/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6873703]

Are there any suprising things in Das Kapital that people who only share the common knowledge about Marxs credo (capital bad, gibe communism pls) would not know about or does the work just tries to argue towards his point ? I mean this is a fucking long book. Are there more ideas than in his Manifesto of the communist party is it just a longer, more comprehensive essay on the same core topics ?

[Anonymous No.6873709]

>>6873703
Capital is a detailed analysis and critique of the economic workings of capitalism. It's basically the ins and outs of the economic system, most marxists now a days don't even read it that's why they seem like complete tools.

The manifesto is the program of a political party.

[Anonymous No.6873726]

these are the approximate contents of first fourth of das capital

[Anonymous No.6873743]

>>6873709
Marx's criticism of capitalism in Das Kapital is good, but his alternative is complete garbage. Leaving aside the very obvious flaws in socialistic systems, the whole revolution theory is laughable. Never in history has there been a revolution that lead to a complete dictatorship where everything ended worse for everybody. And now that I think about it there hasn't even been a revolution ever in capitalistic societies (if you don't count the forming of unions in the industrial revolution), because even though capitalism also has some flaws people tend to be happy about it.

Like I said, not a great fan of socialism, but at least Lenin's IDEA was a slower transition into the "utopia" (which really is only a utopia if you are part of the bureaucratic class) (and yes I get the whole point is to do away with classes but it's a logical consequence of anything but anarchism). This makes is even more hilarious that Lenin went for a revolution anyways only to find out everything did indeed go right into the shitter.

Just avoid socialism as a whole.

[Anonymous No.6873752]

Please keep in mind that when Marx wrote this, there hadn't been any succesful capitalistic societies yet. The industrial revolution brought about capitalism in its rawest, most unregulated form and it was shit for everyone. But if you look at contemporary capitalistic societies with a moderate to strong government influence, it's actually going really well.

[Anonymous No.6873757]

>>6873752
We need to go deeper.

[Anonymous No.6873771]

>>6873743
> but his alternative is complete garbage
Marx never proposed any alternative in his works except for abstract idea of socialism and communism.

> Never in history has there been a revolution that lead to a complete dictatorship where everything ended worse for everybody.
Uhh, what are you trying to imply here?

> And now that I think about it there hasn't even been a revolution ever in capitalistic societies (if you don't count the forming of unions in the industrial revolution), because even though capitalism also has some flaws people tend to be happy about it.
French Revolution, English Civil War, Revolutions of 1848, Russian Revolution, German revolution, May '68 in France nor Chinese revolution (1945-1949) took place in a capitalist society?

> Like I said, not a great fan of socialism
How can one be a fan or an enemy of a mode of production?

> but at least Lenin's IDEA was a slower transition into the "utopia"
Marxism is not utopian.

> This makes is even more hilarious that Lenin went for a revolution anyways only to find out everything did indeed go right into the shitter.
How did Lenin's revolution exactly go into the shitter again?

[Anonymous No.6873782]

>>6873752

There is no such thing as "succesful" Capitalism. Capitalism works and benefits the few i.e. the Capitalists (those who own the means of production). For the rest it's servitude.

[Anonymous No.6873789]

>>6873752
But Marx hardly limits his critique of capitalism to lack of regulation or poor housing like moderate historians do. To Marx, capitalism was fundamentally exploiting people.

[Anonymous No.6873790]

>>6873771
none of those besides the English civil war were capitalistic societies, and the english civil war wasn't about capitalism

[Anonymous No.6873791]

>>6873782
It's really incredible how people still think this in the 21st century. Capitalism is the biggest thing that has improved the lot of the ordinary man.

[Anonymous No.6873795]

>>6873771
>How did Lenin's revolution exactly go into the shitter again?
it led to Stalin becoming the dictator of russia

[Anonymous No.6873800]

>>6873791
Capitalism does not improve or detract anything. It's a mode of production. The collective labour of millions of people over hundreds of years has gotten us here, not accumulation of capital on the wealthiest sector of economy.

[Anonymous No.6873803]

>>6873782
no, it only turned out like that in the industrial revolution where everything was uncontrolled. The idea of capitalism is not benefitting the rich, come on man that's teenage hippie level. The idea is that personal agency and responsibility lead to succes or failure. The idea that not the place you were born in, but what you are willing and capable of contributing determines how you will do.

And it worked out really well.

[Anonymous No.6873808]

>>6873771
dilettante, the post

[Anonymous No.6873813]

>>6873795
While it might be argued that this is not the case, as Stalin's rise to power is largely centered around the weakness of Soviet political system after Lenin's death, one might ask: so what? The quality of life of millions of people improved, USSR was industrialized and it managed to survive the onslaught of fascism.

[Anonymous No.6873814]

>>6873795
Also because of Lenin's 'War Communism' policy which crippled the economy.
Only when he implemented some Capitalism with his New Economic Policy did the economy begin to recover.
The people didn't like handing the crops *they* produced over to the state, so he let them keep a percentage of it. He was quite pragmatic.

[Anonymous No.6873823]

>needing justification for reading the most cited philosopher of all time
>needing justification for reading the progenitor of the nations who constituted the opposition in the greatest conflict of all time
mfw

>>6873703
to answer OP:
yes

[Anonymous No.6873837]

If only Lenin had named a successor, then none of the death and destruction that happened under Joseph Stalin would have happened.
But on the other hand, if the U.S.S.R. hadn't undergone the rapid industrialisation Stalin put it under, then they probably would have been steamrolled by the Germans.

[Anonymous No.6873843]

>>6873703
read pic related OP he goes over all of Marx's ideas more succinctly than marx, he also adds some economic intelligence to an ideology of a man who was broke and lived off charity his whole life.

[Anonymous No.6873850]

>>6873814
that's another thing right: everytime a shitty communistic society starts implementing even bits of capitalism, suddenly everything becomes a hundred times better.

[Anonymous No.6873851]

>>6873843
> Earned his doctorate from University of Chicago
into the thrash it goes

[Anonymous No.6873853]

>oh god do i hate reading but want to posture before others
Can you people electrocute yourselves in your bathtubs, please? Do it for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.6873864]

>>6873851
>not taking the Chicago School redpill

[Anonymous No.6873868]

>>6873843
/thread

[Anonymous No.6873889]

>>6873803

You are like a college freshman with those lolbertarian ideas and Ron paul 2012 anonying slogans.

Everything you listed about "agency" and "personal responsibility" is an outcome of enlightenment thinking which intensified with the bourgeois French Revolution.

Capitalism does not have any philosophical backround, it is a mode of production whereby the circulation of capital is managed and owned by the select few, the bourgeoisie.

Today, with the complete globalization of the worlds economy, Capitalism is more unregulated than ever. Multinational companies are aided left to operate as they want. (since corporate lobbying pushes select political platforms, see: the Bretton Woods Foundation).

In fact globaly the Third World is so distant in terms of income from the First that nearly entire countries are owned by private companies, for For example Chinese private companies are buying out entirely the public land of Zambia and Nigeria.

So no, things are worse tthan ever if we also consider the imminent environmental disaster looming on the horizon.

[Anonymous No.6873891]

The chapters on primitive accumulation alone are worth the read

>>6873843
Does Sowell actual engage with Dialectical and Historical materialism? I don't see him cited much. Böhm-Bawerk's "Karl Marx and the close of his system" is the only substantial attack on Marx from the right that I'm aware of but it's mostly fallacies that Nikolai Bukharin dismantled.

[Anonymous No.6873895]

>>6873843
If you're going to make ad homs, at least make sure they're true. Marx was an editor and a journalist.

[Anonymous No.6873903]

>>6873850
[citation fucking needed]

[Anonymous No.6873913]

>>6873891
He does, and he make a total pigs arse out of it. He turns Marx into Bookchin.

[Anonymous No.6873914]

>>6873889
china is always pictured as the world's wageslave but really china suffered massive famine, killing millions, all the way through the 20th century. Only when capitalism was trickled into the system did the country prosper.

And the whole current wealth gap is a result of radical banking schemes, not capitalism

[Anonymous No.6873915]

>>6873889
Third world countries are poor because of over-regulation (plus all the regulators are corrupt and extract bribes), poor geography, and poor infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.6873918]

>>6873843

republican propaganda.

everything by the Chicago school is poison that has ruined entire nations and doomed them to poverty.

[Anonymous No.6873919]

>>6873895
yeah m8 and I'm an author and a bohemian.

[Anonymous No.6873920]

>>6873864
> legitimizes status quo and supports establishment
> red pill

[Anonymous No.6873922]

>>6873903
see: China, the Soviet Union with Lenin's New Economic Policy

Also, India which was socialist but you get the picture.

[Anonymous No.6873923]

>>6873903
>russia, 1920's
>china, 1990's
>cuba 2000's/2010's

[Anonymous No.6873928]

>>6873920
>he thinks we have laissez-faire capitalism now

[Anonymous No.6873933]

>>6873914
>And the whole current wealth gap is a result of radical banking schemes, not capitalism
>radical banking schemes
Which again is a result of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6873934]

>>6873843

>books written by non-whites

[Anonymous No.6873937]

>>6873934
Stormfront pls

[Anonymous No.6873938]

>>6873918
>poison that has ruined entire nations and doomed them to poverty.
sounds like marxism

[Anonymous No.6873947]

>>6873914


What Capitalism has is widely different from the Wests capitalism. Deng Xiao Pings "special economic zones" where in fact a directed state sponsored capitalist system.

Even today what is known as Dengism or the economic model of Lee Kuan Yew is a selective liberilization program sponsored by the state. In China all public services and works are owned by the State, but the economic life of China is entirely private, so who do you think bailed out Chinas banks teh last few weeks or gives
financial aid to big chinese companies?

>>6873915

I gave two examples, but you want to shut your ears. every time liberilization happens (usually with guiding hand of the IMF) countries gdp rises, but the people become even poorer due to austerity/bankruptcy.

Todays poorest nations, belong to the sub-saharan region such as the congo republic or Zambia. Because of how poor they are and with compete lack of infastructure (due to wars) they are currently being bought out by China.

This is essentially how neo-colonialism happens today.

http://www.businessinsider.com/map-chinese-investments-in-africa-2012-8

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/the-poorest-countries-in-the-world

[Anonymous No.6873954]

>>6873914
China did not encounter a single notable famine after 1961 despite privatization of agriculture occuring only in 1982. Chinese quality of life had double between 49-76, industrial output had grown 13-fold, food production doubled, literacy quadrupled, population had grown by 400 million, land reform had been achieved, education and healthcare made free, warlordism was ended and bureacrautic despotism had been notable reduced.

Chinese prosperity under capitalism did not grow from out of nowhere. Under Mao, China prospered and industrialized which allowed it to later reap benefits of capitalism in large scale rather than being exploited by it like comparable giant in south, India.

[Anonymous No.6873958]

>>6873922

India was never socialist.

Also China was Maoist not orthodox Marxist since the Great Leap forward implied a peasant population reaching communism , not an industrilised economy like Marx specified.

[Anonymous No.6873959]

Is marxism the dumbest ideology or the stupidest ideology?

[Anonymous No.6873965]

>>6873938
Can you name a single Marxist nation where the GDP decreased rather than grew between the establishment and disestablishment of it?

[Anonymous No.6873967]

>>6873959

Ideology is marxist philosophical category, so you are using that word wrongly when you use it as an attribute to Marxism.

[Anonymous No.6873968]

>>6873959
Both

[Anonymous No.6873975]

>>6873790
>none were capitalist

[Anonymous No.6873979]

>>6873958

Mao criticised the Soviet Union for being too dogmatically Marxist, they saw Das Kapital as having fallen from heaven.

If China wasn't orthodox Marxist, the USSR was

[Anonymous No.6873980]

>>6873967
Ideology is a term coined by Destutt de Tracy.

[Anonymous No.6873983]

>>6873959
>>6873968

Why do ancaps get so buttflustered when their utopian little fantasy of capiatalism is criticised.

I bet most of you are hedge-funded college kiddies that get benefits from the state.

[Anonymous No.6873985]

>>6873947
>compete lack of infastructure (due to wars)

Or maybe because the governments are extremely corrupt? Not to mention the horrible geography: no good rivers to ship on, no natural harbors, horrible agricultural conditions (which were improved to a degree thanks to GM crops).

[Anonymous No.6873986]

>>6873980

But more correctly used in a philosophical dialectical materialist way, by Marx.

[Anonymous No.6873989]

>>6873954

I'd agree with this, but still Mao made some utterly boneheaded decisions that caused much suffering. It could have been done a whole lot better

[Anonymous No.6873990]

>>6873918
>everyone who isn't hard left is libertarian lemme whip out my bingo card to show them
Nope

[Anonymous No.6873995]

>>6873965
Russia, Cuba, North Korea

>inb4 not marxism
not my perfect untested verison wahhhh

A better question is can you name marxist nation that was successful in any sense of the word?

[Anonymous No.6874004]

>>6873983
because it's mostly by people like pic related who are underage and just read the wiki page for howard zinn because matt damon or their hippie social studies teacher told them to.

Marxists are all either manchildren who are mad because they can't get a job, or children who are too lazy to get a job.

[Anonymous No.6874005]

>>6873995

cuba is successful.

But i can't tell if it is really marxist.

[Anonymous No.6874008]

>>6874004
Some mighty fine straw man you've constructed there, pal.

[Anonymous No.6874010]

>>6873983
>implying I'm ancap

Why do leftists insist that what we have now is the capitalistic ideal? Free-market capitalists are profoundly anti-status quo. Much of the world is made of mixed economies, that is why we have some economic issues and some economic success.

[Anonymous No.6874011]

>>6873995

The USSR grew very quickly economically. They were ruined by WWII, but rebuilt and became a superpower that made many scientific advancements.

The system started rotting from within by the 70s, but the material advance is undeniable (but neither is the mass death and suffering of course)

[Anonymous No.6874018]

>>6873985

They are corrupt because the local politicians are totaly owned by the those multinationals.

Meanwhile tehy are buying up all teh land and natural resources of those countries while teh majority of those countries citizens are left with nothing.

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/fp-goldman-sachs-created-food-crisis/p24904

http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/236064/goldman-sachs-names-oil-takeover-tips

[Anonymous No.6874019]

>>6874005
>cuba is successful

Ok, Michael Moore.

[Anonymous No.6874020]

>>6874005
>cuba
>successful

>ordinary Cubans are not allowed to eat beef. Instead, what beef there is in Cuba is reserved for the nation’s rulers and for tourists who can pay for it with foreign exchange while staying at the all-inclusive resort hotels. It is in fact illegal to sell beef to a Cuban — not that any of them outside the ruling class would be able to buy much, since the average wage in Cuba is about 50 cents per day, or one-tenth of the minimum legal wage in Mexico. With this pittance, Cubans must subsist on the subsidized rations made available to them by the government. These comprise 5 pounds of rice, 5 pounds of sugar, 1 pound of salt, 10 ounces of beans, 8 ounces of cooking oil, 0.15 ounces of coffee mixed with unknown stuff that isn’t coffee, 6 ounces of very-low-quality fish, and 1 pound of a disgusting product made from unsalable animal parts, per month. No fruits or vegetables are included. I repeat: These rations are not free, but must be paid for, with the total bill consuming most of a Cuban’s monthly salary. This leaves almost nothing to spend on additional food, which is available on the black market or in “dollar stores,” where reasonably good food, donated by Western aid agencies, is sold at (non-Cuban) supermarket prices to foreigners or government elites holding dollars or euros.

>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371520/cuba-holodomor-next-door-robert-zubrin

[Anonymous No.6874023]

>>6873983
Why do the fringes assume anyone who disagrees is the opposite fringe? Take some time off the internet and make some centrist friends.

[Anonymous No.6874028]

>>6874010

You are profoundly pro-status quo since you advocate the continuous servitude of the worker and give a Carte blanche to big coprorations becuase they are not the state.

There is nothing against the status quo there, because this is the rulling ideology today.

[Anonymous No.6874029]

>>6873995
North Korea was hugely economically successful when it was a marxist-leninist state.

And you're fucking mental if you think the ussr wasn't a massive advance over the previous russian economy.

[Anonymous No.6874032]

>>6873995
> Russia, Cuba, North Korea
Cuba nor North Korea have had a post-communist economy.

All of their economies measured by GDP per capita and total GDP have grown since their revolutions. North Korea even used to have a larger GDP per capita than South until 1978!

[Anonymous No.6874033]

>>6874020
>communists will defend this

[Anonymous No.6874034]

>>6874018
>corrupt because the local politicians are totaly owned by the those multinationals

No, corruption has been there since colonists left. Bribery is so entrenched that it is a part of their culture.

[Anonymous No.6874036]

>>6873789
This. The "exploitation of the working class" is more than just a slogan, it's literal; the workers produce more than it costs to employ them. They are being treated the same as any natural resource. It wasn't so much about living standards for Marx as it was social relations.

>>6873837
Hitler may not have been able to come to power in the first place if there was no Stalin ordering the German communists not to work with the social democrats.

[Anonymous No.6874037]

>>6874004
Capitalism requires mass unemployment for wage competition among workers on all levels, so that's a perfectly valid reason. The Capitalist class is the greatest barrier to employment.

[Anonymous No.6874039]

>>6874020
> Place a nation under commercial embargo for fifty years
> Blame domestic politics when food is scarce

[Anonymous No.6874040]

>>6874029
the question was
>Can you name a single Marxist nation where the GDP decreased rather than grew between the establishment and disestablishment of it?
and all three of those countries experienced short term growth, before undergoing long term poverty, which in all three cases continues to plague them to this day.

marxism, not even once.

[Anonymous No.6874042]

>>6873995
there were a lot of socialist communities in america before the europeans, for some of them the private property was an alien concept.

In the incan empire the newborn recieved a piece of land assigned by the state, so he had something to work in, or to rent . As soon as the person died the piece of land returned to the state to be given to the next newborn.

[Anonymous No.6874045]

>>6874036
Hitler wouldn't have come to power if the social democrats hadn't called in the freikorps to crush the german revolution, why would any communist work with them after that

[Anonymous No.6874046]

>>6874020
>National Review

[Anonymous No.6874051]

>>6874020
>nationalreview

ok

[Anonymous No.6874053]

>>6874040
The russian and korean economies collapsed because of their abandonment of marxism, compare them with china.

[Anonymous No.6874054]

oy vey remember the twenty billion brutally murdered by Stalin

[Anonymous No.6874055]

>>6874037
lazy neet detected

[Anonymous No.6874056]

>>6874040
The question was about absolute GDP of the countries, all of which have grown under Marxist regimes. Soviet Union, Cuba nor North Korea never plunged into poverty - their poorness is a mere relative view when compared to countries which grew faster economically.

Saying that Marxist economic made countries poor is senseless. Under it, every single regime's economy grew - just a bit slower than under some types of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6874060]

>>6874028
>continuous servitude of the worker

This is only possible if you accept creationism tier ideas like the labor theory of value.

>give a Carte blanche to big coprorations

Are you kidding? Let's remember Steven Horwitz's First Law of Political Economy: “no one hates capitalism more than capitalists.” Big companies eat regulations for fucking breakfast. Regulations keep competition out of the market. With de-regulation these companies will be at the mercy of market forces.

[Anonymous No.6874062]

>>6874020
>third world country is incredibly poor

wow mate, who knew?

[Anonymous No.6874067]

[Anonymous No.6874069]

>>6873743
B8 or /pol/ degeneracy
2/10

[Anonymous No.6874070]

>>6874053
they crashed before they abandoned it kid.

>>6874056
>the economic system is completely unrelated to why they're poor
You really expect me to buy into this delusion?

[Anonymous No.6874071]

>>6874054
How many million did Stalin murder?

[Anonymous No.6874072]

>>6874020
how they raise the best atlhetes of latin america with those poor rations of food?.

[Anonymous No.6874075]

>>6873752
Are these kinds of posts bait or do people actually believe that because you have mcdonalds and microwaves in certain countries in the world that everything is just dandy?

[Anonymous No.6874076]

>>6874067
That "Socialism explained by Capitalists" section reads like it was written by a fourteen year old, which presumably it was.

[Anonymous No.6874077]

>>6874072
athletes*

[Anonymous No.6874079]

>>6874067

[Anonymous No.6874080]

>>6874062
it's poor because it tried marxism.

>>6874046
>>6874051
I'm sorry please show me your enlightened impartial websites that explain how cuba is a bastion of economic prosperity?

[Anonymous No.6874081]

>>6873843
here we go again...

[Anonymous No.6874084]

>>6874072
>state athletes are going to be allowed to starve

[Anonymous No.6874085]

>There are people in this thread right now who think the whole left is tanky or ML'er.

[Anonymous No.6874086]

>>6874067
Am I on /b/?

[Anonymous No.6874087]

>>6874020
His sources are his 'Mexican friends', some 404 blog, and a poll for Cubans who were already hospitalized. Lovely.

[Anonymous No.6874090]

>>6874067

how capitalism actually works.

[Anonymous No.6874091]

>>6873937
i love this meme

i'm not even being ironic. when i see spurdo i shit myself with internal laughter

[Anonymous No.6874094]

>>6874072
olympic athletes are usually a good measure of a country's average citizen.

get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.6874097]

>>6874079

[Anonymous No.6874098]

>>6873843
>sowell
>good critique of marxism
Ayy
Popper is better, unlike that nigga who does nothing but insulting poor lil' Karl.

[Anonymous No.6874100]

>>6874085
>There are people in this thread right now who aren't Hoxhaists

[Anonymous No.6874105]

>>6874070
>the economic system is completely unrelated to why they're poor
Poor is an awful term! Its relative. The economic systems of USSR, North Korea and Cuba increased the income of average citizen by ten times. Yes, they might be poor even after that, but does that not only imply even worse starting point that was left off by... capitalist-imperialism that preceded communist revolutions in these countries.

Seriously. GDP per capita of North Korea was 60 dollars (1990 dollar) a year when Korean War ended. Now its 973 (1990 dollars). That's over sixteen times more absolutely.

[Anonymous No.6874108]

>>6874090
LEL
E
L

[Anonymous No.6874109]

>>6874045
>"social fascists" are worse than actual fascists

They sure changed their tune after 1933.

[Anonymous No.6874110]

>>6874055
>I like receiving a subsistence level fraction of the total value I create for the capitalist!

[Anonymous No.6874111]

>>6874108
>mfw

[Anonymous No.6874114]

>>6874105
See
>>6874108

[Anonymous No.6874118]

>>6874084
>>6874094
you dont know how it works, do you ?

It is critical for an athlete to have good nutrition in their first years. If your nutrition is bad when you are a baby, you wont became an olympic athlete no matter what you do after that.

And is not like they pick babies that will became athletes at 0 years old. They just have a good nutrition overall.

[Anonymous No.6874121]

>>6874109
>"social fascists" are worse than actual fascists

Not what I said, but it's funny how communists get more flack for not working worth social democrats, than social democrats get for working with fascists.

[Anonymous No.6874124]

>>6874105
>Seriously. GDP per capita of North Korea was 60 dollars (1990 dollar) a year when Korean War ended. Now its 973 (1990 dollars). That's over sixteen times more absolutely.

>tfw North Korea is your success story

[Anonymous No.6874125]

>>6873979
Thats really stupid, m8.
Sure, certain regulations need to be in place for things to flow smoothly (for the capitalist) but many regulations get in the way of making capital, for example having food quality checks get in the way of using cheaper food products (more profit).

[Anonymous No.6874126]

>>6874060

How was LTV disproved, provide actual evidence or remain in silence.

>Are you kidding? Let's remember Steven Horwitz's First Law of Political Economy: “no one hates capitalism more than capitalists.” Big companies eat regulations for fucking breakfast. Regulations keep competition out of the market. With de-regulation these companies will be at the mercy of market forces.

Pure bullshit, Ancaps never try to hide how they really want a neo-feudalist state of affairs where the Big Companies swallow the small ones. This pseudo social darwinism going hand in hand with de-regulation benefits only the large globalised corporate conglomaretes.

[Anonymous No.6874127]

>>6874090
>the exploitative system raises the standard of living

I love this.

[Anonymous No.6874129]

>>6874121
socdems always played second fiddle to the liberal ruling class, that's why they're disappearing.

[Anonymous No.6874132]

>>6874118

Reminder that possibly the greatest boxer of all time was Cuban

[Anonymous No.6874135]

>>6874114
I mentioned the phenomen a few posts ago.

> Saying that Marxist economic made countries poor is senseless. Under it, every single regime's economy grew - just a bit slower than under some types of capitalism.


Its very difficult to call Marxism a bad or unusable system, when it achieves dramatic growth of GDP while also achieving much that capitalism does not even attempt to. Finland is a good example of this - the economy between 1945 and 1984 can be best described as a mix of the two rather than outright example of either. Private companies were not allowed to seek capital from abroad until 80s!

[Anonymous No.6874136]

>>6874118
Look faggot

If starving countries in africa can pump out Olympiads then failed socialists states can as well

you're point is bullshit

[Anonymous No.6874139]

>>6873979
Neither was orthodox Marxist.

The orthodox Marxists were the Mensheviks and they were btfo.

[Anonymous No.6874143]

>>6874127

It doesn't raise the standard of living but intensifies class opposition. The Capitalist class lowers wages even more or buys and owns more means of production, creating ahuge pool of exploited workers. Class antagonism is most explosive when large income inequality exists and the people are split to the haves and the have nots.

[Anonymous No.6874146]

>>6874118
you're completely right.

and you know what? Kenya usually has really fast runners in the olympics, I bet everyone in their country is super healthy and fast. Why come to think of it, I don;t know why they even call it the third world? they clearly have better nutrition than we do and if their olympic athletes are anything to go by, there is no starvation.

You're retarded, please don't post on this board anymore.

[Anonymous No.6874147]

>>6874135
>commies merely double in 90 years if that
>capitalist countries quadruple or more

>d-d-d-don't call it a failed system you reactionary shitlord

[Anonymous No.6874148]

>>6874136

What starving African countries produce great olympians? Ethiopia and Kenya have great long distance runners, but they're spooky skellys.

[Anonymous No.6874153]

>>6874126
>How was LTV disproved, provide actual evidence or remain in silence.

Because of marginalism. Value is subjective. That is how transactions are able to happen.

>Pure bullshit, Ancaps never try to hide how they really want a neo-feudalist state of affairs where the Big Companies swallow the small ones. This pseudo social darwinism going hand in hand with de-regulation benefits only the large globalised corporate conglomaretes.

Again, I am not an Ancap. And I just explained how regulations help established companies. Whether a small company overtakes a big one or vise-versa is context dependent.

[Anonymous No.6874155]

[Anonymous No.6874163]

>>6874081
he hasn't been refuted except
>that hurts my feelings don't insult my precious marx his theories sound so good in my ears!!!11

[Anonymous No.6874164]

>>6874148
Ethiopia and Kenya

[Anonymous No.6874165]

>>6874147
> Communism triples the GDP per capita in 45 years in addition to introducing labour unions, 8 hours work day, universal education, freedom of religion, bill of rights, universal healthcare and industry to Eastern European states
> Considered failure

[Anonymous No.6874172]

>>6874155
It sure is /meme/ in here.

[Anonymous No.6874174]

>>6874124
It's not a success story. North Korea is one of the worst performing socialist states in history, and even it managed to increase the GDP by 16 times.

[Anonymous No.6874175]

>>6874143
>The Capitalist class lowers wages even more

Why? When? Wages increase over time because of competition of labor.

>buys and owns more means of production

Which of course only means exploitation in a Marxist pseudo-metaphysical fantasy land.

>Class antagonism is most explosive when large income inequality exists and the people are split to the haves and the have nots.

Sounds right to me.

[Anonymous No.6874176]

>>6874155
>all applications of his theories have ended in failure

[Anonymous No.6874180]

>>6874175
>Which of course only means exploitation in a Marxist pseudo-metaphysical fantasy land
It's means that in the real world.

[Anonymous No.6874181]

>>6874164

I mentioned them, they are very slim-built. they look nothing like >>6874132

[Anonymous No.6874182]

[Anonymous No.6874188]

>>6874155

>muh wealth creators, I love business owners!

How does it feel to be a cuck?

[Anonymous No.6874190]

>>6874180
How?

[Anonymous No.6874191]

[Anonymous No.6874195]

>>6874121
The latter case ended a Stalinist chimp-out, while the former gave Germany to the Nazis.

I guess history will have to decide which was worse.

[Anonymous No.6874202]

>>6874195
Rosa Luxenbourg is a Stalinist?

[Anonymous No.6874204]

>>6874155
Editor of Rheinische Zeitung, served on the General Council of International Workingmen's Association, Journalist for the New York Daily Tribune.

Keep it up though, most people are actually drawn to communism by the shrill pettiness and desperation of it's enemies. You manage to sound like you're constantly losing so well that it gives them hope.

[Anonymous No.6874207]

>>6874176
China is neo-crypto-fascist

>>6874188
>mfw I am a merciful saintly job creator
You better be nice to me if you want some of that wealth to trickle down.

[Anonymous No.6874208]

>>6874164
Both combined have 46 gold medals vs 72 of cuba. They have 10 X the population of cuba, and only produce good runners for whatever reason.

Just because in cuba there is no burger king in every corner doesn't mean they are starving; deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6874213]

>>6874204
>served on the General Council of International Workingmen's Association

Kek come on m8, the first International wasn't a job

[Anonymous No.6874216]

>>6874191
The fact that he's a based fugitive might have something to do with it.

[Anonymous No.6874220]

>>6874182
>starves own children to death
citation?
>ideas kill people
haha

[Anonymous No.6874223]

[Anonymous No.6874224]

>>6874182
All worthwhile ideas kill people.

[Anonymous No.6874225]

>>6874204
>most people are actually drawn to communism by the shrill pettiness and desperation of it's enemies.
kek I'm shaking in my boots, please don't do another occupy wall street. It might last a whole 3 months next time you want to do your peaceful non-revolution.

marxists confirmed delusional cucks.

[Anonymous No.6874229]

>>6874213
It was a political office, though. Which was one of the claims in the bullshit barrage.

[Anonymous No.6874234]

>>6874224
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9OhYroLN0

[Anonymous No.6874240]

>>6874229
O okay, makes sense.

>>6874223
>le pithy quote from a cuck post

>>6874225
Communists aren't the ones sitting in the wallstreet, communists will shoot your ass in the streets.

[Anonymous No.6874247]

>>6874208
see
>>6874020

you're basing your idea of a country's poverty by the physical health of it's olympic athletes and whether or not they look "skinny" to you.

[Anonymous No.6874250]

>>6874247
>see national review

Go cuck yourself on your containment board.

[Anonymous No.6874254]

>>6874202
She rescinded much of her criticism of Marxism-Leninism before the end.

[Anonymous No.6874258]

>>6874165
>increase of litteral shit from 1973 to 1990
>good
LEL
E
L

WHICH STAGNANT ECONOMY ARE YOU PRAISING EXACTLY

[Anonymous No.6874260]

>>6874132
I've heard Ali refused to fight him because "muh rules" but maybe he was scared deep inside.

A few weeks ago I saw this monster killing the dragon.

[Anonymous No.6874261]

>>6874240
>communists will shoot your ass in the streets.
I'll see you in the revolution, my edgy brother

Let me know if your dad lets you bring your bb gun.

[Anonymous No.6874262]

>>6874223
Here come the macros.
The fact that Rothbard even said that is evidence he never even considered the differences between wages and capital.
If even the mightiest of Ancaps is willing to stoop that low...

[Anonymous No.6874264]

>>6874250
>i cant refute you
stay retarded.

[Anonymous No.6874265]

>>6874176
>post nixon china
>communist
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.6874277]

>>6874004
>>6874067
>>6874155
>>6874182
>>6874223
>>6874234
You're making antimarxists look like retards. Learn to discuss like a non retarded person or go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6874285]

>>6874261
Kek well meme'd my friend

[Anonymous No.6874291]

>>6874020
this is what would happen here if the communists had there way.

A marxist's utopia everybody.

[Anonymous No.6874292]

>>6874264
stay on /pol/ you cuck

[Anonymous No.6874303]

>>6874020
This is untrue. Beef is part of the Cuban's rations it is not always available however.

[Anonymous No.6874304]

>>6874277
>no memes allowed

[Anonymous No.6874306]

>>6874247
again, good luck making goat athletes from malnourished children.

But ok, is good to doubt, so look for undernourished rates by country. Cuba will surprise you.

If you wanna point failures of cuba protip: dont look for their literacy, nutrition , health or sport aspects.

[Anonymous No.6874321]

>>6874306
I'll just take your statement on faith, since you don't believe in citations or rational research or statistics.

seriously you give a bad name to marxists.

>>6874277
point to one non meme "discussion" in this whole thread.

[Anonymous No.6874335]

>>6874321
Kek
>told to look up statistics
>ur just a fanatic who doesnt believe in statistics

/pol/ cucks everybody

[Anonymous No.6874337]

>>6874265
Marxist not Communist

[Anonymous No.6874340]

>>6874321
see
>>6873947

[Anonymous No.6874347]

>>6874247
Let's base it on the HDI.

[Anonymous No.6874348]

>>6874337
>muh true scotsmen

it's over faggot

[Anonymous No.6874349]

If anyone wants a good, no-bullshit summary of Marxism, just read the first chapter of Anton Pannekoek's Workers' Councils. It lays out everything in simple terms.

[Anonymous No.6874351]

>>6874261
If he doesn't I'll ask my mom.

Nuthin' personal, kid.

[Anonymous No.6874354]

>>6874348
>doesn't know actual distinctions between Marxism and communism
/pol/ pls go

>>6874349
Noam what are you doing here

[Anonymous No.6874364]

>>6874354
>g-g-go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.6874372]

>>6874364
Yeah do go back, your discourse is literally memes and lack of any knowledge of anything.
Hope your shit board will get cucked again soon.

[Anonymous No.6874379]

>>6874364
How old are you?

[Anonymous No.6874382]

>>6874372
>socialism
>not a meme

[Anonymous No.6874389]

>>6874277
>>6874292
>>6874335
>>6874354
>losing an argument? just tell them to go back to /pol/
marxists argue like women.

[Anonymous No.6874392]

>>6874382
Kek
>one meme low resolution pic of one economic statistic proves I'm correct!

/pol/ why is everyone so dumb on your board?

[Anonymous No.6874394]

>>6874389
I'm not a marxist, which is why i'd like you to stop posting like a twelve year old that just discovered ebin meems.

[Anonymous No.6874395]

>>6874335
considering all the stats say cuba is starving and only delusional morons on this board and leftypol seem to think otherwise, yes I would like you cite your sources, an alien concept to a dilettante like yourself.

protip, not everyone who disagrees with you is from /pol/

[Anonymous No.6874398]

>>6874389
Better post some memes about women on the internet!

[Anonymous No.6874404]

>>6874398
>women are rational creatures
stay cuck

>>6874394
no u r le 12 year old

[Anonymous No.6874405]

>>6874382

According to that picture, Poland in '38 had a higher per capita gdp than France and the UK combined.

[Anonymous No.6874410]

>>6874392
>no statistic supports my argument so I will ridicule his.
it's a sad world you live in marxcuck

[Anonymous No.6874411]

>>6874395
https://www.wfp.org/countries/cuba/overview

[Anonymous No.6874412]

>>6874392
>d-d-don't you dare critique the failed economies of socialist countries
>socialism is a viable economic system shitlord

>>6874398
did we trigger you comrade?

>>6874335
>I post stats about the horrible fucking economies of the socialist countries and faggots like you post shit like this

go back to /pol/ if you post statistics i don't like
go back to /pol/ if you don't like the statistics i post

the creation science of economics

[Anonymous No.6874413]

>>6874395
All the stats? that you got from your reactionary shit magazine? That never had any agenda ever?

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_statistics.html
compared, with, say
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/brazil_statistics.html
or, say,
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/honduras_statistics.html

[Anonymous No.6874418]

>>6874412
Please just read a book or something. You're an embarrassment to the internet.

[Anonymous No.6874425]

>>6874395

What stats? The WHO's? A second hand anecdote on a blog is not evidence

http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/database/countries/who_standards/cub.pdf?ua=1

[Anonymous No.6874428]

>>6874418
>I have no argument
>please just go away

[Anonymous No.6874431]

>>6873703
Fist 6 chapters contain a lot of it.

Marxism is more complex than
>capital bad, gibe communism pls

[Anonymous No.6874432]

>>6874428
Seriously, how old are you? I'm genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.6874436]

>>6874405
sause?

[Anonymous No.6874437]

>>6874395
>all the stats
Then post some of them.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/health-index

[Anonymous No.6874439]

>>6874412

>Asks for statistics
>Gets presented with them
>Gets butt-hurt and lashes out with facebook-tier memes

[Anonymous No.6874445]

>>6874411
>Cuba imports 70 to 80% of its domestic food requirements. Most imports are for social protection programmes. Increasing domestic food production – particularly of beans, a main staple and a critical source of protein – is a government priority to substitute imports and improve food security.
>more than USD 20 billion in losses, with significant impacts on the economy and food security. Another threat to food security is the limited access to credit for farmers and low agriculture productivity
>Besides, generally poor food diversity – which has declined with changes in the subsidized food basket – combined with poor dietary practices has resulted in high rates of anaemia and other micronutrient deficiencies.

of the few stats given on this page not many of them support your argument. most of the food is imported from charities in capitalist countries, it has no statistics about poverty and starvation and malnutrition now because the government won't release those numbers. One of the many boons of living in a totalitarian marxist state.

Since you linked this page I have to assume you're reading comprehension is equivalent to that of an eleven year old. I have no further interest in discussing your delusion. please feel free to have the last word.

[Anonymous No.6874446]

>>6874432
>still no argument just rudeness
please no bully anon

>>6874439
m8 I never said cuba was starving that's someone else

Im just laffen socialists can post stats but we can't

[Anonymous No.6874463]

>>6874445
Dude.

http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProduct_TS.aspx?nvpm=1|||||07|||2|1|1|1|2|1|2|1|

[Anonymous No.6874464]

>>6874439
also
>a monument to the people murdered by the Soviets in Ukraine during the starvation genocide is a facebook tire meme
lol

[Anonymous No.6874465]

>>6874413
Underweight (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe
–
Underweight (%) 2008-2012*, severe
–
Stunting (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe
–
Wasting (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe
–
Overweight (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe
–
Vitamin A supplementation full coverage (%) 2012
–

it's convenient there are no statistics? I guess nobody in the whole country of eleven million people are starving.

[Anonymous No.6874470]

>>6874464
>the starvation genocide

kek, gtfo you banderaist

[Anonymous No.6874475]

>>6874470
>mfw someone denied a holocaust near me

[Anonymous No.6874479]

>>6874445
The thing is, even with these difficulties the people over there don't have to worry as much about enough to eat and medical treatment as someone in the US.
See >>6874437
>Cuba: 0.912
>US: 0.907

[Anonymous No.6874483]

>>6874479
>>6874437
>>6874445
>>6874411
>>6874463
i have no idea what any of this means

[Anonymous No.6874495]

With capitalism you get starvation whenever a countries population hasn't enough money to be a market but a nice climate to grow food on for people miles away in the northern hemisphere so they can buy strawberries and roses in December.
Without regulation, things are only produced if they sell for more than their production did cost, nobody asks if these things are needed or use up limited resources and labour that are needed for more important things.

[Anonymous No.6874500]

>Overthrow Baptista and rescue his country from the mob and American degeneracy
>Create a functioning society despite a 50+ year blockade by your neighbour
>Survive various coup and assassination attempts whilst going on to outlive all those who tried to get rid of you
>Cause massive butt-pain amongst Americucks and the treacherous Cuban exiles decades on

How can one man be so based?

[Anonymous No.6874506]

>>6874071
600 billions

[Anonymous No.6874513]

This whole thread and not a single post about Marx's theories. All you idiots seem to be able to do is point to countries (which is pathetic considering communism is stateless) and either glorify or condemn them.

>>6874153
>Economic value is subjective
https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/bukharin-on-the-subjectiveobjective-value-debate/

His youtube videos are a good introduction to Marx's Labour Theory of Value.

[Anonymous No.6874539]

>>6874060
>market forces would eliminate the need for regulation

Do people forget gilded age America? Or post-industrial England? How about the fact that the first steps of the free market resulted in mass starvation, sickness, and pollution?

These experiences necessitated regulation and welfare, hence their development.

>inb4 "states existed so it wasn't free"

If you're going to argue this line, please feel free to let us know what government policies created the economic forces that caused this.

[Anonymous No.6874561]

The state = a group of people who successfully claim the only legitimate use of force over territory
Socialism = the workers owning the means of production
Communism = a stateless, classless society where things are distributed from ability to need
The means of production = stuff used to produce like factories and machines
Personal property = stuff that is for personal use like your toothbrush and house
Private property = a social relationship between people who claim to own (the means of production) and those who are deprived. It requires violence from the state.
Capitalism = private property and wage labour used to extract surplus from the working class
Working class/proletariat = the people who have no option other than to work for a wage

[Anonymous No.6874587]

>>6874539
I didn't say we should have no regulation, we just have too much right now. Consumers must be protected against fraud and 3rd parties must be protected from external costs.

[Anonymous No.6874627]

>>6874500
He also played the biggest game of chicken in history with the US and won.

The guy's an absolute living legend.

[Anonymous No.6874643]

>>6874224

[Anonymous No.6874653]

>>6874627

I think it was actually Kruschev who blinked first (and God bless him for that). Fidel was pissed off that the USSR didn't stand firm though

[Anonymous No.6874661]

>>6874653
True, the USSR was the real loser in that stand-off, but it still didn't make the US look too good.

[Anonymous No.6874662]

>>6874060
>Are you kidding? Let's remember Steven Horwitz's First Law of Political Economy: “no one hates capitalism more than capitalists.” Big companies eat regulations for fucking breakfast. Regulations keep competition out of the market. With de-regulation these companies will be at the mercy of market forces.
The market can naturally keep competition out of the market without the help of regulations. Businesses love stable administered prices. Look into the empirical works of Gardiner Means.

Even if everything were deregulated, with administered prices dominating modern economies, the private sector itself would no doubt still overwhelmingly shun the flexible price system. Massive coercion and force would be needed to make private businesses conform to flexible price setting based on supply and demand curves.

Alternatively the state could furnish frequent, reliable statistics as to the cost of production, including that of raw material, wages and transportation, and also the selling price of the product in large industries. With such statistics, scientifically collected and authoritatively presented, whenever abnormal profits existed in any industry, the fact would be generally known; and idle and less remunerative capital would at once move in that direction. By this means the mobility and consequently the competitive influence of capital would be greatly increased, and the full benefits of large enterprises and improved methods of production would be secured to the community by the necessarily minimized prices and profits.

[Anonymous No.6874672]

>>6874500
>shoots dissidents
>jail anyone who speaks out against him
>provides material support to brutal terrorist organizations

>based

>socialists are this deluded

[Anonymous No.6874685]

>>6874265
lin biao plz go

[Anonymous No.6874686]

>>6874662
What is your point about administered prices? There are not many of those around as far as I'm aware.

[Anonymous No.6874694]

>>6874672
Oh, yeah, I forgot that he and Che shot a quinzillion pregnant women up against a wall too.

Keep on shillin' there.

[Anonymous No.6874695]

>>6874694
How many people did he execute?

[Anonymous No.6874700]

>>6874686
Mark-up pricing is very common:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ca/p/there-is-mountain-of-empirical-evidence.html

[Anonymous No.6874717]

>>6874382
>Communism doesn't produce goods worth a lot on the global market
Who wudda thunk it? Almost like they're not being capitalist, eh?

[Anonymous No.6874720]

>>6874672

>America has 25% of the world's prisoners
>Snowden is still in exile after blowing the lid on state spying on its people
>America gives aid to murderers like Carriles
>America and its proxies have killed millions in the last 60 years

Oy vey, remember those brave dissidents tried to get a foreign country to overthrow their leader!

Oy vey, remember the gorillion cubans!

[Anonymous No.6874721]

>>6874700
That's not administered pricing though.

[Anonymous No.6874734]

>>6873771
>How did Lenin's revolution exactly go into the shitter again?
You had me until this. If you need this explained to you then youre incredibly ignorant, and know nothing about Russia

[Anonymous No.6874746]

>>6873959
Both.

[Anonymous No.6874750]

>>6874720

imprisoning people for drug crimes is not shooting people for not liking obama

trying to imprison someone who gives state secrets to an enemy country that endangers our agents in the field is not the same as imprisoning people who oppose communism

Carriles is considered a terrorist by the US goverment

and that's right, every single death the US causes is unjustified


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
sing a new song reds


You aren't going to compare the US's faults to the horrors of a totalitarian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

[Anonymous No.6874780]

>>6874750
>You aren't going to compare the US's faults to the horrors of a totalitarian government
I'm not him but i've always found it funny how about every american knows shit like the tiananmen square protests but they don't know anything about the absolute bloodbath that is america's worker movement repression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_Massacre_%28Washington%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_massacre
etc.

[Anonymous No.6874784]

“In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State.” - Marx

"Marxism has always taught the workers that even their struggle for higher wages and shorter hours cannot be successful unless waged as an international struggle... The theory of the possibility of realizing socialism in one country destroys the inner connection between the patriotism of the victorious proletariat and the defeatism of the proletariat of the bourgeois countries... It is not yet too late to return to the path of Marx and Lenin. It is this return that opens up the only conceivable road to progress." - Trotsky

When asked if revolution was possible in only one country
"No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.” - Engles

"They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up." - Bakunin

Are any of you actually going to talk about Capital or are you going to bicker over states?

[Anonymous No.6874811]

>>6874780
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
25 deaths
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_massacre
5 deaths maybe more
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_Massacre_%28Washington%29
6 deaths
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_massacre
6 deaths

the horror of American tyranny

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
241–2,600
acceptable losses for the good of the revolution
those students were only counterrevolutionaries anyway right?

[Anonymous No.6874817]

>>6874750
You'll even use the repression of Anti-Revisionist Maoists by a capitalist power to plead your case.

[Anonymous No.6874827]

>>6874780
> absolute bloodbath
Let's see > 10,000 dead
Shouldn't be too hard to find
Even the medievals got up to that on the reg

[Anonymous No.6874830]

>>6874811
keep the straw men and the memes going

[Anonymous No.6874843]

>>6874811
The students where burning alive soldiers, how would you react if that happened at occupy wall street?

[Anonymous No.6874845]

>>6874830
>I'm going to compare the deaths of 42 people over the course of 13 years in the United States to the Peoples Republic of China killing 2600 people in a single protest
>STOP YOUR FUCKING STRAWMEN FASCIST MEMEING FUCK


YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

[Anonymous No.6874854]

>>6874843
Why don't we look at the situation in china that brought about the protests

What were they protesting for again?

Someone remind me

What would make 2600 people give their lives


Was it about wealth disparity?

Greedy corporations?

[Anonymous No.6874861]

>>6874854
>Was it about wealth disparity?

Yes it literally was, you dumb fuck, it was about corruption.

[Anonymous No.6874865]

>>6874845
>literally make up shit about me "accepting losses for the revolution"
>get mad when i point out you are using constant straw men
>every single post has 12 year old tier memes
>get mad when i point out you spout memes non stop
The fact is that every time a serious labour movement has arised in the united states, it was met by violent repression by the state, in coalition with certain corporations.

But you are too retarded to waste my time discussing with. Come back when you grow up and are able to discuss normally.

[Anonymous No.6874866]

>implying that comparing the US to China is comparing Capitalism to Communism
>implying China isn't Capitalist just like the USSR, Cuba or any other "Communist country" (oxymoron for the morons)

Why are people so retarded?

[Anonymous No.6874871]

>>6874865
American's national ideas of independence and self reliance kept the socialists out

It is completely foreign to our way of life

they never stood a chance here

no government repression made the socialist party fail to get more then 2% of the vote every election

[Anonymous No.6874876]

>>6874866
>muh true scotsmen

>>6874865
>>literally make up shit about me "accepting losses for the revolution"
>>get mad when i point out you are using constant straw men
it's not a strawman
it's just criticism

I know you don't believe that
i point it out to show everyone how crazy all communist governments are and the political system you argue for is


>laughing faces are memes
are you new?


there is no brutal repression of the labor movement in the United States
you have a fucking riot and 5 or 6 people get shot

that's it

[Anonymous No.6874880]

>>6874876

impartial lurker here- quit it with the fucking faces. It's annoying.

[Anonymous No.6874882]

>>6874865
Not that guy, but
>>6874780
is where you compare US labor repression to repression under totalitarian regimes. Not just stating the fact of US labor repression (which is reprehensible), but comparing it to state massacres orders of magnitude larger (which is ridiculous).

[Anonymous No.6874884]

>>6874876
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[Anonymous No.6874887]

>>6874876
>true scotsman
Do you even know what that means?
Communism = a stateless, classless society where things are distributed from ability to need.
Does this describe China? Cuba? USSR? Albania?

[Anonymous No.6874891]

>>6874884

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

[Anonymous No.6874898]

>>6447794
We are not discussing the ideas in Marx's literature. >>>pol

[Anonymous No.6874899]

>>6874884
Oh you mean after some labor unions started advocating a violent undemocratic revolution against the US government

You mean after a minority of groups started getting funding from the brutal oppressive totalitarian communist regime in the Soviet fucking Union?

When members of, a minority of labor unions, started convicted of espionage, terrorism and the like for attempting to start a violent undemocratic revolution against the US government

Yeah we didn't put up with that bullshit
People went to jail

[Anonymous No.6874901]

>>6874898
/pol/ isn't a politics board

[Anonymous No.6874903]

>>6874891
>b-b-b-b-b-but the US is a fascist organization you reactionary shitlord!

[Anonymous No.6874908]

>>6874899
>People went to jail

And where assassinated, but to go back to the original Tienanmen comparison, the protesters where backed by the Americans and wanted to overthrow the government, if cointelpro was justified then so is Chinese suppression of foreign funded "dissidents"

[Anonymous No.6874909]

marx was just a genius neet wizardchan and marxism is what happened when low-iq normies got hold of his work

[Anonymous No.6874910]

>>6874901
I know but we're not actually discussing politics, it's just shitflinging by people who don't even understand the politics they're defending and people actively engaging with them. It's like arguing with dumb kids who shout abuse at old ladies.

[Anonymous No.6874911]

>>6874891
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars

[Anonymous No.6874913]

>>6874019

Kek

[Anonymous No.6874917]

>>6874010
Don't try and fucking foist this off as just a Lefty issue.

The entire problem with the anarchist spectrum of politics is that we're all obsessed with the idea that things under the absolute ideal circumstances would be fantastic and utopian. We refuse to face the realities that systems are inherently established by humans, and even the most perfectly implemented version of any given system will be prone to profound human failings.

A 'Free-Market, Laissez-Faire Capitalist' system is just as naive and unrealistic as a 'Real, Perfect Marxist Communism,' because by nature they can't exist. They depend on the actions of hundreds of thousands acting in concert based on a defined set of doctrine or laws that are, for whatever reason, assumed to be right and perfect and just.

We would all do well to admit that the dependent factor in all these situations is peoples' willingness to make a better - not perfect, but at least less shitty - society, and that's something that neither capitalism nor communism can enact by force.

[Anonymous No.6874919]

>>6874908
how may people did this brutal organization kill?

give me some fucking numbers faggot

because I would have heard if the US army rolled up tanks on an Occupy Wall St. protest

[Anonymous No.6874920]

>>6874911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires#The_executions

[Anonymous No.6874922]

>>6874911
>implying either side was innocent in that

[Anonymous No.6874924]

>>6874898

>The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

>The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.

etc etc. I don't really see how you're supposed to separate Marx's ideas from their application when it was such an important aspect of his thought.

[Anonymous No.6874947]

>>6874175
>Why? When? Wages increase over time because of competition of labor.

Under what fucking metric?

In your magical, utopian land where employers without fail match wage increases with or slightly above the rate of real inflation?

In your magical, utopian land where people won't expressly do more work for less due to the circumstances of poverty?

In your magical, utopian land where labor is never at a surplus and the people who are actively looking for multiple jobs just to keep afloat, are simply lazy hooligans?

Christ, I'm not a Marxist, but do you ancaps even take a macroecon course in your lives? The idea that Unemployment doesn't exist has been repeatedly discredited by a ludicrous number of economists, left, right, and center.

[Anonymous No.6874950]

ITT: Muh ancaps

[Anonymous No.6874952]

>>6874780

the hypocrisy of capitalists apologists

[Anonymous No.6874957]

FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT NON OF YOU ARE ECONOMISTS, NOT EVEN STUDENTS OF ECONOMICS, AND SHOULD JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ONCE AND FOR ALL

[Anonymous No.6874962]

>>6874917
Are you actually an Anarchist or are you uneducated?
>systems are inherently established by humans, and even the most perfectly implemented version of any given system will be prone to profound human failings.
That's literally the point of Anarchism.

>They depend on the actions of hundreds of thousands acting in concert based on a defined set of doctrine or laws that are, for whatever reason, assumed to be right and perfect and just.
How many people are directly fighting in wars right now? How many are not? How many people who fight in those wars if they didn't have to for socio-economic reasons? Read more and get rid of your spooks, faggot.

>We would all do well to admit that the dependent factor in all these situations is peoples' willingness to make a better - not perfect, but at least less shitty - society, and that's something that neither capitalism nor communism can enact by force.
What is Egoist Anarchism.jpeg

>>6874924
When I was using the word politics I was referring to the actions of nation states, political parties etc. that are used and twisted either for political advantage or because they have no idea what they're talking about, basically pseudo-politics like /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6874965]

>>6874952
I'm a leftie and that picture is stupid as fuck. In a sense it's fitting, since /pol/tards that have invaded /lit/ use pics as retarded, but you still should avoid this kind of shit.

[Anonymous No.6874971]

>>6874952
>every war EVER is the soul fault of capitalism

>>6874880
I'm sorry m8 but that pic is just to bad
last one i swear

[Anonymous No.6874974]

>>6874952
>1492
>monarchy is capitalism

Why don't we throw Alexander the Great's wars in there too

[Anonymous No.6875001]

>>6874957
>SOME PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS THAN I DO
>OTHER PEOPLE ARE MAKING MY IDEAS LOOK BAD
>SHUT UP

m8.

[Anonymous No.6875004]

>>6874974

>what are chartered companies

The colonization of the Americas was one of the first great capitalist enterprises.

[Anonymous No.6875030]

>>6875004
Columbus: Financed by monarchs
Cortes: Financed by governor < viceroy < monarchs
Pizarro: Financed by monarchs
The colonization of the Americas - certainly the part where hundreds of millions of natives were killed - was one of the last great monarchist enterprises.

[Anonymous No.6875034]

>>6873795

This is not a legitimate argument because there is no necessary relationship between Lenin's revolution and Stalin's dictatorship. Nor is one even possible. Making like three or four historical examples an inevitable rule or law is pants on head retarded mate.

[Anonymous No.6875049]

Why don't you tell us about US imperialism in Latin America? How many people died to US-backed regimes, whose goal was to impose capitalism by terrorism and repression?

[Anonymous No.6875074]

>>6873703
The German Ideology
The anti-Duhring

Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Wage-labour and Capital

[Anonymous No.6875087]

>>6874165

Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in the world.

[Anonymous No.6875115]

>>6875074
If you want something shorter than the German Ideology and the anti-Duhring, read Ludwig Fueurbach and the End of Classical German Philosopher, and Socialism:Scientific and Utopian, respectively, instead.

[Anonymous No.6875134]

Marx never argues Capital = bad. Capital is not merely money but the network of forces, material, and exchanges that go into production. For instance, if you have a cornfield, Capital encompasses the seed, the land, the plough, whatever was used to obtain the aforementioned, the harvesting equipment, and the money accrued from the sale of the corn.

What Marx argued against was the surplus vale extracted from the worker. That is in order to cover all costs of production, the worker only has to work 6 hours a day. The capitalist, by monopolizing the land, the seeds, and the machinery, requires 8 hours of labour to line her pockets. The extra two hours worth of labour are essentially just passive income for the capitalist.

[Anonymous No.6875142]

>>6875134
And if they didn't get that income the job would not exist at all.

[Anonymous No.6875154]

>>6875142
The means of prodiction would still exist, but in socialized form instead of being private.

[Anonymous No.6875164]

>>6875142
Wage-labour and Capital are a social relation that condition each other and bring each other into existence. According to Marx, the relation is like between a borrower and lender. Only if a lender lends to a borrower, is the lender borrower relation established. The social relation is reproduced due to myriads of circumstances that keep the system afloat.

Oh and another of Marx's arguments is that even though Capital can gain immense profits, very little fall down to the worker, and to do so would be to endanger capitalist profit, ergo the relative wages of the worker to the capitalist has a tendency to go down.

[Anonymous No.6875165]

>>6875154
Which is subject to the tragedy of the commons

[Anonymous No.6875169]

>>6875164
Wages tend to go up through competition. Labor is a scarce resource like any other that is bid for through prices.

[Anonymous No.6875181]

>>6875169

LOL.

Labour is omnipresent in both potential and realized forms. The poster who mentioned that capitalism requires an unemployed labour pool to drive wage competition was correct.

You're just plain wrong.

[Anonymous No.6875187]

>>6875169

Labour is a resource like any other. Don't you see how that's just a little bit dehumanizing? Say it out loud. Try it on for size.

[Anonymous No.6875188]

>>6875169
Relative wages are the wages of the worker in relation to capitalist profit. Nominal and real wages can go up as a result of a myriad of reasons, but the relative wages tend to go down when the capitalist produces more profit as time goes own. The capitalist profit goes up, while the workers' nominal wage stays either constant or is marginally raised. Either way, the income of the capitalist stays much higher than his workers.

[Anonymous No.6875199]

>>6875181
>capitalism requires an unemployed labour pool

What as in people entering the market?

>>6875187
We are discussing economics. Maybe you should go to calm down and return when you are no longer triggered by terminology.

>>6875188
>Either way, the income of the capitalist stays much higher than his workers.

Everyone already knew that. It is really incredible that you take Marx's ideas as axiomatic in spite of mountains of empirical evidence and economic thought contradicting his ideas.

[Anonymous No.6875205]

>>6875199

>playing the triggered card

okey dokey. We've got a clever one here. A mind-reader too. Don't break your crystal ball on those edges.

[Anonymous No.6875215]

>>6875199
I remember watching an interview of Richard Wolff. I personally think he's a wanker, but he did introduce an idea to me.

In American Universities, there is one subject that has two departments: the Economics department and the Business department. The Economics department is where you learn to praise and uplift the system as being a good system. The Business department is where you learn real economics; how to run a business and so on. The problem with Marxian economics is that is does neither. You won't find justification for the reproduction of capitalist social relations in Marx's economic writings, and neither will you find sound business advice.

>triggered by terminology.
He's probably referring to the fact that capitalism dehumanizes people by reducing labour into a commodity. Personally, I think taking a moral high-road is stupid.

[Anonymous No.6875217]

>>6875199
I'm not him but i'd like to know what empirical evidence contradicts which marx ideas.
Also worth noting is that wages aren't determined by scarcity according to mainstream economics, but by their marginal contribution. Which is of course ridiculous if you look at the massive swings wages make from social policies and other stuff.

[Anonymous No.6875245]

>>6875215
I'm not sure any economist would agree with the current system on either side of economic debates. The business department is not "real economics". You could call it microeconomics. A scientist might study waves in the ocean, but a surfer is not a "real scientist" because he takes advantage of the waves.

>>6875217
>what empirical evidence contradicts which marx ideas
Try the development of modern civilization.

[Anonymous No.6875257]

>>6875245
>Try the development of modern civilization.
as in?

[Anonymous No.6875258]

Don't trust ideology over thirty.

[Anonymous No.6875267]

How many of you marxists actually have a job, or have ever been employed by someone other than family?

[Anonymous No.6875268]

>>6875245
>Try the development of modern civilization.
I'll try "i made ship up in hopes nobody would ask" instead.

[Anonymous No.6875272]

>>6875257
The standard of living in the 1st world... Look at what happened when India and China began to favor more capitalist free-market policies, look at what happened when Lenin implemented his new economic policy in the 1920s

[Anonymous No.6875276]

>>6875267
this one in the pic has a job.

He is capitalist, a marxist capitalist.

[Anonymous No.6875333]

>>6875272
Western welfare states were propped up as a consequence of radical left agitation. Ever since the death of radicalism in the West, the social-democratic welfare states are slowly falling apart without a violent sector to keep capital in check.

India was never socialist, not even remotely. Marxists aren't Keynesians. Also, much of India still lives in dire poverty.

War Communism was always seen to be temporary. The Russian Revolution hinged apon the idea that their revolution would spark a world revolution that would bring relief to war-torn Russia, but the revolutions in Germany, Hungary, and Finland were brutally crushed by counterrevolutionary forces.

Under China and the USSR, the bureaucracy figured out that capital accumulation works better under a market economy then under pseudo-socialist state-capitalism. China (and Maoism in East Asia) in particular is interesting because it's revolution was backed by progressive petty-bourgeoisie and peasants rather than the industrial proletariat.

One thing you have to keep in mind is that Marx wasn't a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-capitalist to the point where everything associated with capitalism is automatically bad. He actually supported free-market capitalism over conservative protectionism because he believed that bourgeois social relations (and economic development) are a necessary precursor to any proper form of socialism.

[Anonymous No.6875348]

>>6875333
>necessary precursor to any proper form of socialism

So, when is this gonna happen again?

[Anonymous No.6875405]

>>6874971
It's satire criticising the deaths attributed to communism

[Anonymous No.6875799]

>>6875405
What you mean when communists shot people for not being communist?

What is the comparison to that?

[surrealdeal No.6877109]

pussy is the means of production

that feel when it all makes sense