Reminder that capitalism is about estranging labor from the value of what they produce. The history is absolutely clear on this.
Karl Marx was right about everything.
How do you define the value of a product?
>>1028435
actually modern capitalism doesn't even involve much labor, mostly speculation.
>fast moving towards a post labor society.
>>1028451
socially necessary labor time
>>1028456
i bet you whine about the "totalitarian regressive left" inbetween making such statements, but i'll tell you why. the right wingers on this board are entirely ignorant of history and philosophy, they come here to shitpost. marx is both history AND philosophy, so he's pertinent and on-topic.
>>1028435
Marx was wrong about how society and civilizations actually develop.
>>1028457
>actually modern capitalism doesn't even involve much labor, mostly speculation.
pic related. maybe there's not much labor necessary in western societies, but there's plenty of global labor who are estranged even further from the value of their products.
I'm fine with Marxposting tbqh, at least he doesn't have a smug face like Sam Harris or John Green
>make a thread about Marx
>right-wingers flood and start shitposting
What is it about Marx that makes right-wingers so fucking hysterical?
>>1028472
I made that exact post. What's a "straw man" about it? Marx got paid by Engels for his service because Engels liked it that much. That's a capitalist (purported) wet dream.
>Reminder that capitalism is about estranging labor from the value of what they produce.
>let me OBJECTIVELY assess what happens in the world with intangible metaphysical axioms that can be neither proven nor refuted
Karl Popper was right about Marxism when he said it's a kooky unfalsifiable crap that just pretends to be scientific.
>>1028478
You are putting words into their mouth.
>>1028457
Read volume 3 regarding unproductive labour and finance capital.
>>1028474
To be fair, he's a thinker that's entirely antithetical to their beliefs.
>>1028469
even in China automation is improving. there's not enough work to go around and the state/private sector often over-employ. plus the Chinese themselves are increasingly becoming a consumption and speculation society.
Capitalism isn't 'about' anything. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.
>>1028435
>Reminder that capitalism is about estranging labor from the value of what they produce. The history is absolutely clear on this.
This doesn't establish the moral circumstances of alienation of value, nor does it establish that capitalism inevitably results in crises ("recessions").
>>1028488
Scientific meant something different at that point. It was "scientific" in that it involved actual analysis of social and economic relations, rather than hinging on an ideological or moralistic premise.
>>1028488
Preferring Popper's metaphysics to any other metaphysics doesn't make Popper correct. Might also want to read Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend on the limits of "falsifiability" as an abstract epistemological claim and as an actual social force in science as a human practice.
>>1028488
>You are putting words into their mouth.
The criticism is that Marx "never had a job". I'm pointing out that in any capitalist understanding of markets, he actually did. They just interpret events in a specific way, on purpose, to make Marx look bad. It's just biased slander.
>>1028495
Yes, and that's why labor is shifting away from China again. Capitalists will always find the cheapest workers to exploit.
>>1028490
Maxism breaks down in an economy of intangible values....ie all modern economies.
>>1028505
Or Quine, who took Popper's falsifiability criteria of science and showed they don't pass their own tests, making Popper a dogmatic anti-Marxist just as much as Marx is dogmatic himself.
>>1028513
>Maxism
Stirner did get blasted by Marx pretty damn hard.
>in an economy of intangible values
It looks like you misread Volume 1 on what the commodity is. It isn't a physical object, it is a use (ie: sale) and a value (ie: embodied sold socially necessary labour).
"Intangible" commodies are merely the result of higher OCCs, and thus experience super-profits relative to the average rate of profit AND require less labour causing the crisis of realisation to become more extensive.
>>1028521
Nice one. Hypocrisy isn't the be all and end all of argument, but it is for Popper's argument because it demands anti-hypocritical argumentation.
>>1028525
>Stirner did get blasted by Marx pretty damn hard.
Wasn't Marx's response mostly just a string of insults that never actually attacked the substance of Stirner's argument?
>>1028530
>Wasn't Marx's response mostly just a string of insults
Yes, but you'll never get a Marxist shitposter to admit it.
>>1028435
Labor wouldn't be employed in the first place without capitalists.
>>1028542
>But, yes, Marx also demolished Stirner's egoism.
How so? Also, I never presented such a dichotomy, you schmuck. I never said a string of insults was incapable of attacking the substance of argument, just that his did not.
2016 after l.v. mises and you still talkin bout this guy
kek
wake up nigga
>>1028458
ikr, there's an Anti-fascist thread going on right now and I saw multiple Marx-related threads before. I guess cause it's Friday night in the U.S. and all the Kiddies don't have school tomorrow.
>>1028548
>Mises
Not respected by economists of any importance, google "neoclassical economics faults"
>>1028545
By historicising the ideal.
>>1028542
>Marx also demolished Stirner's egoism
No, Stirner's egoism demolished Marx.
>>1028564
kek.
>>1028543
*fedora*
Seriously you have to turn a blind eye to history to have beliefs like this.
>>1028561
It is amazing indeed! I'll never again doubt the word of Marx, prophet of the communal faith, so well did you explain the two great points of jack and shit.
>>1028559
>Not respected
He refuted socialist economy, it doesn't matter if you respect him or not.
>>1028568
Labour wouldn't be employed in the first place without capital. Human effort only takes on the form of wage labour in relation to capital. Try reading some history of work.
>>1028435
Estranged labor is the cost of efficiency, Capitalism is too competitively advantageous not to exist. For all of Marx's so called focus on the big picture, he completely failed to look at the national competitiveness that forces countries into industrialization and Capitalism. Anarchy is impossible, centralized powers are inevitable, and so countries that don't adopt Capitalism will be pushed aside by those that do. Existence isn't a right, it must be earned.
The labor theory of value is a clunky economic system that Marx wrote for the sole purpose of polemicizing against Capital. It doesn't add anything economic, it only elevates the role of labor and completely forgets the spontaneous organization of Capital viz. the invisible hand.
Marx made some interesting contributions, but the main body of his work is complete and utter shit
>>1028574
In the process. So far it seems to lack substance, and paints Marx a bit... spergy.
>>1028573
>this is what capitalists really believe
>>1028580
It is what Marxists believe. It is what social democrats believe. It is what anarchists believe.
Useful human activity is not subsumed by the category labour except in capitalist society.
>>1028580
>Guys peasants used to farm autonomously so our hyper-complex society can be horizontal as well.
Yeah totally bro, democratize the means of production what could go wrong
GOMMIES GET OUT
>>1028568
The distinction between someone who's a laborer and who's a capitalist is mostly arbitrary.
Is an employee who owns stock in the company he works for considered a capitalist? At what point does the person become a capitalist or a laborer? Are CEO's part of labor in public companies even though they have ample power but don't own much stock compared to stockholders?
>>1028579
And Stirner is not?
Btw the fundamental criticism of Stirner is, regardless of what you consider "yours", the world still works in certain material ways and you'll be prevented from acting on that belief. It doesn't free you from material constraints.
It's impossible to refute cuz it's correct.
>>1028578
>For all of Marx's so called focus on the big picture, he completely failed to look at the national competitiveness that forces countries into industrialization and Capitalism.
Except in his journalism on China, or in Capital.
>The labor theory of value is a clunky economic system that Marx wrote
Think you mean Smith and Ricardo. Marxian LTV is predicated on social necessity and actual realisation. Also it isn't an economic system, it is an analysis of capital, not just a polemic.
>it only elevates the role of labor[sic]
I see you've not read Volumes 2 or 3.
>>1028588
>At what point does the person become a capitalist or a laborer?
Power to hire & fire (IWW)
>>1028590
>And Stirner is not?
Not particularly. He doesn't spend most of his book nitpicking the minutiae of the language of the things he critiques.
>Btw the fundamental criticism of Stirner is, regardless of what you consider "yours", the world still works in certain material ways and you'll be prevented from acting on that belief. It doesn't free you from material constraints.
But that's not really a criticism of Stirner, as there's nothing within the Ego and Its Own that would say differently. When he suggests slaves recognize the ownership of themselves they already possess, it doesn't mean that they're suddenly free from the whips and chains they've been subjected to.
>>1028597
The head of HR decides weather to fire or hire employees. Yet he is an employee himself who owns no stock in the business and thus does not own the means of production and can be fired by his senior manager, who can also be fired.
Indeed even in partnerships, the board can vote to strip a "owners" of all firing and hiring decisions.
>>1028593
>Except in his journalism on China, or in Capital.
If he admits that Capital is competitively necessary, then under what circumstances will socialism rise up? All it takes is one militaristic country to fuck up the global revolution.
>I see you've not read Volumes 2 or 3
Stop name dropping chapters; you've done this repeatedly throughout the thread, it makes you sound like an arrogant 17 year old. If you want to have a conversation, reply with information instead of smarmy bullshit.
>>1028526
it's not.. hypocrisy.. it's a contradiction
>>1028601
>Not particularly. He doesn't spend most of his book nitpicking the minutiae of the language of the things he critiques.
his work isn't a criticism of that sort. Marx doesn't nitpick when he critiques culture either
>But that's not really a criticism of Stirner, as there's nothing within the Ego and Its Own that would say differently.
Probably, I believe Stirner and Marx are closer than Marx realized. But it is absolutely true that Stirner failed to address the material side of anything
>>1028642
>But it is absolutely true that Stirner failed to address the material side of anything
Why should he? His book was about addressing how you interact with the world around you, a matter which is entirely ideological.
>his work isn't a criticism of that sort. Marx
doesn't nitpick when he critiques culture either
From what I've read so far, Marx has been mostly just picking at Stirner's odd choice of language.
>>1028609
>Yet he is an employee himself who owns no stock in the business and thus does not own the means of production and can be fired by his senior manager, who can also be fired.
Ownership isn't formal, it is control. It is like you've not done any reading at all in the area you're attempting to talk about. Maybe that's because you've not done any reading at all in the area you're attempting to talk about.
>Every country that has ever been successful has been capitalist.
I just laugh every time people bring up Marx, despite all the obvious evidence which is counter to his theories, edgy contrarian teenagers still try to talk about him like he's worth anyone's time.
>>1028639
>If he admits that Capital is competitively necessary, then under what circumstances will socialism rise up?
When the crisis of capital causes it to be less competitive than free production by labour in its own sublation. For example, GNU is sufficiently competitive to have eliminated almost all private Unix toolsets. GNU is zero priced and made by voluntary labour. In the field of Unix toolsets, socialism has triumphed over capitalism by out competing it.
>>1028639
You're the one attempting to critique Marx without having read him. Marx spends the majority of the three volumes discussing the limits and potentials of entrepreneurial function. Labour, in Capital, appears SOLELY as the object of Capital's genius.
YOUR ATTEMPTED CRITIQUE OF MARX COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE WRONG, CHIEFLY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T READ MARX AND PRODUCED A STRAWMAN FROM YOUR OWN ARSEHOLE.
>>1028655
Control that can be stripped away at any moment, by fellow employees no less. Is that really control when its not absolute? Its merely borrowed power by the consent of others.
Take for example this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publix
Every person that owns stock in this company, and thus owns part of the means of production, for this company is an employee that can be fired.
>>1028552
This 2bh
Have you ever met someone who described themselves as a 'Marxist' or fan of communism who was over the age of 24 and not a student?
Personally, when I look at society, I see Marxist view far more relevant to how the real world works, than modern marginal theory.
Marginal price formations is fucking weird because studies upon studies have shown in the real world, it's a load of fucking bullshit, but it's still considered the core of mainstream economic theory.
>>1028671
>Is that really control when its not absolute?
You answer yourself.
>>1028673
David Harvey
>>1028680
Sounds to me that the one who should be doing reading is you.
The complexities of the modern corporate world cannot be placed in the black and white schema that was prevalent during Marx's time: workers who just owned their own labor, and capitalists who just owned the means of production.
The world has gotten way more gray.
>>1028664
>>Every country that has ever been successful has been capitalist.
Not true prima facie.
>>1028689
No it hasn't, it's gotten larger but the fundamentals are still right there screaming at you.
>>1028693
Then why can I find plenty of examples where your cutoff point "the power of hired and fired" does not indicate ownership of the means of production?
>>1028689
So Marx treats control over the means of production in a subtle and complex way, and this is too black and white for you.
GJ!
>>1028667
>Capital will lose because capital will have a crisis that causes it to lose. Here's one exceptional example to prove this.
Circular, shit argument. You make some strong assertions, with little to no evidence. Reading Marx biblically will do that.
>read Marx!
Read Capital and all Marx does is describe how Capitalists exploit labor, he never outright compliments the ingenuity of Capitalism.
You keep yelling out things like strawman, but you fail to explain why, and your answers to my questions are flimsy at best. Logical fallacies and a photographic memory of Capital won't get you far, it seems
>>1028698
Don't quote if you mangle the fucking quote idiot.
The power to hire and fire adequately explains the relationship. If you want more, start with Lukacs' History and Class-consciousness.
>>1028435
Eh.
Capitalism will keep on going because the world powers are invested in it. Even communist countries.
That said, it might break down because of automation when enough low skilled people are put out of work because of advances in technology. Not everyone can be robot engineers.
Then again... The powers that be might just put all the unemployed into camps.
>>1028488
>Karl Popper was right about Marxism when he said it's a kooky unfalsifiable crap that just pretends to be scientific.
le unfalsifiable meme
>>1028706
>The power to hire and fire adequately explains the relationship.
It does not. I just gave you an example where the power to hire and fire does not indicate a person being a capitalist.
Unless you want to say CEOs and HR managers are not employees.
>>1028704
>Circular, shit argument.
A circular argument treats its terms as conclusions. My argument regarding Marx's supposition for the conditions for socialism referenced a concrete economic example. If you'd like another example, the installed base of Linux on smart devices, such as the Galaxy, is indicative of its success as a socialist production in out competing capitalist production.
>You make some strong assertions, with little to no evidence.
I gave you a solid fucking example. Pull in your rhetoric, because it makes you look fucking stupid when you're demonstrably wrong.
>he never outright compliments the ingenuity of Capitalism.
Volume 1, Chapter 31, "The governor-General took part in this private traffic. His favourites received contracts under conditions whereby they, cleverer than the alchemists, made gold out of nothing. Great fortunes sprang up like mushrooms in a day; primitive accumulation went on without the advance of a shilling."
And so on. Please, prove yourself wrong some more.
>>1028711
CEOs and HR managers aren't wage labourers.
>>1028708
"capitalism is inevitable" meme
>>1028721
>If you'd like another example, the installed base of Linux on smart devices, such as the Galaxy, is indicative of its success as a socialist production in out competing capitalist production.
generally open-source developers are left-wing as fuck, too.
>>1028723
>Aren't wage laborers
>HR managers
Most HR managers get most of the income from wage labor. They get paid a salary plus a bonus for performance with some getting stock options, but not all, and is certainly not large enough to say that they "own" the company. CEOs are the same, but they get more stock options. Some are majority stock holders, others are not.
>>1028733
Again, you're resorting to formalism rather than the substantive relationship. HR managers, like police, are paid as the hangers on and attendants of capital. You are calling the Earl's household troops members of the 3rd estate.
>>1028597
So that means that if I own 30% of GE stock I'm not a capitalist? Cool.
>>1028721
>Volume 1, Chapter 31
Lets look at that in its broader context faggot.
>Volume 1, Chapter 31, "The officials themselves fixed the price and plundered the unfortunate Hindus at will. The Governor General...(Your bullshit cherry picked quote goes here) ...primitive accumulation went on without the advance of a schilling."
So no, faggot, he's not complimenting capital he's talking shit about government enforced monopolies, in this case the East India Company. And Primitive accumulation is the unfair accumulation of wealth through force, not Capitalism; so no, still a polemic.
Fucking faggot Marxists I don't know why I bother.
>>1028749
>unfair
Doesn't appear in Marx.
>>1028725
The long term question is that if man ever makes super intelligent AI, is if the AI will reject capitalism?
I mean in theory, is machines could just make shit for basically no cost, then why sell things.
I mean it might stop seeing the point of paying shareholders if it is doing all the work from resource extraction to the final product.
>>1028750
I'll take that as a surrender. Good talking to you, sophist.
>>1028751
/r/badphilosophy
>>1028739
You're forgetting something.
In corporations such as Publix. There is no Earl.
You're making it sound that capital is its own breathing living thing when its not.
And going back to the OP. The perception that capitalist don't work or earn their share of income is completely asinine. Given that we do not have perfect information or cost-less entry and exit into markets, an owner of capital in the classical sense has to be compensated for their risk taking and opportunity cost of time.
>>1028435
>babbys first bait
>>1028756
I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading texts.
>>1028759
>You're making it sound that capital is its own breathing living thing when its not.
Does Publix have the statutory obligation to maximise shareholder profit? If it does, then guess what: capital acts as though it is a living breathing thing through people.
>an owner of capital in the classical sense has to be compensated for their risk taking and opportunity cost of time.
Well, yes, or they won't sell their finance capital at the insufficient interest rate. I mean it is fucking Volume III.
>>1028761
God your forced ad-hominim tastes so good
>>1028771
>Does Publix have the statutory obligation to maximise shareholder profit?
No.
Corporate officers and directors do have a fiduciary duty to shareholders though.
>>1028784
If they've got a fiduciary duty to shareholders then they're obliged to maximise profit. The workers are "bossing" themselves through the CEO they "appoint" to fulfil their needs. The value form doesn't require a particular personality to fill the role of the capitalist. I mean this is in Marx from the 1850s for fucks sake.
There are plenty of ways to critique Marx, but you fucking have to read him first. Read Kołakowski ffs.
>>1028771
Then its people, not capital, who are ultimately responsible for it.
And there is no statuary obligation to maximize profits; there's barely any corporate acts of incorporation that has that. It is up to the board (which are employees) to consider what is in the best interest of the company (the employees in this case) which can include curtailing profits for some end such as getting rid of trans fat in their cookies.
>>1028789
I mean compare and contrast with workers coops who have a duty to supply quality food and drink to their members, completely different duty, even though most still involve wage labour.
>>1028789
>If they've got a fiduciary duty to shareholders then they're obliged to maximise profit.
No, you stupid faggot, that is not what fiduciary duty means. Literally all it means is that you must act in the best interests of the principal and not have any conflicts of interest.
So, for instance, if a CEO and board believed that not closing an unprofitable plant would be good for the firm in the long run, even if it is currently losing money, then they can keep it open, even though that's not "maximizing profit."
>>1028807
No, you stupid faggot, that is exactly what fiduciary duty means. It has been repeatedly interpreted by courts and accounting standards bodies to refer to maximisation of profits and that the only interest of the principle is the maximisation of profit.
>would be good for the firm in the long run
>that's not "maximizing profit."
You're aware of shareholder suits, right? If the board can't support that maintaining the plant will result in the court's ruling about what principle's interests are, they can be sued by the principle.
>>1028807
>>1028789
It gets even worse than that.
Many pharmaceutical companies deliberately take losses when they don't need to in order to give free drugs to patients. Like Vertex Pharmaceuticals and their cystic fibrosis drug. And no, they don't make up the cost somewhere else. They are taking stock losses and they have a terrible Q4 balance sheet.
>>1028820
Dude, you're talking to a CPA right now so pulling bullshit out of your ass about "accounting standards bodies" just makes you look like an idiot.
Basically cite something concrete or else fuck off.
>>1028574
desu I posted that to as a joke to point out that saying "this person DEMOLISHED this other person" without referring to either of said person's arguments doesn't really add anything at all.
Neither Stirner's critique of Marx nor Marx's critique of Stirner were particularly 'demolishing', although Marx did spend a lot of his time criticizing Stirner.
>>1028820
Oh really
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Smith_Manufacturing_Co._v._Barlow
>>1028820
Also this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley
>>1028854
Unisuper coal divestment.
>>1028856
Yuh, i agree.
>>1028858
Firstly: 1953
Secondly: charitable donations are widely recognised as marketing, a value maximising activity.
>>1028864
>[The court] was, "not satisfied that the motives assigned to [the directors] are contrary to the best interests of the corporation and the stockholders… The judgment the directors of the corporation enjoys the benefit of a presumption that it was formed in good faith, and was designed to promote the best interests of the corporation they serve."
Also being seppo specific is invidious.
>>1028874
And it what way does that support your position that "fiduciary duty... refer[s] to maximisation of profits"?
>>1028892
Your short fucking time horizon, mate, is the problem.
>>1028888
Because the super fund is prohibited from divesting from coal by their fiduciary duty, because this duty is only interpreted as maximisation of profit.
I've just finished school and I was looking to study philosophy or social science at college. Can you recommend me the best Marxist works? It really intrigues me, I think it's definitely a better path for society than capitalism. How can anyone be stupid enough to think capitalism is good?
>>1028900
The only articles I can find say the exact opposite, that they /have/ divested from fossil fuels.
Why don't you give me a link instead of continuing to make vague allusions?
>>1028897
>Your short fucking time horizon, mate, is the problem.
What do you mean by this? My point was that if you are a corporate officer or director you do not have to maximize profit. The courts agree. You are wrong. Move on.
>>1028884
>1953
Date doesn't matter for law. There's been no relevant case that I can see that has overturned it.
>charitable donations are widely recognised as marketing, a value maximising activity.
[citation needed]
Especially when many charitable contributions are not public knowledge or if they are, its doubtful the general public will even be aware of them or will serve in their purchasing decision.
Also
>Best interests =/////=profit maximization
>>1028897
There's no time limit in US law.
Also
>seppo
Okay. I was trolled. Sucks that /his/ doesn't have flags.
>>1028912
In order:
Theses on Feuerbach
Socialism: Utopian & Scientific
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Wages Price and Profit
Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844
Family Private Property and the State
Anti-Duhring
Capital
Meanwhile, and as a companion, read the 3 volumes of Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism, Lukacs History and Class Consciousness, Lenin's State and Revolution, Stalin's Short Course History of the CPSU(b).
Also read Hammond & Hammond's Village Labourer, Town Labourer, Skilled Labourer.
>>1028912
Capital and the 1844 manuscripts go into his critique of capitalism.
>How can anyone be stupid enough to think capitalism is good
Read some history of communism vs capitalism, get a fair perspective you fucking teenybopper. Communism and socialism are idyllic society's in fantasy but turn into nightmares in reality, I was an edgy socialist at your age too but then you enter the free market and realize the Government is a hindrance, not an ally. Among other things
>>1028917
>The courts
Two US courts with opinions prior to the 1970s revolution in economic theory.
Both opinions relied on responsibility to the company.
>>1028918
>[citation needed]
You're a fucking cretin.
>There's no time limit in US law.
No, no there isn't, but precedence relies on the most recent holding judgement, not shit you randomly dig up off wikipedia.
>>1028917
AFR Weekend 2015-12-20 "Confessions rare in super fund land" http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/confessions-rare-in-super-fund-land-20151218-glr4x2, "Another item under the regrets column is the team's failure to foresee the impact of sharp falls in the prices of coal and iron ore on the share prices of Australian resources companies. "[We] weren't aggressive enough in reducing our exposure to the sector," says Pearce."
Also, I had it from the fucking Union appointee to the board.
>>1028931
>precedence relies on the most recent holding judgement,
Okay, then cite something more recent. Since you obviously know something we don't.
Or are you just going to claim something without evidence.
>>1028941
The Unisuper failure to divest was from 2014/2015
>>1028912
Is this bait
>>1028931
>"Confessions rare in super fund land"
And where exactly does that article say that they are prohibited from divesting from fossil fuels or whatever else they like?
I'll tell you: nowhere because it isn't fucking true.
Just a reminder that Marxism's enduring popularity and relevance is contingent on it's usefulness for the political ambitions of the intelligentsia, and not on it's scientific and analytical merits, which it has none.
It's literally a religion at this point and trying to argue against Marxists using their language ("muh alienation") is like trying to argue with Christian theologians about the minutiae of faith. It's just not worth it. Better to throw them out of helicopters.
>>1028689
It was never that gray in the first place.
>>1028963
>I'm sorry you have reading comprehension problems, but it isn't my issue to deal with
Okay. Should have know.
I wish /his/ had flags so I could have saved two hours of precious sleeping time.
>>1028969
>Should have know.
You'll want to get those problems seen to, mate.
>>1028958
>Also what do you think of Russell Brand?
So you are bait
>>1028964
This guy gets it
>>1028969
Australians are a blight on every board, honestly.
>>1028710
how's high school?
>>1028503
But the complete opposite is true. Marx is entirely ideological and moralistic and never stoops to actual analysis.
![big_lebow[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/URrPWt7.jpg "big_lebow[1].jpg")
>>1028723
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this site. Get a job sir
>>1028435
Communism communism communism
It works great on paper but not to well in practice & that is what made national socialism so popular, at least they could deliver
>>1029123
Not at all true.
>>1029148
>opinions I held in middle school: the post
Anyone notice that right wingers never have in-depth analysis, just rapid sound bites they can throw out?
>>1028987
You deserve a vagina
>>1028570
He refuted Soviet command economy.
>>1029131
Join the union
Shoot your boss.
>>1029164
Which wasn't even all that bad.
>>1029148
>at least they could deliver
deliver what exactly
thousands of pounds of bombs, straight down the chimney?
>>1029161
I have respect for people who stick to their idea or their 25 point.
Name a political party or an individual who has stuck to 5 things that they said they would do.
I'm actually left shill boy
>>1029148
https://coffeecuphistory.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/the-myth-of-nazi-efficiency/
Any amount of research at all returns one possible response to the idea of Nazi efficiency: it didn't exist.
>>1028468
>citing spengler as a foil to marx
that's an insult
Comrades, who are your biggest inspirations outside of Marx? pic related
Marxism is a meme.
>point out shitty things about capitalism
>offer no practical solution
>most of states trying to adhere to Marxism had too many shitty sides
>Marx was a racist despite trying to sell internationalist ideology
Please.
Stay with his critique and ignore his propositions, that's the only sane thing to do.
>communism
Pfffahahahahaha
Oh wait you're serious, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Private ownership with a UBI is obviously the best way forward.
All this caputalism communism talk is stupid bullshit.
>>1030774
Thanks for that brilliant, engaging post :-)
>>1030760
Marx first and foremost constructed a system to ANALYZE capitalism, not to fix it. He left that to the proletariat.
>>1028587
No
>>1028587
>Reagan
>unironically
>>1032770
Who's that shmuck?
>>1028497
Capitalism is about Capital.
>>1028653
>a matter which is entirely ideological.
you seem to be conflating "ideology" and "idealism," which is a really terrible kind of reification.
>>1032900
Stalin
>>1032929
No, this is Stalin.
Who's that fuccboi you posted?
>>1032929
No it's not
>>1028435
>labor theory of value
into
the
trash
>>1032969
Can you show me anything against the LTV?
>>1032921
How is that a reification? I think you meant equivocation
>>1028435
t. neet that wants more autismbux
>>1028474
>What is it about Marx that makes right-wingers so fucking hysterical?
I guess mainly historical muh evil communist villain concepts in the USA and Eastern Europe. I doubt the majority of these people even know that Marx wasn't personally associated with the Soviet Union. I myself absolutely believe that capitalism is the #1 way towards mankind's progress but I still consider Marx a great thinker. His ideas were far more legit in the times they were concieved.
Man, i love capitalism.
>>1028474
Because his theory isn't based in facts and is contrary to them. Show me which important concept of Marxism wasn't debunked already.
>>1028435
Correct. Fuck the MLists for making Marx's name simultaneous with authoritarianism
>marxists
Is there a more dangerous bunch of people on this planet than marxists?
Their utter retardedness has already killed hundreds of millions while putting even more in poverty.
>>1033630
Branding.
>>1028435
>>1030731
is more of the anarchist kind tho
>>1034708
>using the word "debunked"
>expecting to get taken seriously
that's not how intellectual culture works
>>1034739
what?
>>1029123
I think there's more ideology and morals present in Marx's analysis than his fans would let on, but you need to compare him to socialist/communist writers of the time, who focused on such premises purely from the ideological.
>>1032921
Stirner's not an idealist, nor is he a materialist.
>>1035413
*tips*
>>1034748
>reactionaries actually believe this
if communists want to be taken more seriously, it's imperative that they start using language that's comprehendable to the common man while not choosing language that removes the original meaning of words like alienation or exploitation. if you say this shit to the common working class member they're just going to look at you with a puzzled face.
even though i want to deny a post like >>1028964 because i'm a communist who supports the advancement of the working class, but i can't deny that the language marxists use is very much incomprehensible at first glance. if you're going to use words like estrangement in your OP, you gotta explain what the fuck you mean by that if you want any chance of gaining popular support with the working class.
>>1037357
Protip: common working class member are puzzled by commies because communist discourse is a puzzle in itself. It is a religion made by intellectuals for intellectuals to "liberate" workers by or against their own workers' wishes to build society according to intellectuals' orders or wishes. Everything except "capitalist bad, eat the rich because you can" is buzzword puzzle. And that is coming from a former hardcore commie who had read Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and Marx&Engels for years.
You know about the "false consciousness", right? How workers suffer from "false consciousness" by looking at the world and economy through lens fabricated by "bourgeois intellectuals" for "bourgeoisie" with "bourgeois class interests" in mind.
Yet Marxists somehow possess "true consciousness", being able to observe, analyse and break oppressive system, while normie workers cannot.
Now, how can a Marxist know for sure that his consciousness is true, while normies defending muh trickledown economy are false?
How can a Marxist defend himself from accusation of, I dunno, like being poisoned by the Eternal Joo fabricated false consciousness of class oppression and the like?
Hegel and Marx authority are not an argument.
>>1039035
>common working class member are puzzled by commies because communist discourse is a puzzle in itself
Yes it's not news that uneducated people don't know what would be good for them. It's why we have millions and millions of working Americans voting for candidates that actively support taking money away from them and giving it to an upper class that then takes it out of the American economy and invest it in China and offshore accounts, and then replacing their jobs with foreign workers making less than minimum on top of that.
>>1039051
>money away from them
>jobs in China are a bad thing
If the Chinese had a better choice do you think they would work in these factories? The factories are the first rung up the ladder to prosperity m8
>>1039051
K, cool.
They are uneducated, so they don't know what would be good to them. The don't know, yet commies know. Now, how do commies now what's good for uneducated workers if they're not said workers and why should they care?
If people constantly elect politicos that constantly fuck them over, then perhaps said people want to be fucked over, and it is good to allow them to be fucked in a said manner?
Supposedly they don't know what's good because they are uneducated - right? You called them uneducated for a reason, so the problem is that they're either uneducated or "wrongly" educated, thus thinking in terms of "false consciousness" made for bourgeoisie and not for workers.
If modern academia are supposedly geared towards producing, protecting and perpetuating the narrative of the ruling bourgeois class to the detriment of exploited classes, then being educated in a Uni won't help the exploited pleb, perhaps will even harm him because modern academia are supported by bourgeois system therefore supposedly serve their interests.
Then how is a Marxist to obtain said true consciousness to distinguish false from right and oppression from normie cohabitation? Who produces the Marxism with what interest at mind?
Not the uneducated pleb who can't comprehend it except for "eat the rich, class war now" at best, that's for sure. Then who makes and instils said Marxist consciousness? And how can he, or his readers, know that he serves the workers, not his own class interests or interests of other classes/peoples?
>>1039085
>If the Chinese had a better choice do you think they would work in these factories? The factories are the first rung up the ladder to prosperity m8
So it's America's job to cripple itself for China?
>Now, how do commies now what's good for uneducated workers if they're not said workers and why should they care?
You don't need that much knowledge to understand the situation of a worker. It's not hard to figure out that doing back breaking menial labor for 12 hours a day would suck.
>If modern academia are supposedly geared towards producing, protecting and perpetuating the narrative of the ruling bourgeois class to the detriment of exploited classes, then being educated in a Uni won't help the exploited pleb, perhaps will even harm him because modern academia are supported by bourgeois system therefore supposedly serve their interests.
Well first of all, modern academia doesn't actively promote the bourgeois system, they actually put an emphasis on a continuous improvement of society. They wouldn't be able to get away with promoting a bourgeoisie system based on exploitation because academic institutions rely on their reputations, which would be based on their credibility to examine everything from an unbiased, academic point of view.
Regardless, the point isn't to educate the working classes. Until automation on a massive scale a worker class is inevitable and having workers receive extensive educations is quite frankly, pointless. That doesn't change the fact they won't know what's good for them and that more educated people need to be driving force between improving the standards of living for workers.
>>1039136
>That doesn't change the fact they won't know what's good for them and that more educated people need to be driving force between improving the standards of living for workers.
K. Who educates said people on what principles?
How said educated leaders are different from educated capitalist pigs in regards to controlling the uneducated pleb who doesn't know what's good for them?
>>1039167
Obviously we vote in a faschist with blood democracy
>>1039167
>How said educated leaders are different from educated capitalist pigs
That's the issue.
Why would educated people establish a system that fucks them over. And how could workers rise up if they are too uneducated to even know what they would want.
It's the genius behind the American system.
>>1039187
Now you do understand why USSR, China and any other Communist state and party is hypocritical. Except anarcho-syndicalists and the like, they're just naive manchildren.
An unelected technocratic elite possessing knowledge superior to "uneducated plebs" will never willingly surrender its privileges and power. If some will, others will gulag them instantly.
Realising your Maoist party cell is a totalitarian sect bent on programming the plebs through cultural revolution to become slaves to the founders is, well, eye-opening.
>>1028435
Labor =/= value
