[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 174 KB, 1200x1433, Rembrandt_Peale_-_Thomas_Jefferson_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15074851 No.15074851 [Reply] [Original]

As a liberal, what should I read in order to contend with my marxist college friends?

>> No.15075206
File: 73 KB, 630x1200, AtlasShrugged.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You should not be a liberal, and you certainly should not have Marxist frens. I'll go one step further and say that if a person is really a Marxist, they cannot be considered anyone's friend, since the emotional driver for embracing Marxism is a devious hatred for all mankind.

I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged. It will keep you occupied and away from your college friends long enough for you examine the weighty issues and nuts-and-bolts basics of life, so that when next you meet, you will be prepared to crush them with your newfound principles and ideas.

>> No.15075216


>> No.15075218

shut up noob
the german ideology and critique of the gotha programme

>> No.15075241

a history book on the USSR

>> No.15075246

socialism is when u don like peepol

>> No.15075247

You should read marx and then correct them on it when they are wrong because they've never read marx.

>> No.15075259
File: 42 KB, 400x459, 1564559346793.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The newspaper.

>> No.15075268

De Tocqueville. He is the best friend of liberalism.

>> No.15075278
File: 309 KB, 1342x2016, 81bL0r-E8oL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Marxism by Thomas Sowell and Intellectuals by Paul Johnson are both good places to start.

Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism is great but an absolute tome of a book.

Immersed In Red: My Formative Years in a Marxist Household by Mike Shotwell is more of a autobiography but contains a good amount of topics and history related to Marxism over several decades.

>> No.15075281

Was this post satirical?

>> No.15075284

Depends. What kind of arguments do they make?

>> No.15075291

Unironically this.

>> No.15075299
File: 30 KB, 644x500, Uh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Being an intellectual will force you to cast yourself out of society
>Rand becomes international bestseller with this idea

As you were

>> No.15075326

>basic modern economics textbook
>keep up with economic and financial news
That’s literally all you need to understand why Marx hasn’t been relevant for over a century
>Marxist friends
I don’t like to pass judgement but every Marxist I met during my days at uni was insufferable and invariably middle class with consumerist habits that they were somehow completely blind to

>> No.15075351

Was your reply supposed to be constructive?

>> No.15075362

Read Marx, Hegel, Locke, Hobbes, and Schmitt

>> No.15075414

hurrr durr I don't like these people therefore their ideas are wrong

Good luck in the real world kid

>> No.15075417

Always keep in mind that stupid Americans don't understand that "liberal" equates the free market. Their stupid dialect precludes them from engaging in serious discussion.

>> No.15075446
File: 61 KB, 894x550, 7440F0CD-1291-4F90-896B-E855083AFA9C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I’m just gonna respond to the second part because it’s convenient to my juvenile post
Good luck in the real world kiddo, oh and you might want to get your opinions from something other than a philosopher, hack economist who hasn’t been relevant since the 19th century. Might as well be recommending Adam Smith lmao

>> No.15075468

Why wouldn't you want to know the historical background of a field? Not an economist but my friend is and he reads all those famous guys.

>> No.15075473

>Always keep in mind that stupid contemporary liberals don't understand that "liberal" equates the free market
That I would agree with.

>> No.15075513

There's nothing you can read that will make liberalism truer or smarter than Marxism, because it isn't.

Liberalism is an utterly discredited ideology, a political project in ruins.

You can't contend with your Marxist friends, because they're smarter than you, and have a better understanding of reality.

>> No.15075518

I used to be interested in it but honestly after my first year of undergrad I realised there isn’t actually much value in it and I’m much better off keeping up avidly reading economic news to see it in practice and keeping up with the literature. Now in postgrad I simply don’t have time to be reading some dusty old philosopher to try and gleam some insight into how the field has developed since then. I’d pickup a more comprehensive econ history book than the one I read way back in high school but I read, write, practically breathe enough economics during my day and would much rather wind down with a aesthetic work of fiction or an art history book or something. I’ve read enough about Marx to know he’s pretty much irrelevant—same goes for Adam Smith, Ricciardo, Pareto even, etc all those guys. Anything relevant about them are maybe a couple surviving concepts you’d find mentioned in an introductory econ textbook (never saw any mention of Marx though regarding any mathematical economic or theoretical concept that might still be relevant in a basic conceptual sense today unlike say Pareto, Walraas, etc)

>> No.15075527

>Watching capitalism crumbling around him in precisely the ways Marx predicted
>Thinks Marx is irrelevant

This is what stupidity looks like, folks.

>> No.15075528

>hey cannot be considered anyone's friend, since the emotional driver for embracing Marxism is a devious hatred for all mankind.

Based on the friends I had that sunk deeper and deeper into Marxism until finally cutting me off for the sake of their cult, this is true.

>> No.15075537

Please, refrain from the racism.

>> No.15075573
File: 50 KB, 600x600, 0FB04AA1-E06C-47F9-A71A-87D12A256992.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>he doesn’t even read the news
>thinks his juvenile assessment of what’s going on right now means jackshit
>youre either Marxist/socialist or capitalist
Ideology-driven fags (on both sides btw) were saying the same thing in ‘08 as well. See you again in 10 years anon try not to wait too long on that mythical prophecy

>> No.15075585
File: 373 KB, 543x591, C19C2C42-6496-4CCE-B3D5-F0A6A730A1A6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>Watching capitalism crumbling around him in precisely the ways Marx predicted
>he thinks the modern system is crumbling
>not entrenching itself deeper and making it more irreversible and above all more self-perpetuating
Doomers are such retards whether they’re polfags or Marx fags

>> No.15075632

das kapital obviously

>> No.15075785

Sometimes I'll just steal quotes from bioshock and nobody will notice lmao, commies are retarded

>> No.15075810

>As a liberal...
Well you should read things that show you why liberal capitalism is failing the masses and bringing humanity to its own extinction. I mean, what are you doing in quarantine? Can’t you see how the system is screwing up big time? They’re making the crash, which was happening independent of the virus, far worse.

>> No.15075830

I was wonder you when you were gonna show up, do you read anything besides marxist related literature?

>> No.15075850

Unironically this.

>> No.15075865

the classic "yet you live in society" argument. When will anyone actually make decent points against marxism? Right now, thousands of pounds of food in the US is being thrown away and destroyed, while people wait hours at a foodbank. What about muh free market??!?!>!>

>> No.15075891

I’m not a Marxist. The only Marxian things I’ve read are by current authors, professors of economics, Richard Wolff and Paul Cockshott. Both pretty good. Check em out on YouTube or something.

>> No.15075934

>expects a decent argument against Marxism
>posts a meaningless argument against capitalism that doesn’t even support Marxism
There’s about 200 years worth of world history and development in the field of economics making a very good point against Marxism
As always, butterfly fag shows it is the most retarded person on /lit/. And in a thread full of Marx fags and liberal fags as well, truly impressive

>> No.15075939

No one cares about the rabble, they're rabble lmao

>> No.15075947

Have to acknowledge that both have been tried and have failed horibbly.

Personally I'd rather live in kruschev ussr than today's america, if you'ld rather live in today's america as opposed to kruschev ussr argue why.

>> No.15075948
File: 83 KB, 900x900, 35CEE940-31F4-4C6B-84CD-573DAF958F91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Right now, thousands of pounds of food in the US is being thrown away and destroyed, while people wait hours at a foodbank
>this guy actually thinks this is supposed to be some poignant cohesive point against capitalism
Get better arguments please you’re making actually intelligent socialists look bad

>> No.15075949

Nothing more pathetic than this cope.

>> No.15075968
File: 151 KB, 640x799, 72308749-488F-484E-907B-3F37A8DAE408.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>absolutely seething

>> No.15075969


>> No.15075981
File: 30 KB, 640x436, 4C4E71CD-8A35-4096-A1BC-5B182EF93C8A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15075998
File: 41 KB, 300x442, 6210F6A9-D1C7-476D-B99B-DFD51454805F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15076004
File: 237 KB, 1100x825, 80D1D5D6-F506-459A-9CA6-E8E1AD02185B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Need I go on?

>> No.15076020

>currently in a crisis that capitalism cannot handle
>posts out of context pictures of other crises
Clueless, defensive, fools. We tell you the truth to help you see why you’re going to be suffering, not to make you and your team look bad.
Wake the fuck up

>> No.15076027
File: 78 KB, 400x587, Ii3NC4e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15076036

>posts illegitimate argument against parts of a system failing during an extreme, unforeseen crisis
>gets hit with reciprocal argument and evidence about everyday life in examples of socialist nations
>seethes and claims that argument is illegitimate
Kek thanks for proving my point

>> No.15076055

>capitalism cannot handle
But it already has though hasn’t it? Cry all you want about how fake or fraudulent the system of credit is but it’s worked in propping up the markets and economy hasn’t it? Many countries are already past the peak of it, sure financial markets are likely to continue struggling but it’s nothing earth-shattering. Nothing systemic like 2008. Sorry, guess that’s another crisis that went by without you getting what you want. I suppose you’ll be steadfastly praying for the next one. Also lmao if you actually think the current system is “capitalist” by Marxian definitions of it by any stretch of the imagination

>> No.15076064

None of this is true. You misunderstand much still, liberal.
I’d suggest some history books or videos, but you’re not interested in learning anything. Just here to harass people.

>> No.15076075

>I’ve read enough about Marx to know he’s pretty much irrelevant—same goes for Adam Smith, Ricciardo, Pareto even, etc all those guys.
Reading enough *about* some body isn't enough to pass proper judgement on the body of work itself. If you want to know how Marxian economics has developed since Marx's death until the late 70s, check out Howard & King's "A HIstory of Marxian Economics", and for more modern stuff (with a neoclassical methodological tinge) in mathematical Marxism, check out Veneziani/Yoshihara and Ian Smith.

And obviously economics textbooks wouldn't contain the most radical critiques of the whole field. If they did include anything on modern "Marxist economics" it'd probably be only in accordance with the results from neoclassical models, not any radical critique of the discipline as a whole - and while it's the same reason why you won't find anything on Sraffa or Post-Keynesians, it's doubly true for Marx, mostly because of his "labour theory of value".

The real gems of Marxist critique of bourgeois economics lie beyond the horizon of the field itself. The theory of the value form, the notion of fetish, real abstraction, etc. - even if a modern economics textbook /did/ have a chapter on Marx, it would /still/ shy away from them. That's no fault of Marx.

>> No.15076083

>But it already has though hasn’t it?
>capitalists get Congress/president to sign over trillions of dollars to further the wealth redistribution.
>the poor and desperate are told to go back to work during a pandemic they were told by doctors to stay home during.
>shelves growing emptier. Wasting milk and other goods
These are only a few highlights of what’s going on. We’re heading into a depression dumb dumb

>> No.15076090

>I’d suggest some history books or videos
Let me guess you’ll link me to some Marxist writers
> None of this is true
Yes you’re right all the pictures are fabricated and famine deaths were all a hoax as well. There were absolutely no problems associated with central planning, etc this is getting boring
>implying I identify with any sort of dichotomous political ideology
No thanks I studied economics for one reason only: statistics. People who follow Marx are as retarded and empirically unsubstantiated as people who follow Adam Smith or any other similar philosopher (because that’s all they were: philosophers, not economists, not historians it’s all just pure rhetoric)

>> No.15076099

>Also lmao if you actually think the current system is “capitalist” by Marxian definitions of it by any stretch of the imagination
Predominant wage labour? Check.
The goal of practically all economic agents is to maximize capital? Check.
Means of production are predominantly privately owned and controlled? Check.
Commodity production? Check.

Looks like we're hitting all of these points. Maybe the third one is more doubtful if you want to sperg about individuals owning stock in the companies they're employees of, but this is capitalism dude.

>> No.15076101

>We’re heading into a depression dumb dumb
No shit. Are you aware how many recessions and depressions have happened the past century? All a blip in the grand scheme of things. They were predicting collapse way back in the 30s, they were predicting it in ‘08 still predicting it now. It’s getting real boring waiting for these ideological mythical prophecies to come true

>> No.15076135

Thanks for the suggestions anon. I won’t lie though I’m not interested in ideology or dogma-based literature. You may think modern economics is predicated on neoclassical models but that isn’t entirely true. Maybe at more basic levels. I’m really only interested in robust but highly adjustable models. Simplistic models based on ideology or based on highly specific assumptions of things working perfectly (hint: a hallmark of both Marxist ideology and neoclassical ideology) are uninteresting apart from maybe their application in simple conceptual arguments or in educating the layman

>> No.15076158

> people who follow Adam Smith or any other similar philosopher (because that’s all they were: philosophers, not economists, not historians it’s all just pure rhetoric)
Economics is the direct descendant of political economy, the foundations laid by the Physiocrats, Quesnay, Malthus, Mill, Smith, and Ricardo. While some of them published on philosophical topics (Mill especially), it cannot be said that they were "philosophers" when writing on economic matters. I'm not aware of any modern economist or textbook which considers Smith to be a "philosopher" over an "economist".
Political economy was not a "philosophical" field - in fact, its rigidity and resistance to "philosophical" abstraction was a major critique of its methods. Economics didn't "grow out" of philosophy, it merely swept it under the rug to be dealt with by "philosophy of economics" or "economic sociology" or "history of economics".

>> No.15076159

Arguably the current system in many developed (and developing) parts is closer to market/democratic socialism than it is to true free market capitalism. Only issue is you can’t exactly compare the two according to Marx’s definitions because as far as regards socialism his description of it reads like utopian fantasy

>> No.15076172
File: 129 KB, 1400x788, BF09F20F-6DFC-4FA2-891D-3707385D24A6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Are you aware of how broken capitalism is?
>don’t you know that the US will never ever see prosperity like it once did, and that we’re going to end up poorer that the UK
>and that China’s prosperity will fade even faster, though they’ll be in better shape than the rest of the world as we fight our way to extinction

>> No.15076179

If you want to be pedantic about it you can call them economic philosophers or something but their writings and methods compared to today’s field of economics are closer to philosophy than they are to mathematical economics. Economics itself is hardly a science so it’s not like comparing modern physicists to say Newton. Groundbreaking, modern economics is closer to statistics than it is to the type of “economics” the authors you listed were practicing. That is why I define them more as philosophers than as economists, they were operating based on highly specific assumptions using purely theoretical and rhetorical models not really run against any significant sets of data

>> No.15076180

It makes no sense to say that we are living in a socialist society, or even "close" to one (let's not forget that socialism is qualitative change, not merely a matter of degree), because capitalist society, as described by Marx roughly embodies the four points I mentioned. "Free market" or not, it's still capitalism. Governments providing safety nets or regulating industry does not at all detract from Marx's criticism of capitalism. Have as many regulations as you want; people are still predominantly working for a wage.

We should use the proper terms, even if "socialism" is allegedly a utopian fantasy. "Socialism" doesn't have to be possible for us to talk about it in comparison to what there currently is, which is capitalism with a human face.

>> No.15076193

Why do you keep saying Marxism is ideological? Do you not know what that word means?

>> No.15076197

>>don’t you know that the US will never ever see prosperity like it once did, and that we’re going to end up poorer that the UK
>US won’t be able to recover despite having recovered from the GD, collapse in world demand in the wake of two World Wars, Spanish flu, etc.
>despite having more robust systems than it did during any of those times including most recently the GFC
Why are doomers so stupid and melodramatic? Keep praying for that collapse butterfly I’m sure it’s the only thing keeping you going, sorry you got such a raw deal in life

>> No.15076205

Notice I said market socialism
How is it not? You’re going to tell me Marxism is based on anything akin to science?

>> No.15076213

Also your post is literally why Marx and Marxist concepts are incredibly inadequate in discussing the modern economy so I’m not even sure if, ultimately, were in disagreement or not

>> No.15076216

You are confusing economics as a broad, general field with specifically statistical economics. Many of the mathematical tools were not available in classical political economy (and were only coming about by the time Marx published Capital Vol. 1), so it's uncharitable to blame them for not using them.

It's also wrong to say they operate on "highly specific assumptions". This is far from the case; for every law or tendency Marx describes, he lists exceptions and counter-tendencies. Some concepts by their very nature cannot be seriously quantitatively measured (such as Marx's notion of value). Statistics wouldn't have helped to make or break the case.

Creating good qualitative models is necessary before you can create a quantitative system of equations to tell you anything at all. Marx's qualitative model sets the scope for quantitative research and movement from more to fewer assumptions, with more moving variables.

>Notice I said market socialism
The majority of the world economy (if not all of it) shares nothing with "market socialism".

>> No.15076234

It’s a gloomy forecast. I obviously hope for better, but that won’t happen if nothing is done. Again you aren’t taking the context of capitalism’s history into account. It’s a scourge and needs to be dropped.

>> No.15076236

The Marxist claim is that regulations or whatever else does not change the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist system, or to put it another way: no matter what changes there are to the system, given the basic points are still there (the four I mentioned) the critique still stands. There is Marxist literature on government policy, regulation, digital capitalism, imperialism, globalization, the changing class structure, etc. - but only to the extent of validating the relevance of those four points.

There are interesting questions that may turn Marx on his head, I admit. But it's not as though Marxists haven't at least tried to answer those questions.

>> No.15076247

>so it's uncharitable to blame them for not using them.
I’m not though. Obviously I don’t blame 19th century philosophers for not having access to big data sets and statistical analysis programs. I’m just saying factors like that plus the radically different world we live in are why they are all inadequate in discussing the modern economy, including Marx.
> Creating good qualitative models is necessary before you can create a quantitative system of equations to tell you anything at all
Yes and those qualitative models which are actually relevant for today are based on the current economic system (differs by country, what part of the economy you’re looking at, etc.) which is why, again as I said, Marx and other similar philosophers are incredibly inadequate
>confusing economics with statistical economics
I know you aren’t actually in the field anon but you’ll find most of it beyond the undergrad (read: sophomore) level is actually primarily based on statistical analysis. If you aren’t good at it you aren’t considered a good modern economist. It’s why you see so many non-econ background people doing economics masters or PhDs even. Often statistics or engineering or maths backgrounds, hell even met a physicist doing an econ PhD once and he was brilliant

>> No.15076265

>a scourge
For whomst, miss?

>> No.15076286
File: 34 KB, 640x480, BDDFF9C9-4A92-4678-8DD6-3DE76C0D90D8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>It’s a scourge and needs to be dropped
In exchange for what? Trust me I’m open to ideas you’re talking to someone who believes in small agrarian communities as the utopian ideal. I dislike large government and equally dislike large corporations, really any entity of organisation which can exert huge influence on people’s lives. But life isn’t ideal and utopia will never be achieved and we’ve got to look as objectively as possible at the world we live in. Given everything some spectacular collapse of capitalism simply looks like incredibly unlikely. The current system is so good at being self-perpetuating honestly you can’t help but appreciate it even if you hate it. I don’t mean to be rough or come off as a dick but there isn’t much of another way to speak on this website, 8 years doesn’t do anything to take the edge off

>> No.15076290

Life on earth

>> No.15076312
File: 118 KB, 454x322, C5B7A3E2-BDA8-41B9-B88E-D5AADDFCCCDB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It seems to be running out of things to exploit, but strong enough to finish us all off in the next 80 to 100 years. I’ve been reading Bookchin and plan on getting back to Mollison. We’re going to have to resurrect a socialist response to this monster. I don’t care what we call, we just have to stop using money and relying on statist hero worship.

>> No.15076316

Time to get with the program and reach for the stars like the rest of us. Earth ain't that special.

>> No.15076322

>You should not be a liberal
>I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged
Uhh... Rand was a liberal...

>> No.15076363

Well at least you aren’t a statist we can definitely agree on that. Pic related looks interesting. But I just feel not enough people would be willing to let go of their countries as they know them. Direct democracy or the small self-determining communities I would like to some day see just don’t gel with people’s ideas of nationhood. Suppose I should give it a look before arguing against it though

>> No.15076394

>keep up with economic and financial news
Exactly what economic and financial news refutes Marx?

>> No.15076400

No one ever claimed that the free market was absolutely efficient or that we have a free market for that matter.

>> No.15076405

If you cannot figure out why Marx is outdated and irrelevant by developing an extensive knowledge of the modern (political) economy and how it functions then chances are you’re a brainlet. News may not be sufficient to achieve that knowledge but if you follow something sufficiently dry and technical it’ll probably make it clear enough

>> No.15076408

Unironically the best resource to argue against self-proclaimed Marxists it to read Marx. The man's writings are filled with so much conjecture and verbiage you can effectively pull out contrasting arguments with ease.

When I'd bicker with Marxist sympathizing classmates or friends I'd just point out the way he venerates capitalism in the Communist Manifesto and they'd be dumbstruck. Either that or his private letters towards the end of his life where he states plainly even if he is Marx he is categorically not a Marxist.

>> No.15076410

Shhh anon Marxists can only think in ideal abstractions

>> No.15076418
File: 57 KB, 576x436, 02281D91-FD68-4D4D-B911-04464492C64D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Either that or his private letters towards the end of his life where he states plainly even if he is Marx he is categorically not a Marxist.
Kek there’s no way. Even the man himself was probably pic related at his own works by the end

>> No.15076443

>The man's writings are filled with so much conjecture and verbiage you can effectively pull out contrasting arguments with ease.
Funny how philosophers and economists working on Marx seem to have no problem reconciling them, and in fact recognize the structure of his arguments and development of the concepts he uses.

>I'd just point out the way he venerates capitalism in the Communist Manifesto and they'd be dumbstruck.
This is pretty funny, but it shows more of their ignorance than your intelligence in reading the Manifesto.
>Either that or his private letters towards the end of his life where he states plainly even if he is Marx he is categorically not a Marxist.
This is misinterpreted many times over; he was responding to a particular group of people calling themselves Marxists, in the sense of "if they are Marxists, I am not a Marxist". It's not some renunciation of his life's works. He continued to write with consistency after making that statement. See: http://libcom.org/forums/thought/im-not-a-marxist

You may as well be saying he "wasn't a socialist" after CotGP.

>> No.15076454

Locke - Two Treatises on Civil Government
Montesquieu - The Spirit of the Law
Smith - Wealth of Nations
Frederic Bastiat
J.S. Mill
Gulag Archipelago (and other Solzhenitsyn)

>> No.15076459

>Shortly before Marx died in 1883, he wrote a letter to Guesde and Paul Lafargue, both of whom already claimed to represent "Marxist" principles. Marx accused them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering".[2] This exchange is the source of Marx's remark, reported by Friedrich Engels: "ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste" ("what is certain is that [if they are Marxists], [then] I myself am not a Marxist").

I don't think he was ever necessarily ashamed about his own writings. I feel sympathy for the guy in that he did seem to deeply care and advocate for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised, and did recognize all the material good and prosperity capitalism had produced. Despite that his name has since been thrown in with all sorts of depraved leftist despotism. Even within his lifetime he was associated with all manner of socialist utopianist crazies. Before he died he was approached by soon-to-be Bolsheviks who inquired whether or not communism could be achieved in a non industrialized, non commercialized feudal state like Russia. He died before he could concoct a researched answer.

I feel like people need to do a better job of understanding the chronology of Marxist thought, and how his views and feelings changed over time.

>> No.15076462

Also worth reading are Marx's critiques of Smith, Bastiat and Mill.

>> No.15076519


>> No.15076520
File: 208 KB, 760x531, Don'tforgetitswrongtoeatyourchildren.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Socialism =/= Marxism

absolutely based

If you're looking to refute specifically Marxists and their ilk(Leninist, Stalinist) then read Gulag Archipelago and Cannibal Island. (Pic related)
If your beef is with social economics vs capitalism in general then probably your friends don't understand the complexity anyways.

>> No.15076524

You're referring to the litany of self-styled Marxist groups and thinkers and the wide gulf that exists between their beliefs and interpretations of their namesake's writings?

Seriously speaking though, with how much ground Marx covered across his life in regards to topics ranging from alienation to commodification to material dialectics and so on, it's not hard to selectively latch on to a certain aspect of his writings and roll with it however you want.

I may be talking out of my ass since I haven't read much Marx since college, but iirc when he discussed the burgesses who played a primary role in orchestrating the rise of capitalism in feudalism's place, he expressed how they could have had very little understanding of the long-term consequences of their actions in regards to the industrial revolution in the age he lived. With that I would entertain an argument that Marx's historical dialectic suggested a notion of communist determinism where it could be naturally induced capitalism would one day fail and "communism" existed as a placeholder name for whatever mode of production was to follow.

>> No.15076552


>> No.15076624
File: 358 KB, 954x1296, 53DB4D06-ADBA-4AA1-93D5-456B22405CA4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>what should I read
>Marxist friends

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.