/lit/ - Literature

>>16685502
He was fat /thread

you cant

>>16685510
Not on an imageboard for sure

>>16685502
Marx and Marxism is a spook

>>16685502
His ideas are directly opposed to human nature

He was no saint but he did do some good economic analysis. Say what you will about him, but he was far and away better than that Jewish nigger Lasalle.

>predicts that socialism will happen in industrial nations and that Russia is furthest from socialism
>undeveloped countries flock to socialism with Russia being the first to try
>Marxists cope by insisting socialism only failed because they didn't do it in the right order and that it'll work for some reason once you let capitalism collapse
Anyway, the calculation problem destroys the concept of planned economies working, which Marx endorsed in critique of the Gotha Program.

>>16685502
Calculation power of socialism goverment is just simply nothing compared to capitalism hivemind

>>16685564
> Anyway, the calculation problem destroys the concept of planned economies working, which Marx endorsed in critique of the Gotha Program.

define "working"? for the better part of the 20th century, a nuclear armed global superpower ran on a planned economy with functionally non-existent homelessness, unemployment, food insecurity or illiteracy.

>>16685502
He was a broke ass nigga who had no bitches
/thread

just tabloid hegel

He misunderstood and overestimated the value and intelligence of the working class to lead their own mode of production

>>16685591
how can you be this stupid yet still use a computer

>>16685576
100 million

>>16685502
It's a cult of technology worship, mistakenly predicts the imminent collapse of capitalism that never arrives, has been retroactively refuted by Leninism (bourgeois vanguards dominate the proles when Marxism is put into practice, turn towards Weberian bureaucracy), LTV is wrong (see Kolakowski), too atheist.

There will never be a proletariat that liberates itself.

>>16685627
nonsense figure

>>16685502
Many tried, none succeeded.

Literally any quote from Thomas Sowell will work.

>>16685564
No it doesn’t lmao

>Marx accurately predicted the downfall of capitalism as we are seeing nowadays
>"B-But that's the fault of socialism! Banks are socialist! Big companies are socialist! Big tech is socialist! AI technology is socialist! Government handout money is socialist!"
Here's your typical "debunk."

>>16685567
Yes you’re right the socialist planning is incredibly less wasteful.

>>16685599
You're right marx is stupid

Why is nature structured like a dialectic? Why is materialism true? Why are humans conscious but animals are? Why is communism the final theory and yet still subjectable to dialectic progress as his theory suggests humanity is? Why is it that if a man builds a hoe to work the land he creates a "means of production" but if a monkey uses a stick to catch termites it is nothing? Why did people who criticised communism get branded as ideologically blinded and the criticism ignored as ignorance? Why did Lenin have change marxs materialism theory to adapt to quantum theory and essentially say matter is a concept separate from physics, becoming a realist? Why in the 21st century with free information at everyone's reach fies this shit and fundamentally wrong philosophy still here?

>>16685627
hurrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durr

>>16685712
Exquisite bait.

10000 gajillion innocent koolaks perished when Stalin mind-controlled them to burn their grain and massacre their livestock. Who can forget the true victims of communism: the freedom fighter Adolf Hitler and the benevolent Tsar Nicholas II.

>>16685712
>Why is nature structured like a dialectic?
Because it is dualistic.

>Why is materialism true?
Because you live in a material reality.

>Why are humans conscious but animals are?
I'll change my mind the day I can debate with one.

>Why is communism the final theory and yet still subjectable to dialectic progress as his theory suggests humanity is?
Communism is just a name for the unnamed human force in history that necessitates to go forward. It'll change, like it actually did, but the central ideal is still the same.

>Why is it that if a man builds a hoe to work the land he creates a "means of production" but if a monkey uses a stick to catch termites it is nothing?
Ask the monkey first and hear his arguments.

>Why did people who criticised communism get branded as ideologically blinded and the criticism ignored as ignorance?
Why did people who don't believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior were raped and murdered and got their temples destroyed by people that preached love and salvation?

>Why did Lenin have change marxs materialism theory to adapt to quantum theory and essentially say matter is a concept separate from physics, becoming a realist?
Already responded in the 4th answer.

>Why in the 21st century with free information at everyone's reach fies this shit and fundamentally wrong philosophy still here?
Because it's not fundamentally wrong? Even if it was completely wrong, I could ask you the same question: Why in the 21st century people still believe in the magic old man in the sky?

>>16685712
Communism isn't the "final theory". If it was, dialectics would be dead and not true. As for your other questions, you should narrow them down, because you're covering like 2 textbooks worth of shit.

>>16685675
>Marx accurately predicted the downfall of capitalism
Any day now guys. I bet the 30th recession will be the one to do it. This time it'll work!
>>16685754
Reagan also used mind control to force East Berliners to hate communism and run to the other side of the wall.

>>16685806
The reason dialectics is (as far as we know) so universal is because the nature of change demands it. If nothing was ever in contradiction or mutually exclusive, there would never be an impetus for things to change of develop, or any motion. Everything would just stagnate and stay the same, at rest. Its only because things come into relationships that fundamentally cannot last things have any impetus to change the situation.

>>16685824
It is already the case, anon. But don't worry, you'll be happy.

>>16685502
He was a Jew and he was a leftists

>>16685738
Read Christianity and communism by Martin D'Arcy. Its a very flawed philosophy peiced together with other flawed philosophies, today only dogmatic zealots with no regard for philosophy, cleanliness or the 100 million who died still entertain it

>>16685502
already done buddy

>>16685523
How

>>16685832
>capitalism has collapsed for good this time
Lol, so anyway, talk to you again when you're raving that the next one will be the one to do it after unemployment numbers get back to normal.

>>16685824
Who’s mind-controlling them to want communism back and are they controlling the Russians also? Maybe Yeltsin’s ghost needs to blow up the parliament again to make them understand Capitalism is there to stay.

>>16685848
Ok, ok anon. Capitalism is fine! You're not a slave to the banks at all. Just keep working and everything will be fine, just stay the way you are. The day capitalism has collapsed, bankers will surely come to your house to announce it so don't worry about a thing.

>>16685836
Absolute state of /lit/ right now

>>16685523

>>16685502
Easy
Marxism is stuck in the 19th century, today the "working class" cannot seize the means of production in the first world because all of those means were shipped off, production is so decentralized that if a revolution were to be attempted it would disrupt the supply chain and most likely end in starvation.

>>16685502
He was a brainlet. Could not understand Newton's calculus, thus mentally unequipped to understand a modern economy. His "Capital" is a few very simple algebraic expressions, buried beneath mountains of pseudo-Hegelian garbage.

>>16685502
If I build a hammer with a stick, a rock and a vine you can't have it because it is mine, we all know this, we all get this, what is mine is mine and what is your is yours, is a basic concept. If you try to persuade me using endless rhetoric about what to do with my own belongings you are either gonna get a no for an answer or the use of force against you if you try to use force against me. If you want a hammer build your own hammer, if you want to use my hammer you have to pay me because that's what I want to do, the same goes for every machine I own.

>>16685502
Marx was retroactively refuted by Charles Darwin (pbuh)

>>16685591
Dumbass
>>16685633
Ok take
>>16685712
Pseud
>>16685925
Good take
>>16685962
Brainlet
>>16685966
Low iq

>>16685554
Underrated

>>16685966
>the marxists are trying to take my stuff!
maybe next time don't get your marxist theory from PragerU

>>16685966
>noooooo not my toothbrush
American hands typed this post

>>16686012
>>16686022
Jesus motherfucking christ I'm talking about "the means of prduction" not about a fucking toothbrush you fucking idiots

>>16685781
What do you mean dualistic?
A material first principle is impossible because matter is subject to corruption, if matter is the first principle it must be eternal, having no beginning, actual in existing, and potentially everything else being the principle of everything else perceived in "material reality", now if it is eternal as it must be, how can it be also be changing into something else? What is this thing that generates the change and when does it come into existence, if it existed from eternity potentially in matter? If it is a power upon nature that actualises the potential change what distinguishes from matter? If it is a true change achieved, what distinguishes it from the previous principle? If it is the same there is no change. Things change so materialism is false.

Marx slapped the word consciousness onto man like a ribbon, materialism and empiricism do not work, If I have the capacity of perception, and this comes about through experience through the senses, what part of me perceives the experiance? What does the experiance effect to achieve perception? If matter effects matter in being actual, you don't get an ego, unconscious and favourite restraunt, you get matter, and abstraction from matter such as personhood, life and ego are illusions to a strict materialist

If it changes why is it necessary and why is the central idea neccesary?

Also dialectical materialism is even more flawed than strict materialism, why two atoms colliding produces a distinct structure and yet stays in essence the same I don't understand

>>16686042
capitalists don't build the means of production themselves retard

>>16685502
His philosophical theory is based on the labor theory of value. /thread

>>16686049
i hope your criticisms of the LTV go beyond "polishing a turd forever doesn't give it value"

>>16686047
It doesn't matter

>>16686042
You cannot use the machines you own without the workers, while the workers can use them without you owning them.

>>16686053
>expecting anyone on /lit/ to understand what SNLT means
No one posting in these threads has read Marx

>>16685564
Russia was underdeveloped, not undeveloped. In fact, the Russian Civil war was a war between the industrialized center and the rural periphery, somewhat similar to the American Civil War. When the Bolsheviks defeated the Whites and dealt with dissenting leftists, they went on to wage a war against peasantry, first under the guise of dekulakization, then under the guise of collectivization.

>>16686053
>>16686067
Go make a Ferrari bro, but for me your Ferrari is worth nothing ;)

<clears throat>
I've read Marx.

>>16686086
Based retard

>>16686086

>writing in a time when industrial capitalism was a thing in a couple cities in Britain, continental Europe, and the US; says it is the highest stage of human development yet
>150 years later it has taken over the planet
seems like a good analysis to me

>>16686096
>>16686097
Worth nothing ;)

>>16686104
please for the love of god read marx

>>16686103
Marx really predicted well how capitalism would lead to globalization, considering he was writing about it in its infancy

>>16685781
>Why is materialism true?
>Because you live in a material reality.

What does this even mean?

>>16686107
No, I don't read racist antisemites.

>>16686107
>read X
Wrong board faggot

>>16686059
"Marxist" builders or whatever can build their own tools under this premise, it doesn't mean you can stop me and the people that want to work with me.

>>16686114
You can't deny the usefulness of a material analysis, expirementation, etc. as it's examplified in empirical science.

>>16686146
That doesn't prove materialism correct, materialism cannot explain human conciousness.

>>16686158
Just because something is beyond our current technological grasp to fully comprehend does not make it any less completely material

>>16686047
Who does? Not him I'm just curious as to what you mean. Are workers and capitalists exclusive terms?

>>16686158
Not him but I agree with you that materialism cannot explain consciousness. However this is just a minor detail of Marxism, it has little bearing on his economic analysis. Just like how science, rooted in materialism, is useful even to non-materialists.
>>16686169
In Marxist thought there are only two classes, capitalists (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat). You belong to one or the other, the worker has to sell labor to capitalists to survive, while capitalists exploit their labor and extract surplus value for profit. Nowadays I'd imagine most "means of production" are, funnily enough, created by the proletariat for the use of capitalists.

>>16686163
What will technology reveal? Something immaterial?

>>16686187
no such thing as the immaterial

Marxism has already been debunked by American self help gurus.

>>16686199
I know you're joking but

>>16685502
Best way to debunk marxist theory is this: we realize that the workers' value is actually very low. If you're not a capitalist, you often don't really contribute to society. Why is that? Because the proletariat is simple work force. The sad truth is that net tax receivers are parasites as much as the First and Second State before the French Revolution.
The real future isn't Communism, or, at least, not what I call "distributive communism", the one described by Marx where the wealth that has already been given to people will then be redistributed, resulting in an effective systemic loss (here's usually where people just say the word "inefficiency" as if it wasn't fundamental to life itself to not be wasteful in its processes in both a microscopic and macroscopic level). The solution, rather, is what I like to define as "creative communism", or, better yet, "equality of new possessions".

>>16686187
>>16686189
Dark energy and dark matter so far are "immaterial" as no one has been able to observe them nor know what they supposedly are.

>>16686244
not what immaterial means

>>16686199
Communism can only be achieved by shooting all Americans on sight.

>>16686189
Then what will technology reveal?

>>16686107
Still worth nothing.
>>16685502
The true strength(or rather, fragility) of a thesis isn't how many arguments can be raised against it, but rather how both intuitive and rigorous the counterargument/refutation is. A fragile stance is such that, to an easy response, there is no easy counter-response.

>>16686249
They don't consist of matter. That's what immaterial is.

>>16686257
If I knew that I'd have the nobel price. I'm sure it won't reveal that consciousness comes out of nowhere and is not based on the stuff in your brain

>>16686262
do you think that gravity means materialism isn't true

>>16686255
>anything can only be achieved by shooting all Americans on sight.
FTFY

>>16686260
Shut the fuck up pseud

>>16686260
>if proponents don't spoonfeed me an explanation for my strawman objections that my small brain can understand, the theory is wrong and i don't have to read what they actually believe

>>16686267
>do you think that gravity means materialism isn't true
I mean no one knows what gravity literally is, nor have we ever seen his particle the "graviton", not to add the problem of quantum gravity.

>>16685502
Marx truly believed that a man's only reason to purchase a house, a car, or maintain his property is due to his desire to "one up" his neighbor, to have better objects than his neighbor.

Marx's entire worldview is flawed because he does not possess human decency. Only a truly evil person could fail to realize that people are not always attempting to be impressive to others. He is vile. He exposes his internal motivations with his words.

>>16685502
I would tell you my theories that debunk Marx, but I'm gonna have to charge. My ideas are behind a paywall.

>>16686282
>Marx truly believed [something Marx did not believe]
Brainlet

Only a communist would offer up ideas for free.

>>16686267
>No one knows but I'm sure there's an explanation that proves me right, because it's impossible that I'm wrong
I used to think the same but if you ask me, the hard problem of consciousness is a complete refutation of materialism. There is literally no way for dead matter bound by the laws of physics to somehow have conscious experience arise out of nowhere. Your brain is just a bundle of dead atoms. Unless you suppose that mental experience is an inherent component of matter that the brain happens to give rise to, but that's not materialism anymore, it's property dualism.

>>16685576
I have the unfortunate circumstance of working with multiple Russian diaspora and despite having been in America nearly 40 years the entirety of their conversations revolve around how awful Russia was. You cannot even break them of this, every conversational topic goes back to how shitty Russia is.

>>16685502

>>16686275
Aaand, there. See? Ad hominem.
>>16686277
Smart people can explain complicated things to dumb people and in that sense it would be easy, not that you would know nor experience. Also,
>implying a strawman without any proof while simultaneously making a strawman himself
The truth in an argument lies in its rigor and, by consistency, in its formality. Then again, many people here haven't done much reading comprehension.

>>16686293
Are you denying that Marx saw "oneupsmanship" as the primary economic force of capitalism? Because you would be wrong. He was literally that poisonous of a human that he couldn't imagine another reason to buy a house.

>>16685845
insofar as humans are neither jackals nor raccoons

>>16686323
>many people here haven't done much reading comprehension
says the guy who's never read marx but knows he must be wrong because no one wants to explain the labor theory of value to you

>>16686281
Right, my point is that gravity is an observable material reality, as is consciousness. Neither of them has causes beyond the physical realm. If you went up to a caveman and asked him to explain what causes rain, he might not be able to answer. Doesn't mean that the whole process of precipitation has immaterial causes, just that we didn't understand them yet.

>>16686310
Cool, it doesn't destroy materialism for me. It's like asking how we got to the big bang. It might be impossible to determine, but to me it does not mean that there are non-material causes for anything. There can't be.
Besides, you see different levels of consciousness throughout the different forms of life. Are the reactions of a single celled organism to its environment also unexplainable? As life gets more complex, these reactions are harder to study and determine the root causes of, but again it means nothing beyond the fact that we might be too dumb to understand. I'm also a determinist when it comes to free will but that's a whole different subject

>>16686323
You don't even know what an ad hom is, retard.

>>16685845
Nothing has objective value to humans, especially not labor. The classic example is that if you're thirsty, you'll pay a fair amount for water, but if you've drank 2L of beer, you won't drink the water even someone paid you.
Classic liberalism's theory of supply and demand is far too simplistic, but the labor theory of value is worse, it's idealistic nonsense.

Already done.

>decide to produce more than is the average because I, a man, can imagine what the future may look like, and wish to approach the future from a better position
>socialism completely removes the motive force behind this

Overall, from a micro and macro evolutionary standpoint this is the quickest way to never leave Earth and fucking go extinct here

>>16686341
>It might be impossible to determine, but to me it does not mean that there are non-material causes for anything. There can't be.
It sounds like you have already decided the answer and don't care how many reasons you may be given to doubt materialism

>>16685502
X axis is economic freedom Y axis is gdp per capita correlation is 0.84, this is my go to evidence

>>16686353
Phenomena that in the past were attributed to things beyond the physical have been proven time and time again to be wholly bound within the material world. I think it has a good track record!

>>16686344
Things do have objective value, it's just an amount that humans are necessarily aware of or able to be aware of. Things are not relative. Everything is deterministic, and unfortunately it might be a few too many steps of complexity for you to grasp how this can be the case.

>>16686339
>never read marx
plenty of people haven't read marx
plenty of people haven't read the anarchist cookbook either, and your whining about it doesn't make either worth a read
Piss off

>>16686356
"Economic freedom" is a meme tier metric
The same people using this go around and start yapping about how Europe has too many regulations

>>16686315
sample bias

>>16686364
Why open a thread on someone you havent read? I dont get it anon, what is your endgame? proving you're the biggest retard in this thread?

>>16686344
Ask me how I know you haven't read a single chapter of Capital

>>16686349
refuted by Hilferding

>>16686341
>Right, my point is that gravity is an observable material reality, as is consciousness. Neither of them has causes beyond the physical realm.
If you cannot explain neither of them then is useless to even bring them up.
> Neither of them has causes beyond the physical realm
What causes gravity? What causes consciousness? What causes dark matter? What causes dark energy? Materialism has no answer for what causes any of this. Saying "we don't understand" does not prove materialism right.

>>16686389
Whats the alternative?

>>16686389
I'm not up to date on my theoretical physics' research papers but to say that gravity is not explained seems a bit stupid. You know, a consequence of masses moving straight ahead in a curved spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass

>>16686404
shamelessly copypasted from wikipedia ofc

>>16686376
who said I never read marx?
and you really should kys for the good of the people

>>16686359
>I have absolutely no idea how it's possible for random bundles of dead matter, with absolutely nothing else present in the universe, to have conscious experiences behind them. But it must happen somehow because hey, science can easily model stuff like gravity!

>>16686427
>Things must happen somehow.
Yes.

>>16686404
> You know, a consequence of masses moving straight ahead in a curved spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass
That's GR and it breaks down at the quantum level. Meaning there's a hole in GR's theory.

>>16686444
It might be wholly accurately define someday or it might not, it's really quite irrelevant to my argument as I've said before.

>>16685502

>>16686339
>says the guy who's never read marx but knows he must be wrong because no one wants to explain the labor theory of value to you
Marx himself presents in parallel value surplus to labor surplus and the only way to do so in a sensible way is to imply the labor theory of value. Then again, you're probably an English college student in the US, so I can't blame you for your ignorance. Unfortunately, the modern world isn't much interested in the boring purity of logic and formal structure and instead indulges in labelism, thinking it can substitute argumentative rigor and formality.
>>16686343
An Ad Hominem to defend his previous Ad Hominem, all with an insult on the top. Yum!

>>16686434
You think you're the opposite but you strike me as hardly any different from a religious person with complete faith in God's existence - faith that overrules any argument to the contrary. You've decided you already know the answer to all of metaphysics and don't care how limited its explanatory power is.

>>16686465
You're the retard who brought up Ferraris right? Don't pretend you understand the labor theory of value when you don't even know what socially necessary labor time is

>>16686461
General relativity literally does itself friendly fire, as it predicts singularities at microscopic leves and yet general relativity itself stops working at microscopic levels.

>>16686493
Not him but see>>16686126

>>16686158
>materialism cannot explain human conciousness.
Yes it can, brainlet.
Atoms are the foundation of matter, they come in around 100 types (the stable ones). Their combinations create millions upon millions of different structures and molecules. The combinations of all those mollecules create an uncountable amount of more complex structures, structures that display properties that atoms themselves could never display. Conciousness comes from your brain functioning, which involves dozens of different cells, synapses between them, hormones between the synapses, enzymes to make those hormones, and much, much more. Human conciousness is no more special than any other complex result of matter interacting with itself.

>>16686506
No it cannot, and consciousness cannot be explained with the reductionism you are implying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

>>16686493
>socially necessary labor time
is that like when the clock goes back on halloween night, or is it like when the clock goes back 'four more years' two days later?

>>16686477
I don't have faith in science explaining everything. On the contrary, I think it is quite possible that some things might be forever beyond our understanding. The difference between me and a religious person however, is that I don't pretend to understand the causes of things we don't understand beyond logically assuming that they work the same way as the causes of things we do understand (that is to say, wholly physical).

>>16686494
this is interesting and it reminds me that I should really get to some maths and physics reading sometime soon

>>16686401
Holism instead of reductionism.

>>16686526
wholly physically*.

>>16686506
>brains are very complicated and correlate to various mental activities, therefore the hard problem of consciousness is solved
you're missing the point, there's no materialist mechanism for a brain, no matter how complex it is, no matter how well we come to understand it, to be anything more than a mindless machine made of meat

>>16685502
Nietzche already did, then the "few great experiments" suggested by him came into existence during the last two centuries. Everyone who still believes in socialism is in denial. Unfortunately many learned nothing from "such a practical instruction."
>In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a “will to negate life”... Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society life negates itself, cuts off its own roots. The earth is large enough and man still sufficiently unexhausted; hence such a practical instruction and demonstratio ad absurdum would not strike me as undesirable, even if it were gained and paid for with a tremendous expenditure of human lives.

>>16685502
>>16686493
Unfortunately for you, I'm not the Ferrari anon. I'm a simple student who at least attended his microeconomics lessons. You, what can very well be described to a stereotypical extent an English college student in the US, on the other hand, have the burden of proof. As of right now, you are making a case for yourself: it's just that you're making the case of also belonging to reddit, especially with that ad hominem which also doesn't have any foundation per sè, not that you'd realise.
By asking if I were the Ferrari Anon, you also forgot to notice my name: another simple testament to your non-exceptional cognitive abilities

Materialism is an incorrect metaphysical position.

>>16686579
>complains about ad hominems that were intended for someone else anyways
>comments on my "non-exceptional cognitive abilities"
anyways
>Marx himself presents in parallel value surplus to labor surplus and the only way to do so in a sensible way is to imply the labor theory of value.
...and? what, did you think i was denying that marx endorses the labor theory of value?

>>16686575
Define mindless.

>>16686047
They quite literally do. Capitalists in a digital economy are data parsers and statisticians.
Data analytics is a productive mode.

>>16686633
having conscious experience. think about it, a brain and a speck of dust are fundamentally the same thing: particles following physical laws. there is no reason or mechanism for this dead matter, no matter how complicated it gets, to be conscious. we should all be zombies pretending to have thoughts and feelings, but really having just as much conscious experience as a speck of dust, in the materialist picture.

>>16686653
a speck of dust and a blackhole are fundamentally the same thing too. fucked up how they don't behave the same way

>>16686049
you can have a marxian economic model withut the LTV

>>16686666
THESE ARE SOME PROLETARIAN QUADS RIGHT HERE

>>16685554
comedy gold

>>16686659
Blackholes does sucky sucky though

>>16685502
im smart and marx is dumb
debunked

>>16686059
>You cannot use the machines you own without the workers
How does it feel being stuck in the 1800s? We're in the fourth Industrial Revolution, fella. Automation made workers obsolete. Japan is simply accepting it, because their workforce is dwindling. China is containing their populational growth. Europe is replacing their population with immigrants that pump out more children, and it's going to be disastrous. America is trying that too. Maybe the workers taking the means of production will be relevant in those places.

>>16685502
You cannot debunk what is already in action. Economic oppression is real.

>>16686681
fucked up

>hahaha Marx was completely wrong and has been refuted by a dozen economists from last centry
Okay.
Now explain this.

>>16686666
Neo-marxian then

>>16686659
still missing the point of the hard problem of consciousness and essentially arguing "well the brain behaves like it's conscious but black holes don't, so that's why brain's are conscious"

>>16686698
>Millennial
>81-96

Wrong.

>>16686698
A natural process of wealth and power concentration, which happens in any society with vertical power structures, including the supposedly socialist ones.

>>16686714
Yep, a natural processes that is inherent to capitalism.

>>16686704
hard problem of consciousness is not even universally accepted as even existing

I've followed the guys arguing about Ferrari's but I can't figure out what they want from each other.

>>16686722
Inherent to any society. To argue with this you must be as mad as an ancap.

>>16686734
Agreed. If it's inherent to any society it is also inherent to capitalism.

>>16686732
Ferraris are a luxury item, if you build your own ferrari shits gonna be wack and niggas gonna make fun of you on the internet

>>16686740
Well good, because I'm not arguing for capitalism, but rather against the notion that socialism would somehow be different in any meaningful way.

Service economy has overtaken industrial factories and a tour guide doesn't have a means of production. You can't assign value to work either when it's entirely subjective.

Is this the power of marxism? How can ONE Ferrari refute marxism so easily? Why marxism is so pathetic holy shit.

>>16686758
May be, may not be. But are going to just sit down and let those rich assholes take away all your money for the sake of "defending capitalism?"

>>16686753
Fun fact: none of them will ever have a real Ferrari.

>>16686765
kek

>>16686765
Where's your Ferrari?

>>16686365
That is not a refutation. He just won the thread bruh.

>>16685502
>>16686610
>someone else anyways
I was also that someone who had a reply to whom the Ferrari Anon replied with the Ferrari comment, therefore I was involved.
>did you think i was denying that marx endorses the labor theory of value?
No, I specified where it manifests in his philosophical theory and, by extension, also implying the definition of the labor theory of value as a response to your unproven (and now demonstrably false) presumption. Again, going by stereotype, knowing a language does not necessarily imply logician capabilities and critical thinking, especially in 2020.
>>16686666
A less functional one, where its own failures are self-evident.

>>16685925

>>16686818
Sure. Go inform that to the academia.

>>16686698
That has absolutely nothing to do with Marx. Marx defined the lines very clearly, he spoke of classes. The Silent generation, boomers and Gen X are NOT the bourgeoisie. The vast majority of people in those generations are part of the proletariat.

>>16686824
>also implying the definition of the labor theory of value as a response to your unproven (and now demonstrably false) presumption
and what is that? at no point in this thread did i give a definition of the LTV, i only pointed out the ignorance of the ferrari retard

>>16686836
Hmmm because he made his observations based on current standards of the society of his days? It's pretty clear from reading his writings that updates must be done to the theory as time goes and society changes. The core idea remains unchallenged up to this day.

>>16685502
I ask, why are Marxists so pathetic/insufferable?

Is it possible to have the economics of Marxism without having to be a fat open borders neckbeard Leftist?

>>16686866
>Is it possible to have the economics of Marxism without having to be a fat open borders neckbeard Leftist?
I'm almost certain strong border control is a must for commie countries even in theory.

>>16686866
My image of a marxist is a 50 year old married professor with a beard and 2 kids

>>16686878
>I'm almost certain strong border control is a must for commie countries even in theory.

Then why are all Western Marxists open borders cucks?

>>16686857
Applying social class theory to generations is moronic. Older generations will ultimately die. The vast majority of millenials have parents from which they will inherit all of that wealth. The proletariat would never inherit anything from the bourgeoisie. The classes are stratified, separate.

>>16686900
Not him but because is neo marxism/socialism of the new left, old left/marxism collapsed and showed it doesn't work so now is new left stragegy.

>>16686900
Most "well-informed" marxists haven't read Marx with the primers and full understanding I wouldn't imagine some 20 year old college losers to have even seen a copy of the Communist Manifesto let alone read it.

>>16685502
>>16686845
Of course you didn't. The presumption was implicit in
>no one wants to explain the labor theory of value to you
I'll give you this, however: I may have misinterpreted that post, since your grammar was sub-par at best.

>>16686866
Thank God I'm part of the anti-marxist resistance.

>>16686920
The idea of progressive impoverishment still stands.

>>16685649

>>16686866
No, because the working class is global, now more than ever.

>>16685580
Ayy yo dis some facts right there

Marxist countries benefit from the innovation of non-marxist countries and that means their survival is even more suspect

>>16685997
based

>>16685842
Don’t even bother bringing up Schumpeter. Most amateur Marxists don’t ever bother reading anything that criticizes their prophet, so it’s not like they are familiar with his thesis anyway. Shame because the current situation much more what Schumpeter described in CSandD than anything Marx wrote

>>16686315
the majority of russians literally want socialism back

>>16687199
This is the most retarded fucking myth, you dont know a single russian

>>16685502
NO YOU CANT HAVE MORE THAN ME

I like the part where marxists ignore marx's views on jews because their corporate masters tell them to

>>16685781
>le magic old man in the sky
red*it time

>>16687215
Enlightenment as to the central point of On the jewish question

>>16687206
lol, its not a myth, this gets polled every few years because the capitalists keep hoping it'll go away (never does). diaspora russians who could afford to leave russia obviously are thrilled the USSR fell. the millions who were immiserated by capitalist shock therapy feel otherwise.

>>16685576
Planned economies can't meet accurately demand for consumer goods, which is like the main goal of an economy (to provide people with goods and services they want). The economic calculation problem, which was first created by Mises, explains why

>>16687218
>being religious AND sensitive about it
cringe

>>16687283
even if we grant that planned economies can't do it "accurately" (i don't grant that), we still have historical evidence that it can be done to some degree. the level of accuracy your'e demanding appears to be arbitrary. why should we grant that capitalism is accurate? there are plenty of situations where capitalist production is unable to meet demand and prices must be set such that the product is not obtainable for the majority of people. how is that any better?

>>16685502
You can't.

>>16687313
>why should we grant that capitalism is accurate?
I'd rather live somewhere where there is too much of something than without something because Comrade Sally (they/them, ACAB, BLM) thinks having 100,000 chickens for sale is enough.

>>16687335
thats cool, tell the millions of people who starve to death worldwide every year how efficient capitalism is at meeting their needs

>>16687335
Why would a libertarian woman be in control of a communist state. Communist states have always been patriarchal and authoritarian.

>>16687344
>DUDE BUT WHAT ABOUT AFRICA
You retards roll that out every time, instead of looking to somewhere like Switzerland for what capitalism is you mention some third world shithole with a dictator yet the moment people bring literally any mention of communism you'll shit the bed and cry about "NOT REAL GOMMUNISM XD"
>inb4 Catalonia lasted for 3 weeks during the civil war

>>16687344
>starving to death
>capitalism

Yikes.

>>16687397
> not real capitalism!
>>16687373
> not real capitalism!

lol

>>16687373
>>16687416
also im pro soviet, retard.

>>16687373
But switzerland's business dealings are directly connected to a market that extracts resources from Africa, south America, and has production facilities in asia. How can you say that they are separate when they are connected by a global market? You can't have one without the other. Of course a communist is going to point out that capitalism only fucks over the ones at the bottom and benefits the top.

>>16686185
>In Marxist thought there are only two classes
Petite Bourg, Lumpen proletariat?

bohm bawerk absolutely destroyed marx

>>16687461
Who?

>>16685502
>Hitler Refutes Marx: The Industrial Revolution of Genocide

>Auschwitz is a more profound refutation of Marxism than the demise of the Soviet Union. The Russian Revolution would never have occurred if Lenin had waited around for Marx's heroic proletariat and objective economic conditions. Although profoundly influenced by Marx, the Soviet state was actually founded upon the Leninist-Stalinist belief in the decisive import of elite leadership.

>If so, then perhaps the Leninist-Stalinist revision of Marx's "class" view of history opens the possibility that his theories may yet be correct - but unrealized. The final blow to Marxism, however, as a comprehensive understanding of human history, was delivered by Hitler's Germany. Auschwitz was the culmination of Nazism's historical refutation of Marx.

>Although Marx radicalized the assumptions of economic materialism, the Judeocide refuted the economic conception of man common to both capitalism and Marxism. The economic conception of man was decisively defeated at Auschwitz because the Judeocide cannot be explained on the basis of economic rationalism.

>>16687464
Eugen Ritter von Böhm-Bawerk

>>16686387
Hilferding got filtered by Bawerk so he actually refuted no one

>>16687468
this is the stupidest thing i have ever read

Marx, and by extent every single European writer in history, has already been refuted by the Qur'an.

>>16687468
>it's possible for people to do things that aren't motivated purely and directly by economic conditions so marxism is false

>>16685554
Cute. But being bunked is a Veblen good so turning the bunk sideways doesn’t produce egalite

I was looking into him to try and understand the onions green commies of USA and he seems kind of based ngl.
>Fuck kikes and niggers.

>>16687797
Marx was a Rothschild agent though.

>>16687797
>>16687805
Did you guys know... Marx was a SATANIST! America is in DANGER!

>>16687817
The Communist Manifesto was written thanks to the secret society that hired Marx and Engels, The League of the Justs.

>>16687827
That explains everything. Christianity is in DANGER!

>>16687851
Nope never said such thing schizo, take your meds.

>>16685836
man this image really does encapsulate the modern age perfectly. sexual degeneracy, the decline of spiritual values and tradition, the narcissism and focus on the self, every delusion of the modern age is here.

>>16687857
Shut up, Red Devil. Me and my Templar Knights friends shall defeat you.

>>16687897
You seriously need to take your meds, nazi.

>>16687897
imagine not being a christian communist

>>16686282
citation needed

>>16687817
Shalom rabbi

>>16687976
Viejo hijo de puta traidor.

>>16685502
>read marx
>become marxist
>make marxists post on here
>"read the libertarians"
>read the libertarians
>wow marx was totally btfo
>become libertarian
>make libertarian post on here
>"read the left-anarchists"
>read the left-anarchists
>wow the libertarians were totally btfo
>make left-anarchist post on here
>
how long must the cycle continue

>>16688307
it ends here

>>16688591
exactly the kind of meme syncretism you love to see
im a right-libcom rn though

>>16688307
Get a job
Join the union
Shoot your boss