[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 58 KB, 363x511, marx.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602566 No.1602566 [Reply] [Original]

This man was a genius. If the US government would listen to this man they could improve their system of capitalism

>> No.1602570
File: 98 KB, 220x279, 220px-Bakunin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602570

I told you about states, man.

I told you, bro.

>> No.1602571

the US gov is CAPITALIST YOU RETARD. THis guy is a communist he penned teh Socialist Manfesto you idiot..

>> No.1602574

You have not read anything he wrote.
Your post is shallow and idiotic.
Prove youve read.
Tell me the last line of the Manifesto. Quite famous line. Dont google you cunt, youd only be lying to yourself.

>> No.1602575

>>1602571

>obama
>not socialist

>> No.1602577

>>1602574
You think that memorizing the last line proves your understanding of the subject? You total fool.

>> No.1602578

You can't improve capitalism. That's kind of the whole point of Capital. He completely rebuts the capitalist utopian dream.

>> No.1602579

>>1602575

i watcheded dehr faux nuueehs

>> No.1602584

>>1602578
He never uses the word "utopian" once. Get your facts straight.

>> No.1602586
File: 36 KB, 359x285, 1299142730220.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602586

I see Rand getting hate on /lit/ for her Philosophy. But I don't see anyone ripping into the Marx, his ideas were just as flawed.

>> No.1602588

>>1602586

And what ideas were those?

>> No.1602590

>>1602586
his ideas were not as flawed as rand at all rand hates people that dont consider themselves important as opposed to others thats retarded

this man believes in everyone loving each other equally under GOD

>> No.1602593

Uhhhhhh the whole point of Marx is that Capitalism can't really be improved, and the development of capitalism leads inevitably to the international worker's revolution and the post-capitalist communist state. Although Marx is actually probably all good with improving capitalism he doesn't tell you how.

>> No.1602596

>>1602593
Ya he does. A lot. If you actually read the text you'd know that.

>> No.1602597

>>1602586
lol no.

I'm not a Marxist at all, but Marx is a tremendously important and influential figure, and it's pretty important to understand his ideas - even when (I think) he's wrong he's enormously insightful and useful. His ideas are intellectually coherent in a way that Rand never is. Rand and Marx are not on the same level.

>> No.1602599

>>1602577

Everyone understands the subject as everyone here has presumably gone to high school. Even without that, most you fucks are all class A wikipedia scholars...
Actually reading it, going through it, hearing the man's voice and message, feeling his anger between the lines...to me that means something..
then again...youre just a fucking tool, and you wouldnt understand

>> No.1602601

>>1602596

What text?

>> No.1602603

>>1602596
which text, and what do you mean by 'improve'

i will admit that my statement is at the very least imprecise

>> No.1602608

>>1602601
words on page

>> No.1602614

>>1602588
>>1602590
A society where everyone is altruistic is just plain impossible. Most people are selfish assholes. Rand thinks being a dickhead is better for society, which is equally as stupid because society would tear itself apart through crime and corruption.

They were both wrong on the extreme end.

>>1602599
It has been a long time. But was the last line "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains"?

>> No.1602615
File: 255 KB, 2000x1340, train-wreck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602615

Meanwhile, in this thread.

>> No.1602616

>>1602608
what?

do you mean the grundrisse, das kapital, the communist manifesto, the theses on feuerbach

what are we talking about here

>> No.1602618

>>1602614

>A society where everyone is altruistic is just plain impossible.

And where does he say that?

>> No.1602621

>>1602618
He doesn't, he's saying the opposite. I'm saying that.

>> No.1602622

>>1602621

Where does Marx propose a society where everyone is altruistic?

>> No.1602624

>>1602614

>implying people can actually choose to not be selfish

dat human nature

>> No.1602625

>>1602614
You didn't understand Marx. I mean really, I'm not saying 2deep4u, but your understanding and critique of Marx is one that has a lot of currency among certain groups of people; it's also wrong and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Marx. Marx isn't calling for a society in which everyone is altruistic and good. If you believe this you have not read or understood Marx. His argument is a fairly involved one about the nature of capitalism and human beings. In his thought, revolution and the end of capitalism are literally inevitable, and the society which will come after the revolution is not one where everything is altruistic but one in which the development and non-ownership of the means of production lead to a state where labour is not necessary. Your simplistic equation of Rand and Marx as basically similar opposites is fundamentally misguided.

>> No.1602626

>>1602614

>implying people can actually choose to not be selfish


...dat human nature

>> No.1602628

>>1602622
In Chapter 9 under the Fundamental Theorem of Trolls and their impact on society.

>> No.1602630

>>1602622
Through the entire Communist Manifesto

>> No.1602637

>>1602630

Cite a specific part. Give me a quote. Give me a paragraph number. If it's throughout, this should be easy.

>> No.1602638

combine rand and marx and you get anti-social socialism, egotistical communism and altruistic capitalism.

>> No.1602643

>>1602638

>altruistic capitalism

That's actually what we've got right now.

>> No.1602644
File: 74 KB, 552x461, karl knows that feel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602644

>> No.1602645

>>1602643
no

>> No.1602649

>>1602645

Bill Gates.

>> No.1602652
File: 19 KB, 168x218, Hayek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602652

Hey Marxists, just a quick question;

How do you rationally allocate economic resources without price?

GG

Also economic calculation problem

>> No.1602654

>>1602652

set price according to dick size

>> No.1602661

>>1602652

Marxism is an analysis and critique of capitalism. Nothing more. We don't claim to have the answers, we just claim to know the nature of the problem.

>> No.1602662

>>1602652

>implying no price system in communist economy

>> No.1602663

>>1602644
lol

>> No.1602668

>>1602661
Also arguably price structures are only valid in a scarcity economy

>> No.1602669
File: 328 KB, 463x340, derp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602669

>>1602652
Necessity?

>> No.1602672
File: 34 KB, 283x274, smugman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602672

i communism is so good, why isnt stalin still alive

marxsit status = owned as ice

>> No.1602673

>>1602669
How do you guage nesscessity?

>> No.1602683

>>1602668
>>1602668

Witness the pseudo intellectual twat. Notice the seemingly sophisticated language, masking a completely idiotic thought.

>> No.1602685

>>1602673
Like the way do you write English, but the other way around?

Destroying that artificial necessities created only for ego-bloating and covering the minimum. It's an idea.

inb4 you dirty hippie

>> No.1602689

>>1602683
How's that idiotic?

Marx clearly thought that at a certain point technological development would mean that there were more than enough resources for everyone. At that point, you don't actually need prices anymore because you don't need to limit peoples' access to goods. Whether or not that is a realistic prediction, I don't know, but it's what Marx thought. Suck my dick, asshole.

>> No.1602691

>>1602673

lern2demandsupply

>> No.1602699

>>1602689

your point was idiotic and still is.

>only in scarcity economy

is what you wrote. implying that there is anything out there but such a type of economy....

>> No.1602702

>>1602691
there's no supply and demand in communism halfwit

>> No.1602706

>>1602699
You are literally a moron.

Marx's argument is that after the revolution there will be a post-scarcity economy. That's Marx's fucking argument. Obviously in society as it exists today all economies are scarcity economies, you fucking numbskull, I'm not denying that. Are you so blockheaded that you're going to read this and then go "hurr-durr you moron why you say there is a non-scarcity economy".

>> No.1602714

ITT
>>1602706
People who actually read Marx.

>>1602699
People who listened about Marx on the radio.

>> No.1602716

>>1602652
by ecological standards, whatever the environment will bear. duh.

>> No.1602717

>>1602706
Not all economies are scarcity economies you pseudo-intellectual. Just look at the U.K.

>> No.1602719
File: 57 KB, 800x800, feiss.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602719

>>1602702

ph lawd...you fucking idiot.

Communism... Jobs right? People get paid (though predominantly homogeneous salaries). People use money. Buy shit. Price of shit rises as more shit is demanded. Supply of shit also rises. Difference in regulation/ownership. No difference in basic and universal economic principles.

>> No.1602721

>>1602717
lol oh u

>>1602719
not actually how communism works i think

>> No.1602724
File: 4 KB, 184x211, grin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602724

>>1602706

you mad.

also. your point is still retarded. There can't ever be such a type of economy.
and no. Havent read Marx...but if that's what he predicted...then he is just as stupid as you for reading and believing it.

>> No.1602725

>>1602721
If you are thinking about the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China, etc... I have bad news for you it wasn't communism

BIG NEWS EVERYONE!

>> No.1602726

>>1602717

troll bitch faggot sucking penises

>> No.1602728

>>1602716
>Not all economies are scarcity economies you pseudo-intellectual. Just look at the U.K.

You are so fucking dumb it's fucking unbelievable. All economies that exist today are scarcity economy. Post scarcity implies that there is an INFINITE AMOUNT OF GOODS, so that will NEVER HAPPEN.

>> No.1602729

>>1602724
Yeah actually I am kind of annoyed. The thing is that I have actually read Marx and I do know at least a bit about topics like this, and yeah, I'm annoyed that an obvious numb-skull like you called me an idiot.

And yeah, I'm going to take your admittedly ignorant dismissal of Marx and go ahead and disregard that, you moronic, apathetic idiot. Maybe you should consider actually knowing something about an argument before you blithely ignore it, Jesus Christ fuck you go away you are actually angering me with your stupidity

>> No.1602731

>>1602728
quoted wrong post

welp

>> No.1602734

>>1602728
>>1602731
Why does there have to be infinite amounts of goods to be a post-scarcity economy? Only has to be enough that no one will ever say "I want some more goods, oh no, there are no more goods left." Important to point out that in Marxist thought things like wealth are essentially products of capitalism, not inherently existing things.

>> No.1602735

>>1602721

you think wrong.
point was about universal economic principle, not about how communism works. Universal= necessarily found in all governments, communism included.

>> No.1602743

>>1602724
wow, you're an enormous, ball-gargling faggot. What you're basically saying is that our ability to gain resources will never exceed the amount of resources we will be able to use. Which unless you have a time machine, I'm not quite sure how you know.

>> No.1602750

>>1602735
have you read Marx? because the argument that all economic systems rely on people being paid for labour is... uh... non-trivial. I mean, Marx would certainly argue that all capitalist systems rely on wage-labour - wage-labour being the characteristic property of capitalism - but I don't know that he'd say that all economic systems do.

tl;dr - wage labour is not a universal economic principle. or at least you can't take for granted that it is, you need to make an argument.

>> No.1602757

>>1602729

lol
bitch you still mad.

and you still are an idiot for ever thinking that scarcity can be eliminated.

and dont give me that bullshit about how you were just ONLY presenting Marx's retarded argument.

>> No.1602763

>>1602757
I don't think it's obvious that scarcity can't be eliminated. But you're an ignorant motherfucker who does not know anything, so fuck your punk-ass. lol @ you for thinking that scarcity can never be eliminated.

>> No.1602771

>>1602750

fucks sake...
POINT. WAS. ABOUT. GOODS. EXCHANGED. FOR. MONEYS.AND.SUPPLY.DEMAND.BASIC.ECONOMIC.PRINCIPLE.EVERYWHERE.CANT.BE.OTHERWISE.UNLESS.BARTER.CAVEMAN
.FAGGOT.DO.NOT.POST.ANY.MORE.

>> No.1602778
File: 20 KB, 380x380, noble-peace-prize.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602778

>>1602719
holy shit, this man actually knows what inflation is.

>> No.1602779

>>1602771
Have you actually read Marx?

>> No.1602780

>>1602728
Or people can be less fucking greedy through better education and don't tell me they can't because you are just showing your ignorance. First thing in a Marxist society is satisfy the needs of the people. Surplus labour can then be used for public projects like space exploration.

>> No.1602781

>>1602780
It doesn't have to do with 'being less greedy' so much as 'wealth is an artifact of capitalism and the desire for concentration of wealth is not a given'

fuck this shit, none of you know anything, i'm out

>> No.1602786

>>1602781
>wealth is an artifact of capitalism
What the fuck? Do you understand the term? You think there wasn't class structure in all systems hitherto? I understand Marx much better than you so leave if you want.

>> No.1602789

>>1602786
What I mean is that the concentration of property beyond what is usable - the accumulation of exchange-value - is not an inherent behavior of humans

>> No.1602791

>>1602743
>>1602743

>What you're basically saying is that our ability to gain resources will never exceed the amount of resources we will be able to use.

translation= What you're basically saying is that our ability to gain resources will never exceed our ability to gain resources.


lol

>> No.1602792

>>1602789
And my point is that it's not "people will be less greedy yay altruism", there are valid systemic reasons that people will change behaviors related to Marx's analysis of economics. I'm defending Marx against the allegation that "Marx is too idealistic and thinks that people should all just get along but THE REAL WORLD doesn't work that way."

>> No.1602794

>>1602791
Why is it taken as a given that we will automatically use all resources produced, no matter how much we produced?

>> No.1602795

>>1602763

lol@YOU for thinking scarcity can be eliminated.

you getting mad again arent you....

>> No.1602804

>>1602792
...doesn't seem to work that way

ffy

>> No.1602806

>>1602779
>>1602779

POINT.WASNT.ABOUT.MARX.FOR.THE.4TH.FUCKING.TIME.DICK.SUCKER.

>> No.1602807

>>1602789
>concentration of property beyond what is usable is not an inherent behavior of humans

That is debatable. I have read a number of books on the subject and both sides present good cases for and against. But it is certainly true that we now have the capacity to ignore animal inclination, if it is there, to create and structure a fairer society.

>> No.1602809

>>1602806
>>1602806
Yeah but have you read Marx?

>> No.1602829

>>1602794

>implying production without cost

unless you start magically shitting out new resources, your point will forever be irrelevant to scarcity and its necessary existence.

...your fairy tale conception of surplus is making my balls itch

>> No.1602839

>>1602829
>implying capitalism was not produced by economic surplus i.e. not used resources

>> No.1602840

>>1602809

POINT.WASNT.ABOUT.MARX.FOR.THE.4TH.FUCKING.TIME.DICK.SUCKER


>>1602750

POINT.WASNT.ABOUT.WAGE.LABOR.FOR.THE.4TH.FUCKING.TIME.DICK.SUCKER


also.
marx was wrong.


inb4

durrpheyesh but hayve youre reaid Maiyrxx?

>> No.1602842

People still read Marx nowadays?

I'm an economist and I don't remember ever studying about him (yeah, I'm totally not qualified to talk about his work). Marxists rank as low in Economics as Austrian economists. I would compare them to creationists in Biology as far as reputation go in the disciplines.

>> No.1602845
File: 129 KB, 627x620, readmarx.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602845

>>1602840

>> No.1602853

>>1602839

>implying i was implying something i wasn't

who the fuck raised you whore child?

>> No.1602858

>>1602842
Yeah Marx is probably more important as a political/philosophical/cultural thinker than as an economist. His influence on cultural studies in particular is astounding.

>> No.1602861

>>1602842

>I'm an economist

You're a witch doctor without the rain dances.

>> No.1602863

>>1602853
>implying you did follow the reasoning

Have you read your Marx today?

>> No.1602864

>>1602858
I see.

>>1602861
OK

>> No.1602865

>>1602845

wow...you actually...i cant even...
*pulls out gun from drawer. an heroes*

>> No.1602884

>>1602864

>OK

As long as we're clear that your discipline is a joke and akin to modern-day shamanism.

>> No.1602892

>>1602863

please explain. I want to hear this.

inb4

you jump from one topic to something irrelevant.

remember here fuckhat...point was about scarcity. explain how surplus eliminates it, without your gaping queer anus magic fountain of resource.
make it good. GO

>> No.1602902

>>1602884
Well, dunno. How qualified are you to talk about econ?

>> No.1602921

>>1602902

not sure you intended that post reference

he's saying economics is a joke. which means he's probably not an econ major. which means he's probably not qualified. which means he can't make that judgement? no. no...
i think he can...

>> No.1602928

>>1602794 said
Why is it taken as a given that we will automatically use all resources produced, no matter how much we produced?

for what, your response is:
>implying production without cost

unless you start magically shitting out new resources, your point will forever be irrelevant to scarcity and its necessary existence.

...your fairy tale conception of surplus is making my balls itch


Then, my reasoning goes like this.
Before the trade economy there was a society that covered it's necessities without surplus. That is the first agricultural societies.

Then, given that this society produced more that it's necessities, trade between groups of population began. Therefore, we can say in a sense, that surplus gave birth to capitalism (a lot of centuries later, of course). This, I think, explains my previous post.

My answer to the scarcity problem is eliminating the population needs that produce it. That is, covering basic necessities.

>> No.1602932

>>1602921
You don't even need to have a degree in Economics.
But at least to kind of... have an idea about it other than "I've heard in the newspaper that Econ sucks" or "I got a good grade in the Econ 101 course in college"

>> No.1602941

If you've taken econ 101, you know he was a fundamentally flawed economist.

If you've ever taken a world history/modern European history/U. S. history/just about any other history class, you know he was a flawed historians.

Yet you and hundreds of other college students like you swear by Marx. And you're all idiots.

>> No.1602950

OP here. You've all been trolled hard. God, you /lit/ fucks are dumb. I'm going to bed. Thanks for the lulz.

>> No.1602965

I've found that communism is good on paper, but someone always fucks it up for everyone.

>> No.1602988

>>1602928
>Before the trade economy there was a society that covered it's necessities without surplus. That is the first agricultural societies.Then, given that this society produced more that it's necessities, trade between groups of population began.Therefore, we can say in a sense, that surplus gave birth to capitalism (a lot of centuries later, of course). This, I think, explains my previous post.

All true and good, though irrelevant history is irrelevant. none of my points are inconsistent with the emergence of capitalism as a function of surplus.

>My answer to the scarcity problem is eliminating the population needs that produce it. That is, covering basic necessities.

lol@anarcho-primitivist
go to the woods and fuck your livestock

still though, for the sake of your argument, I'll give you that this is the only solution to scarcity...you hippie fuck...not an option.

>> No.1602993

>>1602593
>>ITT: People who haven't started on The Capital, but still are 'experts' on Marxism.

>> No.1602996

>>1602988
That made me laugh. It's good that we have one point of agreement (on 4chan lol). Yes, I still think that anarcho-primitivism is the only solution, but there is a better solution that somehow avoids us.

G'night /lit/ and make sure you read your Marx today.

>> No.1602997
File: 16 KB, 200x264, mach.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1602997

Hows it going, brochini?

>> No.1603000

>>1602997
Hey man, you ever get that job you wanted?

>> No.1603177

>ctrl-f From each, ability,need, etc.
>0/0
>mfw

I concur, Marx was a genius (fluent in five languages). That is all of what OP says that makes any sense. Marx would be first to point out the State is hardly capable of controlling the core system of a capitalist economy (later thinkers point toward the opposite relation). Further, he was against "improvements." Revolution, new beginning, over-turning old powers, etc.

Finally, did someone say something about Marx believing in God? /lit/ I am disappointed. Seriously.


>>1602652
First, resources aren't rationally allocated in Capitalism. Second, Marx doesn't suggest removal of price, but rather a restructuring of the relationship between price and what he calls "value" (the Labor as a sort of cost of production).

>> No.1603238
File: 80 KB, 628x418, 1299008263310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1603238

>this thread