Looking at America today it's surprising how much Marx got right about the future of industrial societies:
>Productive forces being suppressed by productive relations
>Alienation
>Increased concentration of wealth by the few accompanied by the impoverishment of many
And yet Americans are still among some of the most opposed people to Marx's theories in the world.
Why?
>>490041
Marx didn't think about how capitalists would defend themselves and their capital, nor did he provide a better alternative.
>>490041
Because this
>>Increased concentration of wealth by the few accompanied by the impoverishment of many
hasn't happened, and likely will never happen. Marx was fundamentally hampered by the misunderstanding in economics inherent in the LTV that he worked with: wealth is not static, and can be generated in ways that don't involve the stealing of it from others.
So while it's true that the tippy top rich have enorsmously more than the poor do, and you can argue that as an overall slice of the total wealth pie, they've increased their share, in terms of actual, personal wealth, even the bottom strata of society are moving up.
"Poverty" no longer means, in a first world country at any rate, that you sit in a gutter, wondering whether you'll starve or freeze first.
>>490070
Get a load of this jew
Considering how wealth inequality rose in the United States only after it's economy became more deindustrialized, Marx got BTFO.
>>490076
Talk shit get hit
>>490073
Says the man writing with an Internet connection, available to nobody, no matter how rich, in Marx's day.
>>490041
>Alienation
Nothing is spookier
>>490070
>"Poverty" no longer means, in a first world country at any rate, that you sit in a gutter, wondering whether you'll starve or freeze first.
Oh, that makes it fine then.
>>490224
Who is adding an ethical element to this, and for what purpose?
The fact of the matter is that most people are not going to risk violent death for an abstract notion that someone out there is far, far more successful than they are, as long as their basic needs are met and they're comfortable.
To get someone, nevermind great masses of people, willing to take on the rather high risk of death when engaged in violent insurrection, they usually need to be pretty desperate, which is best measured against absolute standards of wealth, not relative standards of wealth.
As the world, as a whole, gets wealthier, economically induced violence is going to decrease. Trying to get a communist revolution to happen in modern conditions is going to be extremely difficult, likely impossible.
>>490070
>hasn't happened, and likely will never happen.
it is happening slowly. revolutions in the 1900s were not prevented by idealogues saying "look at the caveman days they were even worse than now" absolute poverty is not what motivates people, relative poverty is what motivates people and loss of stability.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/10/middle-class-not-majority/
Marx is correct economically but his prediction about workers getting mad and organizing has not been proven correct.
>>490280
Again, you're missing the point. Look at where communist revolutions happened. Russia, shattered by ww1, decades of mismanagement from the czars, roving bands of bandits killing, raping, and looting. China, in similar circumstances; don't you find it interesting that the communists only started getting traction once the post-Qing civil wars were decades old?
You're only going to get mass, violent action on economic grounds when you have the stark choice between violent action and starvation. As starvation recedes, so does revolution.
And, by the way; revolt from economic woes is hardly new to the 19th century. Go look up the fall of the Han and Ming dynasties in China, the collapse of the Timurid state, what happened after Gudonov died in Russia.
Marx, quite simply is not correct economically, which is why his predictions have been all off. The guy can't even account for real estate markets, let alone entire societies.
>>490280
I will repeat myself here >>490076
Marx said: industrialization leads to immiseration and class polarization.
Meanwhile, in the real world, industrialization created the huge middle-classes of the Western world, and DEINDUSTRIALIZATION led to increase in wealth inequality. LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT MARX SAID WOULD HAPPEN DID HAPPEN.
Intellectuals are so eager to establish a Marxist dictatorship where they can be the ruling class that they aren't even rigorous anymore, they just invent any lie and hope everyone else doesn't notice.
>>490244
Good post, anon.
>>490334
>huge middle-classes of the Western world
The capitalist middle class grew when keynesian economics were applied (which is much more similar to socialism)
Once neoliberalism started in 1970 inequality has done nothing but increase.
There are some exceptions, but they are the ones that get away from traditional capitalism, like norway which is so regulated it looks like the ussr.
The more capitalism you apply the more inequality is generated, that is almost a proven fact.
>>490280
> absolute poverty is not what motivates people, relative poverty is what motivates people and loss of stability
No, really, not having food is what motivates people.
> revolutions in the 1900s were not prevented by idealogues saying "look at the caveman days they were even worse than now"
because there is an absolute bottom limit to poverty, which is starvation. Starvation is the same no matter when or where you live, and lack of food is the most reliable cause for revolt in the world and always has been.
>>490343
>norway which is so regulated it looks like the ussr
Norway is less economically free that the Western average, but it really isn't that bad.
>>490343
Inequality doesn't matter as long as standards of living go up for the bottom as well, which historically is the case.
>>490358
By comparison, these are the countries who could actually be said to be like the USSR.
>>490360
1)thats not true, total amount of people living and dying in misery also increased with capitalism
2)the idea that rich people who contribute nothing are necesary for anything is so idiotic that i pity how brainwashed you must be to believe it.
The concept you all american teenagers dont understand about Marx is that of "class awareness", you are all very VERY poor people in the grand scheme of things defending the interests of rich people.
congratulations, you have been class cucked
>>490343
>The capitalist middle class grew when keynesian economics were applied (which is much more similar to socialism)
Your ignorance is showing. Not surprising for one defending Marxism, might I add.
Keynesian Economics is not socialism. Keynesian Economics is basically having fiscal deficits when for some reason demand falls and unemployment rises and surpluses the rest of the time (so you can pay those fiscal deficits).
Keynesianism doesn't concern with Economic growth. It concerns with short run GDP fluctuations. Unless you go full retard, fiscal policy won't affect growth. Growth is mostly affected by technological progress.
>>490370
The idea that rich people contribute nothing is so idiotic I pity how brainwashed you must be to believe that a corporation, striving for profit above all else, would keep an expensive liability around indefinitely.
And if you want to read about real class interaction, Machiavelli had Marx beaten to the idea, and had a far more nuanced notion of class awareness, some centuries before Marx was even born.
You are an imbecile.
>>490370
I mean, it is true. The most recent winner of the Nobel prize in economics has a book called "The Great Escape" which details the data and assessments of 'well-being' if you really want to get into it.
>>490370
>total amount of people living and dying in misery also increased with capitalism
That's only because the amount of people increased so much since the XIXth century.
>congratulations, you have been class cucked
You too, if you are a Marxist but not a intellectual.
>>490370
>if I throw around buzzwords I win the argument!
The rich class is essential towards economic advancement in of the fact that they are the ones with the secured, disposable wealth to provide the jobs we work. It is also through the competition of these rich men, that prices are decided, and society as a whole is advanced. Also, you must consider the fact that there is no better work around system, with end goal socialist and communist systems being unworkable.
>>490244
Diabetes in epidemic in poor Black and Latino communities. Also, many poor people in America are killed by police or gang violence.
Even though their material conditions aren't as terrible as those of the third world, by no means do poor Americans have their "basic needs" met.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-signs-food-stamp-cut
>>490389
Diabetes is an epidemic caused by too much eating of the bad things; an economic surfeit, not an economic deficit.
>Also, many poor people in America are killed by police or gang violence.
Your odds of being killed by the police while poor are what? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 100,000? Less? A hell of a lot less likely than if you're going to try to violently overthrow the government, that's for sure.
> by no means do poor Americans have their "basic needs" met.
The overwhelming majority of poor Americans have shelter, 2000 calories a day, and clothing. Their basic needs are only not met by expanding the definition of basic needs, which again indicates that the overall material condition of people has been improving, not the other way around.
>>490389
>many
>black and Latino communities
Pointless sentimentalism. Well-being as a whole is on the rise regardless of specific, stock occurrences of basic needs not being met.
>>490377
NTA(not that anon)
>The idea that rich people contribute nothing is so idiotic
why? Of course the managers contribute, but go look at the rich kids of instagram and tell me what they contribute?
just as point to the mods, this thread is quickly going into /pol/ territory.
>>490399
Your chances of being shot by police are incredibly low (I'd dare wager 1 in 1,000,000,000) if you don't commit crimes, assault police officers, or wave weapons at them.
A lack of education is one of the biggest problems in America. It's why so many Blacks and Hispanics are at the lower rungs of society and why we still have people spewing outdated psuedoscience (IE, Marxism).
>>490399
>surfeit
Combined with irrational decision making.
Blacks, and to a lesser extent hispanics, don't eat poorly out of limited means, they just either don't abstractly comprehend health and nutrition in the same way as others, or they have a less protracted time preference.
The root of this might still be material conditions, sure, but the base and superstructure relation is at least much more complex and subtle than what that guy was letting on.
>>490389
>Diabetes in epidemic
Diabetes is caused mostly by eating too much. How is this evidence of poverty increasing?
>>490334
The shift into a post-industrial society != deindustrialization.
come on son.
Marx didn't mean that the magnitude of class polarization was directly proportional to industry's share of the economy. He meant that the historical innovation of industrialization marked the beginning of an era of class polarization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-industrial_society
>>490406
I'd also like to state that I'm pretty sure the socialist/marxist is baiting. No one is this overtly stupid in economics these days with all the counter factual evidence and literature available.
>>490399
>>490421
"There was a significant gradient in both diabetes prevalence (χ2 = 743.72, p < 0.0005) and population rates of referral (χ2 = 168.435, p < 0.0005) across income quintiles, with the lowest income quintiles having the highest rates of diabetes and referral to the DEC"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618393/
>>490402
The kids are a byproduct of the incentive system. They do not, in themselves, have to be productive in order to motivate productivity.
Also
>people should be evaluated only according to their work contribution
If you want to root out capitalist propaganda, start with this
>>490433
By what should they be evaluated, then? Contributions to the arts are inherently subjective.
>>490428
You are making the fatal mistake of assuming someone espousing Marxism would ever read "ideology".
It's incredibly easy to stick your head in the sand when your ideologue outright says "Everything that contradicts what I say is lies made up by a conspiracy of telepathic immortal rich lizardmen who are trying to steal from you".
>>490438
Baseline human dignity should be valued above any measure of utility.
>>490432
So, is diabetes caused by not eating enough in Marxian economics?
>>490443
>Baseline human dignity
What baseline would that be? How is that not any more subjective than judgements about a person's work contribution?
>>490443
>Baseline human dignity
This coming from a man advocating an ideology wherein the family unit and any form of non-work based thought must be eliminated by force.
>>490402
>Of course the managers contribute, but go look at the rich kids of Instagram and tell me what they contribute?
>A persons' worth and contributions can be boiled down what they post on Instagram
How does one develop such fallacious assumptions about other people?
None of that is happening
>Productive forces being suppressed by productive relations
What does that mean? That people are not willing to join unions? That's their choice.
>Alienation
People have never had as much time for leisure and creative activities as today.
>Increased concentration of wealth by the few accompanied by the impoverishment of many
That is not happening. Everyone is prospering, just some more than others. I'd rather live in a prosperous and unequal society than under a system where everyone is equally poor.
>>490469
>Food, clothes, shelter, security, self-determination and free association are a start.
All still prone to subjectivity, yet all things made more available than ever before thanks to capitalism.
>It's less subjective because it is not related to evaluating individuals.
That doesn't make it any less subjective, especially self-determination and free association.
Many people see private property and wage-labor as tenants of self-determination and free association, and yet many Marxists seek to place enormous controls on said concepts, if not to eliminate them entirely.
>>490070
>hasn't happened, and likely will never happen
Note
between 1980 and 2010 inflation rose by 169%.
when analysing the graph think about the rise of buying power instead of straight raise of income
>>490446
Diabetes is not caused by not eating enough, it's caused by diet and lifestyle. A low income severely limits your dietary options, which is probably why middle class families have lower diabetes rates. Middle class families have the income and leisure time necessary to grocery shop for healthy ingredients and cook for themselves and their families. Furthermore, how often do you think a working class person is going to go jogging on their day off? Probably not very often, when compared to middle class families.
>>490454
>any form of non-work based thought must be eliminated by force
citation needed
>>490461
Show me how they contribute in other ways.
Capital is not an award they give out to smart hard working people, it does not represent the value someone has contributed to society. Capital is one of those things which gets easier to attain the more you have of it.
>>490483
>Middle class
One of the reasons why modern sociology is useless is because it considers 90% of citizens to be middle class.
>>490041
>future of industrial societies
all those greentext lines you listed were happening in Europe *at the time he wrote his shit*
>>490479
Anons, how do i into 99%?
>if i cant beat them, join them
can /biz/ help me out?
>>490479
I was thinking overall access to goods and services on an absolute basis.
And given that many such things that we take for granted today (internet connections?) weren't even available in 1980, it's hard to see how you could possibly be considered absolutely less wealthy, even if inflation has risen.
>>490484
>Show me how they contribute in other ways.
That would be on you to show how they don't contribute, given the initial assertion was yours.
It is also on you to demonstrate how judging a person's Instagram is an accurate method of determining what they contribute, or lack there of. Also, how this is superior to judging a person by their work output.
>Capital is not an award they give out to smart hard working people
You're right, it's not an award. But smart, hard working people have the potential to and do accumulate more capital than lazy stupid people.
>Capital is one of those things which gets easier to attain the more you have of it.
And it's easier to run a mile the more miles you run. This doesn't mean exercise is a scam by healthy people to exploit the out-of-shape, nor does it mean other people's exercising makes/keeps you unhealthy.
>>490470
Well done, in a single post you've demonstrated not only that you don't understand any of Marx's theories, but you have no idea what's happening in the world today. Give yourself a pat on the back.
>>490483
How in the hell Diabetes can be considered a symptom of the world being poorer?
>>490472
>All still prone to subjectivity, yet all things made more available than ever before thanks to capitalism.
Not disagreeing.
> That doesn't make it any less subjective, especially self-determination and free association.
Subjective was maybe not as good a word as arbitrary. Defining and uniformly applying standards is something societies can do at the large scale while leaving communities to establish localized specifics. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, is fine by me.
>Many people see private property and wage-labor as tenants of self-determination and free association, and yet many Marxists seek to place enormous controls on said concepts, if not to eliminate them entirely.
Fortunately, when allowed democratic processes for self-determination, communities can make these decisions for themselves. Again, not even a Marxist.
>>490483
It's incredibly easy to eat healthily on a low budget. Just go ask /fit/.
A lack of education is the cause of diabetes (Spending your welfarebux on chips and soda instead of rice, beans, chicken breasts, and broccoli) and coincidentally the entire reason your spewing this dribble.
>>490507
If you're in the EU, you can get a food replacement that gives you everything you need (including up to 150g of protein a day) for £1.60/meal.
>>490500
Then please enlighten us with your superior knowledge.
>>490470
>Everyone is prospering, just some more than others.
I would love to watch spaghetti explode out of your pockets as you would attempt to explain this to a Mexican woman who works full time at McDonalds.
>>490511
Exactly. Even in America, food is fucking cheap.
Here's an entire thread of plebbitors eating for a weak on $50 or less.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EatCheapAndHealthy/comments/3ym3rz/discussion_you_have_50week_and_access_to_a/
Education is the key here.
>>490494
You fail at analysing basic graphs.
The graph and the inflation figure clearly shows that buying power went down, right.
But people have more cars, more houses, more cellphones, more everything.
So where did they got it?
Buying on credit became more popular. Much more popular. Credits became easier to get too. Mortgages became more common.
Obviously loans aren't profitable to the guy who borrows money, especially if they're taken to buy essential goods. So who profits on it?
Banks.
Communism is bullshit but so is brainless neoconlib capitalism and people claiming that "it do no wrong" and preaching about "muh trickle-down" are dumbasses. Majority of rich people are 1st gen. This usually means they are sociopathic bastards. Smart sociopathic bastard. Trickle-down doesn't happen because the smart sociopathic bastards want more money.
>>490389
Latino in the US here, how about you go live in the Marxist-run hellhole where I (legally) immigrated from? I hope you enjoy standing in line for 4 hours every time you need some toilet paper.
>>490518
>Mexican woman who works full time at McDonalds
I love how you automatically jump to "Mexican woman" and accuse others of spaghetti.
Also that every fast food worker is some poor, passed over individual with a heart of gold who will be trapped there for all time.
>>490518
She's employed in the United States of America and probably working towards citizenship. She could be starving to death back in Mexico, or under the heal of some Communist regime starving her to death, or being shot by cartels.
>>490522
I suppose with traditional food one argument could be that time is a constraining factor; it will take you 20+ minutes to cook a good, nutritious meal, compared to 5 minutes waiting to be served at a fast food establishment or nuking a ready meal in your microwave oven.
However, food replacements are even faster to prepare. Powder + water + shake vigorously. That's it.
>>490507
>It's incredibly easy to eat healthily on a low budget.
I said it's not easy to eat healthy on a low income, not a low budget. Huge difference.
>A lack of education is the cause of diabetes
Public schools in poor neighborhoods are the shittiest of public schools. This basically further reinforces my initial argument, which is that high diabetes rates are a consequence of poverty.
>>490524
>preaching about "muh trickle-down"
>ctrl-f
>1 result, your post
>muh straw men
>muh baseless accusations
>muh "1% is ebul" rhetoric
Just, go.
>>490524
Or, you know, that inflation doesn't affect all sectors of purchasing equally. It's usually indexed to a few key goods, and in the U.S., usually gasoline and gasoline influenced products.
Televisions, for isntance, get cheaper every year, despite inflation going up. And that doesn't even address the existence of emerging technologies that allow for access to goods and services that didn't exist at all before.
Your argument is overly reductionist, stupidly so, and that's before it goes into a diatribe about banks and sociopaths.
>>490513
Nah you'd still be a retard even after I did.
>>490531
>She's employed in the United States of America and probably working towards citizenship. She could be starving to death back in Mexico, or under the heal of some Communist regime starving her to death, or being shot by cartels.
>Prospering
I would love to watch spaghetti explode out of your pockets as you would attempt to explain this to a Mexican woman who works full time at McDonalds.
>>490547
Not that guy but this is the most infuriating maneuver in political discussion
>I disagree with Marx
>You wouldn't if you had The True Understanding of Marx, get educated
>Educate us
>No, you're too stupid for The True Understanding of Marx, it would fry your little ant brain
>>490559
What else can they do? You don't have too many fallback points once critics start tearing huge chunks out of Marx's writings.
>America
>industrial society
This isn't the 1940s you dumb fuck.
>>490562
You can explain your opposition's errors to them, like an adult
>>490041
>Increased concentration of wealth by the few accompanied by the impoverishment of many
This is complete bullshit and you know it. John D. Rockefeller would be worth 350 billion in modern dollars, there's nobody THAT rich around anymore. Even Bill Gates doesn't break 100 billion.
>>490559
Not that anon, but he has no obligation to explain to you fundamental Marxist concepts, if you have came this far without making any effort to understand them yourself. Seriously, just try reading Das Kapital. It doesn't seem like you know anything about Marxism honestly, which is fine. But stop complaining about not being spoonfed.
I would feel the same way about a stubborn Marxist who wouldn't want to read Smith, Ricardo, or Pareto for example.
Literally everything in this thread is a load of shit, especially the claim about violence. America sure as fuck is a safer place now than it was 40 years ago, let alone 150 years ago.
>>490578
There's a difference between asking to be spoonfed and asking that someone not require you to take it on faith that you are wrong.
Besides, all your ideas are irrelevant as you'd know if you read and truly, deeply understood Buckminster Fuller
>>490504
Well, in America at least, poor people tend to eat the cheapest food. Fast food, processed foods loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, etc. It's actually much more expensive for many people to eat a healthy and balanced diet, not even considering the lack of education about good food
>>490555
So then what, everyone should be brought down to her economic level so that you stop being butthurt about inequality? Everyone has to be poor because your autism will get triggered if somebody has more? What about a Latino immigrant like myself who legally became a citizen, and through military service got education paid for, and through studying my ass off work for a respectable firm now? I'm from Venezuela, where stupid Marxist fucks wasted the fact that the decade of the 2000s had the highest oil prices ever combined with us having the most oil of anywhere on earth, on insane Marxist policies of expropriation and communization which resulted in making everyone a lot poorer. And now our neighbors like Colombia with little natural resources have nice, fully-stocked supermarkets while my family stands in lines for hours and hours and my uncle died of a simple infection in a hospital staffed by Cuban "doctors" with medical degrees that miraculously take only 3 years to make them more "accessible to the people". Fuck your awful cuck thinking, you people never say the truth do you? Go ahead and tell us that under Marxism everyone will be equally rich. Do you honestly believe that?
I believe that in most modern First World societies most people can be financially successful if they use what's available to them. FAFSA, the GI Bill, state scholarships, etc. Nothing's stopping anyone from studying hard to be above the apathetic masses in high school and get a scholarship to a state university.
>>490603
bro, Venezuela was not based on Marxist policies, your family members are victims of back-stabbing social democrats.
Under Communism everyone will be equally rich, not poor. There I said it lol.
BTW, Venezuela has never been Communist.
>Nothing's stopping anyone from studying hard to be above the apathetic masses in high school and get a scholarship to a state university.
What about student debt and tuition costs for those who don't get scholarships?
>>490616
Tbh if you need to take out loans and fail to repay you shouldn't be attending a university. Universities are not job-certificate printers. They're learning institutions.
>>490592
>all your ideas are irrelevant
Yes, in a world of pensions, minimum wages, work safety regulations, public healthcare, abolition of child labour, trade unions, maximum working hours and public education Marxism is irrelevant.
>>490616
>Under Communism everyone will be equally rich
Under communism we might as well have flying unicorns and sentient dildos, because it will never fucking happen. There will never be a communism. It pretty much relies on post-scarcity which is a pipe dream to begin with.
>>490599
You do realize that you are basically arguing that "poor people are getting fat" as an evidence of growing poverty, right?
>>490624
So it sounds like there actually are, in fact, massive roadblocks for people who plan on "studying hard to be above the apathetic masses in high school and get a scholarship to a state university," i.e. having low income.
Glad we could clear that up
>>490637
I'm not that anon you originally were posting with, but if you work hard enough you can achieve a full scholarship. There are no roadblocks that can't be hurdled. Your low income doesn't matter.
>>490637
>you are guaranteed to have a low income if you don't have a college degree
You literally fell for the meme that everyone has to be college educated otherwise they end up starving, meme propagated by the same greedy rich fucks you hate. My 30 year old cousin earns 80k as a fucking master plumber. Not rich by any means, but hardly dying in poverty.
>>490637
So they should just give up and become butthurt followers of a failed cult like Marxism then? Getting a federal student loan isn't a "massive roadblock" by any means, unless of course you wanna use it to major in something that won't get you a job. Which is all well and good but don't get butthurt about the fact that no one will hire you to philosophize about Marx to them.
>>490616
Oh thanks, yeah that's what would have let us properly invest all that all money and become a post-scarcity superpower: more edgy faggots waving red flags around and talking about Lenin. I just wish you could go there, and have to deal with an evil state that literally wants everyone to be poor so that no one can live better than anyone else. (Except of course the revolutionaries and their families and friends).
>>490652
Depends where that 80k is. Great in Idaho, fuck all in NYC.
>>490662
Much closer to Idaho than to NYC when it comes to cost of living.
The meme that college education should be automatic for everyone is absolute crap and people who fall for it tend end up with a basket weaving degree mopping floors at McDonalds while drowning in debt. It's absolute craziness.
>inb4 everyone should study STEM
Which would only bloat the market and depress salaries to fuck all like what happened to lawyers 50 years ago.
>>490682
Fair enough. I live in London and here the equivalent of 80k is pretty much the minimum for above-subsistence living.
Re: STEM salary depression: I hear that's what's happening over there with H1-B visas. The whole thing is disgusting.
>>490695
Yes actually, young engies and coders are butthurt because they are being replaced with poo in loo people who will work for a bowl of curry.
But anyway, even if we stopped immigration completely and everyone would study STEM, the market would get oversaturated. Like I said, in the 1950 "go study law, it's a sure bet" was the same sort of meme.
>>490280
> but his prediction about workers getting mad and organizing has not been proven correct.
Okay then.
In other news - does anyone find it strange that things went kinda south once big bad Soviet Union got out of business of peddling communism left and ... left?
>>490627
> pipe dream
I dunno. Open Source Software kinda does exist.
>>490917
>open source
>communist
>>490569
Bill Gates is not the richest man. He is the richest man among the people that decided to go public.
Forbes does analysis only if you agree to declare your wealth.
>>490929
> implying it's not 100% canonical Marxist communism
Prove me wrong.
>>490935
>Prove me wrong.
Not how that works.
Prove yourself right. Empiricism, bitch.
>>490959
Pfft.
Don't go posting Lolwuts if you can't even justify yourself.
>>490963
>Don't go posting Lolwuts if you can't even justify yourself.
You mean like you still not justifying how open source is proof that communism isn't a pipe dream?
>>490543
>muh public Schools are shitty
>posts this on the internet
Top kek, stay pleb
>>490990
>Existence of the internet means public education aren't arguably the worst form of education in the US
Why can't I hold all of these non-sequiturs.
>pointing out that a house is on fire suddenly makes you a competent fireman
All those problems were just as true in 1850 as they are today. Noticing them isn't rocket science. Durkheim wrote extensively about them and he definitely wasn't a Marxist. Marx is famous, not for what he noticed, but for his theory on how we should overcome these problems. Marx's theory that the proletariat should rise up and overthrow the state already happened. His theory that we should create Communist Societies after the revolutions already happened. AND THEY SUCKED, they couldn't keep up with market capitalism, and they failed. The Chinese realized this and made the excuse that Marx's vision just wasn't viable yet and that they must back peddle to capitalism for the time being.
>>490343
>keynesian economics were applied (which is much more similar to socialism)
>>490975
Initial statement was "communism is a pipe dream", not "open source is communism".
Either way I don't really feel the need to.
If you are familiar with Marx you already know what I'm talking about and can either agree or disagree. If you aren't (and therefore capable only of posting lolwuts, instead of intelligent replies) - it'll be an uphill battle to explain the basic ideas of Marx. It takes quite a bit of time even for the willing. And I don't think those explicitly hostile to Marxism somehow gain extraordinary power to understand the concepts much faster.
Until you understand what I'm talking about, any your reasoning that involves communism will be a question of faith, rather than an informed opinion.
So - no. I have no intention of turning this thread in another /pol/ flamewar.
>>491002
>but for his theory on how we should overcome these problems.
Not at all. He's famous for this: M—C…P…C'—M' and the resolution of the problems in political economy of how the value form works with labour value.
Read some fucking Marx.
>>491022
>Initial statement was "communism is a pipe dream", not "open source is communism".
>shifting goal posts this hard
Let me help
>>490935
> implying it's not 100% canonical Marxist communism
That in of itself is a whole new assertion entirely different from "communism is a pipe dream", requiring an entirely new base to construct.
>If you are familiar with Marx you already know what I'm talking about and can either agree or disagree.
I am, and I'm disagreeing with the notion that a programming model that has driven much of what would be free-market, for-profit, and all around capitalistic programming undertakings, as well as other open source software, is inherently communist. Instead of explaining your assertion, you jumped straight to:
>"I don't feel like educating you"
>"If you had actually read marxist theories you wouldn't reply like that"
>"You're probably not smart enough to get it anyway"
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed all the same. Sheltered theoretical-academia doesn't last long in the open.
>>491026
>Quotes Marxist ideology
>"Hurr you haven't read marx"
>>491047
Opensourcing prior to 1989 was largely expropriation of the expropriators, for example the Unix source code samizdat. It was largely labour sabotage in order to get industry to operate, sabotage against the relations of production to unleash the forces of production.
After 1989: 25 year rule.
>>491054
>Marx is famous… for his theory on how we should overcome these problems.
Marx famously didn't have a theory on how capitalism should be overcome you insufferable cunt.
Go read some fucking Marx.
>>491062
>Opensourcing prior to 1989 was largely expropriation of the expropriators, for example the Unix source code samizdat. It was largely labour sabotage in order to get industry to operate, sabotage against the relations of production to unleash the forces of production.
Kenneth brown is that you? Still trying to prove that Linux was plagiarism?
>After 1989: 25 year rule.
What does the 25 year rule have to do with programming?
>>491078
>Marx famously didn't have a theory on how capitalism should be overcome you insufferable cunt.
And that is mentioned no where in the post you were quoting. Don't continuously cry and tell people to "go read marx" when you obviously aren't reading anything yourself.
>>491047
>shifting goal posts
Oh, boy. Here we go again. The great warrior of the Internets is on the loose.
I don't actually care about your opinion, okay? I'm here for selfish reasons: to read interesting posts. Unless you can provide one, you are irrelevant.
> I'm disagreeing with the notion that a programming model that has driven much of what would be free-market, for-profit, and all around capitalistic programming undertakings, as well as other open source software, is inherently communist.
Why couldn't it be? The very idea behind communist economy (once it becomes viable) is that it will be more effective than wage-driven monopolistic capitalist economy.
I.e. people will be switching to communist economy out of self-interest (for-profit). Moreover, once capitalist monopolies (intellectual property in case of software) will be displaced, an actual free market (NB: not an "unregulated market" of right-wing economists) will emerge.
Also, things cannot be "inherently communist". That's weird and retarded.
>>491113
>don't actually care about your opinion, okay?
Moving on to "I don't care about what you're saying but I'll reply anyway because I don't care" already are we?
>Unless you can provide one, you are irrelevant.
Such a long reply for an irrelevant post.
Someone's fucking triggered.
>Why couldn't it be? The very idea behind communist economy (once it becomes viable) is that it will be more effective than wage-driven monopolistic capitalist economy.
I.e. people will be switching to communist economy out of self-interest (for-profit). Moreover, once capitalist monopolies (intellectual property in case of software) will be displaced, an actual free market (NB: not an "unregulated market" of right-wing economists) will emerge.
That would require actually giving rise to a communist economy, which it has not done. It has further served to grow and make the capitalist economy(ies) more efficient, while at the same time reducing the effectiveness and overall relevancy of monopolies and providing profitable alternatives to wage-driven labor. This has resulted in more widespread engagement in capitalist transactions and creation of more capitalist free-markets.
Deregulation of markets and displacement/destruction of monopolies are on in the same thing. You cannot enforce economic monopolies without bureaucratic ones already in existence, and you cannot sustain bureaucratic monopolies people can economically usurp and avoid.
>Also, things cannot be "inherently communist". That's weird and retarded.
I'm glad we agree then that open source isn't "100% canonical Marxist communism"
>>491026
Marx is definitely more famous for writing The Communist Manifesto than Das Kapital. I stand by everything I said.
>>491121
>>Marx is famous, not for what he noticed, but for his theory on how we should overcome these problems.
You can read!
Can you also then see how that was in reference to problems mentioned in the OP? >>490041 Because you are the first person to insert capitalism into that person's reply, which was to what was mentioned in the OP.
I mean seriously mate. Stop telling others to read when you obviously can't yourself.
>>491158
>Marx is definitely more famous for writing The Communist Manifesto than Das Kapital. I stand by everything I said.
It is an immediate programme
Which he wrote with Engels
On commission for an organisation
Which doesn't lay out a programme for communisation
Fuck me
>>491162
>For how these should be overcome
Marx didn't suggest ways to ameliorate the immediate contradictions of capital either.
Fuck me mate.
>>490626
Honestly, you couldn't have chosen a worst way end this year than being this terribly wrong.
Marx was against all that, mate. He considered labour laws and benefits bribes that would prevent the proletariat from starting a revolution. If you call yourself a true marxist, you should also be against that. The welfare state (as unsustainable and harmful as it may be) can only exist in a capitalist system.
>>490041
they are just memes
>>490370
>rich people who contribute nothing
>rich people who contribute nothing
>rich people who contribute nothing
>>491177
You don't have to shitpost just because you're arsepained.
>>491177
this is a shitpost, put an argument or statement in the textfield before you post
>>491168
>Which doesn't lay out a programme for communisation
>Communist Manifesto doesn't discuss transition from capitalism to socialism to communism
And you tell other people they need to read marx?!
>Marx didn't suggest ways to ameliorate the immediate contradictions of capital either.
Bruh. Read the posts and stop inserting things into them to avoid having to address them.
Isn't it past your bedtime in that god forsaken airid colony anyway? You seem tired and disoriented.
>>491175
>methods and labels not in the clear source at the bottom of the graph
Literally spoonfeeding.
>>490518
Thanks to capitalism, the average poor person lives better than a king from the middle ages. Even Marx agreed that capitalism takes prosperity through technological innovation and the creation of wealth.
>>491181
>>491182
What do you think rich people do with their money? Hoard it like dragons? They invest it, creating more jobs and innovation, while cheapening product. They are the ones who create and indirectly distribute wealth. The idea that rich people don't contribute to society (the amount of tax money they pay is also absurd) is ridiculous.
>>491183
>And you tell other people they need to read marx?!
Yes. Bourgeois programmes like Manifesto don't relate to class praxis in the least.
>Bruh. Read the posts and stop inserting things into them to avoid having to address them.
I'm sorry that you're ignorant, illiterate, and have avoided dealing with Marx. The answer is to not contribute to threads like these.
>airid
Search google for a clock you cunt.
>>491191
>Even Marx agreed that capitalism takes prosperity through technological innovation and the creation of wealth.
Read some of the journalism he did on india and china. He was well aware of the contradictory nature of capital.
>>491189
>Source:
A source isn't a fucking label, nor is it a "year nominalisation" or method of inflation.
>Literally spoonfeeding.
You're academically illiterate.
>>491206
>What do you think rich people do with their money? Hoard it like dragons?
Have you read Marx? No, of course not, they do this:
M—C…P…C'—M' …
>They invest it, creating more jobs and innovation
That depends entirely on the organic composition of capital in the sectors of capital that are growing.
Let us describe two sectors: Google and Forestry. Forestry is highly labour intensive per unit of capital. Google is lowly labour intensive per unit of capital. If profit flows from forestry to Google then the number of jobs per unit of capital goes down.
>while cheapening the product
Yes, that's the OCC crisis right there.
>The idea that rich people don't contribute to society
This has never been an element of Marxism.
Please, go to Oz when you want to make strawmen walk and talk, if you only had a brain.
>>491206
Where do you think capital comes from? Rich peoples' assholes?
Capital: tools, buildings, extracted resources all originate from labor.
The problem is poor people haven't realized this and decided that the rich are unnecessary. Some rich people aren't even managers, they pay others to manage their investments. This means that the wage-earning class is capable of managing its own production.
>>491168
dude all you're doing is spouting arbitrary information that doesn't refute anything I said. I guess you're just trying to defend the character of Marx. Great, I think Marx was super smart too, but that doesn't mean his theories are all right. Let me list my thought process when responding to OP and you can tell me where I'm wrong.
>OP lists obvious social ills of 19th century Europe
>OP wonders why Americans don't embrace Marx and his theories
>I claim he is most famous for the Communist Manifesto in which he theorized a coming communist revolution
>that theory happened in China/USSR and it didn't turn into the communist utopia he described in the back half of TCM
all of his other work is irrelevant to most americans, we reject him because his most famous work spawned ideas that created two genocidal failed states.
>>491229
>This means that the wage-earning class is capable of managing its own production.
Following Braverman and the councils of 1956, managers aren't really necessary.
>>491232
>I guess you're just trying to defend the character of Marx.
Not really. He was a fucking cunt of a man. I'm trying to defend a reasonable and standard description of his works and their contents. He, and his wife, and daughters, and their children all lie in the grave.
>but that doesn't mean his theories are all right.
I haven't been arguing that Marx's theories are right, I've been arguing what the content of his theories were. Marx is famous for NOT providing a programme to achieve communism, but instead providing a critique of the contradictions of capital.
>I claim he is most famous for the Communist Manifesto in which he theorized a coming communist revolution
And you're wrong. Manifesto details a bourgeois republic controlled by workers at best.
>that theory happened in China/USSR and it didn't turn into the communist utopia he described in the back half of TCM
Which it didn't. Marx subsequently wrote on the Paris commune, which more seriously influenced Lenin, along with Lenin's studies on agricultural economics in Russia. Politically Lenin was far more influenced by Narodnishchina than Marx.
Marx was also never a substitutionalist, unlike Lenin's theory of revolution.
"What is to be done?" by Lenin, which details a Jacobin coup d'etat was far more influential in Russia.
As you know, wage labour was reinstituted immediately by bolshevik parties wherever they found communisation on the shop floor (Pirani, S.) and both societies involved the constant expansion of capital, from the beginning, under party direction.
Finally you've ignored Socialism in the United States, from sewer socialism, through DeLeonism & the IWW. Marxism failed in the United States, in part, because its sectional advantages were crushed in fire and blood in the 1910s.
>we reject him because his most famous work spawned ideas that created two genocidal failed states.
Flat out wrong as demonstrated.
Tiresome. If we were allowed to fail people, I'd give you a 44
>>491208
>Communist Manifesto has nothing to do with class praxis
Holy fuck, seriously, have you read the Communist Manifesto?
I think you need to read some marx, bro.
>>491221
>A source isn't a fucking label
It's called a reference. You find them in academic papers all the time.
>You're academically illiterate.
>Doesn't know how references work and cannot look them up
Y'all niggers need to learn the difference between the two types of diabetes. First you have type 2 which is when you're so fat and unhealthy your body becomes insulin resistant and it is curable. Then there's type 1 which is caused by an unknown factor but it kills your organ that produces insulin. Type 1 was called childdiabetes but it's becoming more common among older youth and young adults. Type 1 is most common in Sweden and Finland were people are not poor. Type 1 is not common in Japan however.
>>491218
Yeah, read his journalism on China, for example on the Taiping rebels. From someone who specializes in Chinese history, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Good indication to me of how seriously to take the guy.
>>491256
>Holy fuck, seriously, have you read the Communist Manifesto?
Manifesto posits a bourgeois state acting on behalf of workers. "Praxis" != "State Action". By our hands alone or by none.
>>491256
>It's called a reference. You find them in academic papers all the time.
And your decision to post a chart without a y-axis label and without an explanation of its treatment of money over time (CPI normalised 2010 USD, for example), makes you a cunt.
>>491246
>And you're wrong.
The abolishment of classes based on property ownership during a transition from capitalism to socialism, and then to communism is not theorization of a coming communist revolution...how?
>Politically Lenin was far more influenced by Narodnishchina than Marx.
Yet the Bolsheviks themselves often questioned this, almost as much as they questioned the Russia's place in the capitalism-socialism-communism timeline as they constantly second guessed and contrasted themselves to Marx's original teachings.
>Tiresome.
Yet you keep coming back.
>If we were allowed to fail people, I'd give you a 44
This isn't the safe-space bubble of theoretical-academia m8.
>>491246
>The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
>When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
>In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
Idk about you but I have a hard time reading that and then saying Marx didn't theorize a communist revolution.
>>491284
I bet this faggot has never worked a day of physical labor in his life. "our hands" kek.
>>491284
>Manifesto posits a bourgeois state acting on behalf of workers.
Yeah, you have not read the Communist manifesto. Otherwise you'd realize the both class praxis and the prediction of the impending "worldwide revolution" you claim don't exist are in there.
>And your decision
I didn't even post it bruh, I merely pointed out that the sources and labels are available in the reference to the fucking paper is was taken from.
Repeatedly calling everyone a cunt won't make you any less triggered. How about more times are you gonna claim how tiresome and boring and a waste of time this is while still posting?
>>491288
>in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation
This is class collaborationism, plus anti-internationalism.
>>491288
>If
If.
Look at the programmatic segment which is pure class collaborationalist nationalism ("a national bank" wtf marx).
>>491299
>faggot
poofter
>>491299
>has never worked a day of physical labor in his life
I need money, what can you cover.
>>491317
>I need money
Is that why you're posting on 4chan at 2 in the afternoon?
>>491325
As you know it is a proscribed public holiday.
>>491228
>Have you read Marx?
Yes, I have.
You think you are some kind of genius because you've heard about surplus value? And yes, that is what investiment is like, in a very shallow way that doesn't take into account innovation and the drop in product prices.
>If profit flows from forestry to Google then the number of jobs per unit of capital goes down.
The money is not coming off forestry. The money comes from clients who are buying products, so the "capitalists" decide how to invest their new wealth.
And even if capital was flowing off forestry, the consequent unemployment would just be temporary. If it wasn't, we would have massive unemployment generated by the industrial and digital revolutions.
>This has never been an element of Marxism.
That's not what the other fellow was saying.
>>491229
>The problem is poor people haven't realized this and decided that the rich are unnecessary
Poor people understand that the owner of the means of production is gaining a profit from their labour, which is completely fair, considering it is a reward for the risk of investing.
Rich people are fundamental to a society. People with a spirit of entrepreneurship and vision. People who know how to act, how to manage, how to take initiative and work hard to achieve their goals. People who are able to employ the billions of people on this planet, while generating innovation in all fields. The world needs more rich people, not poor.
>>491356
>You think you are some kind of genius because you've heard about surplus value?
No. I think I'm unusually literate because I, like you, have actually read Capital before posting about it.
Kevin, who has a portfolio in forestry, liquidates a proportion of his shares as they increase in value and invests in Google. This is an investment of profit from one sector into another. It is what the sharemarket does every day chasing the equalisation of profits.
>The money comes from clients who are buying products
Customers don't re-invest profits.
>so the "capitalists" decide how to invest their new wealth.
I'll agree with this, but it isn't by realisation on the market, it is by a decision on how to reinvest profit.
>>>The idea that rich people don't contribute to society
>>This has never been an element of Marxism.
>That's not what the other fellow was saying.
The other fellow is a fucking cretin.
Marx identifies three ways in which the capitalist contributes:
Firstly most capitalists also engage in some human exertion, whether this be sitting on boards, investing money, directing management, or on "the tools" themselves. In this respect the Capitalist confronts herself as a labourer, and pays herself a wage. Often also pays herself a share of the profit at the same time.
Secondly, many if not most, capitalists make functional decisions about the sectoral and institutional investment of their capital. By chasing profits in undersaturated new industries they redirect attention to underproduction.
Thirdly, the capitalist of course owns capital, without which the movement of capital through its various forms and transformations and exchanges would not occur in our society.
The other guy is a fucking idiot. Saying that they're not necessary in a workers' controlled society is very different from saying they don't contribute.
Even the few "Idle rich" contribute by nominally owning capital.
>>491317
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
>Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
>4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
This doesn't sound very class collaborationist to me
>If
So if the bourgeois doesn't hand over the reins of the state to the working class and allow the above, THEN the working class has the right to conduct a violent revolution. How merciful of you Marx. Unsurprisingly, this seems to be the route most Communists have taken.
>Look at the programmatic segment which is pure class collaborationalist nationalism ("a national bank" wtf marx)
No, it's Totalitarian Stalinism. Don't give me that "but that's not true communism boo hoo" bullshit. Marx endorsed this and believed that it would somehow workout and transform into a Egalitarian Communist Utopia.
>>490070
>"Every aspect of my life down to the smallest detail, even my own potential net worth is controlled by meaningless paper fostered by a bunch of shiesty gremlins in an effort to habituate utter control of a vast labour force."
>"It's k tho, I'm comfortable with the lies because I get to talk shit on the internet"
Your comfort is a fucking lie and you're just letting everything explode because you're too fucking content in your little birdcage. Just because the advancement of technology has fostered a higher quality of life doesn't mean it's worth the subjugation of the entire world under the will of a single boardtable.
Wake the fuck up.
>>491389
>>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
But not in capital.
>>491389
>>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
So money, capital, wages, still exist.
>>491389
>>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
But not rights of property
>4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
But not the "loyal" bourgeoisie
Class collaborationist as fuck.
>>491389
>How merciful of you Marx
He was probably influenced by the physical force chartist's slogan, "By reason if we may, by force if we must." They were of course naïve.
>No, it's Totalitarian Stalinism.
So you agree in that it is pure class collaboration?
Private capitalists existed under the 5 year plans.
Capital circulated in the expanded form.
Wages were paid.
That's capitalism. That's class collaboration.
>>491383
I don't think this is goin anywhere.
Surplus value is an invalid explanation in any modern economic concept.
I still can't believe people follow the guy who thought that the value of a product comes from the amount of work employed in producing it,
And, as I said:
>even if capital was flowing off forestry, the consequent unemployment would just be temporary. If it wasn't, we would have massive unemployment generated by the industrial and digital revolutions.
>>490070
>by the misunderstanding in economics inherent in the LTV that he worked with: wealth is not static, and can be generated in ways that don't involve the stealing of it from others.
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE CIRCUIT OF THE EXPANDED REPRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IS? IT IS EXPLICITLY DIACHRONIC. FUCK ME YOU LYING ILLITERATE CUNT.
[ M—C…P…C'—M' ]…
FUCK ME
>>491401
You realize people still give Adam Smith his fair due too, right?
>>491405
Stop spamming
>[ M—C…P…C'—M' ]…
It's complete bullshit.
>>491401
>Surplus value is an invalid explanation in any modern economic concept.
As you'd know, modern economics was founded on the price-proxy for happiness due to the failure of utilitarianism. Modern economics is explicitly marginalist in core theory and thus necessarily excludes LTV.
This is much akin to suggesting that historians don't conduct literary criticism. Sure they don't.
Marxist LTV work is political economy, not economics.
>even if capital was flowing off forestry, the consequent unemployment would just be temporary
I didn't even talk about a negative growth scenario, I was talking about profit reinvestment in an expanding growth scenario. The labour employed per unit of capital decreases as capital flows from low OCC to high OCC sectors.
Investment doesn't equal employment growth.
>would just be temporary. If it wasn't, we would have massive unemployment generated by the industrial and digital revolutions.
We do. I mean fuck me. Don't work off the official unemployment statistic, work off the % FTE employed of population.
>>491412
For some of his views, yes. Surely not for his theory of value.
>>491412
>You realize people still give Adam Smith his fair due too, right?
Not really. They bowdlerise his work.
>>491414
It might be complete bullshit, but it demonstrates that the critique I responded to, that Marx views "wealth" as a static category, is bullshit.
You need to differentiate between whether something is true, and whether something is a reasonable characterisation of what an author wrote.
>>491417
>Surely not for his theory of value.
Generally not because Marxian LTV resolves the contradictions in Smith's LTV.
>>491417
Just saying. The fact an economist bought into the LTV isn't grounds to disregard them entirely, at one point it was a pretty standard assumption.
That said, I can't think offhand of any Marxist thinkers that don't, but I'm also not that well-versed in Marxism.
>>491405
>[ M—C…P…C'—M' ]…
Not that guy, but what the hell is this?
>>491425
>That said, I can't think offhand of any Marxist thinkers that don't, but I'm also not that well-versed in Marxism.
There are a whole bunch of "Marxist" economists who are inspired by Marx's critiques of capital and his attempt to find the laws of motion of the system, but who work within marginalist criteria.
Some political economists who are Marxist similarly reject marxian LTV.
>>491416
All right, I'm going to sleep, so maybe I'll comment your first two points next morning.
As for the third one, are you implying that the unemployment rate has been steadly increasing since the industrial revolution? If not, we have nothing more to talk about.
>>491423
>Generally not because Marxian LTV resolves the contradictions in Smith's LTV.
While creating lots of new ones.
>>491428
>Not that guy, but what the hell is this?
It is the circuit of the expanded reproduction of Capital in Marx. This is dealt with, at length, in Capital.
M = Capital in the money form. Specie, paper, commodity
C = Capital in the commodity form
…P… = process of production
' or prime = expansion of value
— = market exchange value for value
All moments are described in terms of value form's exchange value.
C' > C as C's lp or labour power component can produce more or less value than it takes to fairly pay for the wages. In 6 hours a worker may produce the fair price of their physical and emotional reproduction in commodity form, but labour is capable of working 12 or 18 hours.
>>491439
Oh, thanks. I have no dogs in this race, that just had my interesting piqued. So I appreciate you taking the time to explain that.
>>491438
>While creating lots of new ones.
And as you know, Marx's method is to uncover the contradictions in the laws of motion of capital.
>>491432
OCC hasn't been increasing steadily because of two factors:
7 year disjunctions in capital goods production and depreciation ("crises" "depressions" "recession") brought on by localised OCC crises in the configuration of the system.
And of course the incorporation of new commodities and new accumulation of non-commodities into the system: capitalism has expanded into low OCC areas, reducing the OCC over all and equalising employment by shifting industries to the periphery.
I mean this isn't hard. OCC related un and underemployment needs to be looked for within a period of stable commodities.
>>491447
For more information, look in the first few chapters of Volume II of Capital, and the sections on "reproduction" and "expanded reproduction" in Volume I.
>>491382
>Rich people are fundamental to a society. People with a spirit of entrepreneurship and vision. People who know how to act, how to manage, how to take initiative and work hard to achieve their goals. People who are able to employ the billions of people on this planet, while generating innovation in all fields. The world needs more rich people, not poor.
Capital is not an award they give out to smart hard working people. The barrier to poor people showing all those values which you value so much is capital. To say that only capitalist are good at demonstrating those values, is a tautology.
>>491399
>Stalinism was pure class collaboration capitalism
Oh god, you're one of those Marxists. No wonder you've been such a dense twat. You're just as dumb as those Ayn Rand Austrian fags who blame all problems on "state intervention" and dodge all criticism of capitalism because we don't live in a "true free market".
Fascism and Corporatism are class collaborationist, Stalinism and Maoism are collaborate with our dear leader or dieism. But I'm not interested in having this debate considering you live in a fantasy world of pure theory. What I will do is use your own stupid logic to prove my initial post.
>The Communist Manifesto advocated a proletariat takeover of the government to enact a 10 point program in order to revolutionize the mode of production
>according to you, that 10 point program is pure class collaborationalist nationalism
>according to you, Totalitarian Stalinism is pure class collaborationalist nationalism
>The Communist Manifesto is Marx's most famous work
>Marx is most famous for his work advocating a proletariat takeover of the government to enact pure class collaborationist nationalism similar to Stalinism
wow, it's almost the exact same thing I said in my post yet it's taken you 6+ posts to work your idiotic circular logic into agreeing with me. I never tried to disprove "Pure" Marxist Theory. I merely pointed out that Marx's bullshit rhetoric led to revolutionary politics which gave authoritarian power to genocidal maniacs like Stalin, which is why Americans are still among the most opposed people to Marx's theories in the world. Thanks for helping me to answer OP's question.
>>491484
>But I'm not interested in having this debate considering you live in a fantasy world of pure theory.
Feel free to deny that wage labour existed in the Soviet Union. You are rejecting the sources. It isn't my problem.
>>The Communist Manifesto is Marx's most famous work
That'd be Capital dickhead.
>I merely pointed out that Marx's bullshit rhetoric led to revolutionary politics which gave authoritarian power to genocidal maniacs like Stalin
But it didn't. Lenin's unique contributions did.
>which is why Americans are still among the most opposed people to Marx's theories
No, that'd be the 1910s red scare.
>>491460
That's what you tell yourself at night when you think about your life? That you haven't achieved your true potential because some bad rich people don't want you to?
It is common knowledge that wealth and influence come to the people who take the iniatiative and work hard, and I mean that in all senses: being productive above average, being smart enough to take opportunities, knowing how to network and relate to people, not shying away from things, doing what must be done to achieve what you want, even if it means you won't get to entretien yourself on the internet for a few hours.
>>491490
>The USSR wasn't true Communism
Yes, because true communism is unattainable in the real world. Thanks for informing me what I already know.
>Marx is better known for Das Kapital than that forgotten pamphlet that every highschooler has read
>Marx had nothing to do with 20th century Marxism
>Americans hate Marx because of the 1910s red scare and not because their mortal enemy for 40+ years sought to spread MARXISM-Leninism around the world.
dude please stop, you're not going to persuade anybody in this thread with that diarrhea
>>491492
>That's what you tell yourself at night when you think about your life? That you haven't achieved your true potential because some bad rich people don't want you to?
No, I don't have a victim mentality like you probably do. Do you blame leftists and guvmint for your shortcomings, while unable to take a good look at life and overcome the fair-world bias.
>It is common knowledge that wealth and influence come to the people who take the iniatiative and work hard, and I mean that in all senses: being productive above average, being smart enough to take opportunities, knowing how to network and relate to people, not shying away from things, doing what must be done to achieve what you want, even if it means you won't get to entretien yourself on the internet for a few hours.
you only see the success stories, you don't see the people who have the same qualities and fail, no one is going to make a story about them. This bias has been known since ancient times.
>Cicero also tells of how a friend of Diagoras tried to convince him of the existence of the gods, by pointing out how many votive pictures tell about people being saved from storms at sea by "dint of vows to the gods", to which Diagoras replied that "there are nowhere any pictures of those who have been shipwrecked and drowned at sea."
You don't see those who drowned at sea, or you justify their drowning by saying the capitalist equivalent of "they didn't pray hard enough."
It is a ridiculous notion to think capital possession is a function of all the traits you mentioned. In this world capital is a barrier to good networks, and degrees from universities that get you elite jobs that make it easy to get capital.
>>491531
>with that diarrhea
What a tasteful metaphor for a man who believes wage labour in expanded reproduction isn't indicative of capital.
>and not because their mortal enemy for 40+ years sought to spread MARXISM-Leninism
1949+40 = 1989.
I never knew China was the United States' mortal enemy. Thank you for that.
>>490041
It wasn't Marx's criticisms that people rejected you fucking dunce.
It was his alternative.
>>491636
He didn't posit a fucking alternative.
>>491638
Then what was communism, Einstein?
>>491644
>Then what was communism, Einstein?
A potential implicit in the working class reaction to alienation, namely, not the slogan "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work" but rather "the abolition of wage labour."
Which Marx didn't talk about, because he spent his time on a critique of capitalism.
>>491650
Don't give me that semantic bullshit.
Just because he says that communism is the inevitable result of capitalism doesn't mean that you can't call communism Marx's alternative.
It's an alternative system of governance/economy that he described.
Therefore it's Marx's alternative.
>>491662
>It's an alternative system of governance/economy that he described.
WHERE THE FUCK DID HE DESCRIBE THAT. CITATION NOW CUNT.
>>491666
Well gee I fucking wonder.
>>491676
Dealt with above. Its a fucking wage labour society with an intact bourgeoisie.
It was an immediate programme for 1848.
And it was for the Communist League, not himself and Engels.
Fffs.
>>491697
Get to the fucking point, faggot.
>>491702
>Get to the fucking point, faggot.
This is /his/. Source criticism is the point.
>>490054
>Marx didn't think about how capitalists would defend themselves and their capital
No, I think he did. I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of advocating worker's revolution bruh.
>nor did he provide a better alternative.
Seizing the means of production is a better alternative.
>>491722
And you're saying that Marx's own words aren't a valid representation of Marx's beliefs?
Or that they can't be called Marx's words?
Or are you claiming that the communist manifesto doesn't describe a political system?
Such is why I was asking you to get the fucking point.
You haven't really made one.
You have just denied that Marx posited an alternative political system for reasons that you haven't fucking described.
>>491734
Putting the means of production in the hands of the public means that a single organization has to manage every aspect of the economy and that the benefits of a natural market where entrepreneurs satsify consumer demand does not exist.
This almost necessarily leads to mass shortages and collective poverty.
It's an embarassing failure of a system.
>>491742
And this is combined with the fact that no one is ever at risk of losing their livelihoods for their own failures.
The idea of a collective will is probably the goofiest and most naive concept to have ever been seriously considered in the field of politics.
>>491531
So much American in this post.
People ITT dismissing Marx's LTV please respond to the following:
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/notes/Law-of-Value.html
>>490378
>Nobel prize in economics
no such thing. look it up, it uses the nobel name to promote neoliberal ideas basically
>>490563
America is the second largest manufacturer in the world autist
>>491299
nice projection
>>490244
>As the world, as a whole, gets wealthier, economically induced violence is going to decrease.
Do communists (maybe in modern academia) have any response to this?
>>491904
Yeah. Read The Great Wave about long term price waves.
Civil violence has decreased with human prosperity.
I don't see why that's a problem for communists.
>>491569
>man who believes wage labour in expanded reproduction isn't indicative of capital.
When did I say that? Actually, when did I even get into an argument about the inner workings of Communist theory? I only claimed that Marx is disliked because he is famous for writing the central text of the Revolutionary Communist movement of the 20th century.
In hindsight I now realize that it was me referring to the USSR, Red China, and the Communist Manifesto as Communist that triggered you. But instead of stating this in your first response, you posted obscure statement after statement without getting to the central point of your butthurt. I apologize, as I was writing in agreement with the universally accepted narrative that calling these things communist isn't controversial, unaware that I was talking to a special snowflake member of a heterodox sect of keyboard marxist philosophers.
Next time I say something as controversial as "The Communist Manifesto was advocating for Communism" I'll be sure to include a footnote on whether wage labor in expanded reproduction is or isn't indicative of capital.
>1949+40 = 1989.
>I never knew China was the United States' mortal enemy. Thank you for that.
lol what are you talking about
Hi comrades, let me ask you question.
Is global monopoly capitalism is the last phase of capitalism?
And if the average data of two different directories on the international economy, we see that in 2002-2004 the dependence of the capitalist metropolis (including Australia, New Zealand and Israel) from the periphery looked like this:
on energy - 52% (but only if you take the hydrocarbon feedstock is 79%);
Metals - 81%;
of raw material for the chemical industry - 89%;
of raw material for production of food and agricultural products - 46%;
for raw materials and finished products of light industry - 67%.
In other words, the capitalist metropolis (the "first world") into a collective capitalist exploiter of the periphery (the "Third World"). Due to the super-profits extracted by Western monopolies of the "Third World" in the "first world" is made - through a system of redistribution of income through taxes - a massive bribery of the population, including broad sections of the working people. This means that the metropolis is becoming increasingly clear parasitic character education - similar to the metropolis of the Roman Empire, who lived through the exploitation and plunder of the provinces and neighboring lands.
Is it really? Or are these sources of information are not to be trusted?
>>491887
A full fucking hour later and still no explanation.
I'm done with this shit.
>>490041
Marxism was basically a troll. The gist was that, if perfect competition existed, monopoly would result. Marx himself never supported communism and anyone who holds strong opinions for or against him has been trolled.
>>491956
Go take your randomly selected numbers and guzzle cum.
>>491887
>"The Firm." Fucking morons.
I'm sorry I don't use the Marx dictionary, jackass.
>>491980
SOURCE:
>http://unstats.un.org/unsd/syb/.
>http://www.photius.com/rankings/index.html
>NON-CIA RANKS
>NOTE: The rankings in this category, "NONE-CIA RANKS", are not derived from the current world factbook. Consequently some are not based on current data. In certain cases current data is not available. For example, the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task. Most country rankings in the main categories, Population, Geography, Economy, Transportation| Communications, Military, Government are derived from the current CIA world factbook.
>http://www.theodora.com/wfb/
>CIA WORLD FACTBOOK.
The current CIA world fact book in spreadsheet format: >http://www.photius.com/rankings/spreadsheets_2015/
Learn at least the sources of information and you will see the relationship, and understand that you are not quite right. Although why casting pearls before swine? You still do not understand.
>>491923
>lol what are you talking about
You don't even know who used the term Marxist-Leninist. Shameful display.
>>491956
>Is global monopoly capitalism is the last phase of capitalism?
This is a political question.
>In other words, the capitalist metropolis (the "first world") into a collective capitalist exploiter of the periphery (the "Third World").
Grossly reductivist. Also doesn't account for high OCC sectors like data production: you remember the chapter on OCC and relative profitability?
Here's a clue: Vietnamese "peasants" had wage labour relations.
>>491999
>I'm sorry I don't use the Marx dictionary, jackass.
It isn't a Marxist term. It is one from bourgeois management studies. Firms lack internal markets.
>>491976
Marx never supported communism because people who took his ideas and tried to implement them (during his life and especially after) were not worthy (they were a bit nutty). Except maybe Lenin. You can't blame him, he publically attacked some French "commies" and he said "If they are Marxists, I am certainly not a Marxist"
>>490041
You forgot to mention the rise of commodity fetishism
>>490376
You must feel proud because you said economics and growth and GDP and shit in your sentence. Pat yourself on the back, you fucking "cappie"
>>492050
>Grossly reductivist. Also doesn't account for high OCC sectors like data production: you remember the chapter on OCC and relative profitability?
>Here's a clue: Vietnamese "peasants" had wage labour relations.
Ok, comrade.
In part, I agree with you.
But in reality, however, this dependence is even greater, since the official statistics do not reflect the real situation. As an example, maquiladora. Mexican Maquiladora divided into three categories depending on their legal status. So, products Maquiladora third category (using the right of extraterritoriality) misses the statistics of Mexico, and takes into account the statistics of the United States. But at the same time, and the enterprises themselves are located outside the United States, and work on them US citizens and Mexican workers (whose North American statistics, of course, not included). Thus, we find that the official statistics of the United States, given the products of American companies produced in maquiladora, not only overstates the total output of the US, but overestimates the productivity of American workers.
>>492050
Also, there are many examples of private confirming discrepancy official statistics to the real situation. For example, I once had a computer from the United States. For all the documents he passed as the PC «white assemblage", produced in the Silicon Valley. When the computer broke down and was demolished, it was found that Silicon Valley was made a motherboard, and the rest - in Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, India and South Korea. Although, of course, the statistics already considered this computer as "made in USA". Another example: one of my ex-wife, now living in Munich, my husband bought a suit for special occasions - at the store, sell only German road menswear. For all the documents it appeared that the suit is made of solid and well-known German company. And only home proglazhivaya inside pants, my ex-wife found in the weld tiny tag, which indicated that the suit is actually sewn in Orsha (Belarus). Again, there is no doubt that this product is considered as the statistics produced in Germany.
This whole fucking thread is the product of what happens when few American "enlighted minds" go and google Marx and communism; they think they know everything, when the truth is quite the opposite. I know you don't have proper formal education because your minds are washed out.
Fuck off and go pay your student loans you fucking braindeads
>>492050
>You don't even know who used the term Marxist-Leninist.
holy shit. I know you think you're being witty, but your posts are infuriatingly abstruse. Enough with the wordplay, just say what you mean. I referred to the fact that the Soviet Union was the USA's number one enemy for 40+ years. They encouraged the spread of Marxism-Leninism within the Eastern Bloc, Cuba, Vietnam, and Africa, all of which were enemies to the USA. This is why Americans have a negative view of Marx, not some red scare from the 1910s.
Please do not pull out some bullshit about how the ideology that the USSR projected wasn't "true" Marxism-Leninism or how Maoism was the purer variant. That's not what my post is about.
Also I've noticed that you don't respond to the main claims behind my posts, but instead focus on insignificant arguments you think you can win.
>>492096
>bringing up nationality
why do brits get so bootyblasted by americans, are you still upset about the suez?
>>492145
Doesn't have a thing with nationality as such. It's just your whole "country" (it's not even a country) is built on stupidity of the people and flaws of the educational system. Can't expect any better from Yanks
>>492160
>Doesn't have a thing with nationality as such.
what have you done to your own language
>>492080
You're mistaking "the state" for capital flows. It is a common Tankie/Maoist mistake.
>>492085
The production of engineering plans is the production of a commodity and surplus value. With a much much higher OCC than the production of the components. Western capitalism leverages this traditional OCC variance.
>>492122
>Enough with the wordplay, just say what you mean.
YOU ARE PIG FUCKING IGNORANT AND HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK.
>>492122
>the Soviet Union
>>492122
>encouraged the spread of Marxism-Leninism
YOU ARE PIG FUCKING IGNORANT. M-L is a Maoist term.
IF YOU ARE THIS IGNORANT OF BASIC TERMINOLOGY, TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD WE CONSIDER THE REMAINDER OF YOUR EXPRESSIONS? A: WE SHOULDN'T.
>>492122
>you don't respond to the main claims behind my posts
There's no need to: you fundamentally have no idea what you're talking about. You make basic terminological errors, confuse categories and rely on an absence of evidence.
>>490626
m8 that was an obvious joke about the style of argument
>>492193
Thank you for your response.
And how do you feel about the strategy for proposals Ernesto Che Guevara - in his famous "Letter to Trikontinental"?
I recall that in this letter, Che declared the United States an enemy of humanity, called for the creation of "two, three, many Vietnams" in the "Third World" - with a view to, first, cut the imperialist countries of the located in the "third world" raw, energy and economic bases of imperialism, and secondly, to draw imperialism in a number of local military conflicts in the capitalist periphery, which would cause the overstrain imperialism economically. In fact, Che proposed strategy for global guerrilla warfare - with the obligatory transfer it to the territory of the "first world", so that the enemy could not feel peace even in their strongholds in the capitalist metropolis, so he had to wage an armed struggle at home, and that this fight exacerbated its economic and political problems, inevitably pushing the "first world" to open class conflict.
This strategy Che suggested that all opponents of imperialism, including, of course, the Soviet leadership. Although by that time no illusions about the Soviet Union Che have not experienced, he knew that objective - even against the will of the Soviet nomenklatura - the Soviet Union was the enemy of Western imperialism. However, the counter-revolutionary Soviet government, as would be expected, rejected the strategy of Che as "adventurist". The label "avanyuristov" was pasted on all supporters of the strategy proposed by Che Guevara. There is no doubt that in the late 60's - early 70-ies of the Soviet nomenklatura - as a group - are ready for becoming not only managers, but also the owners, that is, to the abandonment of the alien itself socialist ideology and to the inclusion of Eastern bloc into the world of capitalism. Even the "oil crisis" 70, demonstrate the correctness of the point of view of Che Guevara, had no effect on the behavior of the USSR.
>>492247
Meanwhile, the imperialists themselves appreciated the proposed strategy of Che Guevara. Not by chance, Zbigniew Brzezinski later cynically admitted that during the Reagan years was the strategy of "two, three, many Vietnams" was deliberately used by Washington against the Soviet Union: the Soviet Union was forced to get involved - with varying degrees of involvement - in a series of conflicts around the world (Afghanistan, Poland Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Cambodia, Nicaragua) to the Soviet economy overstrained. The strategy of Che, as you might expect, was a success.
In addition, the elements of this strategy is actively used by the US to destabilize leftist regimes. For example, the de facto guerrilla war launched by the far right in the hands of Chile under Allende, aimed at the destruction of economic facilities and infrastructure in the first place (blowing up bridges, roads, power transmission lines and power plants, mines, etc.), quickly established the extraordinary economic challenges , displeased Allende regime in a substantial part of the population and has successfully produced a military coup on Sept. 11, 1973.
The economic embargo aimed at depriving Washington of unwanted modes flow of resources and goods from outside, is widely used and is still used by the United States as an instrument of destabilization.
Transfer of fighting on enemy territory (the "export of counter-revolution") has been successfully tested in Afghanistan (from Pakistan), Mozambique (from the territory of South Africa), Angola (with South Africa occupied Namibia), Nicaragua (from the territory of Honduras).
>>492247
Well, the problem with Foco is that it doesn't reflect the actual strategy of guerrilla warfare:
1) Develop a safe base of operations outside of the superintention of imperialism.
2) Get help from the Soviet Union
3) Spend millions of agricultural proletarian lives in a war for a new nomenklatura rule
Vietnam didn't extend to the first world. A few foco groups attempted some kills. A much wider proletarian and anarchist periphery burnt a fair bit of medium business.
And very little on the job organising happened.
>>492249
The use of Vietnam against the Soviet Union displays the class content of Vietnam, doesn't it?
Our central concern is class power, not strategy or tactics. We are unlikely to change the high OCC metropole / low OCC periphery configuration of capital without revolution, so it is a terrain we work within.
Anti-imperialism which avoids the issue of organising either metropole or periphery is ludicrous and anti-class.
>>492061
Marx never supported communism period.
>>492193
well boys, the wheels have officially come off the lorry.
>>492193
>YOU ARE PIG FUCKING IGNORANT AND HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK.
kek, should gone with capitalist swine desu senpai
>YOU ARE PIG FUCKING IGNORANT. M-L is a Maoist term.
Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the CPSU according to its own statutes. Khrushchev pushed it especially hard in order to overshadow Stalin. Same with Cuba and Vietnam who were both Soviet Aligned. Your delusion is hilarious.
>There's no need to: you fundamentally have no idea what you're talking about. You make basic terminological errors, confuse categories and rely on an absence of evidence.
>your wrong your wrong your wrong
you have yet to disprove anything thing I said, instead you just vomit random Marxist theory and talk yourself in circles.
>>492268
>kek, should gone with capitalist swine desu senpai
That would be meaningless political invective.
>Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the CPSU according to its own statutes.
That's nice. That's not the use of the word or the international promotion of the word. Why don't you rely on dic defs next time. You might like to read Nietzsche and Foucault of Genealogy if you're so interested in intellectual history.
>you have yet to disprove anything thing I said
Wage labour existed in the soviet union
Marxism-Leninism is a Maoist phrase
Fuck yourself with a knife.
>>492190
English is not my language, I'm not a Brit
>>492071
nice argument against his point, faggot
>>492273
>Wage labour existed in the soviet union
I never said it didn't
>Marxism-Leninism is a Maoist phrase
buddy, you can literally look up Khrushchev's Secret Speech on Marxist.org. He mentions Marxism-Leninism every other fucking sentence
>fuck yourself with a knife
prove me wrong first
>>492286
Trotsky was anti-stalin and funded by Hitler.
>>492286
>I never said it didn't
You said that the soviet union was communism.
>>492286
>buddy, you can literally look up Khrushchev's Secret Speech on Marxist.org. He mentions Marxism-Leninism every other fucking sentence
And buddy, that doesn't mean they were exporting "Marxism-Leninism"
>>492286
>prove me wrong first
You prove yourself wrong.
>>491956
kill yourself
>>492301
>arguing semantics because I need validation
I called the USSR communist because in passing most people call it communist, like I said before, I didn't know I was talking to an autistic marxist who can't get over contextual use of words. Same with your tantrum about M-L. I'm not going to say that the Soviet Union was exporting what they referred to as Marxism-Leninism but what is technically more closely related to bureaucratised degenerated workers' statism. Because it would be retarded to explicitly spell everything out for the 0.0001% of anal marxists like you.
Anyways you continuously ignore the basis of my claim which is people associate Marx with the USSR and PRC. Instead you just obsess over the concrete meaning of certain words that apparently trigger you. Dude I'm pretty sure you have aspergers.
>>492352
>I called the USSR communist because in passing
A high level of discourse is expected here.
>who can't get over contextual use of words
An argument against words in their context. Nice. Why don't you define black as white and go die on a zebra crossing.
>but what is technically more closely related to bureaucratised degenerated workers' statism.
Was daddy an othrotrot?
>Because it would be retarded to explicitly spell everything out
A high level of discourse is expected here.
>the basis of my claim which is people associate
The basis of your claim is an ad populum. Well done. Fuck off forever.
>Instead you just obsess over the concrete meaning of certain words
Thank you for the compliment. A high level of discourse is expected here.
>>490381
If this showed some massive change in the '80s when Deng Xiaopeng made his reforms, that would probably say something about capitalism vs communism
>>492401
Its a PPP normalisation, it means they've set an arbitrary amount of grain at (probably) 1989 prices as "poverty." This is exactly identical to the play stations per head poverty measure.
>>490041
>Looking at America today it's surprising how much Marx got right about the future of industrial societies:
It's not, marxism is a pseudoscience. Pseudosciences are good at never being wrong because they're unfalsifiable.
This thread is just filled with teenage /pol/tards
>muh parents tought me communism is evil and AMURICA is the land of free and capitalism solves everything!
kek
>>492473
>that pic
Yes, marxists really care about the european people.
>>492477
what's a "marxist" ?
Definitely not your own personal connotations to the term.
And by the way if we applied more marxist analysis to Europe, that is, view society as one big economic framework, instead of seeing it through the lenses of culture and cultural norms, we'd be importing less 3rd worlders.
>>492473
>communism is evil and AMURICA is the land of free and capitalism solves everything!
But that's (almost) true, anon.
>>490599
>fast food, processed foods
>cheapest
wew lad
>>492473
I'm pretty sure that Europe is demonstrating to the entire world right now why marxism doesn't work.
>>492457
>Pseudoscience.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics.
Realy?
>>492498
>>492498
>what's a "marxist" ?
>Definitely not your own personal connotations to the term.
It's like poetry
>>492499
Yes. No one takes it seriously nowadays except for history and sociology majors, who don't have a clue about how economics work.
>>492506
>Yes. No one takes it seriously nowadays except for history and sociology majors, who don't have a clue about how economics work.
Ok. Then why this economic theory does not recognize pseudo-scientific? Example, Astrology.
>>492498
>>492504
>Cultural Marxism = Marxism
>American "Education"
>>492518
Honestly, I have no idea what you just asked me. What does astrology have to do with anything?
>>492525
Astrology example of pseudo-scientific theory.
>>492506
>p-profits dont move towards zero over time!!
>i-i make REAL money for REAL new york companies!
The Late-Capitalist screams to be heard, only to realize that nobody is listening.
So many americans on this thread, their "education" is hilarious
For example this one >>492498
>>492530
How does it feel to have your ideology discredited by nearly all academies, governments and companies?
Also,
>dialetics
>>492546
Maybe in burgerland
