about his overall substitutionalist tendency was that for a few short months he was tailending our class in revolution.

[Anonymous No.6397128]

>>6397125
I Was Reading About His New Economic Policy Which Seems Like A Bunch Of Libertarian Free Market Shit.

[Anonymous No.6397152]

>>6397066
Great argument comrade, sure showed tjat bourgeois scum

[Anonymous No.6397160]

>>6397152
Don't Satirise Me.

[Anonymous No.6397165]

>>6397050
Actually a solid jpeg

[Anonymous No.6397176]

>>6397165
I Agree.

[Anonymous No.6397182]

>>6397128
It was.

[Evola « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Kid !vKJYJAzBlI No.6398022]

So how is labour theory of labour not irrelevant?

*crickets*

[Evola « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Kid !vKJYJAzBlI No.6398038]

>>6397044
Personally, I Feel The Subjective Theory Of Value Is A proletariat Social Mechanism Used To over-Value The Work Of The Working Class According To Their Own Whims.

[Anonymous No.6398052]

>>6398038
>dribble

[Anonymous No.6398063]

>>6397050
BASED prolanon

[Anonymous No.6398066]

>>6398038

Well. That's an interesting story Evola. Thank you for sharing.

[Anonymous No.6398067]

>>6398022
Oh dear, here he is again

[Anonymous No.6398081]

*tips budenovka*

[Anonymous No.6398083]

ITT: NO ONE REALIZING THE OP IS A /POL/-MONGREL WHO ACT LIKE A STEREOTYPICAL ANTI-/POL/-STRAW MAN TO PAINT MARXISTS IN A CERTAIN WAY


MODS WAKE UP AND DELETE THIS THREAD, THANKS

[Anonymous No.6398088]

[Anonymous No.6398090]

[Anonymous No.6398100]

>>6398088
>>6398090
/pol/-jpg dump has commenced.

You know this isn't conducive to a proper discussion. Go back to your containment board

[Anonymous No.6398104]

>>6398038
You Have Been Filtered!

:)

[Anonymous No.6398141]

>>6397050
Aaaah, is this dialectics? The thesis and antithesis? If so, I think I finally get it.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398150]

>>6398090
>>6398088

Shit, that projection

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398157]

>>6398081

Why do ancaps and fascists project themselves onto the qualities of ugly people when their own group is 100% unattractive as fuck and the primary fedora demographic?

[Anonymous No.6398162]

>>6398141
Das es Mann

[Anonymous No.6398181]

>>6398157
>implying you're attractive

[Anonymous No.6398183]

>>6397057
I wish I was as brave as him.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398185]

>>6398181

FUCK! HOW DID YOU GET THAT PICTURE OF ME! FUCK! OH NO! FUCK!

OH SHIT!

Nah that's not actually a picture of me.

[Anonymous No.6398186]

>>6398181
7/10, average-handsome-tier

[Anonymous No.6398187]

Are there good counter-arguments to Marx' critique of capitalism?
It seems spot on and almost unattackable.

[Anonymous No.6398193]

>>6397111
He was okay, if anything he was too separated from the party to actually be as big as he seems now. Sort of the same with Mao. Stalin, meanwhile, was just a puppet of the party so it worked much better as an authoritarian force.

You have to be careful with your interpretation of his works since there were some aimed to the other members of the party or international intellectuals while many others were just propaganda for the masses. He had a great touch when it came to selecting how much to tell and how to do it, but with time it becomes so very easy to wrongly think that the simple version is the full idea.

[Anonymous No.6398199]

>>6397044
I'm new in Marx philosophy, so can someone recommended me how to start with?

[Anonymous No.6398203]

>>6398187
>It seems spot on and almost unattackable.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398204]

>>6397111

He was a fascinating dude. A bit naive, in thinking the way you over thtrow Government's is universally applicable. Not everything he claimed was totally correct.

I would have to say, that he was a brave son of a bitch and got shit done.

[Anonymous No.6398206]

>>6398203
What are you, dense?
When did I talk about Marxism?
Marxism =/= his critique of capitalism.
Your IQ needs to be at least 105 to post here.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398207]

>>6398203

This is the worst argument I've ever seen, are nationalists really this full of shit?

[Anonymous No.6398217]

>>6398203
>this is what counts for arguments on /pol/

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398222]

>>6398203

Also I just want to point out that Africans Americans actually fled America into the Soviet Union and recieved better treatment within it, of course, until Stalin came along. But there are still black families within Russia that started within the United States.

So the whole angle of "Oh No!!! The Blacks Will Ravage Our Homes!!!" is so full of shit. God damn just read a book for once.

[Anonymous No.6398250]

>>6398222
>until Stalin came along
Stalin persecuted African American immigrants? Source for this?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398255]

>>6398250

No. Stalin didn't. But I read somewhere that during that time some communities of Russians turned on the American immigrants. I could be misremembering.

Nonetheless, there wasn't really much interracial violence post-Stalin either.

[Anonymous No.6398265]

>>6398207
>This is the worst argument I've ever seen, are nationalists really this full of shit?

>nationalist
wut
Do you honestly think a nationalist is someone who isn't a Marxist?

[Anonymous No.6398266]

>>6397044
Has anyone read pic related yet?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398269]

>>6398265

[Anonymous No.6398280]

>>6397044
Things have value because people value them. This applies to any discussion regarding value. LTV doesn't add anything but unnecessary complexities, so it can be discarded.

[Anonymous No.6398312]

>>6398222
>So the whole angle of "Oh No!!! The Blacks Will Ravage Our Homes!!! is so full of shit.

That's not his angle. His angle is that as the US economy is on the verge of collapse anyway, the most disgruntled are the most impoverished and most likely to head the militia through the poverty and famine that will inevitably arise. Have a look at Cambodia as the most recent example. The Khmer rouge was comprised of the lowest of society and executed ALL of the intellectuals, every single one, with the middle forced to work in the rice paddies all day just to attempt to meet the food demand. A commie revolution in the US wont be all fairycakes and cuddles. God damn just read a book for once.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398321]

>>6398312

If you think, anything you just said is going to happen within this century I have beach front property in Montana .

I would worry about The Cartels, as for anyone within the United States? Not gonna happen bud. There's not enough people to support massive marxist subjugation of everything good.

[Anonymous No.6398352]

>>6398312
>khmer rouge
>communist in any way besides the name
that's like calling /pol/ shitposters communist because they say they are, honor system doesn't work for certain things.

[Anonymous No.6398358]

>>6398203
My Grandpa got on a connecting flight at Vnukovo International in 1993 so I can confirm this is true.

[Anonymous No.6398372]

CUPS WITH THE ICE AND WE DO THIS EVERY NIGHT

[Anonymous No.6398386]

>>6398352
>>khmer rouge
>>communist in any way besides the name

The Khmer rouge is the closest communism has come to being fully carried out. You just get swayed because of the media focus on all the "Killing Fields". Pol Pots Rousseau-Marx inspired dream of a classless united workforce as a return to the greatness of the Apsara Khmer empire was as good as it gets. The only variation is the 'primitivism' he held, as he believed technological progression just created TV's and ipods an other things that distracted and segregated the collective unity. His only failure was not being able to merge the workers and farmers with the black-shirts who oversaw their work. Or maybe he had? If Kissinger hadn't bombed the shit out of Cambodia, and if Vietnam hadn't invaded, maybe he did have a solution to that too?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6398403]

>>6398386

>The Khmer rouge is the closest communism has come to being fully carried out.

[Anonymous No.6398444]

>>6398386
KR was an utopian agrarian ethno-nationalist state. In the words of Ieng Sary, "we were mener communists." Refer to Michael Vickery's Cambodia and Kampuchea.

[Anonymous No.6398451]

>>6398444
...*never

Holy fuck, how did that happen.

[Anonymous No.6398554]

>>6398403
>>6398444
>In the words of Ieng Sary,
>Refer to Michael Vickery's Cambodia and Kampuchea.
Why read some barrang's account when both of my grandparents were in the Khmer rouge?
>>>/int/40251279
>>>/int/40251279

[Anonymous No.6398694]

>>6398554
>Why read some barrang
Because, unlike your supposed pappies, Vickery is a scholar of Cambodian history and his books are actually researched and researched well.
>Of course Obamer is a gommunist, muh grandpa from Chicago sawr it!
Kek

[Anonymous No.6398706]

>>6398554
>why read a book about WW2 when I know one guy who was in a hut in germany!
>why read about subacuatic life when my uncle went on a cruise!

[Anonymous No.6399125]

What does /lit/ think of Leszek Kołakowski?

[Anonymous No.6399296]

>>6398038
go to university
or at least read the literature.
until then --> kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6399362]

>>6397111

I'd spread my ass-cheeks for Lenin.

<3 Lenin

[Anonymous No.6399370]

>>6397111
>"workers' state"
>ruled by a special party which excludes the vast majority of workers
>no no no, it's not a ruling *class*, it's a ruling *party*, HUGE difference

[Anonymous No.6399386]

>>6399370

>muh intellectualism > praxis
>muh political organization is counter-revolutionary

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399413]

>>6399386
Fascists let more workers in their party than Lenin did.

[Anonymous No.6399420]

JADEN PLS GO

[Anonymous No.6399428]

>>6399413
kek
>le elitist lenin meme

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6399429]

There’s something to be said about the way liberals will practically worship the notion of specialized labor or experts as authorities on certain topics but will regularly not acknowledge that they do this. When liberals ask what we mean by communism or how they will get their toothbrushes under communism they ask us for something they couldn’t do themselves and still justify capitalism.

How many liberals know where their food comes from and who farms it, or what money supplies are and how they work, or how currency inflates and deflates other than overprinting or underprinting, or how countries agree on exchange rates, or how markets can open and close, or even how manufacturing is managed, or how money can be produced without physical sales or with stocks? They proclaim that their precious economists have figured it out and done this work -for- them because if they had to think about the levels of violence inherent on everything to do and think and buy they would be unable to justify it and would be unable to convince themselves that their individual choices have the weight they’d like to think they do.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399432]

>>6399428
What percentage of Russian workers were allowed in the communist party?

[Anonymous No.6399469]

>>6399432

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1399846&postcount=2

>There is little doubt that in 1917 the Bolsheviks were a fringe party in Russian politics but they were not an insignificant one. By 1914 their Petrograd organisation had built up sizeable levels of support amongst the proletariat but this was mostly destroyed with the outbreak of war. The mass conscription of experienced workers and intensified harassment from Tsarist police decimated the party's structures leaving no more than 2,000 members in the capital, with barely 10,000 in the Empire as a whole, by the time of the February Revolution. Yet in a matter of months the party would see an explosion in its membership (80-100k in April and over 350k by the October Revolution), capture a majority of the newly emerging soviets, and emerge as the unquestioned party of the Russian proletariat.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399489]

>>6399469
Yeah, that doesn't answer my question. The Party being in power (and of course they were, because they wouldn't tolerate any other party holding political positions) or even popularly supported doesn't mean most people were actually *in* it. They had an expansion of membership because they needed more people in the party, that doesn't mean they let most the population in. 350K is certainly a minority.

[Anonymous No.6399509]

Reminder that communism and capitalism are both as bad as each other.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6399515]

>>6399509

For a second I thought that was Hank.

[Anonymous No.6399520]

>>6399489
Among the whole of Russia perhaps, but not among urban industrial workers, who the Bolsheviks were appealing to in the first place who (the proletariat) were in the minority compared to the peasantry. The point was making a mass political organization, and it is undeniable that's what they achieved.

The Party as the vanguard was the just the practical representation of the theoretical merger of socialism and labour movement, which was initially exemplarized by the German Social-Democratic Party (before WWI of course)

[Anonymous No.6399528]

My sister is reading Das Kapital, should I be concerned?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399529]

>>6399509
Cyclical history is only poetically applicable, because technology is not cyclical.

[Anonymous No.6399547]

>>6399529
Spengler never said or even implied that technology is cyclical.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399550]

>>6399520
I'm sure they picked mainly from industrial workers because they had a presence there already and you got into the party mainly by being friends with someone in it.

The party was more than a vanguard for revolution, they were the ruling class after revolution. Bolshevisk is essentially post-industrial feudalism...you wouldn't think that could work, but they made it work.

"Socialism grew with the rise of industrialism and of world-wide capitalism. The dissension therefore between these two points of view, or the antithesis, if we wish so to call it, is limited to the economic field. Socialism is at odds with Liberalism only on the question of the organization of production and of the division of wealth. In religious, intellectual, and moral matters it is liberal, as it is liberal and democratic in its politics. Even the anti-liberalism and anti-democracy of Bolshevism are in themselves purely contingent. For Bolshevism is opposed to Liberalism only in so far as the former is revolutionary, not in its socialistic aspect. For if the opposition of the Bolsheviki to liberal and democratic doctrines were to continue, as now seems more and more probable, the result might be a complete break between Bolshevism and Socialism notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate aims of both are identical."

-Alfredo Rocco

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399555]

>>6399547
Nope, he didn't, the problem is that he didn't realize how central technology is to history.

[Anonymous No.6399596]

>>6399555
Of course he realized it, that's why he hated capitalism and communism so much.

[Anonymous No.6399598]

The labor theory of value has become like a meme to libertarians but it actually holds up quite well empirically
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/03/19/is-the-marxian-labour-theory-of-value-correct/

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399627]

>>6399596
Naw, he didn't, if he did he'd realize technology had been drastically reshaping society long before capitalism and socialism.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399642]

>>6399598
Well pretty much *any* theory of value holds up better than de gustibus non est disputandum.

[Anonymous No.6399647]

>>6399627
Did you even read his books?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399652]

>>6399647
Yes, he's too spiritual for me, and that's coming from an idealist.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6399657]

>>6399652
And if you like him, you might try Brooks Adams, I was a big fan of his in my teenage years.

[Anonymous No.6399676]

ITT: Retards

Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.6399685]

>>6399676

Outis is a fascist.

[Anonymous No.6399888]

>>6397160
Why Do You Talk Like Jaden Smith

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6399897]

>>6399676

[Anonymous No.6399903]

>>6399897
see >>6398150

[Anonymous No.6399973]

>>6399125
Stalinism is a logical consequence of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.6399981]

>>6399657
>Brooks Adams
great guy

[Anonymous No.6400014]

>be me
>go to university
>first year: filled with marxists
>wtf i thought this ideology was done for
>hate their guts, but don't mind reading their canon
>every single one of them has abandoned marxism and now walks around in ties and do the most capitalist jobs out there
>their smug face now has an extra chin and a tummy like a swine after all the wine and snacks
>all subscribe to a technocratic outlook
>I still take some precepts of it seriously

So yeah, uhm, you young adult fuckfaces are going to be good copies of your upper middle class daddy and secretly hate niggers and the working class.
Keep as far away as possible if you're under 25. This is some phase and I don't want anything to do with your uncertainties seeking ideological justification.

[Anonymous No.6400030]

>>6400014
>niggers
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.6400090]

>>6400014
>all subscribe to a technocratic outlook
wutttttt? technocracy is popular now?

[Anonymous No.6400094]

>>6400030

Drink wee-wee, most of 4chan talks like that.

[Anonymous No.6400121]

>marxism

[Anonymous No.6400134]

>all these unironic /pol/tards

OUT.

[Anonymous No.6400147]

>>6397050
the plain graphic if someone's interested

[Anonymous No.6400152]

>>6398199
Please help me

[Anonymous No.6400155]

>>6400030
have you been triggered, nigger?

[Anonymous No.6400157]

>>6397111
not a huge fan of his ACTUAL politics, though I agree with some of his philosophical works. And let's not forget that State & Revolution is a fucking classic.
Unlike Stalin, Lenin was a true revolutionary but a bad statesman.

[Anonymous No.6400161]

you folks heard about this kid that smashed piketty?

[Anonymous No.6400167]

>>6400155
Racism outside /b/ is against the rules. Don't want you to get banned

[Anonymous No.6400172]

>>6400014

[Anonymous No.6400190]

>>6400152
Communist manifesto is short and easy to read. Thats where I started and if you like it you can move on to Das Kapital.

[Anonymous No.6400224]

>>6398199

The Principles of Communism (Engels)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Wage Labour and Capital (Marx)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

and then the stuff on this page:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm

then you could go on with Das Kapital. If you're having trouble understanding it I found David Harvey's lectures on youtube helpful.

>>6400190
well that's quite a leap.
I'd ditch the manifesto, it's rather propaganda than actual theory.

[Anonymous No.6400231]

>>6400014

This is the nerdiest thing I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.6400240]

>>6400014

No seriously, get help

[Anonymous No.6400265]

>>6400172
>arguing with children cartoon.
Nothing gets past this guy.

[Anonymous No.6400273]

>>6400265

There is no ethical consumption under late capitalism is the point.

[Anonymous No.6400355]

>>6397060

>Marxism depends on the labour theory of value.

Some parts of it, but not all of it, his theory of alienation,ideology or production does not depend on it.

>once you start trying to apply it everywhere you show how unfalsifiable it is

Oh please, you are not going to convince anyone with those banal Popper arguments, neither science or philosophy work with the principle of fasliafiability, and in this case i is irrelevant because it is an ever changing situation of how the market behaves and as such value fluxuates.

>There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...

It seems to me that you have not read Marx at all. At good gains it's value in two ways, "use value" and exchange value. An object under it's ordinary use has use value, you example about the rainforest, can even be more simplified to say that the air we breath is also a good, but it would be absurd to say that it has practical value.

Therefore goods are things which we have tolabour to create so that they can enter a market of supply and demand, there mirriads of things which are irrelevant to the market, however in our case natural resources acquire value becuase of their rarity, which take effort to harvest,sustain, or obtain.

But all of your post is somewhat nonsensical, diamonds, woods, etc. All have more less an estimated price regarding the labour put, technology and the all around effectiveness of the means of production. There is nothing outside of teh emans of production becuase they all exist in a market environment.
Canadian timber is cheaper than American timber etc.

[Anonymous No.6400381]

>>6398022

I hardly think that a guy that believed in magic should lecture that the form of the system of distribution of wealth we have should be an irrelevant issue.

[Anonymous No.6400395]

>>6400231
>>6400240

lel why?
cant handle the bants undergrads?

[Anonymous No.6400408]

>>6400224
this guy is probably right I'm >>6400190 and I only ever read The Manifesto and Das Kapital. Looking back it probably wasn't the best way to get into marx but mostly I read other peoples critiques of him.

[Anonymous No.6400422]

>>6400381

I hardly think that a guy that believed in the glory of Satan should lecture that the form of the system of distribution of wealth we have should be an irrelevant issue.

>...Yet I have power within my youthful arms
>
To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)

>with tempestuous force,

>While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

>You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,

>Whispering in your ears 'Descend,

>come with me, friend'.

[Anonymous No.6400435]

quality bait, i don't think anyone in this thread knows anything about value.

Marx never says that an object is worth how much labor you put into it, and value isn't related to price. Value is determined by "Socially necessary labor time" , how much labor put into production proportionally to the market.

Value isn't solely decided by labor hours, but instead by the average amount of labor with the average amount of tools, in the average amount of time.

A diamond you found on the ground wouldn't be valuable i diamonds were fucking everywhere, took very little labor to mine, and wasn't forced into artificial scarcity. Sure, people may think it's pretty and it may have some kind of subjective value to you, but that won't change the exchange value or use value of that diamond if everybody always has a fucking diamond.

marx is easy if you actually read something besides /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6400438]

ITT: >People not having decency to read a bit of Hegel and read Feuerbach and the classical political economists.

>>6400224
You are okay
>>6400190
>>6400408
You are an idiot, thank god >>6397294 is making a guide to Marxism. Everyone here should give support to the guide as this will be the most extensive guide to Marxism. I really doubt you understood anything in Capital.

[Anonymous No.6400469]

With the inevitable fruition of automation, the working class will no longer be needed. Quite frankly the best course of action for both parties sake would be just to sterilize the poor out of their misery.

Why would the Bourgeois want to keep a bunch of people around that serve no purpose to them that only will want to demand from them or overthrow them?

The Bourgeois just tend to be better people too

[Anonymous No.6400473]

>>6400438
I admitted I was wrong. But thanks for the advice about the "most extensive guide to Marxism" I'll be sure to check it out!

[Anonymous No.6400518]

>>6400469

Nice edgy bait, but this issue has long being adressed by Marxists.

Firstly you need people who manage,design and built the machines. Secondly, the working class in terms of population statistics even in the first world far outnumbers the bourgeoisie, so like always, a compromise is made and the bourgoisie hand in more benefits for the upper crust of the working class.

Thirdly the needs and the resources the Bourgoisie has cannot be fulfilled unless there is cheap labour independent from them, because the Bourgoisie compete with each other and want to expand their own little trade empires, full automation will never be a thing and the Third World will continue to exist as a source for sourcing labour,like for example building the robots or performing.

As to for tthe Bourgeoisie being better people, it fairly obvious that only a filthy, decadent Bourgeois born in wealth and easy living would say that :-)

[Anonymous No.6400534]

>>6400435
No, m8. Value is only determined by the subjective preferences of the market.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400546]

>>6400422
>>6400469
>>6400534

It's to bad Capitalism couldn't get you laid.

[Anonymous No.6400564]

>>6400546
You do know Marxists don't have to subscribe to the outdated labour theory of value, right? I don't see how a chinless nigger like yourself could get any woman.

[Anonymous No.6400568]

>>6400518
don't get me wrong it was edgy as fuck but not bait

as far as the practicability of the removal of the working class it would obviously take a lot before automation can become self sustaining and self expanding
>As to for tthe Bourgeoisie being better people, it fairly obvious that only a filthy, decadent Bourgeois born in wealth and easy living would say that :-)

Well its natural to think that just because the poor get shafted that they deserve to have the upper hand in other ways, but the wealthy tend to be more intelligent, well rounded etc...

[Anonymous No.6400571]

>>6400546
It's *too* bad you can't spell.

[Anonymous No.6400582]

>>6400564
Yeah, they do, and it's not outdated. Do you realize what the subjective theory of value states? That all value comes from the bourgeoisie, that if you pay the workers shit and then charge a fortune for what you sell, you're the one adding the value because you're adding the price.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400584]

>>6400564

Are you fourteen?

>>6400571

Pussy is better than grammar. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.6400591]

>>6400546
>implying I'm pro-capitalism
excellent argument though

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400593]

>>6400591

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.6400595]

>>6400564
Even if he got one it's not likely he would have time to fuck her.

>sorry babe, I have to download a terrabyte of reaction memes to post on my 4chan blog, they basically worship me and I'm sure the whole website would be pretty sad if I stopped posting for even an hour.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400600]

>>6400595

Please, go on.

[Anonymous No.6400603]

>>6400584
>Are you fourteen?
Nice argument, nigger, it really shows your knowledge of economics.
>>6400582
It is. Forget your ideology for a second and look at the empirical evidence.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400608]

>>6400603

My knowledge of economics involves your smegma making a stink and nobody wants to approach your dick cause it smells like a dead rat

[Anonymous No.6400612]

>>6400603
>It is. Forget your ideology for a second and look at the empirical evidence.
Forget your ideology for a second and look at the empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.6400615]

>>6400584
>Are you fourteen?


"My knowledge of economics involves your smegma making a stink and nobody wants to approach your dick cause it smells like a dead rat"

"It's to bad Capitalism couldn't get you laid."

"Pussy is better than grammar. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

[Anonymous No.6400629]

>>6400612
Yes, it points to subjective value.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400635]

>>6400615

Yes. That definitely proves I am immature when you are throwing around the word nigger.

[Anonymous No.6400641]

>>6400635
I didn't say "nigger" once

besides even if I had, would that have to do with your level of maturity?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400650]

>>6400641

So you're saying you don't have a sense of humor?

[Anonymous No.6400658]

>>6400635
What's wrong with saying nigger, nigger? Are you buttblasted by nigger?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400664]

>>6400658

I think you're more devastated by my observation your smegma crumbles are overflowing from your dick like an avalanche.

[Anonymous No.6400688]

Epic thread, lads.

[Anonymous No.6400714]

>>6400629

How? You have not provided a single fact to back that up.

Exchange value time and time again provides that the value of an object depends on the labour put forward in making it, what the bourgoisie trades it for is irrelevant since they are under the relative effects of the markets supply and demand. But the standart value of a good is always determined by the means of production.

Please provide an exeption to the rule or suffer in silence.

[Anonymous No.6400718]

Oh my god why do you idiots keep replying to him? he's obviously an insecure narcissist with an ego complex. just filter him and be done with it. If anyone doesn't know how either google it or ask me and I will tell you but this board has tolerated Focault long enough.

[Anonymous No.6400723]

are you comrades humanist or structuralist marxists?

what do oyu think of deleuze and guattari's books on capitalism? they are what I was considering reading next after Althusser

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400725]

>>6400718

Thanks for helping the community.

[Anonymous No.6400729]

>>6400714
Look at capital intensive industries against every labour intensive industries. According to you labour intensive industries should produce more expensive goods, but this is not the case. Now go back to the 18th century if you want to talk seriously about your outdated theory.

[Anonymous No.6400734]

>>6400723

Humanists are cancer.

Deleuze and Guattari are cool especially on Thousand Plateus, though the whole "nomadology" bit sounds like romantic bullshit. If you like Deleuze check out later Tony Negri and Hardt.

Also, Althusser is a must.

[Anonymous No.6400735]

>>6400664
Nigger, nigger tell them lies
Black face and bloodshot eyes
Crooked toes and crooked nose
That's the way the nigger goes

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400748]

>>6400735

It doesn't really affect me that much. (o◕▽◕)

You getting called out as a virgin got you steaming so (≧ω≦)

[Anonymous No.6400774]

>>6400748
I'm not angry at all, I just don't know why you don't like the word nigger. Don't you like rap music? I thought all niggers did.

[Anonymous No.6400779]

>>6400729

LOL

LTV is not a fucking metaphysical theory you idiot, a fucking farmer working weeks to harvest something is not going to have more valuable goods from another farmer that does it in days.

What matters is duration of labour+constant capital(means of production)=value of product.

Because a whole lot of labour was put in constructing these factories they produce more expensive goods regardless of the effort of the workers working in them, the workers are more effective and work less in virtue of the complexity of the maschines.

[Anonymous No.6400781]

>>6398204
I'm starting to blush from how embarrassing your posts are getting.

[Anonymous No.6400791]

>>6400734
it seems like most marxists are marxist humanists (because of the worry capital estranges people from their 'species-being' through labour) it was also generally the most useful idea to explain to other workers when I used to do that. ignoring essentialism or w/e for the sake of the other workers seeming to really get that idea.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400794]

>>6400774

You're definitely mad af

>>6400781

see

>>6400735

[Anonymous No.6400824]

>>6400794
There's absolutely no reason why you need to be using a trip.

Shouldn't you be getting ready for your night-shift as a museum security guard?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400828]

>>6400824

*Warehouse

It's only 6:55 damn

[Anonymous No.6400830]

>>6400794
Mad as what? I'm not mad, those are just some catchy lyrics from Johnny Rebel. You seem to be really mad now that you are posting your strawmen. But then again, you've never been one to engage in actual discussion.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400836]

>>6400830

>Mad as what?

(╯3╰)

[Anonymous No.6400843]

>>6400836
What? You just said mad af, which I suppose is a typo and you meant to say mad as. That annoys me because too many people just say ''mad as'' or ''cool as''. I think it originated in New Zealand.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400847]

>>6400843

>You just said mad af, which I suppose is a typo and you meant to say mad as

(╯3╰)

[Anonymous No.6400852]

>>6400824
>Shouldn't you be getting ready for your night-shift as a museum security guard?

sounds like a good job

[Anonymous No.6400856]

>>6400847
Are you actually 12 years old? Serious question. Your posts are just really childish. Do you want notoriety on here? Do you just like seeing people reply to you? Because that is typical childish behaviour.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400870]

>>6400856

I enjoy irritating scum fuck nationalists who converse about mentally masturbatory moronic shit and probably own a copy of mein kampf. It's more like going on a safari.

[Anonymous No.6400883]

>>6400870
I'm not a nationalist, I am an internatioanlist, reactionary, absolute monarchist. I am not so insecure that I need to post strawmen of other ideologies on the internet. I suppose your beliefs aren't very strong.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400887]

>>6400883

>I'm not a nationalist, I am an internatioanlist, reactionary, absolute monarchist

[Anonymous No.6400895]

>>6400870
have you questioned why seeking conflict with others elicits this feeling of relief or gratification in you?

[Anonymous No.6400898]

>>6400887
See, your insecurity is so obvious. Are you threatened by other opinions?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400900]

>>6400895

Maybe I'm a sociopath? 0_o

>>6400898

I'm not threatened at all. I can't make it any more clear I pity you.

[Anonymous No.6400916]

>>6400900
You seem really insecure. Why do you feel the need to belittle other opinions? If someone likes apples and you like bananas do you post pictures of ugly people with text about apples?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400918]

>>6400916

projecting

[Anonymous No.6400930]

>>6400918
Hardly. You immature response confirms my suspicions, however.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400933]

>>6400930

[Anonymous No.6400954]

>>6400933
Calm down.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6400961]

>>6400954

Relax

[Anonymous No.6400982]

>>6400961
Don't do it.

[Anonymous No.6401129]

what would Althusserian politics and labour movements look like?

[Anonymous No.6401229]

>Marxist thread
>Turns into "GET OUT /pol/! Anyone who isn't a commie nust is uh racist dummie neckbeard!"

Lovely.

[Anonymous No.6401534]

OP from >>6397294

What do you think about this reading order for learning Marxism?

Theses on Feuerbach
The Principles of Communism
Wage Labour and Capital
Critique of the Gotha Program
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
A Critique of the German Ideology
The Communist Manifesto

[Anonymous No.6401546]

>>6400982
whatever the next line in that dumb song is.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6401549]

>>6401534
http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpalthusser11.htm

There's also the glossary at marxists.org if you are unclear on certain terms

[Anonymous No.6401558]

>>6397044

Jaden Smith Is That You Because It Looks Like You Jaden Smith And Is Prententious Like You

[Anonymous No.6401588]

>>6401558
I Write Like That Because Every Word Is Valuable To The Production Of A Sentence, So They Should All Be Equal. The Concept Is Hegelian/Heideggerian, They Use It To Note Importance. But All Words Are Important. I Don't Do It For Every Letter Because Words Are Like Factories, They Need A Collective. The Individual Matters Not, Communism Is Collectivist.

[Anonymous No.6401599]

>>6399555
Technology speeds up the cycle of history.

[Anonymous No.6401609]

>>6397060
pic related
>>6397111
Lenin vis a vis people like Žižek and Lukács is best Lenin

[Anonymous No.6401655]

>>6400883
>I am an internatioanlist, reactionary, absolute monarchist
>I am not so insecure that I need to post strawmen of other ideologies on the internet. I suppose your beliefs aren't very strong
中二病 finally has its political counterpart and dark enlightenment is it

[Anonymous No.6401785]

>>6399973
top kek

[Anonymous No.6401795]

>>6400734
Althusser is an idiot. The whole "young marx"/"old marx" stuff is just pure bull shit.

[Anonymous No.6401801]

>>6401795
Althusser is partly an idiot, his lack of Hegel and love of Spinoza mostly
>he whole "young marx"/"old marx" stuff is just pure bull shit.
if you're read Marx you'd see how this is evident some

[Anonymous No.6401804]

>>6397060
nice try popper

[Anonymous No.6401806]

>>6401801
>if you're read Marx you'd see how this is evident some

No doubt, but drawing a dichotomy, and essentially rejecting the early manuscripts, which are super important, is dumb. There is obviously theoretical developments going on but there is no such thing as "young marx", really.

[Anonymous No.6401828]

>>6401806
Althusser's argument was that most of mature marx wasn't "mature marx," that the scientific marx was esoteric and symptomatic.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6401982]

>>6401795
Even "mature Marx" was something of a humanist. In Part II of the first volume of Capital, he ascribes to humanity the defining gift of being able to materialize sophisticated ideas through labor, which he uses to contrast human labor with the labor of, say, an ox pulling a plow. This humanist perspective is necessary for Marx's analysis to function, or else labor, and thus the wellspring of all value, would be ascribed directly to the planet, or even the cosmos. Without the humanist element in Marxism. you might as well say God is the source of all value.

That isn't to say Althusser is wrong: humanists Marxists stress humanism in Marxism to the point that it is practically liberalism; Althusser's rabid distaste for this is a product of his sympathy for Stalinism, and Stalinism is not Marxism proper, but it's not less Marxist than Marxist humanism is. Althusser is a radical perspective in Marxism that was relevant because there was a fat humanist on the other side of the seesaw. Althusser's understanding of Marxism is therefore a useful place to start, or at least venture early, but black hole for Marxists to stay stuck, perhaps even more one for those, such as myself, who are not Marxists but merely interested in Marx's analysis and Marxist sentiment, as Althusser does not properly represent that.

[Anonymous No.6401992]

>>6401982
The praxical humanists like Raya Dunayevskaya, or CLR James or Miklos Gimes offer a radical different counterpole to Sartre. Then again, the radical humanists are more typically considered as part of the "autonomist" trajectory where the collective praxic subject finds its normal home. And this is anything but humanistic, this is a power-discourse of self-becoming.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6402003]

>>6401992
It's really only heretical when it stresses individualism and rights too finely as practical concerns. Humanism (as well as any other ideology) as a mere skirt for class praxis isn't inconsistent with Marxism, since from a Marxist standpoint the dressing is irreverent.

[Anonymous No.6402004]

>>6401992
>Then again, the radical humanists are more typically considered as part of the "autonomist" trajectory

not sure if this is nitpicking or not but James and Dunayevskaya especially fall into the "Marxist-Humanist" category .

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6402006]

>>6402004
Yeah, he just called them "praxical humanists".

[Anonymous No.6402009]

>>6402004
Which is weird, because Althusser wasn't taking umbrage with obscure US based trots doing a fair amount of work on actual history and factory life. He was mainly concerned with bashing bourgeoise ENS intellectuals.

>>6402003
Humanism lends itself much more rapidly to being the floozy's dress when praxic than, say, "scientific" structuralism. In part because your category of "human normal" instantly becomes class morality in praxis.

And boy does my class get up to some naughty things after school.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6402022]

>>6402009
I think praxis is not achievable without a degree of indignation to fuel it, which requires some humanism. You can't keep a fire burning for as long and as hot as praxis demands with some mere possibility of material reward that might not even happen in your generation. Machiavelli said national soldiers are superior to mercenaries because a mercenary will not be as likely to face certain death, and will be far less motivated when the odds are against him than a nationalist soldier will be. The same applies to Marxism and humanism.

[Anonymous No.6402062]

>>6398706
>>why read a book about WW2 when I know one guy who was in a hut in germany!
Very weak. The same analogy would be: If the Nazi part was in power as recently as the 1970's; why read about what some Peruvian scholar has to say about life under the Nazi party when both of my grandparents were high ranking officials in the Nazi party, my entire family lived in Nazi Germany, quite a few of my relatives died, I have spent all my life in Germany, and a extremely large chunk of that discussing the Nazi party with everyone else in my culture, and my high school all the way up to uni.

[Anonymous No.6402080]

>>6402022
Scalding scabs to death in 40 gallon drums with superheated steam isn't usually what people think when they think of Humanism.

But it is when I do.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6402089]

>>6402080
You must leave in a country where unions represent most of your labor force I suppose..

[Anonymous No.6402099]

>>6402089
There's a grand but vacuous tradition. It is more that there is a reserve of organic working class self-organisation that has survived the death of the organised forms. More london mob than new unionism.