>>663201 First of all there exists some pseudo-antithesis between Marxism & Capitalism.
The economic factor exercises a hypnosis and a tyranny over modern man.
In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based. Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped" those civilizations that do not amount to "civilizations based on labor and production"—namely, those civilizations that, luckily for themselves, have not yet been caught up in the feverish industrial exploitation of every natural resource, the social and productive enslavement of all human possibilities, and the exaltation of technical and industrial standards; in other words, those civilizations that still enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom. Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities. This is the premise for a true restorative reaction, beyond "Left" and "Right," beyond capitalism's abuses and Marxist subversion.
Marxism does not differ very much from the "Western" views of prosperity: both Weltanschauungen [worldviews] essentially coincide, as do their practical applications. In both Marxism and free-market economies we find the same materialistic, antipolitical, and social view detaching the social order and people from any higher order and higher goal, positing what is "useful" as the only purpose by turning the "useful" into a criterion of progress, the values proper to every traditional structure are inverted.
Capitalism is not necessarily preferable to socialism. Marx, whom can be quoted to devise any sort of 'Marx' of your own, once said that capitalism develops the productive capacities needed for socialism (and later communism) to take off.
To answer your question, I've noticed that one of the popular lines of enquiry is "why hasn't socialism replaced capitalism yet?" Antonio Gramsci wrote about hegemonies and consent (I somehow got a First in an essay marked by a Marxist even though I critiqued Gramsci - the academic referenced Gramsci a lot in his work), and David Harvey wrote about the 'Spatial-Temporal Fix' in that 'capitalism' prolongs itself by moving into new spaces (such as the developing world) or invests into long-term projects in order to restore declining profit margins.
>>663214 Good post, do you know of any sources/authors that expand on these points?
I have also concluded that Marxism and Capitalism have much in common regarding what they see as desirable and ideal in a society. They both advocate economic policies that are unsustainable in the sense that both systems ultimately depend on infinite growth in a finite world. The only thing that is in question is who will control the levers of power of this industrial civilization, not whether or not the civilization should be industrialized. The exploitation of workers is debated between advocates of the two systems, the exploitation of the planet's material resources is never in doubt.
>>663214 >capitalism is the only system that seeks to exploit resources Where did the Aral sea go? An entire sea, gone, even if we still had 19th century style capitalism there would have at least been a token effort by the chatting liberal middle classes to prevent it.
Haven't you ever seen the intricate terraces to provide every scrap of land for rice production in Japan and China or the fact Europe is not a huge forest as it used to be? What about all the giant mammals that suddenly went extinct when humans arrived?
Every society seeks to exploit resources. When Kings and lords or tribes are finished fighting each other to a stalemate they turn their attentions to expanding the economy, they just lack the means to harm the environment as much as we can nowadays.
>hurr that is just your western eurocentric view This has to be one of the cheapest excuses to avoid being rational. My view is also a Chinese view, an African view, I am sure anyone who looks at the facts and has experience dealing with the real world will reach the same conclusion. If you believe otherwise you are implying nonwestern cultures are inferior and you and your postmodern ilk are racist and "eurocentric", not me.
>>663201 There is no moral, ethical validation for a system that necessitates and institutionalizes vast inequality and resultant poverty. It should be the logical pursuit of any rational, ethically-minded person to pursue alternatives to such a system.
Even if you disagree with the fundamental principles of communism/socialism, capitalism remains an immoral and irresponsible economic mode. There is no validation.
>>663214 >Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities.
Economy reigns supreme regardless. People have to produce and consume in order to survive and however this is organized will determine how society is organized. The goal of socialism (whether you like it, or not) was to develop an economy that satisfied people's needs in a way that didn't alienate them; this would create a way of life where people could engage more or less develop the "highest possibilities" of human life. I don't understand how you can argue that economy doesn't come first. You gotta fucking eat, man.
>>663201 >Has anyone since Marx come up with a new argument for why socialism would be preferable to capitalism? Well yea, part of Rawl's conclusion in Justice as Fairness is about how rational people looking out for themselves yet also wanting to create a fair society would construct a socialist society.
>>667585 >MFW Porkies didn't even read Capital. >MFW Porkies don't get Marx's theory of value has literally nothing to do with Marginal theory.
Porkies changed the meaning of value then forgot that the original meaning of value was something completely different, then tried to debunk Marx when Marx's value and Porky value literally don't even relate to each other in any way.
the first time I was ever introduced to the labor theory of value, it was by a close friend who's very libertarian. This was a few years ago, so it's an obvious paraphrase, but he summarized it thusly: "Yeah, I mean, the labor theory of value basically says that people should be paid for however much work they put into things, so if I take six hours to make a widget and you take four, the price of a widget from you should be six yet mine should only be four, and ideas like 'market value' should be disregarded. It's totally irrelevant if I suck at making widgets, I should get paid more than you anyway." Which, to put it lightly, is a misrepresentation. While explaining the labor theory of value is outside of the scope of this post, what I will say is that to Marx, 'value' is something intrinsic to an object; it's the 'socially necessary abstract labor' inherent to it. Talk about dense language! What a capitalist would call 'value,' a Marxist would call 'price.'
As you can see, even just one little word, 'value,' can be quite dense! Can you imagine a discussion intended to be 'learnable' to outsiders about what's meant? Imagine the expansion: 'value' -> 'socially necessary abstract labor' -> ... Marx is already long enough; Capital would be thousands of pages! Yet to a beginner who flips to Chapter 12, they'll read a sentence that contains 'value' and draw poor conclusions! They wouldn't even realize they're making a mistake, I mean, how could five letters be misinterpreted?
>>663214 Another thing I should mention before an argument erupts is that we need to distinguish Markets and Capitalism.
Capitalism is a system of ownership where the means of production are owned privately. The means of production are used by the workers to produce goods and services. What the owner does with the produced goods is up to them while they pay workers a wage for their work.
Capitalism is efficient only in the sense that it takes the least amount of input and produces the most possible output within societally acceptable means (not slavery).
It comes at the cost of the workers, however, and so socialism was proposed to switch the role of ownership to the workers. It would lessen efficiency just as capitalism is less efficient than slavery, but ensures that goods and services are produced in a democratic, healthy, and productive environment placing the workers over goods and services.
Both of systems of ownership can utilize a market economy.
Socialism is NOT where the government owns everything and provides to everyone. Nationalization of industry is seen as a transition state.
Communism does away with the market aspect and the entirety of society is organized on the local, federal level, to the top. The state is done away with, but keep in mind, there's a difference between government and the state.
Venezuala is NOT a socialist country, the only socialist societies to have ever existed were the Paris Commune, Catalonia, the Free Territories of Ukraine, and a few more.
Socialism and Communism emphasize collective input and democracy.
Just thought I say this before anyone starts and argument and says something very misniforming like the DPRK being an example of communism.
Marx is a mix of rich man guilt, millenarialism, catholicism, pseudohistory and pseudoeconomics. Don't read it yo. Only leftists keep Marx as a noticeable author. He should be among all the bizarre scientific shit the 19th century brought, just like phrenology
>>667754 No, he wasn't an idiot. He was wrong, just like many intellectuals and scientists at the same time. >You probably think the manifesto is all he wrote I read tons of marxist shit like 2 years ago and I used to consider myself a marxist back then desu.
>>667765 >Used to be a marxist 2 years ago > Doesn't understand that if Marx is pseudohistory, pseudoeconomics, and rich man guilt then Ibn Khalud was probably some fucking punk who had no idea what he was talking about and didn't conceptualize the concept of social conflict.
>>668781 I'm sorry, but I can't see any of those things happening. People worldwide are richer than ever and the countries that have adopted economic liberalism are safer, more developed and stable, richer and happier than the rest. Also, go fuck youself too and go read Kazimierz "The Prole Champ" Kelles-Krauz in its original language, then get back to me.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.