>"Like, woah! What if we unleashed the power of decaying atoms in a bomb! Get me FDR on line one!"
>"Like, woah! What if something's economic worth on the free market was mostly decided by how much it cost to create that thing!"
You can go back in time and stop one of these thoughts from occurring, saving many lives in the process. Choose wisely.
>>752889
Marx's thought.
How this is even a question? Marx is objectively best choice. You can't stop science by killing one scientist. Someone else would come up with atom bomb sooner or later.
>>752889
>implying nuclear bomb didn't prevent ww3 up to this day
>implying marxism didnt' saved many wageslaves lives
Lmao op i'd rather stop you from shitposting
>>752914
Marx, pls go
>>752889
Marx caused millions of deaths, but it was Hiroshima and Nagasaki that created anime. Sorr Einstein, you die
Marx
Is this even a question?
The better option would be to end the french revolution before it happens as that was the start of all problems involving violent barbaric revolutions of a left leaning nature.
>>752889
Marx was an idiot that created an unrealistic economic theory that lead to dozens of failed states, meanwhile nukes are the main reason there hasn't been another global or European war for the the last 70 years. I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Wasn't Fermi the one who came up with the "Atomic theory... for BOMBS!"
Einstein just wrote the letter saying "careful boy, nazis are also starting to work on a weapon"
Marx
The atom bomb would have happened anyways because someone would have discovered mass-energy equivalence anyways even if Einstein hadn't (besides, it's not like he did it alone.)
Unless you mean I can stop anyone from ever thinking up the atom bomb, in which case I pick the bomb.
>>752951
>Unless you mean I can stop anyone from ever thinking up the atom bomb, in which case I pick the bomb.
Why though? Nuclear weapons are probably the primary reason the word hasn't had any more world wars, why would you want to get rid of something that's been so effective at maintaining peace?
>>752889
Saying Marx should go due to Lenin and Mao is like saying Christianity should go due to the horrors of Charlemagne and the Spanish inquisition.
>>752889
>implying the individuals matter that much and the theories weren't historically inevitable
>>752982
This is like saying that Christianity was inevitable regardless of whether Christ was born or not. There's nothing to say that the idea of communism was inevitable. With out Marx and Engels it's likely that communist ideology probably would have never existed
Marx. Einstein's discoveries would come about by someone else (The Germans were working on the bomb as well, for example).
Getting rid of Mars bumps off a conspiracy theorist AND stops the humanities from becoming an academically incestuous circle jerk. Two birds with one stone.
>>752889
You can't stop facts from coming into being.
Not that those aren't mischaracterizations, but the point stands.
>>752889
Marx is an okay guy, he was just disillusioned by his own ideas. The fallout the came after so many failed communist and social states helped some of the failing ones a little with the idea of welfare and people with the means of production having a little more power. Sorry about the death toll.
I however wouldn't have minded a conventional war against japan, considering i'm American and it would be one of our states probably.
So atom bomb i guess.
>>752889
You do know a lot of the scientists who worked on the atom bomb begged the government not to use it.
>>752965
Except Marxism has not contributed a single positive thing to history
>>753256
Some communist-leaning socialist states have done well for short periods of time. Obviously there was some kind of power vacuum that marxist philosophy effected and the natural structures of power accepted communism or communist-leaning socialism positively.
>>753256
You're basically a tory saying Smith has never contributed a single positive thing to history.
>>753256
American education at work.
>>753269
He'd be right. Smith was as cancerous as Marx.
>>753327
>Conservatism =/= liberalism (classical)
No shit? Christ, you people are retarded.
>>752889
>>752889
>Marx
>Thoughts?
You realize that it was his partner that did most of the lifting right? The choice is simple though. Taking out Marxism would more likely save more lives than taking out Einstein.
>>752889
>"Like, woah! What if something's economic worth on the free market was mostly decided by how much it cost to create that thing!"
>delete marx
>someone still had that idea 100 years earlier
>development of a new paradigm in physics both at the quantum and cosmological scale.
>vs the guy my edgy brother quotes
Splitting the atom has so far been a net positive for humanity though
>>752959
I think it might end up causing harm in the long run. What if in a few centuries it becomes easier to make atom bombs and a bunch of stupid or crazy governments end up going to war?
>>752889
Only semi-related to the topic.
When US Navy finally admitted that there's something off with their torpedoes during WW2(so called torpedo scandal - USN used 4 types of torpedoes, none of them actually worked), they've asked Einstein how to fix those.
The problem was with electromagnetic triggering mechanism, there were several huge issues with it and first complaints about it were filled in the 30's by fucking junior technical officers but nobody cared. Before they've asked Einstein about it, 2 American submarines had chance to sink 2 out of 3 Aircraft Carriers which were later sunk at Midway. Torpedoes didn't work again. During Battle of Midway none Japanese ship is said to be sank by torpedoes either. It was all bombs.
After they've asked him about it - he responded with two options:
>using different mechanism altogether
>using 2 electromagnetic field detectors and setting them up in a way that would make the torpedo explode when both detected the same field
The latter option still didn't solve de-gaussing problem but Japanese never de-gaussed their ships anyway so whatever.
None of his suggestion was listened too until much later in the war. I mean what could some shrink know about physics and shit, right?
Kinda makes you think how the hell were those people were able to win world war twice when things like that(or F-111 or Stryker...) can easily pass through. Does that mean that other militaries were even more corrupted and even less competent?
The bomb would have been developed inevitably, and mass movements are interchangeable, so it doesn't really matter desu senpai
>>752965
But, but, muh carolingian renaissance..
>>752965
You can tell this was made by a really mad commie
>something's economic worth on the free market was mostly decided by how much it cost to create that thing!
Give me literally 2 and a half reasons why this is bad?
>>752889
That theory of value predates Marx.
But, to respond to your point, I'd prevent Marx from spreading his ideas.
>>754633
Because there shouldn't be restrictions on how much you can charge for goods and services, because, at least in most marxists minds, it doesn't give any profit to anyone but the one who made it, and also, because
>"Like, woah! What if something's economic worth on the free market was mostly decided by how much it cost to create that thing!"
This has nothing to do with any of the substantive claims Marx makes about economics. For one, at least in volume 1, he holds all commodities to be set at what we would today call their equilibrium price, which is what they would go for in a perfectly free and competitive market. He then asks how capitalist profit would be possible in such a scenario, and his analysis proceeds from there, and his inferences are quite a bit more complicated (and convoluted) than 'price=production inputs'.
>>752965
Was there a single thing that Marx got right?
>>752889
None of these ideas were original in them. Both are Jewish plagiators. Jews can't create anything, only subvert and turn on its feet already existing things.
>>753959
Not necessarily. Firstly, I'd like to point out that militaries are massive bureaucracies that are highly focused on cost and efficiency as a result modern militaries are constantly trying to find the perfect mix of innovation and pragmatism; and do this while juggling the concerns and ideas of multiple different elements of the leadership.
In its history the U.S. military has been rather forward thinking all things considered. It was the first military to purchase aircraft, the fist military to make use of motorization, the first military to investigate the application of armored vehicles on the battlefield albeit in a limited fashion, and one of the first militaries to make use of faded colors and semiautomatic pistols.
However, despite all of this it is important to remember that the U.S. military was, at the time before WW2, relatively small and not as heavily funded. This meant quite simply that during the pre-war period the U.S. would have to be very conservative with how it spent its money.
This likely meant that while somethings might seem extremely important, to the leadership at the time, they could wait. Consider for a moment the U.S. Navy at the time of Pearl Harbor. It can be very successfully argued that LITTLE of STRATEGIC value was lost from the pacific fleet. The Utah and Oklahoma were both to obsolete to be worth salvaging.
Facing a tragic lack of funding Pre-WW2, the American Admiralty was likely far more interested in investing more heavily in the use of aircraft carriers and battleships, weapon systems that would prove vital in winning the Naval war, than it was in submarines. That being said there can be no doubt that excuses run thin psst Pearl harbor but as you have written there was much interest in fixing the problem which they did actually solve by 1943 iirc.
(cont).
>>753959
>>755487
Furthermore, although the U.S. sub-fleet was lacking in effective ordinance one must consider all of the successful weapon systems that the American Navy fielded. The timed charge made the flack cannons aboard American ships some of the deadliest at sea. American bombers and Carriers performed very well throughout the war. American equipment was generally some of the most safe and survivable in the war. Damage control in the Navy was stellar, and the M4 Sherman tank performed admirably as well. The use of a standard issue semi-automatic rifle was very forward thinking as was having completely motorized logistics...etc.
While failures like the F-111 do happen I would attribute them more to doctrinal disagreements than I would corruption (not saying it doesn't happen) consider the Stryker for example. The U.S. army leadership had begun to increasingly question the need for a large and potent tank force as ATGMs and anti-tank munitions have begun to make these vehicles less and less survivable.
Thus they commissioned the Stryker which they hoped that they could integrate with the Land Warrior system to create a highly mobile, semi-armored, multi-role ground force. After a decade of war the thin Skinned machine proved to be ineffective at safely sustaining hits from IEDS and dumb fired AT weapons.
No problem, just bail on it. Billions of dollars later we get the GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) program for a heavily armored up gunned IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) as a result of lessons learned.
Sadly not every idea is gold and sometimes these things are learned in the field. That's why I believe that people shouldn't be so quick to disparage the JSF program. I for one see nothing wrong with testing all possible contingencies when faced with the single most expensive fighter program in history.
>>752902
Marx didn't invent communism or socialism. Considering how shitty worker rights were at the time, someone would have likely come up with a very similar overreaching ideology.
>>753017
Christianity was centered around a single individual, Communism was based on the idea of classes, and existed before Marx.
>>753280
Smith was actually quite a moderate capitalist, not that you've read him.
>>754633
Because it completely ignores things like the scarcity of resources used to create a product, consumer demand and buying habits regarding the product, technical skills needed, shelf life, brand competition, consumer feedback, transport distances, pollution and waste disposal etc.
>>755264
This
retards constantly completely ignore Marx's Exchange value and Use value distinction
>>752889
Science was going to happen eventually
Retarded collation of a dozen other people's ideas into an ideology for stupid people and fags wouldn't necessarily have
>>755822
>Because it completely ignores things like the scarcity of resources used to create a product
LOL WAT
It implicitly accounts for this
>consumer demand and buying habits regarding the product
what is use and exchange value
>technical skills needed, shelf life, transport distances, pollution and waste disposal etc.
HOLY KEK
Again this is directly included within the labor of creating something
>shelf life, brand competition
EXCHANGE AND USE VALUE
seriously this is chapter 1 shit
>>752965
>like saying Christianity should go due to the horrors of Charlemagne and the Spanish inquisition.
so it's correct
If you think Marx invented the labor theory of value you're a fucking idiot
>>752965
what is the actual death toll on the inquisition? it it even one million
>>755822
>someone didn't read the first chapter of Das Kapital
>>755828
Not only that, but the fetishism of the merchandise. Holy fuck, if people read at least the first chapter of his book, they wouldn't speak this bunch of shit.
>>755266
Fetishism of merchandise is one
>>755828
The difference between exchange value and use value doesn't explain why diamonds are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and water is worth a couple of bucks m8.
If it does, you are obliged to tell us all how.
>>756981
No, it doesn't. What explains it is how diamonds are perceived. Marx isn't limited to use value and exchange value, and neither limited his work on it.
>>756992
>What explains it is how diamonds are perceived
No it doesn't even do that. It just describes diamonds as having exchange value, and not use value, because he infers that from the fact that it cannot be used for anything other than human vanity.
>>757001
>>What explains it is how diamonds are perceived
>No it doesn't even do that. It just describes diamonds as having exchange value, and not use value, because he infers that from the fact that it cannot be used for anything other than human vanity.
No, you're wrong because you are limiting Marx theory just to use value and exchange value.
Of course, use and exchange value are the two most basic ones, but it isn't limited to that.
Marx realised that the value of merchandise is also how a human interacts with it, how it is perceived by the human mind.
You see, a well made steak and a burned one had the same exchange value and use value (1kg of the same meat has the same price of 1kg of the same meat and both of them are made to be eaten), but you would think that the well made it worth more, not just because of the work, but because you like it more than the burned one because it is more tasty
>>757001
Oh, and the reason for "why are diamonds more worth than water" by Marx views are basically, and this is being extremely resumed, because people think they are, not because of the diamond itself, but because it is associated with wealthiness and water isn't
>>757049
>I am limiting Marx theory
It limits itself m8. The fact that every object has to conform to his dialectical materialism is the problem with Marxism is the first place.
He completely ignores all the subjective human conceptualization that goes in to determine the value of an object, because his whole enterprise is trying to create a socio-economic system of thought that could reduce everything to material components, which it can't.
I don't blame him for this to be honest. The field of psychology and psychiatry were in their infancy when he lived, but he clearly did not have any knowledge of how humans come to believe things, or how humans come to value objects in the real world.
>>757073
>He completely ignores all the subjective human conceptualization that goes in to determine the value of an object
Not that anon, and I don't know shit about marx, but wouldn't the fact that the valuations change dramatically over time be significant? see Tulip mania.
>>757084
>but wouldn't the fact that the valuations change dramatically over time be significant?
I don't see how, unless you think there was some point in history where humans didn't value gold or diamonds.
>>757073
>>I am limiting Marx theory
>It limits itself m8. The fact that every object has to conform to his dialectical materialism is the problem with Marxism is the first place.
The concept of "merchandise" to Marx isn't applicable to every object, just those that can be reproduced in large quantities and are not unique
>He completely ignores all the subjective human conceptualization that goes in to determine the value of an object, because his whole enterprise is trying to create a socio-economic system of thought that could reduce everything to material components, which it can't.
No, he doesn't. He just said that the explanation for the way people thinks about things cannot be understand just seeing how people think, it isn't there the explanation.
>I don't blame him for this to be honest. The field of psychology and psychiatry were in their infancy when he lived, but he clearly did not have any knowledge of how humans come to believe things, or how humans come to value objects in the real world.
Well, Freud did think the way Marx did about things, just with the human mind. You can resume both of them with just this sentence
The way things are cannot be understand by analysing the thing itself, but what is behind it
>>757112
>He just said that the explanation for the way people thinks about things cannot be understand just seeing how people think,
Yes, because he believed that an item's value comes about because of materialistic dialectics, i.e from the struggle between classes and the propaganda thereof.
I don't agree with this.
>>752889
>"Like, woah! What if God has chosen us to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth"
Why not stop this and solve both problems?
>>757138
Not just by that, but specifically how the bourgeoisie pushes its ideology on to the proletariat, making it think the way they want to (if you doubt it, ads and marketing are for that)
Of course, this part isn't exactly like it was back then, I don't agree that it works this way now
>>752914
Marxism saving any lives ever not just causing a great deal of death and suffering.
>>752889
Ofc the first one. into trash it goes.
