Is there any criticism of Marx that doesn't amount to hysterical slander and outrage by right-wing ideologues no less ideological than Marx himself?
Any and all attacks I've ever read border on nonsense by make statements far too bold (I.E. I believe Marx is wrong about one detail, ergo EVERYTHING HE DID WAS FALSE), or are so utterly ignorant of his stances that they don't even bear consideration.
Is there any systematic, coherent and calm criticism of Marx by people without an ideological slant?
>>1118072
>without
>an
>ideological
>slant
Good joke, OP.
First rate comedy.
aren't you tired of making the same threads every day?
>>1118088
Are you implying that's impossible?
>>1118072
Sure, there's plenty. One guy in particular:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BacHisTho
>The Marxist account of history too, Popper held, is not scientific, although it differs in certain crucial respects from psychoanalysis. For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.
This criticism rings very true to me. Engels was all about the whole Scientific Socialism thing.
>>1118092
I've never posted a thread about Marx on /his/
>>1118110
Except, Popper's entire falsification theory of science has been since completely dismantled and nobody actually follows it. Quine did plenty of work on this. If Popper's methodology to judge science is faulty, I can't trust his judgment of the scientific nature of Marxism.
>>1118072
>is there any criticism of an ideology that isn't ideological
You're not a very smart man, are you anon.
>>1118072
>Is there any criticism of Marx that doesn't amount to hysterical slander and outrage by right-wing ideologues no less ideological than Marx himself?Is there any criticism of Marx that doesn't amount to hysterical slander and outrage by right-wing ideologues no less ideological than Marx himself?
Kołakowski, Main Currents, 3 vol.
>Is there any systematic, coherent and calm criticism of Marx by people without an ideological slant?
This third question's answer is no: all human cultural efforts are ideological.
>>1118072
The Knowledge Problem of Central Planning.
As a society grows more complex it's reliance on the knowledge masses becomes ever the more obvious. In order to make a decision about the usage of resources in a technically sophisticated society one must have access to knowledge held by literally millions of people in roles that are highly specialized, and grow more specialized by the day. This is ultimately why a centrally planned economy will lag behind an economy of free capital and work for profit. To put it simply: a modern economy is far too intricate and complicated to be administered by a group of central planners at any level of governance.
Please imbibe these and then get back to me:
https://youtu.be/zkPGfTEZ_r4
https://youtu.be/CNbYdbf3EEc
https://vimeo.com/groups/96331/videos/80799353
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
>>1118136
You just misrepresented Marx and linked an extremely ideological thinker (Hayek) in response to my thread. You did 100% exactly what I wanted you not to.
>>1118136
Disregard that Vimeo link, this is the Curtis doc I was thinking of:
https://youtu.be/h3gwyHNo7MI
>>1118148
I would like to hear a refutation of that point without you shouting "Ideology!" at me. Ultimately the theory was Mises' anyway.
>>1118115
>scientific nature of Marxism
LOL
Also,
>I believe Popper is wrong about one detail, ergo EVERYTHING HE DID WAS FALSE
Tbh Popper's ideas are a lot more rigorous than Marx's, and classical Marxism isn't even taken seriously by the academy. His methods are just recycled because they're good at community organizing aka tricking whatever minority into following you as pawns.
>>1118154
Ideology in Marxist doublespeak means pretty much anything that might possibly contradict Marxism. Since Marxism is scientific and all.
>>1118148
>marx isn't politically biased but his critics are all extremest right-wing maniacs
>>1118154
Well, for starters, Marx never proposed central planning of the economy.
There's a good amount of Marxist critiques that are based in an academic rather than emotional (i.e. /pol/) argument. You just won't find it on this chinese pedpohilia board.
>>1118171
""""""""""""Public""""""""""""""" planning
>>1118148
>extremely ideological thinker (Hayek)
>Marx is not extremely ideological
>>1118154
Are you saying the only way to have socialism is for a centrally planned government?
>>1118163
Oh cool, conspiracy theories about evil intellectuals trying to manipulate "pawns".
Read the criticisms of Popper. There's a million and no, he's not more respected in "the academy". Plenty of schools read Marx in philosophy departments
>>1118072
The only credible arguments against Marx are in his overly optimistic views, especially concerning the ability of the proletariat to perceive and pursue their best collective interest.
>>1118185
I'm not saying Marx isn't, but replacing "socialism is the best good" with "free markets are the best good" doesn't improve any.
Where did you get the idea that I believe Marx is actually scientific or not ideological? I don't necessarily believe that, stop treating me that way, I want actual scholarly work that would actually attempt to show that from people who aren't serving up their own quarter pounder of bullshit to replace it.
>>1118171
As a mechanism to achieve socialism he absolutely did.
Taking of capital from capitalists and distributing through the government was seen by Marx as an indispensable step towards Socialism. Here we go with the no true socialism arguments.
>>1118186
>only way to have socialism is for a centrally planned government
Please propose another system for distributing resources without a capital intermediary. All you can do is propose smaller and more local planning committees which solves nothing when a modern economy relies on resources from all over the planet.
>>1118203
>Please propose another system for distributing resources without a capital intermediary.
Democratically planned?
>>1118203
>As a mechanism to achieve socialism he absolutely did.
Which isn't the same as a perpetually managed state run economy.
>
Taking of capital from capitalists and distributing through the government was seen by Marx as an indispensable step towards Socialism. Here we go with the no true socialism arguments.
Well then stop making a no true socialism argument, and stick to the fucking text of Marx.
>>1118178
>sweeping, mocking, arigorous dismissal
>thinking you'll be taken seriously
>>1118186
If you don't think the intelligentsia are responsible for the terrible state academia is in then i don't know what to tell you.
Popper is criticized a lot because he shat on the marxist continental circle-jerk.
Marx is read in undergrad phil but beyond that he isn't taken seriously. Historical materialism and critical theory still plagues academia though, it's overly-simplistic models and classes are attractive to academics.
>>1118214
>Democratically planned
What does that mean exactly? How does a government distribute resources in a 'democratic' fashion? How do you consult the MILLIONS of people in large scale society on how they would like the myriad of resources required to run said society distributed? Ultimately it will have to be administered by a select group of people, like in every democracy since Athens. I fail to see how electing bureaucrats to run your life is any better than appointing them. Ultimately a small group of people is running the economy on their own.
Why do you even think they would be better suited to this task than the people who make it their business to know the ins and outs of the various industries we need to keep the economy rolling?
Marxism is essentially a sectarian religion, with good vs evil and a promised land that awaits those who fight against evil.
Pretty much every Marxist thinker (actual Marxism is dead but his ideas live on, hybridized with other disciplines) is a self-righteous bourgeois faggot. The academics are motivated by the same sense of righteousness as the conquistadors.
The humanities are a quagmire of leftist bias, and Marx's influence is a clear indication.
>>1118230
> I fail to see how electing bureaucrats to run your life is any better than appointing them.
Maybe you've got more in common with the Soviets than you thought!
>>1118240
Not an argument.
>>1118072
There are lots of criticisms for Marx.
The worst is that his follows are rabid, and they hate revisionists and anyone that isn't a full Marxist is a capitalist pig, thus making themselves easy targets.
I like talking about market socialism because centrally-planned economies aren't so great, and it's one of the easiest targets of a socialist state. But the Marxists always get mad that I'm just trying to push for a bigger capitalism that reduces the inherent contradictions.
>>1118255
>bigger
better capitalism*
>>1118255
>market socialism
The Nordic model failed m8
>>1118269
The Nordic model isn't socialism. It is capitalism with social programs.
People keep confusing privately owned capital with markets. They're not the same thing.
Also, I'd demand a "buy-in" of sorts for every immigrant, or child beyond the 2nd.
>>1118154
>Mises
Even worse.
Literally
>Fuck all this math and facts shit in economics. It'd be better if we just treat the entire field like a philosophy.
Sure there is
purely materialist conception of history is absurd
Dialecticism is unscientific
although Marx took that from Hegel
>>1118072
Well I'd say his historiography is fucked up, though not bad for a 19th century fellow, relying as it seems to on the primacy of 'class' and 'class war' above much else as a motor of history. Marvin Harris was a better materialist than Marx, not the least because Harris had a 100 years of anthropology to add depth and nuance to his understanding of cultural evolution, and I prefer him.
I have no interest whatever in Marx's proscriptive or predictive ideas. Nor would I ask da Vinci how to fly to the moon.
His convictions are utilitarian, which lie in morally realist bases, which are not sound logically, as there is no observable, tangible basis for a morally truth-apt statement. This is an argument that utterly destroys him, and he wrote a fucking angry book after a certain someone pointed this out to him.
>>1118072
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
More about socialism than Marxism, but the problem of capital markets has a lot of Marxist scholarship.
>>1118417
>Marx
>utilitarian
>>1118255
What are you even talking about?
>>1118230
I don't believe people should specialize so much as to not be capable of making educated decisions on such things.
>>1118221
>muh academia conspiracy
>muh intellectuals
So it devolves into right wing conspiracies yet again. And yes plenty of graduate work is done on Marx.
>>1118417
>Marx
>Utilitarian
Marx was anti-utilitarian if anything.
>>1118616
>>1118221
A quick search shows 452 results for Marx on Jstor in the economics/philosophy sections while only 62 for Popper.
Objective, scientific proof there that Marx is still more relevant than popper in philosophy and economics :-)
>>1118628
Not him, but..
>Objective proof that there are more papers on Marx than Popper*
Marx is just a divisive figure.
>>1118620
>repeats a talking point of right wing conspiracy theorists
>gets blasted when called out
I know Sargon of Akkad is your only source of intellectual work but come on.
>>1118628
Oh. Those results were for only the year 2015. Total Marx absolutely creams popper unequivocally
>>1118636
Exactly, Popper got blown out a long time ago, so most people just moved on and stopped caring. Marx is still divisive and plenty relevant. He's a more timeless and important intellectual.
>>1118644
He's not relevant though.
>>1118648
Except the only way to even quantify that says he actually is.
Just because that doesn't jive with your ideology doesn't mean it's wrong.
>>1118652
Marxist ideas are not followed and have never been followed. He is irrelevant.
>Just because that doesn't jive with your ideology doesn't mean it's wrong.
Relevancy =/= accuracy
>>1118657
Kek alright, stay in your ideological bubble where objective facts can't penetrate your safe space any longer, you're of no use to me in this thread
There is, it's mainly the criticism of the teleology of Marxism, where, according to it, history is supposed to have a direction, with the historical dialectic inevitably producing a socialist society. This teleology has never been established as anything more than an ideological fiction.
Luckily, right wing fanatics and religious zealots believe in this same fiction of teleology (in fact, its roots are in religion), so I guess this critique would be pretty free of ideological bias
>>1118663
Yeah I agree that teleology is almost completely worthless when describing anything. Marx took the part of Hegel I agree with least and kept it
First try to prove that Marx was right about anything and we'll go from there.
>>1118677
He was right that capitalism necessarily estranges labor from the value it produces
>>1118712
>LTV
When will this meme finally die?
>>1118727
Even if you don't accept the LTV it makes sense.
>>1118637
The more I see people like you denying the obvious because right-wing news outlets point it out, the more obvious it becomes that the Left is out of touch with reality.
>>1118733
Making sense doesn't count for much. Transubstantiation makes sense. I'm not going to go trying to build cars that run on Communion wafers, though.
>>1118663
Most Marxist humanism is anti teleological. See EP Thompson poverty of theory
>>1118652
Marx's models and ideas just really pander to the academy. Popper's doesnt.
>>1118628
>phil departments fucking love marx
Wow who would have thought.
>>1118712
Nope. There is literally no proof that value alienation is a thing. It's an asspull that can be neither verified nor disproven.
>>1118661
I never even said i disagree with Marx.
But he isn't relevant
>>1118637
Have you lost your chains yet?
>>1118741
>my ideology isn't an ideology!
>>1118778
You're objectively wrong. This isn't really a debate, it's you just denying empirical fact.
>>1118762
But you just acted like it was disproved, now you're saying it can't be?
My oh my, you're just a mess of contradictions, just like capital.
>>1118757
Marx didn't pander to any academy and popper did. Like quite literally. Based on how actual people actually use pander, not in the sense you're using it which is opposite.
>>1118745
That's an irrelevant point.
>>1118789
Which of Marx's principles/ideas are widely employed globally?
>>1118791
>But you just acted like it was disproved, now you're saying it can't be?
You were asked to prove that Marx was right about something. You brought up alienation, but didn't even attempt to prove anything. That speaks for itself.
>>1118791
>But you just acted like it was disproved
I did? Where? Are you basing your argument on a strawman again?
Saying value alienation is a thing is like saying God exists. There's no evidence for it whatsoever but it's such an unfalsifiable claim it can't be disproven.
Come to think of it, this thread is awfully similar to a Christian saying "Prove that Bible was wrong!"
>>1118805
Which of Kant's are? Which of Nietzsche's are? Which of Adam Smith's are? Which of Hobbes' are?
We don't judge the relevancy of a philosopher by whether states are crafted exactly on their ideas.
In any historical sense, Marx is an exception and he has been supremely relevant.
Also, your charge that Marx is irrelevant today, even in state apparatuses is dubious at best. You're really going to say not one aspect of any state was influenced at all by his ideas?
Lol.
>>1118805
None, this thread is a wank.
>>1118812
Of course value alienation exists, it's a fundamental tenet of capitalism, it's even a core idea of Friedman. You pay your workers as little as possible to turn a larger profit. That's what value alienation means. Workers building iPhones are as far removed from the value of the iPhone as possible, and Apple produces tons of profits that go to shareholders who are mostly the same people who run the businesses.
It's so obvious it hardly needs "proof".
Also I'm actually genuinely not here to have debates with retarded right wingers, I was legitimately hoping for scholarly work against Marx. I don't know if you realize that.
>>1118816
>buttblasted classcuck trying hardest to meme
>>1118811
Again, it's so core to capitalism people can't even see it. Nobody hires workers to come out even. They hire workers to turn a profit. That means that, whatever value is produced by the labor can't be turned to them, I have to keep a bit of it. The more I can keep, the better off I am.
Even Milton Friedman recognizes it because it's so obvious it doesn't need argumentation. Capitalism requires a good pool of cheap ass labor that produces more value than it gets in return.
>>1118844
>fundamental tenet of capitalism
And capitalist mantras are equally unprovable. I think Marxists use capitalism as a crutch way too much for my liking (while simultenously hating capitalism).
Furthermore, you first need to objectively prove value. Marx didn't do that, LTV offers no evidence, it's an axiom built on thin air.
>>1118868
>it's not the mantra of corporations to turn a profit
>value doesn't exist
anti-Marxists, everybody. "Nothing is provable"
Btw, no, not all value to Marx is socially necessary labor time. And no Marxists I know treat Marx like he even offers "proofs" about the way capitalism works. In fact none of the stereotypes people offer of Marxists have ever come true for me
>>1118888
So Marx basically offers nothing. Thus there's really nothing much to disprove and this thread is worthless.
>>1118897
What? What constellation of words caused that thought to enter your mind?
It's almost confusing me figuring out how your mind works, jumping from place to place with these absurd attacks and claims, without ever an ounce of substantive attacks to the words of the text.
Refer to my OP.
>>1118115
>Except, Popper's entire falsification theory of science has been since completely dismantled and nobody actually follows it.
Wrong.
>>1118912
Who follows it?
>>1118904
>. And no Marxists I know treat Marx like he even offers "proofs" about the way capitalism works
You said it yourself, Marx offers zero proof about anything he ever said.
>>1118922
I scare quoted "proof" because if I provide any, you'll instantly change what you mean, because your assertion that Marx never said anything useful is unfalsifiable.
>>1118931
I see you're getting preemptively defensive, knowing that Marx offers no proof.
>>1118937
Of course Marx offers proof.
>Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.
This is what every anti-Marxist does, doesn't matter what evidence we provide, you continually alter your original universal claim to prevent your statements about Marx from being falsified.
I'm looking for people to give decent arguments against Marx. I've replied to the few decent posters fairly, I'm being hard with you because you're just spouting unfalsifiable nonsense.
>>1118937
not him but you're actually embarrassing yourself. you think by dragging the argument out you'll prove marx wrong, all the while switching up your approach after one proves unsuccessful? or are you just hoping that eventually you'll find something you know something about so you can actually contribute?
>>1118950
I'm not the guy who brought up Popper.
>>1118951
But I'm not attempting at all to prove Marx wrong. First someone needs to prove Marx right.
>>1118956
"Prove him right" meaning, justify something he said? I already did. He was right that capitalism necessarily estranges labor from the value it produces. You can see this in how little laborers get paid during production of Chinese goods and how much they sell for, and who keeps the excess profits.
>>1118956
oh right only empirical evidence counts, unless it supports a view other than your own in which case 'the liberals own academia'
maybe you should use the time while you wait for proofs to read a book
>>1118955
Sure, I'm just using Popper to point out that the "unfalsifiable" criticism of Marx is a damn good razor against the people who:
1. Don't actually know anything about Marx
2. Vehemently hate Marx
3. Offer endless unfalsifiable criticism of Marx on superficial topics
Read again the OP. I seriously don't want to read angry manchildren posture that Marx was wrong about everything because abloobloo. I really, honestly just want people to provide detached, sound reasons for believing Marx is false and defend those ideas like an adult who cares.
>>1118961
Well saying that value is determined by socially necessary labor time is like saying value is determined by a magical squirrel juggling balls on the edge of the universe. It's ad hoc shit.
>>1118968
> I seriously don't want
You're making the mistake of thinking that I care what you want.
>>1118965
I've only offered empirical evidence in favor of Marx this whole thread, either people change what they mean (implying their assertions about Marx are unfalsifiable) or they continue asserting and ignore the evidence.
It's suggesting to me that most of the people who dislike Marx are doing so out of blind ideology, not out of any well-reasoned belief system.
>>1118974
One has to ask why you keep responding at all.
>>1118974
Wow fucking quality post bro you sure told him absolutely rekt 10/10 top kek absolutely destroyed 5 star post comedy gold lelelelelelel.
Fuck off.
>>1118980
You seem aggravated.
>>1118970
It's not as hoc shit and Marx spends plenty of time justifying it.
A good argument about this might exist, but it's not going to be you telling me Marx literally made up the idea of LTV on the spot for some specific purpose, which is what ad hoc literally means.
>>1118984
He didn't make up the idea of LTV, but he added shit like "socially necessary" into it which is extremely ad hoc.
>>1118974
So are you only here then to sling shit about Marx?
>>1118988
Actually Marx spends a lot of time talking about socially necessary as an idea, and hashing it out makes it much more nuanced and plausible than what Adam smith meant when he first articulated it.
You seem to think Marx whipped up volume 1 of capital in a few days, he spent 8? years I believe working on it, he certainly didn't advance the idea without careful considerations in place.
>>1118996
>he spent 8 years working on it, so it must be good!
This is what happens when you buy into the LTV meme.
>>1118988
> "socially necessary" into it which is extremely ad hoc.
No, it was an important distinction, because you still get idiots today
>hurr durr what if i find a diamond on the ground
>hurr durr what if i spend 8 hours a day pooping
>hurr durr why does a college educated manager earn more than a worker
>>1118996
I'm guessing he didn't even read why Marx added the qualifier
>>1119003
>be capitalist
>worship adam smith
This is what happens when you buy into the LTV meme.
>>1119016
Yes, capitalism and Smith is also a meme. A meme Marx is based on, no less.
>>1119019
Are you saying the social relations which form the way we survive in this global capitalist economy are imaginary?
>>1119003
Oh look, you changed what you meant again once you realize I might have falsified your claim.
>>1119034
Nope, you brought up tu quoque (but CAPITALISM does it too!) and a strawman (you must be a capitalist!) in a single post.
>>1119048
I think you may have me confused with someone else.
>>1119048
I brought up Smith not him. I was just memeing
OP should have posted a short summary of Marx (like the SEoP article) and then we could first compare that to the biggest "contemporary" philosophers (as canon thinkers, philosophers should be the common ground) and see where they clash. I'd like to see a good Marx vs Nietzsche on this board as unlike Stirner, Nietzsche actually explodes other ideologies without harming his own [Nietzsche uses dynamite; Stirner is a suicide bomber].
Instead the weak OP gave no direction, everyone gave in to their own idiosyncrasies. Poor stereotypes of Marx everywhere, a reduction of /his/ to /pol/ (i mean that as the discourse level degenerating, not "fucking reactionaries" bogeyman).
Let's compare Marx to the closest famous philosopher after him, Nietzsche. Not 'timely' thinkers like Popper and economists. Philosophy over political-economic, its just good taste. I thought humanities were supposed to be 'elitist'? All you're doing here is levelling a potentially fun topic. Bring Marx up to the level of philosophy, not down to comparison with partisan, plebeian, economics.
>>1118095
For humans, yes.
>>1119093
Multiple philosophers like Adorno and Deleuze have merged Nietzsche with Marx.
Nietzsche political thoughts or commentaries aren't really insightful or brilliant, it's the rest of his thought which was deemed important and revolutionary.
>>1119124
>Multiple philosophers like Adorno and Deleuze have merged Nietzsche with Marx.
I didn't suggest merging, OP wanted contrast to Marx, not harmony.
>Nietzsche political thoughts or commentaries aren't really insightful or brilliant, it's the rest of his thought which was deemed important and revolutionary.
Speak for yourself.
>to dismiss Marxism you must first read all the works by Karl Marx and Marxist philosophers and then argue against every single point they make
How is that different from religious people, for example Christians, who ask you to read the entire Summa Theologica before criticizing Christianity?
It is Marxists who have to prove that their ideological bullshit is correct. Until now they haven't done so and all Marxist predictions have gone wrong.
All ideologies are perfect.
They merely lack sufficiently perfect humans to sustain them.
>>1119146
But what if we only believe in some things Marx said? Just like Marx only believed some things Smith said? Very few people will say Marx was 100% correct.
The problem with dealing with god is god is supposed to be absolute truth and therefore 100% correct.
>>1119146
But if I were a religious person, I would expect memelord atheists to be at least familiar with some of the strongest arguments for God
It's just arguing in good faith
>>1119146
Exactly this.
>>1119157
So if I show one time Trump was wrong, Trumpism is debunked, right?
>>1119165
Except Trump is a massively successful businessman, Marx was a bum. His ideology isn't applicable in a post-industrial society, the fact that you argue class consciousness is a thing is extremely demeaning to workers, you're assuming they don't know that they're in a shit position. People aren't stupid, factory workers don't wake up in the morning thinking they're well off while they struggle to make ends meet.
>>1118848
/leftypol/ memes are the most forced memes on the Internet, outside of the Sanders and Clinton campaigns' efforts.
>>1119180
except the most mainstream Marxist position in history nowadays is Thompson's, which is not without its flaws but argues for a distinction between class experience and class consciousness
Straight up tankies are mostly confined to student protest groups and hold basically no sway in the academy
>>1118848
>class consciousness exists
>>1119217
You're not doing history, you're rabble-rousing and trying to swing political opinion. You're doing a shit job of it, too.
>>1119184
>/leftypol/
shhh, you're not supposed to mention that chan because mods are afraid people will leave for it
>>1119217
...you do know that EP Thompson is one of the most influential historians post WW2, right? You're familiar with basic historiography, right?
>>1118072
with his thesis that the proletariat will unite and move into an stateless utopia, he never took into account human nature of always wanting to rise above, no sane person would ever want to be equal to everybody else, there is bound to be someone who will rise up and say "hey motherfuckers fuck you, I want more" and seize the means of production succesfully reverting the communist utopia into a normal functioning society again
>>1119184
>>1119247
Even worse they're literally just copypasted and poorly redrawn /pol/ memes, like that COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED comics.
They're unoriginal as fuck and on top of that they adopt /pol/ lingo with all the cuck and WE WUZ shit and then they have the audacity to tell us to go to /pol/.
>>1119284
Maybe because you belong in /pol/
>>1118417
How can Marx's convictions be utilitarian, when the man was an idealistic, who disregarded pretty much every empiric and realistic situation in favor of his class warfare mumbo jumbo
>>1119247
I mentioned it to an Australian Communist academic who was posting here and I haven't noticed his posting style since.
I genuinely hope that those people fuck off and post on a politics board about politics like the rest of us do.
>>1119269
>Human nature of always wanting to rise above
Stop saying this. stop using human nature as some kind of end all be all explanation for everything. Karl Marx was retarded but this is really stupid too. I know plenty of people who are happy being completely mediocre. Not every person is an ambitious Elon Musk, it's not human nature.
>>1119294
As an anecdote the Hoxha thing is funny. But yeah it's awful.
>>1118648
He is relevant, since many other political theories derive from his work, for example you cannot understand the World system theory by Wallerstein if you don't understand atleast the basic concepts of Marxism.
many modern "philosophers" or scholars derive from Marx, even meme philosophers like Chomsky or Zyzek
>>1119217
Don't know enough about Thompson so argue that, but I believe the thread is asking whether there are any valid criticisms of Marx, not Thompson.
>>1119296
>Not every person is an ambitious Elon Musk, it's not human nature.
Nobody said that human nature consists of wanting to be a billionaire. Happiness, which anyone can attain, is not a condition we're born into. We have to rise above our inborn conditions to be happy. This is rising above our circumstances. The desire to be happy, i.e. to exercise our natural capacities in the proper context and well, is common to all people.
>>1119310
Happiness is a combination of serotonin, oxytocin and other chemicals. It makes us chase things that are pleasurable. If you can increase your happiness with a pill of E or antidepressants, what does that say about the inherent value of happiness, anon?
>>1119309
It feeds into OP talking about continual strawmen, tho. People that take Marx as 100% gospel are very, very rare. I can't think of any strict materialists in the field of history except maybe Hobsbawn and Jameson, who are both quite unfashionable nowadays. The closest thing to it that holds widespread popularity is Thompson. Most of the best critiques of Marx(ists) generally come from Marxists themselves in forms of additions/corrections to him.
>>1119323
>inherent value of happiness
I don't think I used that phrase or referred to a synonym in my post. I don't see how the fact that happiness is a chemical reaction is supposed to make people want to be happy any less than they do. I mean, pointing it out to me just now certainly didn't.
Don't you think this kind of reductionism is a little bit silly? Almost as much as the Aristotelianism I just threw at you, if not more so?
>>1119333
What's your point? You said it's human nature to achieve happiness and somehow rise above our current circumstances. Why?
>>1119331
>Is there any criticism of Marx that doesn't amount to hysterical slander and outrage by right-wing ideologues no less ideological than Marx himself?
>Any and all attacks I've ever read border on nonsense by make statements far too bold (I.E. I believe Marx is wrong about one detail, ergo EVERYTHING HE DID WAS FALSE), or are so utterly ignorant of his stances that they don't even bear consideration.
>Is there any systematic, coherent and calm criticism of Marx by people without an ideological slant?
No, I don't think you're right; there's no continual strawman, you admit Marx was wrong and that his theories have been patched up and those patched up versions are used today.
What's wrong with Hobsbawm? Why don't you acknowledge Zizek?
>>1119337
I'm not the anon making the original point, I was just pointing out that you were being simplistic. You weren't really making a point, you were disagreeing with a rejection of Marx's tabula rasa psychology and the use of the phrase
>Human nature of always wanting to rise above
The way you reacted to the phrase struck me as odd or simplistic.
Read Kolakowski ffs
>>1119346
Alrighty then
>>1119338
I was reading the OP's point to be that most criticisms of Marx on this board are hysterical greentexts rather than an engagement with his arguments. For example, I've never seen The German Ideology seriously engaged with here (or really, any of Marx's complete works), despite that being the backbone of materialism.
I don't really have much of a problem with Hobsbawm, he's very readable and I'm actually kinda touching on his theory of banditry in my dissertation. But he's not as popular as he once was.
Zizek is a case unto his own desu. His volume of work is staggering to the point where it's very hard to comment on him without entirely derailing the thread
>>1119296
don't be an idiot, in a society like ours where we are divided into social stratuses of course people will be content were they are, hell I'm pretty happy being a middle class bastard, I have no problem with it, would I like to be fucking Bill Gates, of course, do I want to fight to become Bill Gates, of course not...
but in a society were everyone is equal, either economically or socially there is always bound to be one rebelius fucker, who will not be content with his position,even after all social reeducation someone will one day just click and say "why the hell do I have to have 2 bananas like everybody when sure as hell I can have 5", hell don't tell me that when you see you can do better than someone you don't do it
what I mean was something like this example:
A class has an exam tomorrow, everyone is nervous and studying like crazy, then there's this one sly bastard that says "Why don't I steal the exam answers from my teacher's locker/usb", he goes to steal that shit (let's say he does for the sake of the argument), he doesn't study, just memorizes the answers and does better than his class... the student rebelled against the equality of the system, like every other sane person who has opportunity in front of himself would
and yes it's human nature to strive to be better, maybe on this day and age we don't see it so blatantly, but in the little things, things like having the better argument in a debate, having the high score on the local bar's pinball machine, killing most fuckers in Call of Duty, having a good paying job, going to nice restaurants for bragging rights etc...
>>1119374
>I was reading the OP's point to be that most criticisms of Marx on this board are hysterical greentexts rather than an engagement with his arguments.
I'd say it's 25%/75?. Just as many Marxists put their fingers in their ears when someone refers to an orthodox economist. It's somewhat embarrassing. Most people have no idea what they're talking about most of the time.
>For example, I've never seen The German Ideology seriously engaged with here (or really, any of Marx's complete works), despite that being the backbone of materialism.
That's because nobody here cares about primary or secondary sources other than Wikipedia. It's terrible. The humanities should have their own board, separate from history.
>>1119374
>Zizek is a case unto his own desu
this, he would need a thread on his own
>>1119386
>I'd say it's 25%/75?. Just as many Marxists put their fingers in their ears when someone refers to an orthodox economist. It's somewhat embarrassing. Most people have no idea what they're talking about most of the time.
And here I'm obviously referring to posters on /his/, not actual academics.
>>1119382
I can see your point.
>marx
>>1119382
>in a society where everyone is equal
wew
e
w
>>1119397
Absolute equality is meme gommunism
>>1119296
I think the human nature goes more along the lines of selfishness. If you took the average worker and gave him two options, either become a billionaire and live in luxury or have all the wealth in the world redistributed so everyone can be equal, I guarantee you he's gonna pick the first option.
>>1119386
I'm a historian and I'm talking from a historical standpoint. My main familiarity with Marx is his methods of historical analysis, not his economic ones (to the extent that these can be separated). And I'm really not seeing many people engage with Marx from that standpoint. I agree that many orthodox Marxists embarrass themselves in economic conversations.
>That's because nobody here cares about primary or secondary sources other than Wikipedia. It's terrible. The humanities should have their own board, separate from history.
Look, if I were to make broad generalisations about this board it is that 90% of its posters have no understanding or background in history whatsoever and we badly need a sticky that goes over basic historiography. Trying to talk with people who are still ardent followers of some Great Man shit is painful.
>marx
>>1119410
>implying Marx is not the root of meme communism
>>1119415
>I'm a historian and I'm talking from a historical standpoint. My main familiarity with Marx is his methods of historical analysis, not his economic ones (to the extent that these can be separated)
In my historical studies, same, but online I only ever encounter people who tell me that my understanding of LTV is flawed and that if I understood it better I would be a proper Communist. It's bizarre, not even stormfags are this bad.
>Look, if I were to make broad generalisations about this board it is that 90% of its posters have no understanding or background in history whatsoever and we badly need a sticky that goes over basic historiography.
I don't know why people don't just read the sticky, most of the time I'll ask for a link to a source and be told I'm asking to be "spoon-fed" as if I'm just supposed to take every assertion at face value. What the fuck?
>Trying to talk with people who are still ardent followers of some Great Man shit is painful.
There are altogether too many military history threads.
>>1119445
Although I think asking for sources can run you into issues (which are way off-topic), it's generally a pretty good way to sort the wheat from the chaff and the inability of people to respond with sources needs to be more strictly... I don't know the word here. Not enforced, but people should care about sources?
The military history stuff is unsurprising considering this is the internet, and I'll grant some of it is interesting. But it can get pretty overbearing
>>1119293
This thread is about a philosopher and his ideas. It only ended up being /pol/ bait because some people have such ingrained hate for Marx they can't just hide the thread, they feel a burning desire to post shit,
>>1119269
Human nature is a completely laughable philosophical meme that does no more than say "my ideological preconceptions are correct because humans always act in a way that conforms to it"
t. person studying philosophy
>>1119146
You don't have to understand all of Marxism to at least admit some of his ideas are plausible. The problem is most dismiss his ideas simply on association and not on any reasoned grounds.
>>1119029
Don't you know? Economics and politics are spooks
>>1120157
Makes more sense than historicism, though
>>1118072
Yes, it's mostly based in the fact that a lot of what Marx says is incoherent and requires so much refinement that it's probably better of just giving up.
>>1120157
Marx believed in a human nature though.
>>1118858
But that's wrong. My employer pays me x and he thinks the value of my work as x+1. But the joke is on him, because I value the actual work I do as x-1 so really I'm exploiting him, the dumb cuck
>posting in a containment thread
>>1120516
Kek
>>1120966
What?
>>1120966
This. I bet these daily threads are created just to keep marxists contained in one place.
>>1121011
Marx is welcomed here because he's on topic for a philosophy board. Right wing shitposting isn't welcomed and belongs on /pol/.
>>1121020
>>there are no conservative philosophers
lol stop being dumb.
>>1120157
You should study primate psychology and evolutionary psychology.
ITT pseuds reveal the the hegemonic leftist bias within the humanities.
I think he's wrong because I think the most efficient way to avoid poverty is to generate new wealth, not redistribute it.
Marxism is based on envy. I hate that.
>>1119431
This
Marx influenced a bunch of ivory tower pretentious self-righteous and self-referential academic pseuds.
Aron blew Marx out to another dimension, and influenced Kissinger and Brzezinski, two of the most powerful and influential figures in the entire world.
>>1121090
Wow, the reign of reason seems like an utopia when reading such shit as yours.
>>1121123
>assblasted leftist
Stay in your fantasy academic bubble while the big boys study actual relevant topics like international relations.
>>1118072
Here you go anon:
The deterministic view of history, especially as seen in his way is pure wishful thinking.
He observed decently documented struggle between nobility and the merchants/burgers/whatever and thought it was a general rule.
The absolutely worst mistake in his view on history was that he tried to predict the future by using it which:
1) failed - revolution in well-developed countries didn't materialised outside of Paris commune, and Paris commune itself was thwarted quickly
2) assumed(after Hegel, I think) that "progress" - viewed in his way - is irreversible which was proven to be wrong both in oriental(foundation of islamic republics in place of old secular states in the middle east) and western societies(Thatcher/Reagan era reforms, fascist/nazis)
While some determinism in history is of course understandable and you have to be fedora tipping neo-reactionary kiddo mememaster to deny it, Marx's approach to it(and in the big picture - idealist approach to it) is absolutely idiotic bordering on crazed seer tier.
>>1121139
It pertains well to big boys to trust that being docile will preserve them of exploitation and poverty.
>>1121155
His definition of capitalism is also profoundly ignorant of history and eurocentric.
>>1121159
Well spooked, my property
>>1121123
>>1121159
Marxists constantly wonder why working class folks aren't class conscious, vote far righters, are very religious and socially conservative, etc.
Never in their minds it occurs to them that their attempts at apologetics, consisting exclusively of insults and ridicule, could possibly be counter-productive for the purpose of getting others to join them.
What if I told you they might be a bit more class conscious, or at the very least less skeptical about you and your motivations, if your ilk stopped punching down?
Did Marx command this behavior? Endorse it? Seek to glorify it?
>>1121182
I'm not going to build the revolutionnary party on 4chan. You may overestimate /his/ a little.
>>1121195
Nobody is ever going to build a revolutionary party because the proles are way better off now than they were during the 1800s.
In b4 OWS facebook memes.
>>1121216
Yeah, that's because we build trade-unions too.
>>1119029
>social relations
>not imaginary
>""""""""""materialists""""""""""
>>1121195
I thought everybody that isn't porky was supposed to join the revolution?
And didn't Marx in the Theses on Feuerbach say
>the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it
?
Why are you faggots wasting time by philosophizing without action, and doing everything in your power to get the revolution disliked? You're no proletarian revolutionaries, you're doing porky's job better than he could.
For the time being, the only meaningful difference I've noticed between right and left politicians in their quest for personal enrichment and impunity, is that the right does not insult and belittle people that, whatever their circumstances, happen to share my origins and fate, and the left does.
As for me I'm no porky, I'm just another cunt who may be seen going to a voting booth, or protesting in the square like everyone else.
>>1121238
>Why are you faggots wasting time by philosophizing without action
They're all skinny ivory tower academics who have never fired a gun before.
WHY WON'T THOSE DUMB REDNECKS AND BROWN SAVAGES REALIZE THAT WE HAVE THEIR BEST INTERESTS IN MIND??????
>>1121222
Thank god we live in a free society where workers are free to collectively bargain and not a totalitarian communist shithole where dissenters are starved the death or sent to the gulags.
>>1121238
What is "porky" ? Is this your retarded way to say "capitalist" ? Don't be afraid to use terms understandable by everybody just because it is frowned upon in the fine society, my dear "cunt".
>Why are you faggots wasting time by philosophizing without action, and doing everything in your power to get the revolution disliked?
Nice projection, I guess. At least you see the fallacy between the right/left divide, politically speaking.
>>1121282
Yes, democracy is useful for conquering labor rights. As Trotsky wrote.
>>1121319
>Yes, democracy is useful for conquering labor rights. As Trotsky wrote.
It's too bad he didn't actually give a fuck about democracy.
>>1118072
Yeah, he was a fucking idiot because he believed his ideas were scientifically proven and an inevitable end result of class conflict. Nobody has to lift a finger because history itself has proven him wrong again and again.
>>1120135
It was /pol/ content from the first post, fuccboi.
>>1118072
There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.
-Carl Menger
>>1121319
>What is "porky" ?
Unfunny /leftyshit/ meme. Don't bother.
>>1118072
The worker is unable to add new labor, to create new value, without at the same time preserving old values, because the labor he adds must be of a specific useful kind, and he cannot do work of a useful kind without employing products as the means of production of a new product, and thereby transferring their value to the new product. [This] is a gift of nature which costs the worker nothing, but is very advantageous to the capitalist since it preserves the existing value of his capital.
- Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
>create utopia where everyone drinks wine and work 2hours a day
>people want to work and create value
>youre not allowed to live as you want
Marxism goes against itself
>>1121441
if people wanted to work and create value they could do so. what they couldn't do is claim exclusive ownership over a value-creating apparatus (a means of production) and then ask other humans to work using that apparatus while taking the product of those peoples' labor for themselves.
what they could do is use the communally owned means of production, make what they'd like, and then claim the product of their labor as their own. they're totally allowed to do that. private ownership is the issue.
>>1121392
There is no such thing as absolute good or absolute bad. Bourgeoise democracy may be useful during one period, but useful only because it affords to prepare the destruction and replacement of the State during the following period, i.e. because it affords to build the organizations.
>>1121421
>I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a difference between value and price.
-Carl Menger
>>1121477
>I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a difference between value and price.
you'd do well to explain the difference to the uninitiated.
>>1121477
>value is price
Behold, the small-mindedness of objective value theorists.
>>1121456
That would make it hard for improvements and new ideas, cause it sounds like you cant own something to crrate your own product.
Gov could "help", but do we really trust polticians?
>>1121477
source on that quote please
>>1121496
Not him but I still don't understand how is there something like an objective value to begin with. Let's say you thing something has a 100 dollar value, but nobody will want to buy it for that price and you're forced to sell it for 50 dollars. Meanwhile the guy who bought it actually thinks it's worth 1000 dollars but he only had 50 dollars he could afford spending.
If value varies from person to person this much then how can there be an objective value?
Imagine it's a hot day outside. One guy says he's sweating like a motherfucker and it's obviously more than 40 degrees out there. Other guy says he feels perfectly fine and it can't be more than 25 degrees. Then a third guy comes around and objectively measures that it's actually 30 degrees. But we don't have this sort of objective arbitration when it comes to value, unless you're willing to equate price and objective value.
>>1121540
You might be more interested in Subjective Theory of Value then
>>1121499
if you and a bunch of other workers wanted to use a means of production for an extended period of time to create a product (for the sake of example, let's use an office building with computers used to create code, but any productive property will work here), you'd run it by the local populace, because since the productive property is owned collectively, you'd need permission from the community (the community would be representatives as a group of representatives that represent the separate interests of the community economically/socially, ie an administrative government that permits actions based on some sets of values) to use that property for the extended period of time. the community would have to weigh the benefit of allowing this group of workers to use the productive property for the extended period of time (ie, 8 hours a day or so) and whether that's more valuable to the community than allowing that productive property to remain free to use by anybody else who wanted to use those computers to create code.
the judgement made by the community is the following: is the product that this group of workers will produce over the period of time they propose to use the productive property more valuable than what would otherwise be produced in that productive property by workers with their own disparate goals and perhaps disorganization? the answer is likely yes, because the cooperation of many humans can usually create a more impressive or useful product than the labor of one human or few humans.
1/2
>>1121551
of course, the group of laborers might not even WANT to share the product of their labor with the community. that's fine too. what the product this group is creating and whether it would be shared with everyone else are factors to take into account as to whether to allow an extended period of use for a piece of productive property for for a specific group of workers.
the fact of the matter is that productive property under communism is owned by everybody, the entire community, rather than just a small amount of individuals. that doesn't inherently prevent new ideas from occurring. new ideas would occur, but inventors have to get permission from different set of people- from the community rather than investors investing in their product like in capitalism.
2/2
>>1121509
My arse, comrade.
>>1121540
Power Theory of Value may also be of interest as well
>>1121540
Utility Theory of Value is one that I personally like but it has its faults
>>1121540
Aggregate value
Things are ultimately worth whatever the next guy is willing to pay.
You tankies are so removed from reality holy shit. Get out of your absurd theoretical bubbles.
>>1118072
I'm a libertarian, but I don't think Marx was wrong about everything. I don't even think he was all that bad of a guy, really. He just thought he saw a problem & wanted to let people know about it. I just think that the problem he saw isn't there.
Also, try to keep in mind that finding a systematic, coherent, and calm criticism of any well known public figure is pretty fucking hard these days, especially considering how easy it is to make a jumbled up, confusing attack on a person.
>>1118115
>Popper's entire falsification theory of science has been since completely dismantled and nobody actually follows it
Simply not true.
>>1118171
This is literally part of his ten step process in the Communist Manifesto.
>>1121080
This tbqh
>>1121080
>>1121887
>muh academies are leftist conspiracy theory
>>1121627
>what i believe is really real
>what you believe is a theoretical bubble
>>1121399
nice assertions bro, whenever somebody asserts such assertions i just totally go along because assertions are always true
>>1122019
This is bait.
>>1122019
>leftist control of academia is a conspiracy
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html
>>1121227
>has no idea what he's talking about
>makes improper use of Marx's materialism
>thinks when I buy a good at a store it's all imaginary
>>>/trash/
>>1121182
Because anyone who's looked into the matter for like, five seconds knows that the reason there's even a far right at all in America is because of moneyed propaganda. There's a clear, direct and unequivocally true history on this.
>>1121090
>Marx influenced a bunch of ivory tower pretentious self-righteous and self-referential academic pseuds.
Why can't I, hold all these reactionary buzzwords?
>>1121050
Yeah, because right-wingers love talking about Burke and Nozick, I see them posting genuinely thoughtful threads all the time.
Says nobody.
>>1121078
>evolutionary psychology.
*actual* unscientific and unfalsifiable memery for right wing idiots
>>1122039
>>1122040
The conspiracy theory has massive force behind it, because it's much better for moneyed elites to con Americans to never listen to intellectuals. The fact that you can even take such a class as diverse as intellectuals and categorize them under one political umbrella is itself a sign of the lunacy of the theory.
>NY times opinion articles
Wow it's literally nothing.
>>1118072
Marx realized to forsee two extremely important parts of humans:
1.Humans truly identify more as individuals then groups
and
2.Humans are self-serving and nepotistic.
Marx tried to exterminate what he perceived as "Class Oppression" because he believed he had discovered what he thought to be classes. However, modern psychology has shown that humans can't identify with people beyond a group of 150 or so. Even at his time, supposing that the revolutions broke out in every country in the world, this would detriment his dreams. As people would, understandably, group up into these numbers, the revolution would see competition amongst the classes that were supposed to be working in tandem (Continued in second post).
>>1122096
As humans group up into these competing groups, nepotism would start to set in. This is perfectly understandable, a person would look out first and foremost for their friends and family. As these groups competed with one another, such a state of hatred, dislike, and distrust, would be formed to either destroy the revolution or end in a manner that would prevent the realization of the so called "communist ideal". This is of course, ignoring the strong economic arguments laid out by Mises, such as the economic calculation problem.
>>1122087
Nice dodge there. We weren't discussing some nebulous "class" of so-called "intellectuals." You said "the academy;" academia is indeed heavily slanted left. The work of Jonathan Haidt and others shows it is, and liberals themselves admit to it. Conservative faculty members on college campuses are dwindling and rare outside of economics departments.
It's not a conspiracy, because it's a state of affairs that clearly and plainly exists.
Also, dismissing Nicholas Kristof just for writing in the NYT? How stupid.
>>1122040
>Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.
>In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.
>Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.
Of course, there's a tacit assumption that somehow we're all supposed to respect political affiliation, as though I have to "play nice" and treat a Republican fairly, when a poor person voting Republican is objectively stupid.
Maybe there's a bias against Republicans in academia because it actually is an inferior belief system and it's for less intelligent people.
>>1118072
he was just a guy with some really far out ideas that got way out of hand later on
>>1122122
>Maybe there's a bias against Republicans in academia because it actually is an inferior belief system and it's for less intelligent people.
Do you have data? The other anon had data.
>>1122113
>You said "the academy;" academia is indeed heavily slanted left. The work of Jonathan Haidt and others shows it is, and liberals themselves admit to it. Conservative faculty members on college campuses are dwindling and rare outside of economics departments.
You're assuming that the political spectrum outside of the academy is a control group. The group outside of the academy is heavily subjected to propaganda from the right wing.
Maybe people outside of the academy have a strong right-wing bias.
>It's not a conspiracy, because it's a state of affairs that clearly and plainly exists.
"Clearly and plainly" is just ideology.
>>1122096
>modern psychology
The cap on social relationships has its basis in neurology, worth a mention.
>>1122087
The problem, as I see and identify is, is not so much the conspiracy of leftist takeover of American academia and American minds, but more so the rapid spread of leftism as a form of intellectualism. Modern leftism is still some form of a frontier in terms of philosophy and ideas, conservatism has most of its shit and ideas worked out. Leftism is a frontier that any academic wants to stake his claim (and name) to the newest groundbreaking idea that will propel their name into history.
