Is this a valid critique of Marx?
>>1028092
If you accept as hominems to be valid
I don't agree with Marx but the image is basically ad hominem.
if you think it is you belong in a gulag
>>1028092
Marx's ideas are incredibly flawed but they'd be flawed even if he was part of the proletariat class
>>1028092
The third, fourth and final point are bald lies. The second point requires a state centred analysis that is tendentious to the point of dishonesty.
Ad hominems aren't valid.
And that isn't a critique.
So it is not a valid critique.
>>1028103
>proletariat
proletarian is the adjective, proletariat is the noun.
>>1028092
No, but this is.
He was a Champagne Socialist.
>>1028092
Charles Darwin
>Wasn't a finch
>Wasn't a turtle
>Never evolved
>Fucked his cousin
Considered by many to be the most influential biologist of all time.
We have still never seen a rock turn into a lizard.
>>1028432
>>1028432
>We have still never seen a rock turn into a lizard.
But we have seen countries turning into poop.
>>1028092
Not even close.
I thought insane, right-wing capitalists thought that everything was a market. We can thus interpret Marx's life as him being PAID by Engels for producing great philosophical works. It's totally a valid interpretation under market economics.
Also, the phrase "all applications of his theories have ended in failure" is an absolutely absurd statement beyond my comprehension.
I think he was wrong but not because he didn't own a factory. I don't know a single fucking person who owns a factory, and I'd bet that's the same with most of the people I know.
>>1028441
Only semi-Asiatic tankies believe that their Soviet barbarism was anywhere close to Marxist scientific socialism.
>>1028482
You forgot about the old men of the orthotrots
>>1028539
Remind me to stab you to death.
>>1028551
~ivalid agurment
>>1028098
Within the realm of Marx, it is.
>>1028441
Rekt.
>>1028441
>use numbers from 1990 when those economies basically collapsed due to neoliberal "shock therapy"
C'mon now. Communism was a shit episode but that's not fair.
>>1028092
>Never had any job
Uhhh wasn't Marx quite a famous journalist in his earlier life?
And pretty sure his job was essentially an academic/writer, for example he was commissioned to write the Communist Manifesto.
>>1028092
Only the last phrase
>>1029401
Also IIRC, though don't take my word for it at all becuase I can't even really remember where I read it.
But I recall reading some economists discussing how the way we measure soviet economics is inherantly going to make them look worse off than they are.
Only part with failures in applications is legit. You can be a good theoretic without much practice in the field so most of arguments are retarded here.
>>1029526
>But I recall reading some economists discussing how the way we measure soviet economics is inherantly going to make them look worse off than they are
Yes, GDP isn't designed for planned economies. And at any rate their economies worked in a generally flawed but workable fashion up until the last decade or two when problems showed up from a lack of political drive to modernize the economies, made even worse by the militarism inherent to bureaucratic government.
>>1028482
That is what you get when you apply Marxism to reality. There's no way around it. His theories have been thoroughly empirically debunked by reality and philosophically he was torn to pieces by Karl Popper.
Marx was a shitty human being.
Marxism is a set of ideas, separate from the human being.
>>1028092
all that shit is appeal to authority
only the bottom part can qualify as 'critique'
>>1028092
No. Why should direct experience be more important than decades of rigorous theory?
Nobody mocks Adam Smith for being a full-time intellectual
>>1028441
Why the fuck should GDP define the well-being of a population?
It doesn't mean shit if a third of your people are starving
>>1028098
Do you even know what an ad hominem is?
>>1029622
Damn, I hate that in that picture they place Milton Friedman beside those shits rand and the ancap retard. I always see socialists critique ancaps, because ancap is the only idea worse than their own.
Yes.
Marx is a joke and so is marxism.
>>1028092
It's not even a critique. Why do you think it is?
>>1029401
http://knoema.com/pjeqzh/gdp-per-capita-by-country-1980-2014?country=Poland "shock treatment" is like cutting away gangrene, sore at first, but good in the long run.
For those who think that we can't criticize Soviet economics from a liberal perspective, that is perhaps true. However, I can't remember where, but I read that a critique (i.e. from the internal logic. Many obviously from leftist scholars too) is more destructive and brutal than narrowminded strawmanning from liberal ones. For example, if you examine how the factory optimization works. It's not with that stupid 'muh market input calculation problem' approach and argument, and only pure math. You'll find that the bureaucratic meddling was inherent within the system, entirely from the top into the bottom, in order to cut down the myriads of conditional problem, with each slowing down the cog. If the choice is to cut it down, obviously the quality of the goods decrease too from the ideally desired ones.
It gets even worse if you use 'historical materialist' perspective, as there's no way the statement 'there is no need for a revolution in a socialist state' could hold water.
Correct me if I'm wrong, It's been a while since I read all of those outda-I mean abandoned theories.
>>1029710
Because the only places with a high GDP where people are starving adhere to a vaguely socialistic or communistic form of government or are in Africa.
>>1030251
Marxism is a method of critique, not a positive programme. Read the fucking sticky.
Marx also was a avid racist. He basically hated Slavs, Balkan peoples and was a Zionist. Look at how many quotes he had regarding them.
>>1028092
There is a small chance he was born some kind of supergenius, it is possible he came up with a few good ideas, but realistically in order to be the "greatest social, political andd economic philosopher of all time" you would expect him to have a good background, the same reason you would expect the greatest programmer or the greatest swimmer to have the necessary background.
>>1028092
No, in fact the only part that could be considered even remotely valid would be "all applications of his theories have ended in failure" until you start reading him ad find out that the statement is kind of absurd.
>>1028092
Nope.
This is a simple statement of Marx, not relevant to his theory.
Nevertheless, the thesis of objective value has been disproved for a century and a half, and all Marxism should have fallen with it, not for the fact that Marxists do not usually read or think.
>>1028092
Not in the slightest.
Marx did have a job, he worked as a journalist, on top of that, him, his wife, and his children did live in some really poor conditions over the years.
>>1028551
edgy
>>1030587
>Shit is valuable because people give it value!
Disgraceful. Economics will never be a science thanks to you.
>>1030882
>>Shit is valuable because people give it value!
You post this like its a silly statement but its quite obviously true
>>1031076
Value is irrelevant. Price is determined by market factors.
Prove be wrong.
>>1028098
What critique?
>>1030697
How is the Friedman one an insult?
He read Adam Smith and got everything wrong.
>>1030697
and he is still alive
>>1028098
That isn't ad hom it's reverse appeal from authority.
The man has no credentials so anything he says must be invalid. - Not a valid critique.
It's an easy and intuitive mistake to make. People may have valid or "good" ideas (whatever that means) even if they are the most despicable, unvetted, idiots you have ever seen. Unlikely but possible.
>>1028092
You'd think 40 million Chinese would suffice as valid critique of Marx.
>>1032555
Go back to the grave, RJ Rummel
>>1031097
>>1031097
The price of anything is basically the sum ( or weighted average, whatever) of the psychological values people attribute to it in relation to other stuff.
>Value is irrelevant. Price is determined by market factors
'Market factors' are not some magical laws of the universe that give shit values and price. The market is people.
>>1028441
Socialism isn't being a viable economic theory doesn't mean that ad cheap ad hominems count as a valid critique of someone
>>1030697
I love how while that targets the economist it can, it leaves out Von Mises, the influential austrian economist and mentor to Rothbard. He was a soldier, worked with market systems involving real estate, and had practical experience working with economic theory. Also, being a government bureaucrat is still more practical experience then whatever Marx did.
>>1028482
>Marxist socialism
>scientific
Quality post friendo
