/lit/ - Literature

>>9509447
I agree. Being outdated is pretty /lit/.

/pol/ here.

Marxism doesn't work.
>Soviet Union
>Cuba
>West Germany
>Venezuela

Holy shit, do i need to go on?

>>9509462
Hi leftypol

Marx was fucking retardarded

do you believe in scientology too?

why do you deny human evolution and sociobiology?

Marx has been debunked, just fucking move on already

>>9509467
What the fuck? I'm against Marxism fucking learn to read

>>9509462
>Venezuela

keep repeating the memes boy, since you clearly don't know that a) venezuela is largely capitalist and b) its situation has nothing to do with its economic structure

thu'sly's i shall renounce my literacy

>>9509462
/leftpol/ here.

None of those countries practiced real Marxism; they were all state capitalist. The same of goes for all the other failed socialist states.

No fuck off back to /pol/ you nazi fuck.

>>9509498
>leftpol he...
Go back to starving.

>>9509488
>ruling party is called United Socialist Party of Venezuela
>NOT REAL SOCIALISM
>MY SPECIFIC BRAND OF COMMUNISM HASNT BEEN TRIED

Fuck off antifa.

>>9509462

>>9509447

>historical materialism

Give me an example of when this based something that is aesthetically pleasing.

>>9509488
>Venezuela
one of the most unfree markets on earth and this is the very reason they are poor and enslaved

>>9509498
>/leftpol/ here.
You should probably kill yourself.

>None of those countries practiced real Marxism
because real marxism is fucking impossible
kill yourself

>No fuck off back to /pol/ you nazi fuck.
why do you think anyone against statist authoritarianism is a nazi?
nazis also supported statist authoritarianism

>>9509511
This image is fallacious because the economic system of those dictators haven't caused the atrocities they have carried out.

>>9509498

Can I use that argument as well to say that no one has ever tried real fascism? Because you know, theories of fascism are very different from what was actually applied, if you read some Giovanni Gentile and friends...

>>9509511
Chile and pinochet did NOTHING wrong.
Okay maybe a few things, he wasn't 100% free market, but at least he murdered commies.

It's funny the only examples you have are examples of dictators doing anti capitalist bullshit.

>>9509498

>they were all state capitalist

Clockwork.

>>9509517
Marxists actually believe anything that isn't communism is capitalism.

They are actually this retarded.

>>9509498
Why do all your marxist friends claim they were socialist then? lol

>>9509488
>Venezuela doesn't practice my rotten ideologies because they don't result as I want to!

FREE THE MARKET

DESTROY CENTRAL BANKS

KILL ALL COMMUNISTS

>>9509517
>everything bad done by communists
>obviously communism is at fault
>people starving to death or being killed by wars in capitalism
>it's just people being evil you dummy

really fires up the neurons

>>9509526
Jesus Christ, is there a more stupid ideology than anarchocapitalism?

>>9509526

Marxism v. Ancap = Materialism with state control v. Materialism without state control.

In both ideologies people live like fucking beasts. The only difference is that in the first you are ruled by Stalin and in the second by Immortan Joe.

>>9509530
is there any ideology worse than the ideology that strawmans anarchocapitalism

im not even an ancap but you are retarded and ignorant of history

>>9509526
Come at me anime boy :'-(

>>9509530
>everything is so automated
so the cost of capital is extremely cheap and there is massive deflation leading to a massive service sector economy?

oh god sounds horrible

>>9509532
>n both ideologies people live like fucking beasts.
Materialism is a fact of human instincts/human nature.
Why do you deny science?

>>9509447
Applied Marxism leads to the worst literature in human history. I know because I was born in a commie country.

>>9509535
how does it feel that your commie ideology will be dead in 50 years?

lmao

>>9509525
The reason why communism is at fault is that communism is a totalitarian ideology i.e it merges together the private and public life of every individual and makes them indistinguishable.
This means that its cultural genocide is directly caused by the necessity to make people conform to a statist economic system.
Capitalism on the other hand is exclusively about the allocation of resources; how these resources are distributed in a society is up to political ideologies

>>9509523
>patrick is actually correct

way to fail memeing

>>9509538
It leads to shitty aesthetics all around.

>>9509537

'Materialism is a fact of human instincts' barely has sense in the English language, you may have to explain to me what do you mean by this.

And why do YOU deny science, my friend, when both quantum physics and recents discoveries are drifting toward the idea that 'materiality' as we know it is an illusion and we live inside a projection?
Maybe it's time you re-settle your priorities. Here's a link, educate yourself.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

Anyone who talks about "classical" or "orthodox" Marxism is a useless hack and a vulgarizer.

>>9509559
>'Materialism is a fact of human instincts' barely has sense in the English language, you may have to explain to me what do you mean by this.
meaning humans beings like material things and like to own materials

>when both quantum physics and recents discoveries are drifting toward the idea that 'materiality' as we know it is an illusion and we live inside a projection?
define projection?

>https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html
Please go back to /x/ or /sci/.

All marxists deserve to be thrown out of helicopters.
Even the "peaceful" "academics".

>>9509558
Brutalist architecture is still harmless when you compare it to commie blocks. Where the single elevator breaks down and isn't fixed doe 5 years. And the electricity as well as water is turned off 10 hours a day and the whole night. But then again, that won't matter because you're not at home, you spend your whole daytime waiting in line to buy a single kg of flour.

>>9509558
how did that shithole building not collapse?

When communism is implemented correctly it works. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia

When it isn't (i.e. state capitalism) it doesn't work e.g. Venezuela.

>>9509563

>meaning humans beings like material things and like to own materials
Nobody is doubting that. Materialism is a little bit more than that, though. If you agree with materialism, everything is matter, and material things are the ONLY things you like. It means you can be satisfied solely by possessing material stuff and by improving your material conditions. According to this viewpoint, if you are rich you can't be unhappy. See it for yourself is this is how you live your life.


>Define projection
>Please go back to /x/ or /sci/.

There's a link to the academic article the piece was taken from, at the end. Maybe try reading it. And maybe, in general, read something scientific once in a while, because your fedora-tipping claims about how people 'like materials' are not really doing the trick.

>>9509517
>Shah of Iran was only in power as a US puppet to protect the oil industry
>Leopold II, king of Belgium, responsible for the murder of 10 million Congolese in a Belgian colony
>Pinochet only in power because backed by the US and he wasn't a communist
>not capitalist

>>9509597
When it isn't "THE STATE" it may work. Because it exists in a working economic environment. Once it takes over the state, the economic environment goes to hell as are the lives of all people living there.

>>9509598
>If you agree with materialism, everything is matter, and material things are the ONLY things you like
Materialism is wrong.
Consciousness is a fundamental part of the Universe. Materialists are wrong because they think we are just made of a bunch of unconscious stuff and magically we become conscious. You can't make a subject out of a bunch of objects no matter how they interact.

* egoism

>>9509598
>everything is matter, and material things are the ONLY things you like. It means you can be satisfied solely by possessing material stuff and by improving your material conditions
Not true at all

materialism includes my brain
my brain includes emotions which means non material things

idiot

>>9509605

Agreed.

>>9509545
>The reason why communism is at fault is that communism is a totalitarian ideology i.e it merges together the private and public life of every individual and makes them indistinguishable.
JESUS CHRIST THIS IS LENINISM NOT MARXISM YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARD I SWEAR NOBODY ON THIS FUCKING BOARD KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GODDAMMIT

FUCK YOU

>>9509606
Egoism is so retarded lmao

there are so few egoists that property owners will shoot and kill the egoists that trespass on their property

egoists are cucKs lmao

>>9509605
>>9509610

I was making a point against it to show that it is absurd to believe in materialism, read the previous posts.

>>9509616

DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NAZISM AND FASCISM BY THE WAY BECAUSE THAT'S A LEFTY THING THAT SENDS ME FULL CAPS LOCK EVERY TIME

I AM ON THE OTHER SIDE BUT I FEEL YOU BRO

Anything except free market nationalism is fucking cancer desu

marxists/social democrats/central bankers need to have their throats slit

>>9509616
Marxism cannot function without tyranny.

>>9509630
THIS

marxism is statism

it pretends to be anarchist but it actually says that a massive tyrannical state is required to create socialism

its fucking bullshit slavery and only the most gullible of people fall for it

>>9509630
We already live under tyranny
>>9509621
All nazi's are fascists, but not all fascists are nazi's.

Anyway, of course a normal discussion on Marx is not possible anymore on nu 4chan. Time to move on I guess

>>9509598
>Material things are the ONLY things you like
You fucking retard, materialism has nothing to do with that. Materialism is a theory that focuses on how the material reproduction of human beings shapes their social existence. The specific form of production and distribution in a society, and the relations that arise from these - in short, the economic structure - are the primary determinants of social relations. Accordingly, materialism seeks an explanation for ideological forms in their material/economic/productive presuppositions, and how social conflicts can be traced back to conflicts in the relations of production.

I shouldn't be surprised that nobody here even comprehends the materialist conception of history, god forbid you skim the first chapter of The German Ideology before pretending to critique Marx.

>>9509634
t. someone who never read Marx

>it actually says that a massive tyrannical state
who is 'it'? Marx? He never said that
>only the most gullible of people
yuh like almost all important intellectuals and artists of the early 20th century right

>>9509637
>We already live under tyranny
then why do you want more tyranny?
>>9509644
>t. someone who never read Marx
No, actually I have, that's the funny thing.

>who is 'it'? Marx? He never said that
maybe.
lenin said that though and the vast majority of marxists are also leninists

>yuh like almost all important intellectuals and artists of the early 20th century right
Nobody knows or cares about what you are talking about

>>9509637
>We already live under tyranny so we may as well live under a system that's even more tyrannical

>>9509637
>Anyway, of course a normal discussion on Marx is not possible anymore on nu 4chan.
Translation: I get btfo every time I discuss marx on 4chan.

Try talking about marx on /sci/, I'm sure they wont blow you the fuck out.

>>9509558
>disliking brutalism
How does it feel to have absolutely shit taste?

>>9509649
>the vast majority of marxists are also leninists
the OP is about CLASSICAL marxism, so not leninism

>>9509650
strawman

why do marxists still exist?

such an insane ideology and humans have much more accurate theories today

it's like how scientologists still exist.

>>9509653
>the OP is about CLASSICAL marxism, so not leninism
marx said he wanted an authoritarian state first

>>9509651
>Translation: I get btfo every time I discuss marx on 4chan.
Not really. It's not possible getting btfo by people who have Wikipedia tier understanding of Marx's teachings. I am not a Marxist, but a conservative. I just lament the fact that /lit/ is dead because of the influx of brainless /pol/ memesters and /r/the_donald

>year 4.543 billion
>supports a shitty ideology
>not being an omnicidist

>>9509656
It's dying. Slowly but surely; just look at this thread.

>>9509660
>Not really.
yes really

marx is like L Hon Hubbard

You people are true believers that can't accept your ideology is a cult.

>but a conservative
highly doubtful

>>9509665
As automation increases and capital goods become cheaper, it will die.

It won't exist exist in 40 years.

>>9509630
It can't function without faggotry either apparently. Seriously though, whats up with that? Why is modern Marxism so closely associated with gay/trans/poc shit?

>>9509673
>Why is modern Marxism so closely associated with gay/trans/poc shit?
because marxism is a jewish ideology

>>9509673
Because these people are unstable and like to identify with the "underdogs". Marxism is only an underdog because it's dead though, in reality communist states were the last states in the developed world where gays went into Gulag.

>>9509656
Have you ever read neoclassical economic theory or contemporary sociology? They are all absolute embarrassments and liberal apologia, Marxist methodology blows them out of the water.

Your problem is that you take the most vulgarized and retarded interpretation of Marx and compare it with mainstream economics. Of course it's going to sound dumb. But let me tell you something shocking - Marxism is a huge field that has progressed in a million directions since Marx himself! Some have gone into stupid directions, such as identitarian feminism and race movements which have alienated a lot of people. On the other hand, some have elaborated fundamental Marxist concepts and provided empirical defense of the Labour Theory of value. Try books like Classical Econophysics or papers by Cockshott on economic calculation. Of course, you won't bother to examine these things because you are not even interested in a charitable reading of Das Kapital.

>>9509675
Seriously though, whats up with it? You'd have to be blind to not notice the pattern.

>>9509665
>this thread represents marxism as a whole in the world
...
>>9509667
>You people are true believers that can't accept your ideology is a cult.
Every ideology is a cult to some degree. The cult factor is of course much worse in fascist/traditionalist/monarchist whatever ideas, but yes, Marxism is indeed a cult. That does not mean that it does not carry some significant ideas worth studying, as should be expected from an intellectual. Instead you are just shouting nonsense without a basic understanding of Marx. A true intellectual engages with his enemies of thought, reads them, understands them. You just shout like a little baby because you have a vague political ideology, probably a cocktail of wikipedia entries on 'traditionalism' and some frog postings.

You're not fooling anyone. Whether or not Marx is a shit thinker does not take away your retarded behaviour. You should be ashamed of this anti-intellectualism.

>>9509670
As long as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it will exist.

>>9509681
at least someone has a brain on this board

>>9509685
>this thread represents marxism as a whole in the world

Ask 10 people in the street (the working class) if they're sympathetic towards Marxism. They won't even know what it is.

It's never going to happen dude. Give it up. It's dead.

Do you ever notice how actual leftists are always people who read lots of socioecomomic, including opposing viewpoints, while conservatives never read jack shit and want their worldview to be maximally simple and digestible as a 4chan post?

>>9509702
I've actually noticed this phenomenon on both sides of the political spectrum. Fairly evenly as well.

>/lit/
>/pol/
Shit.
LOL.

>>9509447
>art for art itself isn't important anymore

Surely that stance of marxism is anti-lit.

If you're not a communist you are a piece of shit that deserves the gulag. Seriously.

>>9509840
If you are a communist, you're a piece of shit who deserves to starve to death. Ergo all humans deserve to suffer and die.
/thread

>>9509845

Why would I starve to death? I'm not a petty kulak.

>>9509511
>communist's laud these more obscure failures as "success" stories in their internet memes
LMAO

>>9509673
It's a mix of wanting to rebel against mom and dad (Who most likely made their money through capitalism), being naturally lazy, thinking that Marxism is the underdog and identifying with that (let's be honest, if any of the three main ideology is the underdog st the moment it's fascism), and lack of understanding that in the Soviet Union if a crime was committed that looked like a gay person might have done it, ie. murder of a man of a sexual nature, your fag ass could be rounded up purely based on suspicion alone.

These days marxism is sour grapes from people who can't succeed in our capitalist utopia.

>the world is evil, bankers and oilmen conspire against chinese peasants and me (a suburban NEET living in his parent's basement) This is the reason I cannot get a job or a gf or be respected by the intelligentsia

think about it, most marxist theories, starting with Marx himself who never had a job or stable income of his own, are used to rationalize their own inadequacies.

>>9509974
>ad hominem against Marx
classy

>>9509642

The point being that everything we usually classify as non-material is explained in term of materiality that is, problems of distribution of resources and the means of their production.
It aims at solving social problems by solving material problems - namely, who and how should have the power of distributing resources.

Now, the underlying conception of the human being in this is that you find fulfillment in material things, and that there is nothing outside of it. You are shaped as a personality solely by your interaction with the material world, and satisfying your material needs is the aim/purpose of your life as well as of the structures of government.

How is this different from what I was saying?

And moreover, how do you not find this absolutely degrading for the human being?

>>9510024
Ad hominem but true unfortunately. Even as a Marxist myself I have to admit that I'm a fucking loser.

>>9510024
not just him, you as well

I find thee image funny because while it criticizes ayn rand for lac of expertise in economics and it goes on to criticize friedman for being an expert in economics.all the while missing the point that those people didn't live lives that contradicted everything they wrote.

in short classic middle school marxist banter. keep it coming bud

>>9510024
I saw that image on leftypol

>>9509509
By your logic, Nazi Germany was Socialist as well, despite being very Capitalistic and right-wing.

>>9509462
Venezuela was doing just fine until the CIA killed Chavez, and Cuba has remained one of the better Latin American countries to live in despite being the main target of US sabotage for almost 70 years now.

>>9510057

How was it not socialist? Capitalism was controlled by the state and the state promoted welfare for Germans. They were the first to do it.

National socialism and fascism are not 'right-wing' in the modern sense of the word - their policies were not about making the market more free and cut taxes on rich people, despite all the attempts you keep making in your imagination to associate the 'evil people' of the past with the 'evil people' of the present.

Well, surprise: this is not star wars, harry potter, or the lord of the rings. It's not an evil v. good movie, it's way more complex than that. Maybe stop being sixteen and cope with that.

>>9510071
Lol are cubans still driving in cara from the 50s? How is going their attempt to introduce a censored version of the internet for the first time?

Costa Rica and Chile are the best off latino american countries, and they got 2 different economical approches

>>9509974
This is such a retarded line of logic that I'm actually impressed. Of course most of the people who turn to Communism and point out issues with Capitalism are people who have been unsuccessful in that system; they're the one's most likely to recognise such issues. Those who have been successful is unlikely to criticise Capitalism precisely because they're successful. Being successful but also saying that Capitalism is unfair and unethical wouldn't really happen because success in Capitalism is usually a mix of luck, ruthlessness, and ego, which of course means those who are successful are much more inclined to place emphasis on their own actions within the system and ignoring any impacts the system itself may have had in your success and the failure of others. Anyone who is aware of the issues of Capitalism and has some sense of morality probably wouldn't be able to be successful just due to the fact that it'd have negative moral implications for them. But no, it has to fit your specific model because that model is the one that makes you feel better about yourself.

This thread is teaching me that people are evil.

>>9510087
How do you explain that every commie i knew and every shitbag that comments an antifascist meme on fb are rich "radical chic" socialists?

>>9510087
>all that time writing out something that proves my point when you could be filling out a job application
LMAO

>>9510085
Some of them are. Most of them drive Hyundais or Dongfengs. But yes, the embargo did establish a culture of car maintenance early on that hasn't died out. And yes, Chile is better off in many respects. Not so much Costa Rica, though. I didn't say Cuba was unbeatable, but they've maintained an incredible standard of living for the amount of meddling they've been subjected to. It's been far from the abject failure we've been shown on TV. Try watching a little less MSM, my man.

>>9510082
>this is not star wars
Tfw life isn't like star wars

Communism is antithetical to human nature. It's as simple as that really.

>>9510082
>How was it not Socialist?
Because it was very clearly Capitalist? It operated nothing like how a Socialistic system is run. Also, Fascism is right-wing by definition. It is FAR-RIGHT. Just like Communism is FAR-LEFT. Yes, they share some features, but those are features of authoritarianism, which is a radical belief (which is why it occurs on the far end of either side of the spectrum). Fascism is right-wing and Capitalist. Communism is left-wing and Socialist.

I don't even see how you can consider the Nazis Socialist when they openly against Socialism as an ideology. THEY were the ones to develop the idea of Socialism being a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the western world. They started out as the German Workers' Party and were very anti-Socialist from the start. There's evidence that suggests they used the name-change as a way of luring in Socialists in order to confront them (even going so far as to confront them violently as well). They were NOT Socialist, were, in fact, very much against Socialism, and you should not be so hypocritical as to imply I'm viewing the world through a simplistic lens when your original argument was "But the word 'Socialist' was in their name, so they must've been Socialist!"

>>9510132
>just because it has socialist in the name doesn't mean it's socialist
>but I heard it's right wing and that's enough to conclude it's right wing

I'm a communist but please don't associate with me if you're going to argue like this

Both systems depend of materially limited resources. That era is nearly at an end.

why do commies come here, week in and week out just to have their pants pulled down and their asses spanked raw in these threads?

>>9510143
Claiming victory in defeat doesn't fool anyone you would actually want on your side

>>9510101
Have we reached the point where we're using anecdotal evidence as genuine evidence? Anecdotal evidence never works and this case is an example, because it has been very different in my experience, with a lot of people I know and have seen with those ideas have come from poor backgrounds. Either one of use could claim that the other one is seeing that due to coincidence, or can even go so far as to claim the other is just lying. Therefore, it's pointless.

You also inadvertly point out another issue with this method of criticism that uses one's position in society as a way of nullifying the point of their argument: no matter your position in society, it will be used to disprove your point. Poor and unsuccessful? Well, you're just angry because you can't succeed, and that's your fault. Rich and successful? Wow, you're a hypocrite. If it's so bad, how comes you're living so luxuriously? You live happily because of Capitalism. Notice how neither of them actually say anything about the theory itself? It's literally just stupid ad hominem.

>>9510139
You post-scarcity fucks are comnpletely deluded. By 2050 we're going to hit 9 billion people living on Earth - the cliff's edge of the planet's maximum bearing capacity, and then we're going to see what scarcity looks like. At this point only a forced recolonization of Africa that taught every goddamn nigger how to read (given that literacy and lack of fertility are strongly correlated) would save human civilization.

>>9510152
so why do they do it?

>>9510158
or a massive war/plague

>>9510152
Ikr!? What's up with all the commies thinking they've "won" here? Won what exactly?

>>9509605
>magically we become conscious

evolution deniers on /lit/? Lmao

>>9509673
The anarchists wondered into the wrong room.

The dominance hierarchy defines human existence. Marxism is more or less the flattening of the dominance hierarchy. It will never happen; nature finds a way.

>>9510161
I don't know. The /pol/tard I was debating just ran away after I posted >>9510117 , so I'm feeling pretty blueballed. I bet you he's gonna come back later and post "commies btfo" or something to that effect. Sad.

>>9510135
>I'm a communist
Doubtful

>But I heard it's right wing
My point is that it is by definition right-wing. Because we use the definition of words to determine what they mean. Right-wing ideologies are against Socialism and Social Democracy, which can be associated with the Nazis and other Fascist regimes. The problem I had with him was that he just saw the word Socialist in the name and thought "Oh, so I guess that's true" when their actions don't fit with the definition of Socialism at all.

tl;dr: your post was dumb

>>9510174
> muh human nature
doesn't exist sweetheart

commies win again, lets pack it in and go back boys, they've learned a hard lesson this day. we'll be back

>>9510185
Fascism is more center, up-wing desu though

>>9510174
You have confused the Marxists for Anarchists. It'll be wholly undialectical for a Marxist to state there will not be conflict in communism (even if it's not class conflict)

>>9510186
>doesn't exist sweetheart
I know you're baiting here, but Marxists ACTUALLY believe this.

>>9510186
>nature doesn't exist
Then how ideologies different from communism even appeared? Satan?

>>9510158
No brother, its the massive die off of global populations we are counting on for a freeing up of resources to devote towards global social and economic engineering. We need the earth to go back to well under 1 billion and stay there so that we can engineer a properly functioning global society that balances the needs and resources of all. The die off will be painful, bit every over populated species goes through the same process.

>>9510157
but it's accurate

>>9510175
Nobody here is interested in a discussion about Marxism. I'm waiting for anyone to respond to my post >>9509681

There is a frightening amount of people on this website that form their politics exclusively on the basis of memes. If it doesn't have cringy redpill infographics and pepes, it's not worth bothering with. Truly we are blessed by the Internet spread of information.

>>9510185
And my point is that the /pol/tard gave specific examples of socialist actions by the nazis and you resorted to "m-muh definition." So fuck right off with this embarassing bullshit.

>>9510210
Was the USSR socialist?

>>9510193
Whatever conflict occurs will ultimately result in dissolution of the regime and reestablishment of the classes.

>>9510210
>form their politics exclusively on the basis of memes
what's wrong with that?

>>9510215
It wasn't real socialism.

>>9510240
Oh right, you mentioned Cockshott so I thought you would have been on his side.

>>9510210
>I'm waiting for anyone to respond to my post
>declares self a marxists
>asks to be taken seriously
HHHAhAHAhAHAHAHHAA

Why is the religious right the only people who have managed to successful implement socialism?

>>9510215
I'd say it was a type of socialist economy, yes. If they continued with Lenin's economic policy then it would make sense to call it "state capitalism", but planned production is a whole other beast. We could also argue that the existence of wages instead of a system like labour vouchers doesn't make any fundamental change in the labour process to consider it socialist. But ultimately, socialism is not a single thing, but a plurality of ideas for a post-capitalist economy. I don't consider it a defeat of my position to say that a kind of socialism failed - I am not an ideological determinist. I don't think there is any "inevitable" process that begins with Marxism and culminates with Stalin, even if we can say, for example, that the Bolsheviks were counting on European revolutions to take hold and didn't have a clear way forward when they didn't. And they likely didn't have the technological capacity to fulfill the needs of their massive population in any case.
Finally, I'd say that it would definitely be some kind of planned economy for any chance of surpassing capitalism. I don't see a long-term solution in market socialism.

pfft ideologues

>>9509626
>free market nationalism
I'm pretty sure this is bait, but... Come on.

>>9509462
>West Germany

The most /lit/ political position is being in a spiral of ever changing opinions and frustration because the more you learn, the more realize just how little anyone knows.

>>9510492
Well you have a point there. Recently I've been getting into literature on the economic calculation problem and I'm increasingly convinced that the whole thing is an Austrian meme that is parroted without any understanding, and that there is no theoretical issue with planning given modern computing. It's making me turn from vague leftism to full-on communism.

>>9510132

The difference with socialism is in the centralized government - national socialism is not a capitalistic system.

> Fascism is right-wing by definition. It is FAR-RIGHT.
This is exactly what I am questioning. Fascism has been defined far-right by its detractors: it's not how it defined itself. Fascism called itself the third position and its economic system, corporatism, was meant to be an alternative to both communism and capitalism.

> I don't even see how you can consider the Nazis Socialist when they openly against Socialism as an ideology. THEY were the ones to develop the idea of Socialism being a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the western world.
The nazis opposed Jewish Bolshevism, which is the idea that communism is run by the jews. Now, communism is not socialism, and I think you should learn the difference between the two.
If you look at actual fascism, then, it has its roots in socialism - Mussolini was a socialist by formation and work for the socialist magazine Avanti!.

Right and Left are labels which usually confuse people a lot. If you look into the actual ideologies you'll see how
1. Fascism is not Nazism
2. Socialism is not Communism
3. Neither Fascism nor Nazism are based on Capitalism, as it is undeniably proved by their policies against free-market and in favor of a state controlled economy.
4. Both Fascism and Nazism are compatible with Socialism, as it is undeniably proved by their pushing forward socialist policies.

>>9509616
look how mad he gets

>>9510748
>falling for the communism and socialism are different things meme
Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, he did talk though about the two stages of socialism/communism.

OP, I submit that, in fact, being a Catholic conservative in favor of a republican government mostly run by the upper class is the true /lit/ political position.

>>9510748
Also I don't see how Fascism would be compatible with Socialism, I could see Nazism as some neonazi movements like Strasserism did propose an economy very similar to socialism. But fascism uses a corporativist economy which is not compatible with socialism and just doing socialist policies is not enough to be called socialism, for it to be called that it'd need an actual socialist economy.

>>9510775
Communism is a specific subset of socialism, which is a range of economic theories primarily based on social ownership. Anything else is pointless obscurantism. If you don't advocate for social ownership you're not a socialist, all these socdem redefinitions of the term are stupid.
However, I would argue that abolition of markets is not essential to being a socialist, but it is for a communist.

>>9510748
>Neither Fascism nor Nazism are based on Capitalism, as it is undeniably proved by their policies against free-market and in favor of a state controlled economy.

Nazi economists literally coined the term "Reprivatisierung" to describe one of the Nazi government's primary economic projects.

National Socialism > Communism = Fascism = Anarchism > Social Democracy > Classical Liberalism > Libertarianism = Objectivism = Anarcho Capitalism

>>9510082
>capitalism controlled by the state is socialism

>>9510521
that sounds interesting what are youreading exactly?

>>9510861
National Socialism is socialist. It's in the name.

Benito Mussolini was influenced by Karl Marx. Fascism is a socialist, working class movement.

>>9509498
Friendly reminder that america isnt capitalist since it doesnt fit my understanding of capitalism

>call yourself marxist, even worse call yourself you genuinely believe that any deviation from Marx or Engels thought is revisionist becuz lol history doesn't change except in the way marx and engels say it does
>when confronted on the failures of your ideology in practice just call it "sbape gabbilizm :DDD"
such a shame, over 100 replies and not one argument.

>>9510879
DPRK is democratic. It's in the name.

>>9509561
where should I actually start reading this man, also what background knowledge do I need on him?

>>9509565
edgy.

>>9510866
Check out this paper:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Calculation-Complexity-And-Planning-The-Socialist-Cottrell-Cockshott/6f6e2d52da790c839d3e52a02d2e8f321a8b4640

>>9509616
Autism

Maybe not everyone is wrong and it's just you. If it was so simple you'd explain it. Cuck..

>>9510971
Start with Marxisme et Théorie Révolutionnaire, a series of articles for Socialisme ou Barbarie. They're all available in English on either marxists.org or libcom. Here's the first one http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/castoriadis/1966/marxism.htm

After you can plunge right into The Imaginary Institution of Society.

>>9509673
COINTELPRO

>>9510995
You can erase everything else you said, besides "If it was so simple you'd explain it.",
which just proves you don't know what you're talking about. And when people call you out on it,
you rant about autism and call them a cuck.
Why are you here, seriously what do you get out of this?

>>9509530
Anarcho-Primitivism, Anarcho-Monarchism.

>>9511041
> Anarcho-Primitivism

Honestly, the thought that civilization is beyond saving doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

>Anarcho-Monarchism

Doesn't exist.

>>9509673
Marxism is a species of Judaism.
Judaism is a feminist ideology, as evidenced by the strong emphasis on symbolic castration of the male, i.e., circumcision.
The jewess wants to see men made eunuchs, excepting her prize bulls, and everyone else slaves.
Only the psychologically damaged or intellectually inferior non-jew buy into these ideologies.

>>9511057
>Honestly, the thought that civilization is beyond saving doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.
The problem is that it is unsustainable. Once humans go back to hunter-gathering, some people will start rediscovering technologies(fire, metallurgy, pottery, etc.) and we will eventually be on the square one.
>Doesn't exist.
You've never heard of Hoppe?

>>9511080
>You've never heard of Hoppe?

He's not an anarchist. Not even an """""""""""anarcho"""""""""""-capitalist.

>>9510057
>>9510082
>>9510132

>>9510997
thanks, I hate the vulgar "marxists" from /leftypol/ a lot.

>>9511186
Why are theses /leftypol/ edits are getting worse and worse every day?

>>9509447
It isn't. Maoism-Third Worldism is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN7FpwAa-Ls

>>9509521
>wage labour
>private ownership of mop
>production for exchange

Sounds like capitalism to me

>>9509447
>labour theory of value

lol

>>9511403
The LTV is empirically provable, unlike shitty subjective models of market fetishism.

>>9509681
>Marxist methodology blows them out of the water.
Marxists are actually retarded enough to believe all human action is the result of economic forces.

Marxism is fucking retarded.

>>9511387
By the retarded marxist definition yes.
But the marxist definition is completely fucking useless.

What is important is free market vs unfree market.

>>9509598
>>everything is matter, and material things are the ONLY things you like. It means you can be satisfied solely by possessing material stuff and by improving your material conditions
That's not what materialism is. It's not a moral position or judgement. i.e. nothing to do with only madonna style materialism having worth.

>>9511537
>The LTV is empirically provable
lmao

Then why do marxist children run away whenever you debunk the LTV?
LTV is so fucking laughable, holy shit.

Also the working class already consumes about 99% of all consumer goods.
Getting back "surplus value" in the real world is impossible and would only cause inflation, making the workers have the same living standards they had before?

"Marx just didn't want to work!"

>>9510044
>all the while missing the point that those people didn't live lives that contradicted everything they wrote.
Proof you've never read Marx nor even have a basic grasp of it.

Marxism is some kind of lifestylist philosophy. It's a system for understanding the logic of the world - particularly the production and distribution of resources in any given society and how that effects social relations. One could be a Bill Gates tier capitalist and still "believe" in Marx's logic.

>>9510795
I do agree that social ownership is necessary for both Socialism and Communism the same goes for the abolition of the market.
But if we are talking about socialism and communism as two different things and not as Marx used the terms, wouldn't socialism be the first stage of socialism/communism that Marx talked about and communism the last and second stage? The main difference between the two being the abolition of the state and money.

>>9511574
>It's a system for understanding the logic of the world
then why does it fail to predict virtually everything

>>9511562
>these tangible characteristics that marxists use to define a communist system cannot possibly used to define a communist system
>better to use the nebulous free vs unfree market dichotomy.

find jesus anon

>>9511589
You can use your retarded definitions to define a communist system, that's fine.
They don't make sense though.

What marx used to define a capitalist system is so incredibly arbitrary and vague it can mean anything.

Switzerland is capitalist, so is north korea.
According to this you have no idea why Switzerland is far more successful.
You completely ignore the main reason why Switzerland is successful, that is they have much much more free markets.

>>9511586
Don't rely on meme infographs I can't be certain you have even read. Use your words anon.

And "fail to predict virtually anything" doesn't read like a product of intellectual analysis to me. Rather, it sounds like a right-winger being triggered for simply being unable to fathom that quite possibly the most important philsopher of the modern era would have any value whatsoever.

>>9511581
The socialist movement was around a long time before Marx, even liberal economists like Mill speculated about worker ownership of the means of production. "Lower stage of communism" and such are very nebulous terms, I believe what Marx meant is that socialism would stil entail elements of commodity production, but wages would be replaced by non-transferrable labour vouchers. When all forces of Capital are gone in favor of a plentiful planned economy, then presumably there wouldn't be a need for any renumeration.

>>9511605
US is the global hegemon therefore it has the freest market?

This is seriously a terrible understanding of global capitalism and an even worse critique of Marx. Actually read him!

>>9511609
>Don't rely on meme infographs
>images disproves LTV
>i-it's a meme

>Rather, it sounds like a right-winger being triggered for simply being unable to fathom that quite possibly the most important philsopher of the modern era would have any value whatsoever.
It's as if you were too butthurt to refute my 99% consumer goods argument.
lel

>>9509447
>Classical Marxism is the most /lit/ political position.

>outdated
>never left the 1800s
>written in an overly-complex fashion
>irrelevant to mainstream discourse in the field
>non-mathematical, appealing to the pretensions of literary types

Sounds /lit/ to me OP

>>9511622
>US is the global hegemon therefore it has the freest market?
US has unfree markets.
There are plenty of countries with freer markets than USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

>Actually read him!
I did.
Dialectical materialism is hilariously flawed pseudoscience.

IF *I* WERE IN CHARGE, ALL THOSE OTHER MARXIST STATES WOULD HAVE TURNED OUT A LOT BETTER

>>9511638
Good thing that Diamat is a Soviet construct, then. Marx only vaguely alludes to the "dialectic" in his works, and certainly not as a weird pseudo-natural science.
The fundamental Marxist method is the materialist conception of history, not diamat.

Reminder: If we take Marx seriously, fiat money (which every country uses) cannot be money since it has no labor content and thus no value. Marx's LTV is tortured enough as it is, when we reach this level of mental gymnastics to justify a theory it is clear that it is a bad one.

>>9511658
If I was in charge of your birth, you probably wouldn't've been here. She ran away after one-nighter though.

>>9511673
TRUST ME ANON
STALIN DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING. MAO AND POL POT DIDN'T EITHER.
IF YOU HAD PLOPPED ME DOWN IN THE CHIEF'S CHAIR, ALL THOSE COUNTRIES WOULD BE THE MOST PROSPEROUS AND HAPPY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD

>>9511638
>US has unfree markets.
There are plenty of countries with freer markets than USA.

Right over your head. Your argument was that a freer market determines a countries success. The US is the global hegemon yet its markets aren't the most free.

>I did.
What purpose is there in lying. Someone who has not read Marx would not try to "refute" him with "why is switzerland more successful than nk - didn't think of that did you btfo"

Just read the guy. You can read people you don't agree with. Read meaning read their works - not other people's opinions of them.

>>9511080
>You've never heard of Hoppe?
Hoppe's form of libertarianism isn't anarcho-monarchism by any means. In his book Democracy: the God that Failed, he simply describes how a monarchist state would function better than a democratic one, but he does not support it. He's still an anarcho-capitalist.

>>9509447
False. This goes for anybody, read literally 10 pages of on Mises, Socialism

>>9509447
he's still underrated

>>9509516
You're a very angry little man, arent't ya?

>>9511688
I'm unironically this deluded and I'm unemployed.

/r/socialism invading again?

Fuck off, cunts.

>>9511668
but anon money's value is derived from its crystallization of the abstract labor quantized in it :^)

>>9509447
>economic system
>most /lit/ political position
???

>>9509488
>Venezuela
>capitalist

They literally call themselves a "communal state" nowadays, because the private property of the means of production is being destroyed for the benefit of communes and worker's councils.

https://nacla.org/article/communal-state-communal-councils-communes-and-workplace-democracy

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/30/venezuelas-communal-movement/

>>9512020
Is this the new standard insult of lefty/pol/?

>>9512072
Jesus... their vapid self-importance verges on delusional. I mean, I see the same attitude here sometimes, (and I'm sure some insecure teenager will quickly to jump to defend this landfill of a website), but at least there's a hint of humility in the self-deprecation of it all.

I'm really starting to hate online communities. You're all a cancer, and the only thing I hate more than you people is myself, for craving interaction with people similar to me.

>>9512072
>/pol/ with dates is a more leftist board

>>9512072
/lit/ has been a communist board since long before either that thread or you've been old enough to post.

>>9509447
True, but it's also shit.

>>9509462

There are plenty of failed capitalist countries too?

>>9512123
tell me about your day

>>9509447
>adhering to failed economic and political theories

What is less patrician than that?

>>9509462
>Classical Marxism
>gives examples completely removed from classical marxism
With that said, Classical Marxism is retarded.

>>9511659
>and certainly not as a weird pseudo-natural science.
bullshit
it is a weird pseudo-natural science.
Engels was even more retarded than marx was

>The US is the global hegemon yet its markets aren't the most free.
I was talking about the well being of the nation's people.
Not the nation's military and politcal power.
My argument still stands.

>Someone who has not read Marx would not try to "refute" him with "why is switzerland more successful than nk - didn't think of that did you btfo"
No, I was just refuting one of marx's retarded arguments. Plenty of his arguments have gaping holes.
The idea that the reason north korea and africa are shitholes is "capitalism"s fault makes no sense and is a useless dumb argument.

>Just read the guy.
I already did. The idea that all human behavior is the result of economic forces is retarded.
LTV is also retarded and makes no sense economically.

>>9512509
>/lit/ has been a communist board
No it hasn't, newfriend.

We regularly make fun of marxists and their delusions here.

>>9512523
>There are plenty of failed capitalist countries too?
They only fail thanks to government involvement like central banks etc.

Countries with free markets do the best. Central banks are fucking bullshit.

>>9513500
>>/lit/ has been a communist board
>No it hasn't, newfriend.

How new are you?

>>9511562
>A: my definition of X works to produce Z
>B: no it doesn't look at these failed examples of my definition of X
>A: your definition of X differs from mine
>B: your definition is useless, what matters are my parameters!

congratulations on effectively not addressing the argument

>>9509511
>innocents

>>9513718
>How new are you?
Communism is an outdated childish ideology.
Hardly anyone here is retarded enough to fall for it.

>>9513723
>congratulations on effectively not addressing the argument
but you never had any argument and you get extremely mad when examples of free markets produces extremely high living standards for people. lmao

>>B: no it doesn't look at these failed examples of my definition of X
wait lmao
WHERE ARE YOUR FAILED EXAMPLES
I'm fucking WAITING, you HAVE NONE
You people NEVER HAD EXAMPLES of failed free markets.

>what matters are my parameters!
Of course my parameters matter, yours are extremely vague and fail to define anything of substance

when will you children recognize this fact?

Private property of the means of production can mean almost any country on earth including extremely successful ones and extremely poor/oppressed ones

why don't you just use a more accurate definition like free vs unfree markets
then you would actually make sense

saying capitalism is horrible because it caused north korea is like saying "humans being allowed to breathe oxygen is horrible because it created north korea"

idiot

kys

>>9509511
Frick was based.
None of those cucks were innocent.

Glad he did what he did.
I'm also glad that the only real examples of ebul capidulism leftists have is frick, meanwhile mao and stalin killed millions lmao

>>9509602
Violence isn't capitalism. People that did this would have been arrested for murder since murder is illegal in a free market.

What now retard?

If marx never existed, we would have a 2 day workweek already thanks to economic production and lack of central banking.

Also russia would be a much better place to live today.

>>9509447

>>9513950
am i having an aneurysm? what is going on with this post

>>9513971
I bet you seriously wished this was somehow an argument.

Daily reminder all marxists deserve to be slaughtered.

Also golf is an amazing bourgeoisie sport that deserves to be glorified.

Play golf with your dad.

:^)

>>9513978
It's a barely coherent post anon.

>Private property of the means of production can mean almost any country on earth including extremely successful ones and extremely poor/oppressed ones

Why yes. This is correct. It's highlighting attributes of capitalism that differentiate it from other modes of production.

Your complaint is according to Marxism there are successful capitalist states and unsuccessful ones and therefore this makes the definition bad.

?

>>9513999
>It's a barely coherent post anon.
nah you just couldn't respond to anything that was said, it's quite funny.

>This is correct.
Sure.
But anyone with a brain can understand that private control of the MOP isn't the reason some countries are MUCH more poorer/richer than each other, it's freedom of markets.

>It's highlighting attributes of capitalism that differentiate it from other modes of production.
It's not highlighting anything. It's whitewashing.
It's claiming the freest societies in the world and the most enslaved are exactly the same.

You're basically using things that both of these societies have in common, like having a need for oxygen are what makes these societies.
What a useless differentiation.

>Your complaint is according to Marxism there are successful capitalist states and unsuccessful ones and therefore this makes the definition bad.
Exactly, because it's too fucking vague.
I think of you idiots like a group of people being angry that people are breathing oxygen, it's such a common thing that everyone does and isn't the reason some countries are more successful than others.

why are you tards so dumb lmao?

>>9513984
pictured: kid this an-cap would rape

>>9514107
renge-chon is literally a free market nationalist

>>9509498
out the helicopter senpai

>>9509511

So what is the best argument for National Socialist and Hitler being socialists?

I though he made a goal out of dismantling unions and syndicates.

>>9509498
>e-e-e-e-everytime they weren't real!!!

>>9509714
i agree with this wise anon

>>9512523
Yeah there are, but the point is not that some communist states failed, it's that every single one of them has failed, or is failing.

>>9514144
>collective blame

>>9514021
>Sure. But anyone with a brain can understand that private control of the MOP isn't the reason some countries are MUCH more poorer/richer than each other,

And nobody is making that argument. Marx's argument is not "private ownership over mop = poor country"

>it's freedom of markets.
except you admitted that there are richer countries with "less free markets" therefore there isn't a direct correlation between "freedom of markets" and a nations wealth. Not that this has anything to do with Marx as it was a conclusion to a supposed refutation of an argument Marx never made.

>It's not highlighting anything. It's whitewashing. It's claiming the freest societies in the world and the most enslaved are exactly the same.

lol?

It's providing a basis to differentiate modes of production anon. e.g. feudalism, capitalism, etc. This does not mean all capitalist countries, feudalist countries etc are the same, merely they have the same mode of production.

>Exactly, because it's too fucking vague.
Read Marx. It'll be more clear.

>think of you idiots like a group of people being angry that people are breathing oxygen, it's such a common thing that everyone does and isn't the reason some countries are more successful than others.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

Obligatory

>It may be that money has become the one power that governs life to-day. Yet a time will come when men will again bow to higher gods. Much that we have to-day owes its existence to the desire for money and property; but there is very little among all this which would leave the world poorer by its lack. It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out the prospect of a time when the individual will be given what he needs for the purposes of his life and it will be a time in which, on the other hand, the principle will be upheld that man does not live for material enjoyment alone. This principle will find expression in a wiser scale of wages and salaries which will enable everyone, including the humblest workman who fulfils his duties conscientiously, to live an honourable and decent life both as a man and as a citizen. Let it not be said that this is merely a visionary ideal, that this world would never tolerate it in practice and that of itself it is impossible to attain.

Hopefully this will shed some light on the topic, and stop this thread from devolving into political shitposting.

>>9514198
That's because Socialism in One State is a bullshit ideology. It needs to be global or it will be undermined by capitalists seeking to gain in the aftermath and protect themselves from future revolutions. Communism is about justice, not efficiency, so pit it against foes that will bleed the land for a nickel and you've got a recipe for disaster. The end of capitalism must be global and swift.

>>9514252
No thanks, I personally enjoy having my own culture and state over """""justice"""""

Doesn't Locke BTFO Marx in every way?
Also the idea of the Hegelian dialect is dumb.

>>9514296
>Doesn't Locke BTFO Marx in every way?
yes, yes he does
LTV is fucking bullshit

>>9514244
>Marx's argument is not "private ownership over mop = poor country"
Then why do retarded marxists blame the extreme poverty and exploitation of africa on capitalism when in reality it was unfree markets that caused their poverty and exploitation?
Explain this.

>except you admitted that there are richer countries with "less free markets"
No I didn't.
Show me where I stated this.
America isn't rich, only it's goverment and well connected political people are rich because they benefit from the world reserve currency. The rest of the country is actually not rich.

>It's providing a basis to differentiate modes of production anon. e.g. feudalism, capitalism, etc.
the marxist version of "modes of production" is historically inaccurate, socialism will never occur, it's a pipe dream

>merely they have the same mode of production.
then why do marxists whine and complain that "capitalism" killed billions of people when in fact evil governments did this?

>Read Marx. It'll be more clear.
Like I said I already did.
Why do marxists say "read marx" whenever they are getting btfo?
like clockwork

>No idea what you're trying to say here.
then read it again lol
how do you not understand this comparison?

Who else is /violentfreemarketrevolution/ here?

kill all socialists and central bankers

>>9514404
I don't get it. You're going to force libertarianism on your own people through authoritarianism? Isn't that contradictory?

>>9514469
>You're going to force libertarianism on your own people through authoritarianism?
If it's a free market, how is it authoritarian?

>Isn't that contradictory?
Commies and people who use violence against others aren't people, so no.

>>9514404
And everything will be back to regular capitalism within months.

>>9514469
That's honestly the biggest difference between Ancaps and other anarchists. Ancaps aren't against all forms of authority, just the state.

>>9514481
>The biggest difference between ancaps and other anarchists is that ancaps aren't anarchists

Sounds about right.

>>9514479
>And everything will be back to regular capitalism within months.
lmao no
it would be a radical change

prices would decrease with economic production instead of increase
you have no idea how big of a thing this is

>>9514481
>Ancaps aren't against all forms of authority, just the state.
leftarchists are in support of both the state and violent socialist authoritarianism
catalonia was statist as fuck
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
why was proudhon so fucking wrong?

>>9514493
Neither are ancoms, they're extremist statists.

>>9514476
It's authoritarianism because you're killing everyone you disagree with in order to establish a specific ideal state/system. Sure, the end result is liberal, but the means are authoritarian.

>>9514493
>my definition is different from your definition!
I could just as easily say that ancoms aren't anarchists since they encourage the use of force and authority, i.e. the fucking state.

>>9514520
>It's authoritarianism because you're killing everyone you disagree with
no I'm just killing anyone that uses violence against me
simple

>>9509447
That's not how you say individualist anarchism.

>>9514522
>my definition is different from your definition

That is exactly what """"anarcho""""-capitalism is based on.

Authority is ok as long as it isn't the state but The State Inc. (TM).

>>9514527

>>9509545
>The reason why communism is at fault is that communism is a totalitarian ideology
For the non working class yes I suppose so, the dictatorship of the proletariat will seem "totalitarian" to those who oppose it.
>it merges together the private and public life of every individual and makes them indistinguishable.
What is necessarily the issue with this?
>This means that its cultural genocide is directly caused by the necessity to make people conform to a statist economic system.
Not sure what a "statist" economy have to do with "cultural genocide" BUT I would say you're correct in thinking communist want a cultural genocide, we want the destruction of all current state of things including the prevailing culture of capitalist society.
>Capitalism on the other hand is exclusively about the allocation of resources; how these resources are distributed in a society is up to political ideologies
No its about making profit regardless of how much pain, suffering or pollution it creates. Capitalism is a crapshoot, many good ideas go nowhere if they aren't profitable or are even worse suppressed by the current status quo which may view new competition as a threat.

>>9514891
>the dictatorship of the proletariat
Why do you bootlicking cucks want a dictatorship at all?
Why are you so brainwashed?

>BUT I would say you're correct in thinking communist want a cultural genocide, we want the destruction of all current state of things including the prevailing culture of capitalist society.
Good luck with that.
Your ideology will never happen again.
People will kill you if you ever tried to implement your bullshit again.
It's not going to happen, especially with increases in automation in the next few years.

>No its about making profit regardless of how much pain, suffering or pollution it creates.
What pain and suffering?
It dramatically increases living standards.

Also in a free market if you pollute someone's property they can easily sue you and destroy you.

>or are even worse suppressed by the current status quo which may view new competition as a threat.
LMAO
and yet you want an absolute monopoly on production so people need to get permission from the state to try new ideas.

>>9514664
Left anarchists worship the state though.

Ancap simply wants competition for law as it has worked several times thoughout history.

>>9516084
>Why do you bootlicking cucks want a dictatorship at all?
A dictatorship of the working class is the only way to ensure communist society survives, and remember this is a dictatorship of class not of an individual, but the class will wield its authority swiftly and decisively as any "dictator" if you will, the only real"bootlickers" are you capitalist lovers who would rather kiss up to a small group of elites who care nothing about you.
>Your ideology will never happen again.
People will kill you if you ever tried to implement your bullshit again.
It's not going to happen, especially with increases in automation in the next few years.
They're killing us now, they have killed us in the past and they will continue to kill us as long as they exist, what else is new?
>What pain and suffering?
Maybe you should read the news and inform yourself of the latest capitalist induced war, famine or civil unrest currently happening around the globe.
>It dramatically increases living standards.
You mean increased living standards mostly for wealthy first world nations correct? Even though many technologies created under capitalism has indeed improved quality of life for many a communist society could do this to a much broader extent free of a profit motive and unhindered restriction of access to goods among the populous.
>Also in a free market if you pollute someone's property they can easily sue you and destroy you.
This pretty laughable when they're turning the air and oceans into toxic waste dumps.
>and yet you want an absolute monopoly on production so people need to get permission from the state to try new ideas.
when the workers have control over the means of production the only ones limiting their own ideas will be themselves.

>>9509447
no he was a sexist who impregnated his maid then ran off and left his son and the maid to die

>>9509476

Sociobiology fucking lel. I've never read Marx, but your post made me interested in him. Thanks...

>>9509598

Wow it's like everyone in this thread conflates vulgar materialism with philosophical materialism. What impotent irony.

>>9509605

Yes you can. AI.

>>9516579
>I've not a leftist, but my brain is addicted to leftist cliches tee hee. Thanks...
Anytime. Also do me a huge a favor and don't huff bleach or commit suicide

>>9510085

You're on /lit friend. Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the world at 99%. Perhaps you should post somewhere else?

>>9516631
That's not even true, you brainwashed retard. Countries like Latvia, Poland, Russia, and Estonia all have higher literacy rates

>>9516631
Actually the socialist paradise of North Korea has the highest literacy rate in the world at 100%

>>9516084

Because the communist tyrant is a human. He can be killed. The market is the worst tyrant because it cannot be killed.

Why are capitalists criteria for success always economic (usually in simple absolute values)? If it isn't, then it's always some feeble and poorly defined concept of freedom. It's like they are unconscious materialists, hiding in the closet of "Marxism can't be right even though the logical content of my arguments has been determined by Marxist theory."

It may be the most /lit/ but not the most literary. I think Classical Liberalism is the most literary, it has the most/best literature around.

>>9514664
> Authority is ok as long as it isn't the state but The State Inc. (TM).

The difference is one is "justified"and held above individuals & private property, the other doesn't claim to be and if they did would be overthrown.

>>9514481
That's the best thing about Ancaps they take into account human agency through choice & voluntarism rather than trying to act like floating deities trying to subjectively determine the best subjective course of action for all individual interactions rather than the people involved themselves. It's the epitome of that "I agree, I agree to, I DON'T!!!" meme.

>>9510087
>morality
LMAO

>>9513500

>free markets exist "in countries" and do not tend to globalize themselves, forcing every "country" to become capitalist and dissolve national boundaries into pure ideology, as in the case of the EU

whoops someone forgot to read marx

>>9514379
>Then why do retarded marxists blame the extreme poverty and exploitation of africa on capitalism when in reality it was unfree markets that caused their poverty and exploitation?
Explain this.

I'm honestly struggling to tie it back to your initial point. You're kind of all over the place.

Initially your complaint was that Marx's description of the characteristics of capitalism ended up making countries with the same mop "exactly the same". Which is silly obviously as Marx did not argue countries sharing a mode of production makes them exactly the same. Literally no one would make this argument.

Now you're complaining about an entirely different argument. .i.e. capitalism relationship to colonialism, imperialism etc.

Furthermore

>when in reality it was unfree markets that caused their poverty and exploitation?
How? Make an argument anon.

>No I didn't. Show me where I stated this.
Well I'll admit you used success beforehand. I used rich and success interchangably. Nonetheless you still didn't actually address the point of how countries with "less free markets" were more successful than countries with "free markets" when, according to you that is what determined a country's success.

>America isn't rich, only it's goverment and well connected political people are rich because they benefit from the world reserve currency. The rest of the country is actually not rich.

lol again. Now a countries richness is tied to the wealth gap of its citizens? I assure you if you're sticking with that definition capitalist countries with a big gubmint will come out on top.

>the marxist version of "modes of production" is historically inaccurate

How?

>socialism will never occur, it's a pipe dream

Why?

>then why do marxists whine and complain that "capitalism" killed billions of people when in fact evil governments did this?
Read Marx. These "evil governments" for the marxists would be an instrument of capitalism. The state is the instrument of the ruling class - an extension of its mode of production. Slavery, genocide, colonialism, imperialism etc are inexplicably tied up in the underlying economic logic of the society in question. This is Marx 101.

>Like I said I already did. Why do marxists say "read marx" whenever they are getting btfo?
Because it's so painfully obvious you have not read Marx. You seem to be ignorant of even the most basic principles of Marxism.

At best, I'd concede you may have skimmed the Communist Manifesto, but even that seems unlikely.

>>9516579
>Sociobiology fucking lel

>DUDE EVOLUTION ISN'T REAL
>DUDE NEUROSCIENCE ISN'T REAL
>DUDE HUMAN BEINGS HAVE NO INSTINCTS

lmao why do you pseudointellectuals even exist?

>>9517021
>The market is the worst tyrant because it cannot be killed.
But it's not a tyrant. It's massive benefit to mankind.
Why would you want to kill it?

>Why are capitalists criteria for success always economic
Because living standards for humans are important?

>>9517280
>forcing every "country" to become capitalist
Other countries become capitalist because they see the massive benefit it has for their citizens.

>EU
anti free market bureaucratic shithole

>whoops someone forgot to read marx
Everyone read marx, his writings are fucking embarrassing. It's like scientology.

>>9516239
>A dictatorship of the working class is the only way to ensure communist society survives
No it's the only way to ensure a tyrannical state can survive.

You people actually brainwashed yourselves into wanting to live under a legit dictatorship have have your freedom restricted. lmao

>and remember this is a dictatorship of class not of an individual
Anyone can call themselves members of a "class". Of course "classes" are made up of individuals. It's these individuals that will be ruling over everyone else in society.
Who gives a shit if they call themselves the "working class" when they are enslaving you and controlling your life.

>who would rather kiss up to a small group of elites
What are you talking about?
I want political power highly restricted.

>They're killing us now, they have killed us in the past and they will continue to kill us as long as they exist, what else is new?
good
Why do you think they are killing you? You're trying to implement a literal dictatorship and restrict people's freedom.

>capitalist induced war, famine or civil unrest
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
These are things GOVERNMENTS did.
Socialist GOVERNMENTS did these things too.
Libertarians want government restricted and are anti-war.
Libertarians don't simply want what marxist refer to as "capitalism", we want free markets. You can claim north korea is capitalist with your retarded definition. It's governments that caused these things.
>b-but evil capitalists caused the government to do these things
Then obviously the solution is to restrict government power so capitalists can't control the government. Socialist governments also did horrible things.

>You mean increased living standards mostly for wealthy first world nations correct?
Yes for nations that actually implement free markets.
The third world is poor because they are extremely economically unfree. All any one of these countries has to do is let their currency rise and liberalize their economy and their people will be able to purchase products the rest of the world is making, rather than having to make products for the rest of the world. These countries are poor because they have less economic freedom.

>Even though many technologies created under capitalism has indeed improved quality of life
It's not just technology, it's economic production.

>a communist society could do this to a much broader extent
No it wouldn't lmao.
Every example of this in history has been horrible and restricted innovation. The small amount of innovation in the USSR came from governments dictating what should be done, rather than free individuals creating things.
How would restricting people's freedom to gather the capital required to innovate create MORE innovation? You make no sense.

> free of a profit motive
There's nothing wrong with the profit motive.

>unhindered restriction of access to goods
lmao
you act like the capitalists are somehow restricting your supply of goods
the working class already consumes 99% of all consumer goods

>This pretty laughable when they're turning the air and oceans into toxic waste dumps.
no fucking shit, because we don't have a free market
why are socialist countries extremely horrible for pollution?
Countries like the USSR and China were/are terrible polluters.

>when the workers have control over the means of production the only ones limiting their own ideas will be themselves.
this is hilarious. You're acting like scarcity doesn't exist.
How would workers controlling the means of production allow them
In countries with free markets, workers that save money become capitalists all the time. How do you think the vast majority of capitalists became capitalists in the first place?

>>9517657
>Literally no one would make this argument.
Then why do marxists make this argument all the time.
Why do they blame the failures of these shithole socialist/statist/dictatorship countries on capitalism?
Obviously the reason these countries are doing poorly is because they LACK free markets and private property rights.
Blaming this all on "capitalism" is like blaming it all on "breathing".
Both countries have people that breathe oxygen, is it the oxygen that causes horrible wars and famines?
Man you people are shit at logic and arguments.

>How?
Really?
What do you think happens when countries implement central banks, have severe lack of private property rights, have extremely high taxes, extremely high economic controls, massive government spending levels?
The economy suffers and the people in these nations suffer.
Countries that do the least amount of this bullshit(like Switzerland) are far more successful and people have the highest living standards there.

>Nonetheless you still didn't actually address the point of how countries with "less free markets" were more successful than countries with "free markets" when
Show me where this conversation took place?

>Now a countries richness is tied to the wealth gap of its citizens?
No.

>How?
For one, it was just his opinion that capitalism will "collapse" and turn into socialism. He bases this off nothing but bullshit. It never happened and will never happen.

Marx literally believed that all human action was the result of economic forces and that human beings didn't have biological instincts.
You people are the creation science of economics and philosophy.


>Why?
Because as automation increases, the price of capital and consumer goods will come down, increasing living standards for everyone. Why would people want to go to socialism when they've seen it's massive failures and while free markets are benefiting their lives?

>Read Marx.
I did.

>instrument of capitalism
Ohhh, so they aren't capitalism itself. Got it.
BTW literally no supporter of free markets wants what the marxists call "capitalism". Using your retarded vague definition, "capitalism" can mean the most unfree markets in the entire world, it can mean north korea.

>The state is the instrument of the ruling class
Nowadays it's an instrument of a small group of people yes. Some of these people are capitalists, some are not capitalists.
Also are you honestly saying every single capitalist actively supports this system or is somehow working in government? lol

>Slavery, genocide, colonialism, imperialism etc are inexplicably tied up in the underlying economic logic of the society in question.
This makes absolutely no sense.
Why would the economic system magically change human nature? People have done these things even before what you people would call "capitalism".

Also if we had a system of free markets(which is what WE want) there would be none of those horrible things. What would you say THEN?

>>9517657
>Because it's so painfully obvious you have not read Marx. You seem to be ignorant of even the most basic principles of Marxism.
Not only have I read marx, but I've argued with enough braindead marxists to destroy most of the common arguments they make.
The labour theory of value is probably the most easiest one to debunk lol

>>9509685
>As long as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it will exist.
Under actual free markets(free banking and DEFLATION) wages rise as prices fall.

Since we have inflation and economic stagnation, prices RISE while wages stagnate.

Imagine being a marxist.
Imagine hating yourself and society that much to the point where you're a literal loser.

/lit/ and /x/ are almost the same board
both worship bullshit pseudoscience.

t. sci

>Then why do marxists make this argument all the time.
Where? Show me. At the moment I honestly think you don't even understand what you're arguing against because you have yet to actually respond - instead you're just repeating the same points.

>Obviously the reason these countries are doing poorly is because they LACK free markets and private property rights.
Explain how anon.

>Blaming this all on "capitalism" is like blaming it all on "breathing".Both countries have people that breathe oxygen, is it the oxygen that causes horrible wars and famines? Man you people are shit at logic and arguments.
I'm not even sure you know what the argument you're arguing against is anon. Frankly I'm confused how issues pertaining to the economy would not be tied to the mode of production in place.

>Countries that do the least amount of this bullshit(like Switzerland) are far more successful and people have the highest living standards there.
Except this is demonstrably false. I have tried to expand on this topic but you keep repeating the same points over and over. By virtue of the success of countries with "less free markets" and the failure of countries with "free markets" economics obviously cannot be reduced to a simple "Free markets good - less free markets bad"

>Show me where this conversation took place?
In this thread anon. Here. >>9511638 The U.S is objectively the most powerful/successful nation on earth yet, as you concede, it does not have the freest markets. Therefore your claim that "freer the market the more successful the society" is false.

>No.
Then tell me why America isn't rich? According to you it can't be rich by virtue of its wealth being concentrated in the hands of an elite few (capitalism in action!). So I'm guessing some degree of wealth equality / minimal wealth inequality is part of your definition of a rich country. Or you could just say it yourself.

>For one, it was just his opinion that capitalism will "collapse" and turn into socialism. He bases this off nothing but bullshit.
lol. Not to do that shitty Molyneux meme but this is literally not an argument. You have neither stated nor refuted his argument. Literally just called it shit.

>>9517950
>Marx literally believed that all human action was the result of economic forces and that human beings didn't have biological instincts.
Objectively false. Literally contradicted in the beginning of Wage Labor and Capital. Read Marx.

>Because as automation increases, the price of capital and consumer goods will come down, increasing living standards for everyone. Why would people want to go to socialism
Automation taken to its logical extreme would literally be communism. i.e. the abolition of labour and production being driven by human need rather than profit.

>I did.
What works? I'm seeing no evidence that you have any understanding of his works. One can be anti-Marx and still have read and understood his arguments. Everything I have seen so far has been r/libertarianism tier.

>Ohhh, so they aren't capitalism itself. Got it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Also not sure why you're treating this as new information if you have allegedly read Marx. The state being an instrument of the ruling class is, again, Marx 101.

>BTW literally no supporter of free markets wants what the marxists call "capitalism". Using your retarded vague definition, "capitalism" can mean the most unfree markets in the entire world, it can mean north korea.
That's because the Marxist defintion is concrete, based on material attributes and social relations. Not a set of arbitrary morals and ideals that allow you to dismiss all the inevitable realities of capitalism as "not my unique speshul snowflake definition of capitalism.

>Nowadays it's an instrument of a small group of people yes.Some of these people are capitalists, some are not capitalists. Also are you honestly saying every single capitalist actively supports this system or is somehow working in government? lol
Again, you express shock at the most basic points of Marxism despite having allegedly read it. Not only that but you misunderstand it anyway.

Read Marx.

>Why would the economic system magically change human nature? People have done these things even before what you people would call "capitalism".
Yes, but why? Why did they do these things? You blame human nature but then go on to say

>also if we had a system of free markets(which is what WE want) there would be none of those horrible things.
Meaning you don't see these as inherent to human nature but instead a by product of material conditions - like the Marxist does. Which is it anon?

>Not only have I read marx, but I've argued with enough braindead marxists to destroy most of the common arguments they make.
Then do it.

>>9518116
>Objectively false.
Wrong because marxists make this argument all of the time.
Every time you bring up human nature or neuroscience they get butthurt that their ideology is being confronted.

Doesn't dialectical materialism say that all human action is the result of economic forces?
So people don't act in their class interests?
What kind of marxist are you?

>Automation taken to its logical extreme would literally be communism
Totally incorrect. It has nothing to do with communism.
Communists say their ideal system would be fully automated. That doesn't mean that every system that is fully automated is magically communism.
It's funny though, socialism actively prevents automation. It's freer markets that does this.

>the abolition of labour and production being driven by human need rather than profit.
People gain profit in a free market BY meeting human need.

>I'm seeing no evidence that you have any understanding of his works.
What you are seeing is your ideology being btfo.

>Everything I have seen so far has been r/libertarianism tier.
redditor detected

>if you have allegedly read Marx.
Why does every single marxist go "you haven't read marx" instead of actually using their education in marxist thought to argue against capitalist positions?
It's marxists that haven't read marx.
Why do us libertarians never go "hurr u never read mises!!".
We actually use arguments, unlike you.

>The state being an instrument of the ruling class is
This makes no sense because the state is made up of non-capitalists as well as capitalists. In fact a very small percentage of capitalists are able to influence the state. The vast majority of business owners have no say in state laws.
Defend your position.

>That's because the Marxist defintion is concrete
But it's hilariously flawed and full of holes and you are unable to defend it. It's basically a joke at this point.

>Not a set of arbitrary morals
You say this but you can't defend your position.
Nobody cares about marx's arbitrary definition of capitalism which is completely useless to the real world.

>>9518116
>the inevitable realities of capitalism
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What's inevitable?
I can easily say that it's inevitable that STATISM causes all of these horrible things. That would be much more accurate actually.

>not my unique speshul snowflake definition of capitalism.
LMAO It's literally you fucking retards with the snowflake definition that almost nobody agrees with
Why do you think people will accept your idea that north korea and africa are capitalist?
lmao
The marxist definition of capitalism is VAGUE and USELESS.
According to you retards, any country that allows a small amount of private control over the means of production is immediately capitalist.

How does this make sense whatsoever?
It's seems that the fact these countries have a tiny amount of private control is fucking irrelelvent to the living standards of the people and the real thing that matters is freedom of markets.

>you express shock at the most basic points of Marxism
It's honestly hilarious that you are unable to use your marxist knowledge to refute my argument. You can only go "you've never read marx" instead of actually refuting what I've said using marxist teachings.
lol

>Why did they do these things?
Because of excess statism. It's actually quite simple.
If there were free markets where government power was highly restricted, or even an ancap society, these things you whine about wouldn't exist.
What's your argument?

>Meaning you don't see these as inherent to human nature
Statism and free markets are both parts of human nature. Humans can behave in a number of ways but they are limited by their biology/instincts.

>but instead a by product of material conditions
lmao it's so funny that you think "material conditions" are what somehow what controls human action.
You completely ignore human biological instincts and society itself.

>Then do it.
Done.

>>9518191
>Every time you bring up human nature or neuroscience they get butthurt that their ideology is being confronted.

Human nature causes butthurt, sure. Usually because it's a nebulous term often used to simply mean "human nature is my ideology". The Marxist will "human nature" as malleable by material circumstances.

>Doesn't dialectical materialism say that all human action is the result of economic forces?
No. Read Wage Labour and Capital.

>So people don't act in their class interests?
Yes. Look up the idea of the base-superstructure.

>Communists say their ideal system would be fully automated. That doesn't mean that every system that is fully automated is magically communism.
Capitalism cannot bring about full automation except by its own abolition.

>What you are seeing is your ideology being btfo.
No, I'm realising I've wasted my time arguing with an ancap redditor whose knowledge of economics is limited to meme charts. Obvious early on but I was hoping for at least some kind of back and forth where we can have some fun.

If you were just larping as a retarded libertarian bravo. If not feel free to repost it for some likes/upvotes or whatever.

>>9518113
>Where? Show me.
Countless debates I've had with marxists online have marxists claiming that human action is the result of economic forces. Is that not what dialectical materialism is?

>Explain how anon.
I already did.
Here we go again.
Economic freedom allows for greater economic production and increases living standards for everyone in that society. pic related
This isn't even debatable at this point. It's empirical fact.

>I'm not even sure you know what the argument you're arguing against is anon.
Can't you just admit you got BTFO.
The marxist term "capitalism" is so vague it can mean anything.

Why are there extremely peaceful and successful countries that have """"""capitalism""""" while there are other countries that have """""capitalism""""" are utter shitholes or are responsible for colonialism/imperialism/genocides.

Any logical/science based person would see that there are CLEARLY other factors in play besides """""capitalism"""". Things like rule of law and freedom of markets.

The marxist definition of """""capitalism""""" is USELESS.

Can you EVEN explain this fact?

Also how in the world would switching to socialism somehow prevent these horrible things from happening?

>Frankly I'm confused how issues pertaining to the economy would not be tied to the mode of production in place.
Because the ONLY worldview you have is of these mythical "modes of production" that make no sense.

>Except this is demonstrably false.
No, it's demonstrably true.

>By virtue of the success of countries with "less free markets" and the failure of countries with "free markets" economics obviously cannot be reduced to a simple "Free markets good - less free markets bad"
It's funny because it literally can.
Countries with more free markets for a longer period of time have much higher living standards and wealth for their citizens. This has been seen everywere pic fucking related faggot.

> U.S is objectively the most powerful/successful nation on earth yet
fucking bullshit, they're just militarily successful and have political power.
living standards for the average american aren't the best and this is due to the fact they've reduced economic freedom drastically over the past 50 years.
They used to have the highest living standards on earth, this is when they had the MOST economic freedom on earth. lol

>>9518113
>Then tell me why America isn't rich?
I meant the average american being rich. I mean't living standards for the average person.

>According to you it can't be rich by virtue of its wealth being concentrated in the hands of an elite few
I didn't mean that. I meant their central bank and political system cause economic stagnation which hurts the working/middle class while a small section of the population gain a little bit.
It's not like if the 0.01% in america gave all of their wealth to the working class, the working class would magically be much better off.
That's impossible.

>lol.
lmao oh boy you actually think capitalism is going to collapse and your childish system is "inevitable"
that's so cute

>Not to do that shitty Molyneux meme
Molymeme is shit, but at least he's better than you drooling cucks.

Please explain why you believe capitalism will "collapse" you fucking retard.

>>9518211
>Usually because it's a nebulous term often used to simply mean "human nature is my ideology".
No, human nature is a fact of reality.
It's science. It's neuroscience/genetics and evolution.

>The Marxist will "human nature" as malleable by material circumstances.
Oh lol, so now you're ADMITTING marxists believe in pseudoscience.
Human nature is not infinitely malleable. That's pseudoscience. Human instincts/neuroscience restrict and define human nature. No marxist fairy tales cam change that.

>No. Read Wage Labour and Capital.
lmao then defend your position instead of telling people to read something.
I bet YOU'VE never read marx.

>Look up the idea of the base-superstructure.
HAHA
You STILL can't defend your position and want me to
It's like you're telling me to read dianetics by l ron hubbard.
base and superstructure are unprovable. They're theories that make no sense.

>Capitalism cannot bring about full automation except by its own abolition.
WRONG
Explain why you believe this.
Refute my argument. Once capitalism forces prices down to near zero or zero, things will be essentially free or literally free.
The same private property rights would exist.
It would still be capitalism.
It's just so funny that capitalism automates while communism stagnates.

Real communism is a fucking RELIGION. It's not even theoretically possible, you people are a religious cult. Your surplus value doesn't exist because the working class already consume 99% of all consumer goods.
What the fuck do you not understand about this?

>No, I'm realising I've wasted my time arguing with an ancap redditor
top kek all marxist teenagers come from reddit
it's quite hilarious watching you assdamaged losers try to fit in here

Your lives are complete failures so you try to make everyone else a failure to get down to your level.

>whose knowledge of economics is limited to meme charts
You ACTUALLY believe in dialectical materialism and deny human instincts. It's so fucking hilarious that you people roleplay as intellectuals when in reality you're just another delusional psed cult.

I also notice you only responded to one of my many posts. Too bad.
kys lmao

Marxism is for confused college kids who haven't found their place in the world and who are undergoing a messiah complex

>>9517955
you have anymore of those essays?

>>9518388
sure

you'll never guess who wrote these

>>9509488

As an Argie with friends who lived in Venezuela, shut the fuck up you faggot. Venezuela is fucking starving because of Socialism.

>>9509511
>Implying Pinochet was wrong and he killed innocents
>Implying Operation Condor didn't save South America from Marxist disaster

>>9518299
thanks for your projection. hows your mother?

>>9518595

college kid detected

grow up

Well I guess that settles it once and for all.

>>9509462
>Communism = Marxism
>American education

>>9511063
Who are the jewess's prize eunucs?

>>9518417
who wrote them anon?

>>9518574
>Implying Pinochet was wrong and he killed innocents
not even leftist, but this is embarrassing, he murdered liberals, social democrats, workers, and made rape a legal form of torture against female dissidents.

>>9518610
well, i guess if youre not a college kid, you have less of an excuse to speak about marx when its apparent that you havent read him substantively.

do you talk out your ass about other topics too?

>>9518686

Why should Marx be taken seriously? Every time his ideas have been tried everything went to shit. What has he written that is of any value?

>>9518686
Yes, because as we know Sociology, History, Psychology, virtually every academic field is so predominantly Marxist nowadays, right? The hack is completely irrelevant in modern day, and is only celebrated by butt-flustered leftists such as yourself, and old Russians who have nostalgia over the soviet union.

If by /lit/ you mean appealing to fedora tipping virgins then yes, yes it is

>>9518715
>Yes, because as we know Sociology, History, Psychology, virtually every academic field is so predominantly Marxist nowadays, right?

According to /pol/tards, yes.

>>9509579
Do you live in a commie shithole lad?
Because that's a pretty accurate description.

>>9509597
>When communism is implemented correctly it works

But that's a small community, how it will work in a large nation?

also is far from being perfect, it lacks of personal freedom and it still needs a external capitalist enviroment to survive

>The community itself acknowledges that it has yet to create the perfect society; it even provides a guidebook entitled "Not Utopia Yet" to visitors. For instance, there is little privacy at Twin Oaks.[4] Also, those who choose to live at Twin Oaks for several years—including founder Kinkade—sometimes feel "trapped" there. This is because members have little opportunity to build up equity or savings.

>>9510071
God, you're retarded

>>9518682
Murray Rothbard I think wrote most of them.

>>9518684
>he murdered liberals, social democrats, workers
B A S E D