Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practise?
Where did Lenin and Mao fuck up so badly?
I realise they must have made some changes to his suggestions, but what were they and why adapt the theory anyway?
The reason I ask is because everyone I've spoken to about it seems to think that communism is so good on paper but can‘t explain to me why it went so wrong in practise.
H U M A N N A T U R E
>>1085194
How many years of biology have you taken, anon? There have been plenty of hunter-gatherer tribes that were completely egalitarian.
Because people have learned to enjoy their cuckoldry and will never think for themselves
Because they didn't have guns germs or steel. Christ read Jared diamond you fag.
>>1085200
Sapiens was better.
>>1085194
I sort of get what you mean Anon, but why is the answer always so vague? I mean, it's not like the existential essence of humna nature somehow thwarted their plans, what did people do that took what a lot of people seem to believe is a good structure (communism as suggested by Marx) and made it into the momumental fuck up that we know from the entire 20th century?
>>1085200
thanks for the suggestion Anon, I'll take a look.
the russian revolution was almost completely betting on the other revolutions in europe succeeding because russia was mostly peasants
>>1085196
Others weren't though. Also i remind you tribes are no more than a few individuals, certainly not a whole state.
>>1085207
Because some were and others weren't means we can't conclude that hierarchies are in human nature.
Holy shit, this board fuckin sucks. Get a job worthless pinkos. You are not entitled to anything.
Sucessful communist countries: 0 and that number will stay until the end of time.
Stay mad.
>>1085211
We also can't conclude that man is not an egoist though.
>>1085169
Everyone lusts for power, and commies are just as honest as anyone in that sense.
>>1085220
Not completely. Out of all species we're by far the most empathetic. The problem is that the maximum number of people that can cooperate on an egalitarian scale is 150. Any number above that and people will be alienated from each other without some kind of arbitrary unifying force like religion or war. That would be the closest to the answer OP asked. But really the best way to figure out why it keeps failing is to analyse what happened in 1917 and where Lenin fucked up.
>>1085169
Every time.
Ask yourself: why didn't the richer, more developed west european countries or the United States try communism? And what unites the countries that communism and socialism spread to?
>>1085236
Of course man is by far the most altruist being on earth (otherwise communism wouldn't even be a thing as an idea), but that doesn’t mean he's not an individual looking for HIS survival, or at least the survival of HIS close acquaintances and ideas. That's the thing each one of us cares about the most. Imagine you're in a room alone with a complete stranger. You’re dying of hunger, and so is he. What choice do you have? I mean, if the said man was a dear, dear friend or something like that you could sacrifice yourself in order to make him live, but why would you care about a complete stranger? One of our many limits is that we can't know deeply and form a bond strong enough to sacrifice ourselves with every single person in the world. And that's also the limit of communism.
>>1085169
> Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practise?
It's extremely easy.
> Where did Lenin and Mao fuck up so badly?
Lenin didn't.
> it went so wrong in practise.
> communism
> in practise.
Extreme levels of retardation detected.
>>1085194
> H U M A N N A T U R E
You got it wrong, anon.
That's the reason why Capitalism can't work.
>>1085212
> Sucessful capitalist countries: 0
Fixed that for you.
There are successful capitalists. There are no successful Capitalist countries.
Lenin died too early
>>1085200
>read Jared diamond
Good one
>>1085169
The human condition.
A libertarian society also works well on paper, but will never be sucessfully implimented on a large scale.
>>1085200
0/10
>>1085196
>that bullshit prehistoric agenda driven drivel
>biology
No, you're mixing social sciences with biology (a hard science). There is no direct, undisputable proof of an 100% egalitarian society.
>>1085322
>Therefore they didn't exist
If you reject theories because there's no 100% indisputable proof supporting it you'll have to write off sociology, psychology, biology and to extends, physics and chemistry.
Why are you talking about biology? It has very little to do with the success of economic models.
>>1085330
Straaaawmaaaaaaaaaaan. I only stated that there is not enough evidence to support a statement like "There have been plenty of..."
Also a fully egalitarian society is extremely unlikely. Cripples, mentally retarded, otherwise physically weak were most likely left behind.
>>1085333
I never said that.
>>1085337
Fine not completely egalitarian. But without strict hierarchy isn't a strange thought. Modern egalitarian tribes have been observed. Google reverse dominance if you're wondering.
>>1085337
Boehm, having explored data from 48 societies spread across the globe, ranging from small hunting and gathering bands to more sedentary chiefdoms, suggested that with the advent of anatomically modern humans who continued to live in small groups and had not yet domesticated plants and animals, it is very likely that all human societies practised egalitarianism and that most of the time they did so very successfully.[20]
Boehm writes:
"As long as followers remain vigilantly egalitarian because they understand the nature of domination and leaders remain cognizant of this ambivalence-based vigilance, deliberate control of leaders may remain for the most part highly routinized and ethnographically unobvious."
Boehm identifies the following mechanisms ensuring the Reverse Dominance Hierarchy: Public Opinion, Criticism and Ridicule, Disobedience, and Extreme Sanctions. Further characteristics include ambivalence towards leaders and anticipation of domination.
Interpersonal complementarity[edit]
>>1085341
Sounds like a dictatorship
>>1085341
It's not. It's like your family and group of friends.
>>1085359
My household is a dictatorship on small scale.
>>1085360
I'm sorry about your anger issues, anon.
>>1085341
Now we just have to create a family bond to 8 billion people.
Vanguard parties,
Socialists realised that the proletariat would never start a revolution by themselves, so they had to create vanguard parties to incite anger, revolt and gibsmedat ideology.
When they reach power and start to enjoy all the good things that come with absolute authority, combined with the fear of losing said power, socialists leaders become increasingly authoritarian. As central planning is inefficient, poverty and corruption soon follow. As a result, you end up with an opressive society with people living in misery.
> Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practise?
Because capitalists always trying to ruin workers solidarity.
>>1085366
That's what culture does.
>>1085387
>Muh capitalists
Workers under capitalism in the West generally have it alright, especially if they have trade unions. The bloody retard unions in the 70's tarnished the name of trade unions in the UK though, and it's not that bad. Not all workers have no sense of the individual m8.
Because you only need one little corrupt human to break the whole system.
Capitalism is also corrupt, but when mixed with sensible governance and sensible unions, it gets balanced out.
Communism opposes capitalism so there can never be any counter to the inefficiency.
Also, purges of the weslthy and intellectusls set back a state a generation or three. Because these people are the driving forces of progress (both good and bad)
>>1085200
>Russians
>no guns
>no germs
I'll give you the steel, it's shit anyway.
>>1085169
A central idea of Communism is the dismantlement of nation states, forcing Communism inside a nation state is guaranteed to fail.
On a related note, Communism needs to arise in a global revolution. Communism will always lose to Capitalism in a head-to-head confrontation.
>>1085169
Because all previous so called communist revolutions happened in essentially pre-capitalist economies that totally lacked the labour productivity to actually enable what Marx envisioned.
The total global development of capitalism is a necessary pre-condition for the possibility of socialism, since only capitalism's economic compulsion to maximize labour productivity is capable of generating the productivity necessary to actually make communism possible.
I hate commies but they were /fa/ as fuck
>>1085211
Blahnik?
>>1085676
>>1085641
And the fact that no revolution has ever happened in an advanced capitalist economy means that Marx was wrong.
>>1085169
Because since capitalism seen through a Marxist's eyes is such a powerful device of ideology, their own ideology has to be even harder and more authoritarian, and leave less room for freedom.
In order to remove the perceived ideological convictions of people in a capitalist society(ideas of commodification, acceptance of capitalist authority et.al), they had to become a brutal collectivistic dictatorship.
The problem is of course, that this created an even worse society than the industrial capitalistic ones, because the freedom to choose between 5000 different types of gum, is at least a freedom to choose.
Another problem is also the amount of ideological infighting between Communists themselves, where the essential thing they usually argued about was the role of the State and the monopoly of violence. Marxist-Leninists actually believed that they could use that power as a tool to create a more peaceful and prosperous society in the long run, which was at odds with the more anarchist inclined Communist such as Bakunin, who wanted a society where the means of production(the factories and shops), were owned collectively by the workers themselves, instead of by the State.
The Marxist-Leninists won most places, because they could channel the power of the State into massive armies and ensure hegemony over geographical areas, which is something the anarchist movements in Catalonia or the Free Territory in Ukraine were less interested in.
Just my 2 cents.
>>1086322
Based Eisenhower.
>>1085293
NEVA BEEN DONE BEFO
>it's a /his/ talks about communism thread
>>1086268
well, it means that capitalism is more adaptable than marx thought, sure. doesn't discount his analysis of capitalism though.
>>1085641
this is the answer. the material conditions weren't actually ready for it yet, basically, and so the marxist-leninists and maoists tried to force their way through it, which doesnt work. automation will be what makes socialism and then communism possible.
>>1086522
>doesn't discout his analysis of capitalism
It actually does, since he believed that the capitalist system was unsustainable and would collapse because of its inherent contradictions. It also invalidates his claims that the working class is exploited.
>>1086491
Sure. Keep in mind I'm an anarchist, so I have no interest in defending Leninism, and your post is probably the best itt so far.
I would argue that Marxist-Leninism states were not authoritarian as a reaction to the "freedom" in capitalism; rather, they were authoritarian because all states inherently are. I don't think you need "brutal collectivist dictatorships" to change ideological convictions, given that we have plenty of real-world examples of rapid change in ideology without any sort of top-down pressure.
That Eisenhower quote is pretty useless too, given that prisons (in America) are extraordinarily inhumane, and not just because of a lack of freedom.
>>1086559
>
I would argue that Marxist-Leninism states were not authoritarian as a reaction to the "freedom" in capitalism; rather, they were authoritarian because all states inherently are. I don't think you need "brutal collectivist dictatorships" to change ideological convictions, given that we have plenty of real-world examples of rapid change in ideology without any sort of top-down pressure.
I agree that states are inherently authoritarian, however there are scales of overt physical domination that differ vastly between them.
Take for example my own country Norway, where some form of ideological humanism permeates every single aspect of society, even through the legislative and punitive parts of the State apparatus, to the extent that people everywhere else in the world are whining that we are treating prisoners "too well".
As for the ideological changes, it's pretty clear to me, and several Marxist intellectuals like Zizek and others agree, that domination was the key feature of the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist states; that having removed the at least superficially voluntary associations of a market, i.e trading money for goods and services, the only thing you were left with was physical domination by the State over it's subject.
>>1086559
>Prisions in America are extraordinarily inhuman
They are fucking palaces compared to most prisions in the world.
>>1085388
Yeah, no. There isn't any such belief outside of vague platitudes. People are as bigoted and hateful as they've ever been, the only real difference now is that we're somewhat more secretive about it in certain cases now.
Because central planning is completely untenable.
>>1086632
This is a weird argument to me, and I'm not even a Commie at all, because how are private corporations not centrally planned?
>>1086603
Not Norway
>>1086653
Maybe because Norway has, like, 12 prisioners?
>>1086647
"Planning" is not "central planning".
>>1086647
Because private companies deal with microeconomics. They focus only on the needs of their particular businesses.
>>1086713
Central in this context is only euphemism for bureaucracy though, which a corporation has a lot of.
>>1086736
>Because private companies deal with microeconomics. They focus only on the needs of their particular businesses.
Sure. Their plate is smaller. But in saying that, you are essentially saying that if the State had numerous smaller companies that were owned by them but had their own specific part of the economy to worry about it would suddenly work out fine?
>>1086746
>But in saying that, you are essentially saying that if the State had numerous smaller companies that were owned by them but had their own specific part of the economy to worry about it would suddenly work out fine?
It wouldn't, as that would still require a system to understand the individual wants of every citizen. Not to mention the inefficiency that is generated by government services.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4
>>1086647
There are only two ways of running an economy: from the top down (centrally planned, by command) or from the bottom up (market, by demand). Communism attempts the former, and fails every time, because command economies are inefficient, subject to horrific errors in pricing, and only utilize a fraction of all available knowledge.
A market economy operates on price signals. The cost of a good or service fluctuates, affecting the cost of other goods and services. In a market economy, this happens smoothly and without delay. When there is a drought, the crop yield on grain goes down. When the crop yield drops, the farmer charges more for his grain. When grain prices go up, the demand for bread drops. Perfect adjustment.
In a command economy you don't have any of this. What you have is a bunch of government bureaucrats sitting in an office somewhere trying to decide what everything should cost. In 1950, the Soviet union had some 3.4 million prices to set. Who in the world is capable of doing that? Not only do you have to set them, you have to keep them correct in relation to one another without having access to the widely distributed knowledge base that a market economy benefits from.
Private corporations do have some elements of planning, but they are still fully subject to market forces. Coke changed its formula a few decades ago. That move was planned. But it was a sales disaster, and Coke quickly got rid of it because they were losing money.
>>1086843
I agree that they cannot accurately predict pricing and that without a market economy a society would fail.
But that doesn't stop every company from being owned by the State.
You could potentially have a state capitalist market economy, where every single company is operated and owned by the state, but is run for profit.
>>1086877
That's called socialism anon, and it's a terrible idea.
Qaddafi (RIP) nationalized everything in Libya and ran his country into the ground.
>>1086746
>Central in this context is only euphemism for bureaucracy though, which a corporation has a lot of.
No, it is a descriptor of a kind of an economy in which the state decides focus and production, an extreme counterpart to a completely unregulated free market. It's not about "having a bureaucracy".
>>1086877
Nationalization (state ownership of the means of production) is what has allowed for so much corruption in the Middle East, Africa, Russia, China and elsewhere.
>>1086877
>doesn't stop every company from being owned by the state
That's Venezuela to an extent. The USSR went even further. Do you consider them to be examples of efficiency, intelligent management and prosperity?
>>1086918
Which country is that pham? Norway?
>>1086944
>Norway
Yes.
>>1086843
>false dichotomy
>factual error
>factual error
>unaware of "the firm"
>anti-empiricism
>anti-empiricism
>anti-humanism
let me guess, you're an Austrian?
>>1086606
What? Of course there's such a belief. In world war 1 countless soldiers got themselves killed because they fought for their nations. Nations are culture too, they don't exist. These people died for a belief that's been made up.
>>1090145
Wht do you mean nations dont exist? Of course they do. Its like saying peiople dont exist because we are made up of cells interacting.
>>1085196
This is probably the most retarded thing I'm going to read all day.
>>1085196
>There have been plenty of hunter-gatherer tribes that were completely egalitarian.
That's nothing but noble savage orientalism. Anthro cucks love to pretend the brutes were gommies just like them
>>1085196
>Implying an egalitarian society is desirable
>>1085196
Hunter gather societies were not egalitarian. Some positions were seen as greater than others and thus these people were given greater boons.
Besides the destributive method they used only works in a system where literally everyone in the community knows everyone else: this way they know if they give something they can expect something in return, because everyone is watching everyone else even slight grievances will be noticed.
In societies of thousands or millions this is not possible. You must do business with people you might never see again, this makes transactions a high risk so people only accept want to deal in currency which is accepted everywhere (federal notes). It's far too complex for any central planning so the market must regulate itself. And just like in the hunter gather society people are not equal, some positions are higher than others. Except now rather than there being 40 people there are billions. In the past if you were at the bottom it wasn't too significant since the gap between you and the top was only 38 people. Now the gap between the most valued members of society and the lowest valued is astronomical since it's a separation of billions.
>>1085169
>I realise they must have made some changes to his suggestions, but what were they and why adapt the theory anyway?
>suggestions
What suggestions?. What Marx said was "Capitalism is this, and communism should look like this." Everything in socio-economic terms, he didn't made political suggestions, or recipes as I've read around on /his.
>>1085169
>Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practice?
because total centralized economic control also necessitates total centralized political control, and therefore tyranny
beyond that the role of dissent takes on a far greater threat than in more free societies to the point that even minor dissent must be punished severely to maintain the facade of power.
read this article on what Communist society was like, its short but helpful to understand.
also its the same tactics Marxists use in our society to shut down their enemies.
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html
>>1091044
marxism=/= centralized economy
>>1091051
yes it certainly does mean that
how else is the co-operative ownership achieved and enforced on any large scale?
and ignoring the inevitable logical dances Marxists make, they ignore the simple social aspects that lack of ownership brings. People are always far less careful with rented property than what they themselves own, its the core idea behind "Homo Sovieticus"
>>1091031
>What Marx said was "Capitalism is this, and communism should look like this."
Nope. Marx said, "These are the laws of motion of capital," and almost nothing about communism, certainly not what it should look like.
The only adaptions that realistically occurred were nationalist and autocratic adaptions which were honestly the only positives in these communists experiments.
The fact is communism/pure socialism is simply too inefficient, the USSR was able to offset this a bit via the economic boom of industrialization but even this wasn't enough to keep them going forever.
>>1085169
Lenin didn't fuck up at all though
>>1085200
Is this the newest meme?
>>1085169
>>1085293
Capitalism does work, it is working right now, isn't it?
>>1093370
Humans have close to 100% the same DNA. If what you're saying is true then nobody every picks a fight with each other. The point of life is also to stay alive and that means hoarding resources.
Because it's a failed ideology.
>>1094704
>It's not real like methane or rocks are real.
You're right, it has significantly more substance than they do.
>>1094406
Thete is a use by date for everything however those that eventually become the masters of the system dont want it changed when the time comes & prefer to ride it to destruction. Feudalism, monarchal, comunism are examples
>>1094764
>Thete is a use by date for everything
What are you, some kind of theist?
>>1093370
/pol/ please leave.
>>1094406
"working" is an interesting way to describe modern capitalism
>>1094841
>>>/b/
>>1094844
Pic related
Waiting for capitalism to collapse.
>>1086603
That doesn't make them good.
Daily reminder to legalize it.
>>1086696
maybe, but they also have a very different phil about crime and punishment.
I think it is very reasonable to look at most criminals as either mentally ill or victims of circumstance.
>>1095103
>it
What is "it?" There are a lot of things people are trying to legalize.
>>1093227
The manifesto is pretty detailed in its description of communism.
>>1095111
I don't think anyone asked for your opinion, but here's mine.
I think it's important to keep criminals away from the populations to which they pose a threat, and that violent offenders should be treated as threats to society. Do you agree?
>>1095118
Drugs, Prostitution etc. Most of the so called "Malum Prohibitum" laws.
>>1095103
They are not that bad either, especially considering the number of prisioners in the US.
>Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practise?
Because ultimately, Marxism is a millennialist movement that thinks that the ends of a utopian society always justify the means. Marxists by definition, or any member of any millennialist movement for that matter, don't accept that their ideas can ever be wrong. When confronted with flaws, a kind of demonology is called upon to declare those who oppose the flawless ideology as vile, evil infidels who want to sabotage the utopian project from the inside. This utter inability to self-correct is also one of the main reasons why utopian systems must always collapse
>>1095134
>it
You mean "them."
What's wrong with malum prohibitum laws? Don't just give me "It's the current year" or anything like that.
>>1095111
Norway doesn't take crime in any way lighter than the US.
I believe you should arrest everyone who commits a crime, regardless of mental health (those should go to specific mental hospitals) or circumstance. The law is the law.
Now, I also do believe that there should be a greater focus on rehabilitating criminals. They should all be required to study and learn a trade, so they won't go back to crime after they serve their time.
>>1095144
>Marxism is millennialist
I've heard some stupid opinions but yours takes the cake.
>>1085169
Because the labour theory of value is wrong.
>>1085295
Capitalism isn't a top-down reorganisation of labour. You can't compare the two systems.
>>1098356
>Capitalism isn't a top-down reorganisation of labour.
What are the Enclosures?
Tankies OUT
Marxism is by and for the bourgeois.
>>1098356
> Capitalism isn't a top-down reorganisation of labour
Somebody has no knowledge of premodern organization
>>1098449
>Marxism is by and for the bourgeois.
You might enjoy reading Bordiga, Johnson-Forrest, Cliff (even), Autonomism, Selma James, Solidarity (UK)
>>1085169
Because it's an incredibly corruptible ideology that could never, has never, and won't ever work properly.
>>1085676
All look like hipster trash, just like modern communists.
>>1085169
They were trying to achieve a stable, peaceful structure through the use of violence. Pacifism is really the only way to communism; that's the crux of Jesus's sociopolitical teachings.
>>1094844
Capitalism has seen the lowest rate of human poverty ever recorded, but hey I guess Communism would do a way better job. It's not like it's ever been tried before and it certainly isn't like it has failed horribly multiple times.
>inb4 someone doesn't understand sarcasm
Communism is shit. Stop swallowing the Marxist kool-aid.
Because marxism makes no fucking sense, like at all.
For example Marx argues that value is defined by socially necessary labor hours. Why? How did he come to this conclusion? How can we scientifically test this shit? I could as well claim that labor is defined by a magical squirrel living on the edge of the universe, it's equally nonsensical.
The problem with Marxists is that they take these nonsensical axioms for a fact even though we can neither prove nor refute them. Pretty stupid for an ideology that claims to be anti-religious and scientific.
Second problem is that Marx argues that capitalism basically has to become completely shitty and unberable so that the people will spontaneously revolt. And he WANTS to capitalism become essentially like the pic I'm posting. Seriously, he was an accelerationist fuckboy who was strictly against socialist democratic welfare state concepts because those might save or prolong the life of capitalism according to him. It's like saying "well if I keep pouring buckets of shit on your head maybe you'll eventually decide to clean yourself." And by showering he means jumping into sulfuric acid.
Then there's the dictatorship of the proletariat overseeing the socialist period. Apparently, Marx proposes that the worker become the new ruling class in a brutally oppressive, coercive state terror and this will somehow, MAGICALLY turn into a stateless society.
It's all hogwash.
>>1085295
How about all of them?
>>1098916
>economic freedom
what?
>>1085295
Then explain how come an American plumber can earn more money than a doctor in the USSR.
>>1098533
Sounds like a bunch of bourgeois intelligentsia garbage.
>>1098883
>How did he come to this conclusion?
Someone skipped the first three chapters of volume 1 prior to opening his shithole.
>>1098953
That's what everything sounds like when you're a dilettante disconnected from class struggle.
>>1099221
This is why you cucks always get purged after the revolution.
>>1099538
Because I'm working class?
>>1096674
Then maybe you should read this
>>1098926
http://www.heritage.org/index/
>>1099543
NEETs aren't a part of the proletariat, Juancito.
>>1099543
Are you part of a trade union? Do you contribute more than you receive? If not, prepare to get shot.
>>1100325
Frictionally unemployed are clearly proles mate. Structurally depends on your position on the social worker.
>>1100341
Yes and yes. Why aren't you part of your coop and one of the proletarian parties or a milleaux?
>>1100362
>proletarian party
I hope you don't call yourself a Marxist.
>>1100349
>don't work
>call himself working class
Why is this board populated with the biggest cringemasters on entire 4chan? I legit feel like I'm on tumblr.
>>1100379
Not this guy but stop being retarded:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
>>1100384
Just shows that Marx was a chronic social parasite who justified his leech ways of life by creating crackpot ideologies.
>>1100387
He actually was one of the hardest working scholars of his times. He didn't get always money for it but when in pay his output is impressive in quantity and quality. Even non-marxist historians (Münkler) appreciate that. So take you memes somewhere else please.
>>1100362
>I'm unemployed
>I contribute more than I receive
Yeah, ok.
>>1100320
>http://www.heritage.org/index/
>heritage foundation
>Wall Street Journal
Come on now. Of course it's biased.
>>1100403
The index is used as a reference by companies and governments all over the world, mate.
I'd love to hear what it gets wrong.
>>1100394
I saved for the hard times
>>1100366
Capital one on declining return to labour power being on value terms in expanded capital reproduction. Volume three iirc on proles accessing luxury goods during gluts
>>1100393
>hardest working
He didn't work, he wrote dumb shit like picrelated. Pretty much shitposted for a living, didn't make much, and was funded by Engels who was a rich spoiled brat.
>>1100349
>A-anyone can be working class as long as they could be paid a w-wage in some p-possible world!
>N-Neets are proletarians, guys
Marxists on suicide watch.
>>1100372
Might want to read up on autonomism
>>1100393
>stole all his ideas from other philosophers and political thinkers, while throwing in some bullshit about materialism
>hard-working
>>1100425
That still goes against Marx's thinking.
>>1100428
Jews define "hard work" in a very particular way.
>Marxists ITT are literally fat NEETs
>meanwhile the actual hardworking people are voting for Trump
This exactly documents how all the Marx fanboys are slackers, bourgeoise idealists, career parasites and angry deluded salon cucks.
All the rational left leaning workers switched to social democracy literally more than a century ago, and the rest is overwhelmingly conservative.
>>1100410
>The index is used as a reference by companies and governments all over the world, mate.
irrelevant flawed argument.
>I'd love to hear what it gets wrong.
I think the idea to somehow measure a complex concept like economic freedom in a chart will always cause gross simplifications. I think the arguments (""In the hands of the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, Washington's foremost right-wing think tank, however, an economic freedom index merely measures corporate and entrepreneurial freedom from accountability. Upon examination, the index turns out to be a poor barometer of either freedom more broadly construed or of prosperity.") are well known/easy to research.
>We measure economic freedom based on 10 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four broad categories, or pillars, of economic freedom:
>Rule of Law (property rights, freedom from corruption);
>Limited Government (fiscal freedom, government spending);
>Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and
>Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom)
Just 2 little thing here. A.) Why is personal opportunity/equality of opportunities left out here? B.) Why is the assumption (that is confirmed by the index of course) that limited government is good/leads to growth?
Also they have different methodologies for different countries which scientifically speaking renders the results useless (http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=16985&t=1&c=33&cg=4).
>>1100442
>Why is personal opportunity/equality of opportunities left out here?
Because it's a survey about freedom, not about those things
>Why is the assumption (that is confirmed by the index of course) that limited government is good/leads to growth?
I'm not going to say that the assumption is correct, but I am going to ask you: what alternative do you suggest? How would you go about trying to grow an economy?
>scientifically speaking
Economics isn't a science and only may develop into one in the future. You aren't doing much to make it better.
>>1100415
>writing is not work
By your logic working at a bank is not work either. Also after The Kapital he never had to work again. the free market made him rich. Deal with it.
>>1100428
>stole all his ideas from other philosophers and political thinkers, while throwing in some bullshit about materialism
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. At least say something about him stealing from economists cause it was economy he was most interested in later on. He also contributed to the field of history and his stuff was read by people like Mommsen. Like it or not but denying the truth is plain retarded.
You can hate Marxism all you like but denouncing Marx as lazy or thieving is plain dumb. There is a reason people, even far outside any neo-marxists circles, still debate his concepts (thinking for example about his concept of class for and in itself which is still being used even in political theory). We still have no collected works of Marx and Engels because it's simply too fucking much. Even the German edition won't be completed in the next 20 years. Then again you would only knew this things if you had ever set food in a library.
>>1100456
Yeah I'm working hard right now by typing this post and calling you a faggot, exactly the same work as Marx. Pay me you porky swine!
>>1100456
>By your logic working at a bank is not work either.
You're right, it's usury.
>He also contributed to the field of history
Marxist historiography is most flawed when it tries to stay loyal to Marx's original vision.
>>1100454
>Because it's a survey about freedom, not about those things
Yeah and what freedom means in implicitly and not explicitly defined.
>How would you go about trying to grow an economy?
Firstly I would need a good definition of growth. The only thing that considers growth as and end in itself are cancer-cells. Secondly a historical argument: The GDR surpassed Western in Germany in growth rates for decades while denying basic economic freedoms. China outruns the whole West with limited freedom. How freedom and growth are linked conceptually is not
>Economics isn't a science
Ok if we are not talking about science I am good. But then I don't see the problem in calling the index biased since all acts of speech are polemical in nature.
>>1100464
I am not talking about Marxist historiography which I made clear when I mentioned Mommsen. Also no one would have hated Marxist historiography more than Marx.
>>1100460
Read up on Marx dissertation and come back. Dude wrote like 150 pages when all he had to do was hand in a 10 page paper. You clearly don't know what you are talking about and you never read or wrote anything academic.
>>1100423
Go cry on a wob's knee
>>1100460
>not getting paid writing
>not having a scholarship for researching one's favorite subject
Maybe you are just too dumb to do so bruh.
>>1100488
>a communist using capitalist philosophy to prove one's worth
lmao, that's a new one
>>1100432
Sectarian and wrong. Try Lenin in England
>>1100493
>not shitting on historical facts means you are a communist
Far from it mate, I just don't get my historical knowledge from Breitbart and /pol/. If you feel to discuss on the basis on of you dichotomous world view, go ahead but I won't participate in it.
>>1100493
>capitalist philosophy
>I will just put to words I don't understand the meaning of together to appear smart
>hehe that will show'em
>>1100494
Lenin went against Marxist thinking. When marxists realised that the working class was not going to rebel, they had to think of a way to kickstart a revolution, thus vanguard parties.
>>1100517
Well this but you should say he went against a fraction inside of a Marxist moving and Marx' theory. It's not like he totally broke with Marxism.
>yet another thread with marxists getting BTFO
>>1100517
Did I say vanguard? No.
>>1100442
>Why is personal opportunity/equality of opportunities left out here?
Because that has nothing to do with economic freedom? It has to do with meritocracy, and I agree that we should make opportunities more equal, but that doesn't belong in an economic freedom index.
Also, how would you even measure it?
>Why is the assumption (that is confirmed by the index of course) that limited government is good/leads to growth?
I'm not sure that it leads to growth. China is not a free country, yet its growth rates are way above the world average. What the index shows is that limited government leads to better quality of life.
>>1100536
You sourced Lenin, who believed in Vanguardism.
>>1100471
>Yeah and what freedom means in implicitly and not explicitly defined.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
>Firstly I would need a good definition of growth.
Use the same one you used in >>1100442
> The only thing that considers growth as and end in itself are cancer-cells.
Pic related
>Secondly a historical argument: The GDR surpassed Western in Germany in growth rates for decades while denying basic economic freedoms.
[citation needed]
Compare North and South Korea's economies if you want a counterexample.
>China outruns the whole West with limited freedom. How freedom and growth are linked conceptually is not
Nominal GDP growth =/= actual GDP growth.
>>1100487
Pic related
>>1100483
What are you talking about, then, if you're referring to Marx's contributions to the field of history and you're not talking about Marxist historiography?
>>1100471
Where does the index say that economic freedom is related to growth?
>>1100500
Is this bait? Marxist philosophers do exactly the same thing.
>>1099215
Another example of a worthless post
DUDE YOU NEED TO READ CAPITAL LMAO
No, you need to explain what the misconception is. You haven't made an argument, or elucidated anything. You just made a snarky comment about the fact that you've studied a text more than someone else has. This is a stupid thing to take pride in. Fuck yourself if you refuse to make a case for your position.
Marxism is by and for the classroom. It's the type of ideology that checks all the boxes intellectuals like to see. It has been a failure because it's hard to manage from the top of the ivory tower where you can't even see the ground.
It has been successful in preserving its own ideology for the same reason Christianity has: it plays on people's sense of righteousness. For a Marxist the most brutal means will always be justified contrasted to such utopian ends.
Ironically Marxism (and the many philosophies it spawned) is strongest in the most bourgeois institutions, upper class urban academia.
>>1085196
>There have been plenty of hunter-gatherer tribes that were completely egalitarian
>>1101837
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists
Because nations that try to eliminate capitalistic profit seeking, maximizing tend to become poor.
>>1101917
>psychologytoday
>guardian
How do you "put marxism into practice" you dumb cunt? Marx was primarily a historian, and he offered a framework of historical analysis. He did not conjure up some "recipe to communism" or even a particularly solid vision of what communism is. It is Lenin who was actually the first(?) who devised a workable plan to reaching communism.
>>1101917
>people think these are actual sources
>>1085169
Because communism doesn't work. The people who say it's a good idea are morons.
>>1101917
>the noble savages were gommies just like us!
t. Retarded anthros
But the URSS was the best country of history
>>1085169
The main problem with Lenin's revolution is that the following bureaucracy was extremely inefficient. The entire country was more or less run by a single generation for their entire history and when that generation was more or less dead the country collapsed. What it was missing was a more fluid, and stable system of government.
I'm not sure how much of this comes down to Stalin's right wing reforms, but in any case it was the main problem the USSR had to face.
Mao on the other hand didn't reall fuck up too bad in establishing a socialist state, it just so happened that there were a bunch of counter-revolutionaires in the party.
>>1101338
/thread
>>1100889
>>1101917
>the guardian
K E K
>>1100955
You asked for, and received, a citation.
>>1100546
"Lenin in England" isn't by Lenin. It is an attack on the vanguard party by autonomists who use the fragment on the machines.
>>1103712
I am not that anon, dumbass. I don't see a request for a citation in the post you're replying to.
>>1103720
>For example Marx argues that value is defined by socially necessary labor hours.
This is a claim about what Marx argues. Marx does in fact argue this.
>How did he come to this conclusion?
This is a request for the source of Marx's argument. Marx's argument is found in the first three chapters of Capital 1.
That poster could have bothered to have read the first three chapters of Capital 1, it is precisely where Marx makes the argument that that poster suggests does not exist and is instead a facile definition.
