I'm not even Marxist but 95% of "critiques" of Marx on 4chan don't even touch any of his arguments. No one can even state Marx's basic arguments.
Embarrassing.
>>295312
no argument is even necessary, since every example of it being implemented is sufficient.
No shit. That's because all of the "critiques" of leftism on 4chan boil down to shouting "leftism is a mental illness," and using "leftist" or "liberal" as if they're insults and not schools of thought. I'm not a Marxist either, but this board's turned into too much of an echo chamber in the past 5 years to expect any good political discussion.
>>295320
>/his/
>past 5 years
also when the left uses right wing as an insult for years it would be odd if it's not turned back on them
>>295320
Wrong board senpai.
Love the strawmans so far. Keep it up.
>>295318
Doesn't really matter, because Marx's argument is that it is inevitable.
So you're not actually proving otherwise. You're saying "it sucked in the past so it's not gonna happen again."
There are strong arguments against Marx and you don't know any of them.
>>295412
>Doesn't really matter, because Marx's argument is that it is inevitable.
yes, another strong argument against it, since advanced capitalist countries have not resulted in these supposed inevitable revolutions that marx predicted.
but it's not worth my time/energy to refute the moronic claims of marx. any cursory google search would do as well.
>>295348
>it would be odd if it's not turned back on them
No it would be odd if the right didn't sink down to the left's level that would be fucking odd
>>295412
>Doesn't really matter, because Marx's argument is that it is inevitable.
>Marx
>determinist
ayy
>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
>Men make their own history
>>295312
>claim you've invented a perpetual motion machine
>complain that people aren't properly analysing your design before ridiculing it
>>295537
He invented a perpetual motion machine? What a cool guy! :^) 10/10
>>295312
I find it funny when some pseudo-leftist liberal dismisses critiques of statism as "not true socialism" in defense of Marx when Marx brand of socialism was indeed quite brash and statist.
I also find it funny when socialists refuse to see the "systemic flaws" of Marxism whose flaws and failings appeared wherever it was tried, such as malevolent inefficient centralized power, justifying "counterrevolutionary" purges, securing survival of the state through state capitalism and so on. When at the same time they would probably blame Finland for problems in Africa due to "systemic global capitalism".
>>295312
>No one can even state Marx's basic arguments
so what ?
marx is a leftist asshat that has already been discredited 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
why the fuck do you idiots still keep falling for his delusional b.s. ?
maybe if you would read other idiots you'd realize that marx's spin is just that - more b.s. spin
Marx says: Ban inheritance!
Refute: If you ban inheritance, many people lose the will to work, since many traditionalists work for their kids.
>>295526
You can't read. It's literally a number problem for Marx. Eventually year-end profit margins will decrease and never be able to increase.
But you'd probably need to understand Hegel to get what he's saying here about shaping history while inheriting it.
>>295447
Yes but when robots take your job will you get a mincome?
>>295604
It can or cannot be a stupid defence. It certainly doesn't invalidate the possibility that we may again get a communist "state." But if you're critiquing Leninism/Vanguard Marxism, yes, absolutely.
>>295606
Because considering an idea neutrally is the hallmark of intelligence. When you say shit like this you look really, really dumb. And I'm not Marxist.
>>295687
>idea neutrally is the hallmark of intelligence
not after said ideas, again, have been discredited zillions of times
that is the hallmark of a political fascist, so GFY
>>295672
It's not a ban. There won't be any need for it.
Sure you might inherit your old man's rifle but you won't inherit his factory if he had one. But the Marxist will argue you won't even want to inherit a factory because you'll have what you need provided by the state.
>>295672
>meritocracy btfo
>>295687
the falling rate of profit doesn't mean that socialism is inevitable. It merely means that capitalism has a natural deadlock due to its own contradictions. At that point anything could happen, even the demise of humanity. Sublation of private property is one possible outcome, because communism is no abstraction in the mind of Marx, but rather a real movement which needs to be established.
Seriously, it's so fucking embarrassing. /pol/ fags think they're hated because they say jews and niggers or something, but they're actually hated because theyre ignorant to basic political concepts and think fucking Evola was the peak of philosophy.
>>295312
Because dialectical materialism is often imposed upon, not found in, history
>>295687
>Because considering an idea neutrally is the hallmark of intelligence.
So do we need to look at all the history's bad ideas in neutral fashion so we'd look intelligent to people? You do know that most people that are stuck in disproving more modern ideas in favour of older ones are usually crackpots?
>>295743
This. I'm basically your typical liberal (in a more classical sense, I know that sounds pretentious as fuck but that's my views), and I get called a Marxist all the time on voat, pol, reddit, etc. just for poking holes in right-wingers views.
I never even give Marxist critiques, which is why it's so weird to me.
>>295760
Then post neo-traditionalists and neo-fascists on here are as well.
>>295687
"Neutrally" is code for liberal-sanctioned ideology and illusions of autonomy.
>>295770
>calling people crackpots for claiming that they made a perpetuum mobile and they disproved Einstein is fascist
Uhh, okay?
>>295788
Perpetual motion is disproved in a much more definite sense than than Marxism (not to say that I think highly of Marx and his ideas) and physics is very much in search of someone who can disprove Einstein and unite GR and QM, so his ideas do need to be viewed through a neutral lens.
>>295687
>Because considering an idea neutrally is the hallmark of intelligence.
not when those ideas are as dangerous as marx'. in these cases, utter contempt and ridicule are also necessary along with a complete refutation so the more weak-minded among us get no impression that the ideas are merely toys to be played with.
ITT: Marx = The Communist Manifesto
Who cares about Das Kapital, am i right? xD
>>295760
But ideas attempting to disprove modern ideas in favor of older ones are, by definition, more modern than the ideas themselves.
Suck on that.
>>295816
>Hurr durr there's a difference between Marxists communists and soc dems
Look at this LEFTIST what a fucking moron go worship your Muslim Hero Biraq HUSSEIN Obongo you gay lover more proof that leftism is a mental illness you can't even make an argument without resorting to ad hominem and strawmen
>>295766
Exactly.
carl marx was a friggin homo
yeesh
>>295837
>liberals
>leftist
>>295829
if you're trying to paint leftists as sane, healthy people then you're doing a great job of it.
>>295312
>mfw the other 5% is just looking at history and Marxism's abject failure
>>295318
What are all the Scandinavian countries?
![0581_l[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uotXgbv.jpg "0581_l[1].jpg")
>>295687
>Eventually year-end profit margins will decrease and never be able to increase.
Sure thing pal. Let me know when that happens. I'll be here. Got plenty of time to wait. Any minute now.
>>295312
Well first of all if a revolution is to take place why should we work to make it happen?
Why should I care if it will happen inevitably anyways? Why should the "proletariat" unite to fight?
Is it because if we dont fight for it it wont happen? that's a contradiction because Marx states it is inevitable.
How does Marx answer to that?
Second, why should we even believe Marx when he authoritatively classificates everything into his own concepts and under his own rules?
Why is the proletariat a thing? why is there a problem? why does it need to be fixed? why should we all obey Marx?
Not to mention, marxists actually believe they should fervoroulsy enforce equality and the dictatorship of the masses. Literally force people to change their ways, thought and even culture to behave as the marxists think.
Not only that, marxism is the "economification" of everything. So much hate for "muh capitalist injustice" but marxists are the ones who literally see the world and reality in economic terms.
The marxist utopia is the orwellian 1984 dystopia with the leviathan as a ruler, where everyone is grey and everything is subject to economy.
Marxism is for resentful shits.
>>296065
>because Marx states it is inevitable.
[Citation needed]
>>296065
>Second, why should we even believe Marx when he authoritatively classificates everything into his own concepts and under his own rules?
He doesn't, you fucking imbecile. He clarifies and expands on things that had been discussed at least since the French Revolution and usually before.
>Why is the proletariat a thing? why is there a problem? why does it need to be fixed?
Lmao, literally explained in the first chapter of the Manifesto. This is exactly what this thread is about. People who have no idea about the details of the ideology embarrassing themself by just making up criticisms as they go
>why should we all obey Marx?
Fucking christ, this is some great cringe. If Marx's work demands obedience so does all political and philosophical texts.
>>295959
Liberal capitalists whose state socialist project crashed the previous century?
>>296065
>why should we work to make it happen?
self-interest. If you're a worker you'll profit from abolishing capitalism.
>Is it because if we dont fight for it it wont happen?
yes it won't
>that's a contradiction because Marx states it is inevitable.
no it doesn't
here >>295526
>why should we even believe Marx when he authoritatively classificates everything into his own concepts and under his own rules?
applies to every sociologist
>Why is the proletariat a thing?
different relations to capital. The capitalists own capital and the workers sell their labor to the capitalists. Workers are the dispossessed class.
>why is there a problem?
you don't really need an answer now don't you? Turn on the TV and look around you.
>marxists actually believe they should fervoroulsy enforce equality and the dictatorship of the masses
"equality" is a bourgeois notion. There's no equality under communism, as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" applies.
the rest is bullshit and Orwell was a trot
>>>/pol/
>>296123
Not gonna lurk through those insufferable books again but I invite you to do a more or less rigorous internet search.
It goes along the lines of historicity and that the inevitable outcome or consumation of history will be the dictatorship of the populace.
>>296151
I can already tell you are a bitter marxist resentful shit.
Marx in itself is not the problem, marxist shits like you are. He even rejected "marxism" in his lifetime, seeing the monster he had created.
Contrary to other philosophers, Marx gives a radical view of reality solely based on economic terms. This doctrine is taken by shits more fervorously than anything else I know.
Also I am the one who would cringe at your comment if I was as retarded as you.
>He even rejected "marxism" in his lifetime
you literally know nothing about Marx jesus fucking christ. He was commenting on a french sect who called themselves "marxists" but perversed his ideas up to the point where he had to point out that those fucks have nothing to do with his materialist analysis of bourgeois society.
Either you haven't read a single page of marxist work besides of the communist manifesto back in high school or you're an imbecile troll.
>>296180
>I can already tell you are a bitter marxist resentful shit.
Not at all, actually, I'm a centrist.
And I like how you don't even address that your entire post was complete bullshit and you were called out on it. Instead you just back pedal and say "we'll actually Marx doesn't matter because people who disagree with me are communist shitheads and therefore I'm right."
killurselfmyman.jpg
>>296168
Self interest? what? But I'm not a worker. Nor a capitalist. Why must I accept the existence of these terms and the existence of the relations that acompany them? You are answering me already assuming Marx's doctrine and applying it to me
Also, I'm not implying other sociologist is any less absurd and worthless than Marx
I dont mean to say "why is the proletariat a thing based on Marx's precepts" but rather what I stated above. Why should anyone believe or take into consideration a philosophy based on concepts invented and "put there" by Marx himself. He engulfs everything and subjects it to his own arbitrary judgement.
Finally, marxists do believe anything that does not work for them works against them, and that is some childish retardation right there. If you're not a marxist you are a filthy capitalist or an ignorant fuck. A marxist thinks it is legitimate to force everyone into submission for all to become equal.
>"equality" is a bourgeois notion
I agree, and marxism the ultimate bourgeois philosophy
>>295703
>you might inherit your old man's rifle
Well, according to Marx, the rifle would belong to society.
>>295312
Most people havent actually gone through the perilous torture that is reading his books.
Most havent even read a single one.
Not that I care much myself either.
>>296196
>You are answering me already assuming Marx's doctrine and applying it to me
don't gimme your loaded words. "doctrine", jesus christ. And there is no way to discuss marxism if you don't suppose that anything he said applies. Try to discuss anything while saying "why should I even assume that it applies" and you'll get nowhere.
>Also, I'm not implying other sociologist is any less absurd and worthless than Marx
epic
>I dont mean to say "why is the proletariat a thing based on Marx's precepts" but rather what I stated above. Why should anyone believe or take into consideration a philosophy based on concepts invented and "put there" by Marx himself. He engulfs everything and subjects it to his own arbitrary judgement.
because we can actually observe classes as pointed out by Marx. If class today means the relationship of a certain group of people towards capital then there are classes. And "capital" is a thing people described before Marx described anything.
> A marxist thinks it is legitimate to force everyone into submission for all to become equal
you really have no clue what communism actually means, don't you?
>>296233
What is communism (for you) ?
>>296239
A big ideology
>>296264
>ideology
Mein gott. Pyuure retardation.
Ideology is for resentful shits. No such thing exists.
>>296239
It doesn't matter what it's to me, but what we can conclude it is applying materialist analysis to today's society.
Communism is the movement towards a free association of producers, a state and classless society, in which goods are produced for consumption and not for exchange. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Fucking rues de sucre m8
>>295959
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU
http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/sorry-liberals-scandinavian-countries-arent-utopias/
>>296272
>>296233
>If class today means the relationship of a certain group of people towards capital then there are classes
Oh lordy! We've got a live one here. What would this relationship be? And is there anyone outside remote villages who doesn't own capital?
>>296348
>What would this relationship be?
owning and not owning means of production
>And is there anyone outside remote villages who doesn't own capital?
welp me and most people.
>>296239
an idealogy for the weak in mind, spirit and purpose:
The modern liberal is contemptuous of capitalism. The expressed reason is that capitalism is cruel and heartless: the real reason is that capitalism is cruel to him, because it is a system in which individuals must compete on their own, which he cannot tolerate…[Thus the modern liberal advocates that the government interfere in the constructive work of others]. The expressed motive is to help those unable to succeed; the real motive is to eliminate success, so that he will not have to feel anxious and inferior. [Footnote 12] Otherwise said, his wish is to castrate the successful (father) and to eliminate the means by which people become successful (what might be called castration of the nation, i.e. the fatherland). The stated motive is never the real one, which is why I call his rebellion subversive. The [modern] liberal's opposition to all differences in social structure, is, likewise, an expression of his need to pull down the mighty (father).…
http://www.orgonomy.org/articles/Baker/The_True_Liberal_The_Modern_Liberal.html
>>296300
>he has the concept of ideology so embedded in his brain he can't realize it's fake.
Mein gott indeed
>>296355
You got a bank account? Do you receive interest based on the capital invested therein?
You're a capitalist. You're buying nukes for Israel, you're a Jew.
>>296361
>that shit ass paragraph
>orgonomy
lmao "capitalism" as understood in marxist terms doesnt even exist as such anymore.
>>296379
But you don't actually live on the things you earn on your bank account. Capitalists are the people that own capital and live on the profits this specific capital generates.
>>296355
You own capital you filthy hypocritical bitch
![four-lions-3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BdXRKkI.jpg "four-lions-3[1].jpg")
>>296390
Oh I see, so you only become a capitalist when you get better at the game?
I do live off my interest. Maybe I have other expenses, but I certainly spend my investment income.
Suppose 99% of my expenses are paid for by my investment income, and the remaining 1% by my salary, am I still a capitalist, or have I transmogrified into a prole?
>>296180
>Not gonna lurk through those insufferable books again but I invite you to do a more or less rigorous internet search.
Ok, from each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs
My method, I turn to von Mises as an opponent of Marx and find where he states Marx claimed invitability
https://mises.org/files/theory-and-history-interpretation-social-and-economic-evolutionpdf-1/
Page 81
First claim is footnoted as from Das Kapital Volume 2 but is actually Vol 1
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
End of page 541 under a chapter titled "Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation" actually refers to smaller capitalists being expropriated by bigger capitalists, further paragraphs could support your claim, but note the title of the chapter
Mises second point, we may safely ignore considering the above basic literacy failure; given that as per their footnotes, they are conducting a self-citation
Point 3, amusingly directly refutes your claim, and mises seizes on it as a drowning man to attempt to demonstrate contradiction
Point 4, as with point 1 the reading can only be supported in ignorance of the title of the chapter
>>296390
But why do you have a bank account then?
You'll make profit of anything you sell.
>capitalists are the problem, fuck them
>but I have a bank acount
You're just jealous you can't make that dirty money. If you weren't playing by that game you wouldnt even have a bank account.
>>296383
>lmao "capitalism" as understood in marxist terms doesnt even exist as such anymore.
and yet leftists, marxists and other cretins still do indeed exist. your point?
>>296361
>communism is liberal
you /pol/ retards don't even know what words mean
>>296459
>capital gains must be above the interest rate
So you're hating on some figures of the system but not the system itself, so you keep being part of it because you're either weak minded or perfectly okay with everything, except for the fact that you cannot be one of those capitalists.
![rogers-kenny[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WcrTccV.jpg "rogers-kenny[1].jpg")
>>296459
>intersex people exist differentiation of sexes BTFO
This would work as an analogy if 99% of people were intersex and only a tiny minority solely male or female.
>Marx claimed that capital gains must be above the interest rate, otherwise people would simply vest their money in accounts
This is why you hire very clever people to do your investments for you. Plenty of investments lose money. Often the rate of growth is below inflation. You don't just magically get above inflation gains from investments.
If you're gonna play the game son you gotta learn to play it right.
>>296490
>wanting to automate everything so nobody needs to work, and those who are willing can do worthwhile things while those who are not can waste their lives being happy idiots, is weak minded and inspired by hate and ressentiment
>>296504
Care to estimate the proportion of the 7-9 billion people on earth who live off investments, comrade?
>>296376
Do you not realize the belief or disbelief in ideology is ideology in itself?
>this thread
How about y'all visit /biz/ and educate yourselves on how can you too become a dirty capitalist? Most of you are in a first world country, so it's easy mode. You can become a millionaire within your lifetime. Your kids could be a part of an upper class. But no, let's kill all the rich people because your parents didn't have what it takes to become wealthy and you don't have what it takes to take over and enlarge that wealth even more.
>I'm bad at the game
>let's murder the good players
>>296489
yes, most leftists who distort the meaning of the word liberal find themselves in some communion with communists.
>>295604
>>295604
statism is easy mode lad,
all a marxist has to do is disagree with your distorted view of human nature, members of a capitalist society have been conditioned join the rat race for its pedestrian benefits.
why do you think there's so much mental illness nowadays? I'll tell you why, because the free market and the specialisation of labour is inherently antisocial,
Statism does not become an issue when you remove centralisation and rely on closely knit communities. Labour should be enjoyed not dreaded, which is the reason capitalism itself posseses the statist qualities you seem to rage at so hard.
>>295312
Everyone seems to forget his contributions to sociology and our understanding of capitalism, I will admit.
>>296539
Define live off. I'd say if you receive income from a source and you spend that income you are living off it. So I'd say 99% of the worlds population, at least in the west, lives of their investments.
>>296554
Modern day liberals only have the smallest possible overlap with marxists. You don't know the first thing about communism.
>>296550
I'm not personally averse in the sense that I'm sure you'd like to assume I am, as in motivated by strong emotion
But care to explain to me how becoming a "dirty capitalist" will assist in technological improvement, scientific development and increasing automation leading to post-scarcity full communism?
>>295312
has literally no-one else noticed that op posted a picture of frederick douglass and not marx?
>>296574
>assumptions
Source please, both for the west, and the world
>>296603
OK, looks like my ass-pulled figures are slightly exaggerated
Looks like it's about 1% in the west (5% of poorest 5th)
http://www.poverty.org.uk/73/index.shtml
Worldwide 2 billion have no bank account, lets round that up to 30%
http://www.vocativ.com/money/industry/nearly-40-percent-of-people-with-no-bank-account-live-in-3-countries/
So that makes 99% capitalists in the west, 70% worldwide
>>296659
Ok, so what you're claiming is that a person who earns a couple of cents in interest a month, and pays more than that in bank fees is a capitalist?
For those still following this thread I'll throw this nutritious morsel into the stone soup
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/marxs_vision.php
>Hand in hand with the amelioration of working conditions goes the shortening of the working day. This is accomplished without any decrease in the total social product. In the only instance where figures are given, it appears that the working day will be cut in half. Marx explains how this is possible: "If everybody must work, if the opposition between those who do work and those who don't disappears...and if moreover, one takes count of the development of the productive forces engendered by capital, society will produce in 6 hours the necessary surplus, even more than now in 12 hours; at the same time everybody will have 6 hours of 'time at his disposition', the true richness..." In communism, it is not material objects but free time, the time to pursue interests and to develop one's varied talents, that is the substance of wealth. Another basis for Marx's optimism is seen in his claim that shorter work days will mean greater intensity of labor for the time actually at work.
>>296585
commonalities between leftists and marxists:
both:
weak-minded losers
overly concerned with questions of "egalitarianism"
prefers the underdog as against "winners", the successful, leaders, etc
statists who will use the means of the prevailing government towards thought control and punishment
see anyone who believes differently than they as evil without any good
resentful of those with more power, money, happiness, vitality, etc.
overly concerned with abuses of the past, uses "ancestral guilt" as a legitimate point of criticism
>>296716
You forgot fascists
>weak-minded losers
>overly concerned with questions of "homogeneity"
>prefers being subservient to "winners", the successful, leaders, etc
>statists who will use the means of the prevailing government towards thought control and punishment
>see anyone who believes differently than they as evil without any good
>resentful of Jews with more power, money, happiness, vitality, etc.
>overly concerned with abuses of the past, uses "ancestral oppression" as a legitimate point of criticism
>>296705
I'm saying owning capital makes you a capitalist. Your own definition.
this thread is a fucking embarrassment. there are like two people putting forth actual arguments against marxism, everyone else is spouting memes
>>296550
I just feel like I have to particularily point out how FUCKING STUPID you ar.e. jesus christ are you one dense motherfucker.
>hate da playa not da game :^)
>just lurk /biz/ for a few months and you'll be a millionare
this is the dumbest shit I've read on 4chan in a while. congrats.
t. someone with wealthy parents
>>296871
>t. someone with wealthy parents
I'm not surprised, marxists usually have a wealthy background.
>>296829
So poor people who are in debt and can have everything repo'd aren't capitalist because the banks own their stuff.
>>296888
i'm not a fucking marxist though you stupid piece of shit. i'm glad to live in a social market economy.
>>296888
>I'm not surprised, marxists usually have a wealthy background.
Congratulation, nice trips, however you have now presented a problem for
>>296716
>>296550
>>296490
>>296065
And you have also failed to notice that someone from money might have a bit of insider knowledge on how little money 1 million dollars is, and how much of an advantage having a lot is
>>296892
Depends if they have any capital according to you
Lots of people are in debt, the government is in debt. Small businesses. Almost every major corporation is in debt up to the eyeballs. Having massive debts which outweigh your current assets is pretty normal. It certainly doesn't mean you don't own anything. What's your point?
>>296829
So money when stored under a bed is simply money, but when placed into a bank account even though there are no real gains, like some priest chanting hocos pocus over a cracker, it becomes capital?
Recall again marx's claim that capital must have gains above the interest rate, for reason that otherwise investment would simply be in accounts
Further recall marx's claim that the larger capitalist expropriate the smaller capitalists >>296420
In fact is this precisely what happens when, for example, a corporate raider loots pension funds, or when small day traders are pushed out of the share market by high speed trading?
Capital is an amazing thing, from it we see the wonders that surpass anything previously achieved by humanity Marx himself claimed
However, this capitalism that has created wonders, is not the capitalism of a small interest bearing account earning the holder a pittance
One might as well pluck a chicken and call it human, no?
>>296973
Not them, but who owns the debt?
>>295959
The rape capital of Europe.
>>296981
>Recall again marx's claim that capital must have gains above the interest rate, for reason that otherwise investment would simply be in accounts
You don't understand how investment works. You don't automatically get returns above base rate interest or inflation.
>So money when stored under a bed is simply money, but when placed into a bank account even though there are no real gains, like some priest chanting hocos pocus over a cracker, it becomes capital?
All money is capital. If you own money you own capital. If you don't get a good return it's because you suck.
>larger capitalist expropriate the smaller capitalists
Neither you nor Marx really understand business or financial services. It's just as easy for the smaller capitalists to exproriate from larger simply by being better at business.
>a corporate raider loots pension funds
This isn't really what you think it is. Pension funds are investments. If they get invested poorly that's your problem.
>>297014
At first, who ever lent them the money originally, on whatever terms were agreed between the two rational agents acting in their own interests. Of course debt instruments can get sold but the principle still applies.
>>297041
>You don't understand how investment works. You don't automatically get returns above base rate interest or inflation.
Do me a favor son, and assume I'm not an idiot and perfectly aware of this
Recall that the meat of our discussion is the definition of Capital
> It's just as easy for the smaller capitalists to exproriate from larger simply by being better at business.
Just as easy? Really?
>>296284
>TRUENEWS
dropped at the title
>>297055
Marx's claim about gains is completely incorrect. That's my point
Amazon started small and completely destroyed every established book and record retailer by being better at it than them. Someday someone will build a better mousetrap and run amazon out of business. There are plenty of other examples.
>>295312
most arguments on 4chan are embarrassing
I'm pretty far right, but no one really knows what they're saying or why they believe it
look at how >tips fedora was such a successful meme, thats considered a genuine argument on here
>>297103
>Marx's claim about gains is completely incorrect. That's my point
And you fail to see mine, if there are no gains it is not capital, just a failed investment one might as well invest in tulip collecting and call that capital
>Amazon started small and completely destroyed every established book and record retailer by being better at it than them. Someday someone will build a better mousetrap and run amazon out of business. There are plenty of other examples.
Did amazon drive all the mom and pop shops out of business before or after its IPO?
The problem is Marx saw the world as needs, rather than the world as wants. He saw that mechanization could bring about the end of needs, but did not do a good job of predicting wants.
I think society would work fine if you were provided with a basic level of needs by the state, and wants were driven by the market. If greed has taught is anything, it's that people don't stop wanting things just because they have what they need.
>>295318
its funny because 98% of Marx's work deals with merely describing the mechanisms of capitalism
I hate it when people think of Marx as if he personally implemented Communism and ran the countries that had it implemented.
>>297195
>if there are no gains it is not capital, just a failed investment one might as well invest in tulip collecting and call that capital
Well that's convenient. So it's only capital if you win? So if I lose a load of money gambling it wasn't really money?
Just because the investment failed doesn't mean it wasn't capital. What the hell were you investing? You must have been investing something.
Just because Amazon had an IPO doesn't mean they were a big firm. Lots of firms do an IPO when they're just starting out. It's a great way to raise money for a start up.
>>296207
no, he doesn't think that
Marx, as most of left wing people of his time, make a distinction between private property (owning a factory 2000 km away) and personal property (everything you use directly)
>>297224
But to Marx, world of needs was already fullfilled by Capitalists. Minimum wage was kept as high so as to feed and clothe the worker; the capitalism was able to reproduce that way.
Marx doesn't talk about needs or wants as much as mere labour and alienation from it.
>>297237
>Well that's convenient. So it's only capital if you win? So if I lose a load of money gambling it wasn't really money?
It definitely ceases to be capital
>Just because Amazon had an IPO doesn't mean they were a big firm. Lots of firms do an IPO when they're just starting out. It's a great way to raise money for a start up.
Why are you taking this so personally?
Amazon pre IPO a couple of million in capital at most, post IPO tens to hundreds of million at least
Post IPO pretty much every mom and pop book and music store with lower capital gets driven out of business
I'm pretty sure if you go to your local chain store like target, walmart etc etc they're still selling books and music however
![amazonstockperofmrance[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zUehBxy.jpg "amazonstockperofmrance[1].jpg")
>>297280
Not taking it personally dude, you just seem to have no idea of how business or finance work. Or you are a troll.
Do you think Borders always had lower capital than Amazon? Or OurPrice, or MVC, or HMV or any of the other retailers it has swamped? It started small and built it's way up. By being better at business that it's competitors.
An IPO doesn't magically make you as big as Amazon is now. It just means you are selling shares to the public. You have to build a better mousetrap. Big firms go tits up all the time.
>>295766
Why do you get a marxist when classical liberalism was all about the free market? Isnt that a right wing thing?
>>297335
>Do you think Borders always had lower capital than Amazon?
This is precisely the point you imbecile, borders still exists, the mom and pop shops are pretty much all gone
>Big firms go tits up all the time.
Sure but what is the tendency?
Do words even have meanings to you? What do you think "tendency" means?
>>295959
Not Marxist. They're mixed market social democracies. Basically just capitalistic countries with robust social programs.
Marx said that religion and warfare were a result of the alienation brought by class polarization in non-communist societies. Archeology has shown that religion and warfare existed before agriculture, therefore under so-called "primitive communism".
Therefore, Marx is wrong and the whole assumption that a communist society would be devoid of the contingency that marks capitalist society is naive. Even if we achieve communism, religious and military conflict will not end.
>>297521
>Marx said that religion and warfare were a result of the alienation brought by class polarization in non-communist societies.
Where?
>>296559
No, it's because urbanization has run up against the neurological limits of the neocortex. Refer to the research related to Dunbar's Number, the Allen Curve, and the Behavioral Sink.
>>297463
>borders still exists
>>295312
spooks desu
>>298215
http://borders.com
This isn't a dead link son
>>295312
Marx made some good points on the inherent problems with industrial capitalism. Too bad his proposed solution was so fucking terrible.
>>295604
>>296559
I can see what Marx was getting at with his concept of alienation but totally decentralized socialist communities would never work. There would inevitably be serious conflict then alliances would form and at some point it would become centralized again. It's just how competition works. The only real hope is to beat scarcity entirely. Until that point you are much better off sticking with capitalist society.
>>297463
A rump border may still exist. Ourprice doesn't or virgin megastore. These were much bigger than amazon. Amazon started as a mom and pop store, but it was much better.
The tendency is for better run businesses to drive out badly run businesses. Not because they are bigger, but because they are better.
I don't think you are an imbecile, I think you're understanding of the working of capitalism has been learned from Marx and his followers, not from any real practical experience of how things actually work. Academic knowledge not business knowledge.
>>295816
You wanna talk about Das Kapital?
How about the fact that TRPF and LTV are absolute bullshit proven wrong?
Das Kapital is an incredibly outdated work, that tried to give some good insights and tried to provide a view of capitalism from outside his cocoon, but ultimately proven wrong.
Its a shame that people in the 21st century still cling to a work about economics from the 19th century to try and critique capitalism.
>>296272
>zizek.jpg
>>296594
>But care to explain to me how becoming a "dirty capitalist" will assist in technological improvement, scientific development and increasing automation leading to post-scarcity full communism?
Just, like, look outside. Or read an history book about the 19th and 20th century
>>295959
They're not socialist economies, and even if they were they would still only disprove Marx as he stated clearly that the Communist state can only be achieved through a violent revolution, resulting in a dictatorship whose purpose is to oppress the bourgeoise class until it somehow turns into a Communistic utopia. Just to be clear: Marx said that Communism could never arise through democratic means.
>>299964
The worst part is that it was outdated even by the time Marx wrote it. Now it's true that the layout theory of value was technically in use at that time, but that was more because no one had thought up a better alternative. Everyone at the time knew that it didn't add up, because it couldn't for example explain why water was more expensive in the Sahara than in London even if no more work had gone into procuring it in either case.
>>295703
>But the Marxist will argue you won't even want to inherit a factory because you'll have what you need provided by the state.
This is totally against human nature tho, why wouldn't I want more? There's very few people willing to just satisfy their needs, especially when they are in a position to satisfy their wants.
Also good luck to the state satisfying my needs, because if I'm gonna be paid the same as everyone else, you can bet your ass I'm gonna laze off as soon as the supervisor ain't looking my way, and so will 99% of humanity.
>>295318
>>300644
>>302943
