>once capitalism collapses a world wide unified socialist

How can you ask that?

You'd have to be stupid to ever think something as irrational as communism could ever exist.

It's a fairytale ideology that has no foot on reasonable soil

>>1533195
>once capitalism collapses a world wide unified socialist utopia is inevitable
Where does he say that?

>>1533195
It's even worse than that.

>the workers will take over and kill the capitalists
>they become the de facto ruling class and install the dictatorship of the proletariat
>and then, somehow, for magical reasons, the state will vanish and we'll all live in a stateless paradise

>>1533214
>and then, somehow, for magical reasons, the state will vanish and we'll all live in a stateless paradise
Those magical reasons are pretty clearly defined as post scarcity economy.

File: b302a20a6820007c65cb619a6ead57ffd5fbc615.jpg (157KB, 992x880px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 992x880px

>>1533195

>socialist utopia

>inevitable

That sounds a lot like a totalitarian regime, m8

>>1533221
Which is a horseshit utopian idea. Even historical materialism and the idea that ideology just mirrors the material base is completely bogus.

File: 12240155.png (7KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x300px

>>1533221
>Post scarcity economy

But Scarcity is the defining element of our planet. It's the driving force behind Natural Selection; how is it going to magically disappear when there are finite and disparate sources of wealth?

>>1533221
In other words Marxism literally needs to throw away the laws of physics and biology to even function.

>>1533238
>But Scarcity is the defining element of our planet. It's the driving force behind Natural Selection; how is it going to magically disappear when there are finite and disparate sources of wealth?
By controlling demand. If you had the entire planet to yourself, you'd have more finite resources than you could ever use. If there were 2 people, that would still be the case, and so on. Scarcity is the relation between supply and demand.

>>1533236
There are several examples of resources considered vital, but not economically scarce, like air.

>>1533247
Well to be fair we've kind of reached the point of post scarcity with food and all considering you can buy a ten pound bag of rice for five bucks.

>>1533247
>not knowing econ 101
>criticizing marx because you think he couldnt into econ

>>1533258
How do you control demand in a STATELESS society?

>>1533258
>By controlling demand
How do you control demand?

>>1533260
>Well to be fair we've kind of reached the point of post scarcity with food and all considering you can buy a ten pound bag of rice for five bucks
That's not indicative of the world as a whole.

A box of Lipton Tea in Russia is 87 dollars

>>1533262
Did you even read my post? I didn't say he cannot into econ, I said he couldn't into physics.

>>1533260
We even have shit like EBT. We've reached the point where a person's basic needs could be post scarcity if society wanted to make it so.

>>1533195
His formula sounds basically like
>Collapse of capitalism
>????
>Socialist utopia

>>1533264
You control demand in the pre-stateless socialist society and develop a culture that hates people that have more than two kids. Social attitudes aren't a state.

>>1533287
So you have to brainwash and condition people into believing your horseshit and keep them artificially poor?

File: Hegel.jpg (309KB, 1584x1089px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1584x1089px

>>1533195

>>1533290
>artificially poor
No, you tell them to be a union of egoists that doesn't like when their share of the pie is diminished

>>1533306
But what will their share of the pie be?

>>1533306
>no anon, you cannot have MORE than one room and one piece of bread per day, bad anon, into the gulag you go!

>>1533318
But Glorious Leader lives in the big Mansion with Whiskey and Cigars, comrade.

>>1533318
But we are kind of already there in capitalism. Most people who leave their podunk hometowns in the Midwest or the south because there aren't any jobs beyond Wal Mart move to a city on the coast making $50k a year and because land Lord jews are so stingy have to find a room mate and surrender up to 50% of their income for basically a bedroom.

What now?

>>1533333
Why would you move from a podunk town in the Midwest to a large coastal city when you can just move to a large Midwestern city?

>>1533333
>>1533327
>>1533318
Socialism, communism and Stalinism are different things comrades.

>>1533340
Tell me another way how to control the demand other than >>1533318

>>1533344
By promoting degeneracy that begets more degeneracy so people have fewer and fewer children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy

Post scarcity doesn't mean no scarcity. It means scarcity and the associated market mechanisms will be not very important for many things.

>>1533221
>no scarcity
>economy

lol

>>1533214
Dictatorship of the proletariat is equivalent to dictatorship of the majority. I don't see how the majority self managing their lives is not the way to sustainable statelessness.

>>1533370
Because the majority is a bunch of imbeciles that don't even know what they want.

>>1533364
>he believes the neoclassical definition of economics

>>1533373
That would invalidate statelessness as an end, not the dictatorship of the proletariat as a mean towards that end, which is what the post scoffs at.

ebin thred friend

>>1533375
>he thinks Marx isn't thoroughly neoclassical

>>1533375
Yeah, but the word "to economize" means to manage resources in an efficient way.

There is no point to economize if there is no scarcity, hence it's oxymoronic to call a society that can without problem give everyone what they want of goods and services without any cost, an economy.

>>1533370
You do realize dictators appoint advisors to help them manage governments right? They don't micromanage everything. The point is that ultimate authority lies with proles, and proles and remove people from positions of power.

STOP! STOP BICKERING ABOUT THE SUBTELTIES OF MARXISM!

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW A GLOBAL SOCIALIST UTOPIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE INEVITABLE FROM THE TOTAL SHIT SHOW THAT A COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM WOULD BE

>>1533400
Marx didn't think that capitalism would collapse.

He thought capitalism was a hydra, that would survive any blow to it, and hence it needed to be violently overthrown.

Please read the Communist Manifesto and Capital.

>>1533400
It's not though. Socialist utopia comes after socialist non-utopia.

>>1533389
What a retarded argument. First, i don't give a fuck about what a word related to the word economics means, what the fuck is that supposed to prove? Second, even if i cared, etymologically the word is not related to scarcity (not that it would be relevant if it was).

On the other hand, scarcity is a subjective term, since it is related to societal and personal needs, and societies with "no scarcity" have been economically studied (see sahlin's original affluent society).

>>1533398
Who mentioned dictators? Marx didn't advocate for dictators.

>>1533411
Because "post-scarcity economy" refers to scarcity in the economic sense, moran.

>>1533400
HOW ABOUT FIRST YOU STOP INSISTING WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT MARX IS CORRECT OR ACCURATE

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY YOU WASTE TIME ARGUING ABOUT SHIT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT

Because we'll live in a post scarcity world once asteroid mining becomes mainstream. There are enough minerals in the asteroid belt to sustain us for billions of years at our current rate of consumption

>>1533422
will we eat asteroids?

>>1533407
but he also thought this violent overthrow was inevitable because capitalism would lead to more and more wealth be concentrated at the top

>>1533427
that's not the only internal contradiction of capitalism.

>>1533426
We can sustain ourselves on lab grown meat and vertical farming which are both becoming cheaper and more viable every year. We can use the minerals from asteroids to build these structures

>>1533400
Marx is taking from Hegel. History proceeds towards perfection.

>>1533427
The point is that he advocated the violent overthrow of capitalism, because he believed that capitalism by itself could not be reformed.

>>1533435
>lab grown meat

ew I'm not eating that.

>>1533435
What happens when the massive importation and constructon pollutes the environment and changes the ecosystem, causing a collapse of the systems we thrive on?

>>1533440
You'll be dead by then

>>1533427
>more and more wealth be concentrated at the top

he was right about that tho.

>>1533442
These things can be figured out as you go along anon, like any other development in knowledge.

>>1533437
Knowing Marx to the little I do, he probably advocated violent revolution as a possible solution.

People act like Marx is a systematic thinker who has only one paradigm of thought that extends to everything he said. He was actually a diverse thinker, saw things from different perspectives, and spent his life presenting mutually exclusive interpretations of the world and outcomes

This is why discussion with right-wing twats is so frustrating, they try some kind of ham-fisted Socratism where they find "internal contradictions" of Marx as though such a thing leads to a total and complete collapse of everything he ever wrote, a total destruction and annihilation of his thought.

It simply doesn't work that way.

>>1533457
Sure, tragedy doesn't exist, humans are perfect and will never go extinct.

/s

Just accept that the future of humanity is strife until death.

>>1533440
Then you'll die.

Food isn't hard to get, we can eat insects or shitty plants for a long time

>>1533442
Green technology, we wont need to mine the planet, we can invest in desalination, we can cut down on agriculture which is one of the biggest polluters and then we can cut down on gas powered cars which is another. Once electric vehicles are popular and lab grown meat takes over farm animals as our primary source of meat we'll cut global warming down by significant chunks

>>1533462
We should just mass suicide

>>1533467
Still not a closed system. For every chemical operation, we generate chemical waste. Belief that we can maintain an infinitely sustainable world is just stupid.

>>1533473
If we literally killed off 9/10 of the people and maintained population there, humans would likely do a lot better in the coming hundreds of years.

>>1533458
>he probably advocated violent revolution as a possible solution.

No, not a possible solution.

Seriously, read Capital. He literally spells it out that capitalism is so dynamic and self-perpetuating that the *only* way to stop it's "oppression" is by force of arms.

>>1533475
> Belief that we can maintain an infinitely sustainable world is just stupid.
But who said that?

>>1533482
Capital doesn't present one cohesive explanation of capitalism.

>>1533475
What operation though? We take shit from space and bring it back to earth, that's way less damaging to the environment than strip mining like assholes. It's not infinite but if done right it will last tens of millions of years and by that point we'll be in fucking space anyways

>>1533483
What are you saying, then?

>>1533491
Processing any metal results in toxic products, you can't turn ore or purify metal without dangerous chemicals. These chemicals are produced and need to go somewhere. They pretty much always go into the ground.

At the rate we manufacture, this will do severe damage to the oceans and other ecosystems, given a few hundred years.

>>1533195

He didn't say that socialism would inevitably follow the collapse of capitalism. He said it would follow a collapse caused specifically by capitalism reaching its full potential and still falling short of people's needs. A collapse caused by the degradation of the system would lead to reversion to a more primitive system.

Marx based his assumption on the idea that Capitalism replaced Feudalism because Feudalism had reached the peak of its potential and could not advance any further due to shortcomings inherent in the system. He reasoned that since Capitalism, in his belief, had similar (though less severe) shortcomings, it too would reach a point where it could not advance any further and would collapse in favor of a system with fewer inherent failings built on top of the foundation laid by Capitalism. This he predicted to be Socialism, which itself would collapse in the face of its own shortcomings to make way for Communism, the end stage where the workers of the world are united and self governing and share ownership of the world.

Clearly, Communism could never exist based on human nature. Marx believed that the predominant system of the day reflected the current state of human nature, which could evolve. He saw Feudalism give way to Capitalism, which does not work so long as people are overly clannish and agrarian. He thought that as economic systems evolved, so would people and their values. The masses who, under capitalism, value private property would cease to do so when such a system no longer benefited them, that is once Capitalism could not develop any further and their only option for a better life was Socialism.

Marx is an example of the logic of an argument working but the argument being invalid based on the details. He was writing fairly early in the development of Capitalism, so it shouldn't be surprising that he got a lot of assumptions wrong (Capitalism has proven more effective than he thought at overcoming its challenges).

>>1533495
That's why we process them in space or we create more environmentally friendly ways to process them.

>>1533492
That post-scarcity economics doesn't mean everything has zero scarcity.

Your argument is retarded
>marx says utopia
>but utopia is impossible because infinity is impossible
>therefore utopia is impossible
>marx was wrong and we should all just be happy with non utopia

>>1533497
Not to mention, Marx didn't present that as the one, true explanation of capitalism. He presented alternate explanations in different contexts.

>>1533502
Utopia isn't infinite resources

>>1533489
I don't care if it does, I don't agree with it anyway, I'm just telling you what Karl Marx actually believed and advocated.

He has literally been whitewashed by the Fabian socialists of the 60s into some kind of economic "reformer", and not the violent revolutionary that he was.

>>1533499
Right, so when science fiction is not science fiction everything will be a-okay.

>>1533497
Capitalism is so far not-self correcting. Markets are the self-regulating feature of capitalism, but they don't regulate the concentration of capital very well at all.

>>1533511
>violent revolutionary

show me a peaceful one.

>>1533502
You're taking my points in the most absurd way possible, it's unfair. Also I'm somewhat Marxist.

I'm not saying we should be satisfied with capitalism, I'm arguing against post-scarcity socialism.

>>1533515
It's not that implausible though, technology is advancing at an exponential rate, we're farther and farther ahead every year, we'll probably all end up with our consciousness in a fucking machine before we need to worry about running out of resources

>>1533274
L O L ur so naive

>>1533522
>You're taking my points in the most absurd way possible, it's unfair.

>Belief that we can maintain an infinitely sustainable world is just stupid.

U srs, you're the one doing it.

>>1533511
Of course he advocated violent revolution. You're being dense and misunderstanding what I'm saying.

People are not one-shot philosophical theses that give only one single explanation for all things. Marx's biggest work advocates violent revolution. Yes. But, Marx isn't dumb enough to think he's above all criticism, reproach, that his ideas in Capital are infallible and perfect. When you're reading Capital, you're reading one very well-thought out, extensive argument about the state of capitalist society and it's history and future. Marx put alot of weight into it. But not exclusive weight. He gave alternate ideas because he knew he can't predict the future.

He literally admits he might be wrong and gives alternate views. Seriously, read more stuff on Marx. I'm really tired and bored of this really sharp attack on Marx that is so rigid. Yes, Marx was wrong in ways, but he isn't a one-trick pony.

>>1533497

Really, Marx could still end up being right in his big picture assumptions, but drastically wrong about the timeline because he was wrong about what would be the thing that constrains Capitalism from further development. It was arrogant of him to assume that he could identify such problems so early in Capitalism's development. The shortcomings that will one day cause Capitalism to fail may not be apparent, or applicable, for centuries. And they may end up being less exploitative of the worker, as Marx assumed, and something more along the lines of true post scarcity, where it becomes so easy to produce goods (and even many services) that the demand for labor drops so low that many people simply don't need to work for society to function. The fall of Capitalism and rise of Socialism is likely to be less of a triumphant revolution of the proletariat, and more a piecemeal set of answers to problems that crop up as the refinement of Capitalism lowers the demand for labor.

Of course, any system beyond Capitalism may end up being theoretical, as the world may be too fragile a place for Capitalism to advance far enough as to become obsolete. It may be far more likely for Capitalism to degrade to a more primitive system in the wake of some series of disasters or wars than it is to have a long enough period of sustained stability and prosperity to advance to its own end stage.

>>1533524
Environmental degradation, species extinction and climate change are also increasing exponentially.

>>1533533
I don't get your point. Can you explain clearly what the problem is with what I have said?

>>1533541
>I might be wrong
>But I'm going to advocated violent revolution as the solution anyway

Seems like a bad idea tbqhfam.

>>1533544
No one even implied that, but you took scarcity and utopia to their logical extremes.

>>1533195
I'm not a Marxist, but from what I heard about Marx, didn't he believe that every social order has contradictions under which it will eventually collapse? I believe communism or socialism is really possible within this century given the affinity of our (the millennials') generation for "social" mediums of all sorts - from social media, to horizontal tech startups, to the "sharing" economy - though these are not necessarily socialist concepts on their own, they promote collectivism. Indeed one can seldom do anything today compared to 10 years ago without "networking" or something otherwise "social" being rammed down one's throat. Also, with the information economy taking such an unprecedented central role in our lives today, the growing opposition to copyright laws has a potential to redefine our traditional conception of ownership. Finally, the 2008 recession in the US that beaconed a peak in economic inequality has played a defining role in the lives of many young people and the rise of figures such as Trump and especially Sanders has proven the millennials to be more receptive than previous generations to new ideas. With that said, what I believe about a possible socialist future is that it will be as shitty as anything, with the contradictions involving the inequality that democracy creates between socially alienated individuals and everyone else. To put it simply, because I am tired of typing, is that normies will form cliques that promote only the most beautiful, popular, most socially apt individuals, while marginalizing the pimply losers and autistic weirdos. "Real" socialism or communism, which has never been tried, will actually be a fucking nightmare for the individual, but great for the collective. If you have no problem finding words to say in response to Chad's inquiry about your thoughts on the newest capeshit, or the game last night, or if you play ASSFAGGOTS and actively follow esports, socialist collectivism will be great for you.

>>1533543
And we dont need animals on our planet, we just need to grow our own food.

Also climate change can be stopped while still encouraging exponential growth

>>1533554
And we dont really need you on our planet.

>>1533545
What's wrong with that? Can't handle a little strife?

>>1533549
Okay, so let's synthesize. I agree that we will probably have no lack of raw metals in the future. My biggest concern is the lack of future hydrocarbons, degradation of the environment, and potential collapse of ecosystems humans depend on, as well as overpopulation. I think these will be much more serious scarcities in the future than manufactured goods.

>>1533554
Oh right, so we don't need bees to pollinate, and we can use magic because anon is so confident in S C I E N C E that we won't have any complications.

You are way too confident in the abilities of the human animal.

>>1533557
Yet here I am, get over yourself you animal loving faggot.

>>1533561
We dont need flowers, we need trees

>>1533518
velvet revolution wasn't so bad

>>1533558
>My biggest concern is the lack of future hydrocarbons, degradation of the environment, and potential collapse of ecosystems humans depend on, as well as overpopulation. I think these will be much more serious scarcities in the future than manufactured goods.
This is what gulags are for anon.

>>1533569
>We dont need flowers, we need trees
Do you realize how stupid you sound right now?

>>1533558
>What's wrong with that? Can't handle a little strife?

I'd prefer not to be executed by secret police thanks.

>>1533573
Please tell me why we need flowers to live on this planet, trees are far more important for filtering out CO2

>>1533517

They don't, but Capitalism is not the unfettered free market. Yes, that is a form of Capitalism, but so is a regulated market. Capitalism is merely any system that relies on a market and private ownership of the means of production. It is far less rigid than Marx predicted, and its worse aspects can be moderated by governments. It is also able to survive as an overall economic system even while certain sectors become socialized. This allows hybrid systems, like welfare states or Nordic style "socialism" to exist, which are still very much capitalist systems, just without the more jagged edges. As governments face unrest or problems, they find it easy to calm the populace through such piecemeal efforts as welfare, old age and disability payments, nationalized healthcare, state sponsored education, and other programs which make it easier for those that would normally be left behind in an unfettered market to survive, and hope to thrive. Eventually, the concentration of wealth at the top is likely to become a problem, but not if the lives of people at the bottom and in the middle can continue to improve.

>>1533574
? What are you talking about

>>1533579
First, many trees are pollinated by bees, second, a huge amount of crops we eat are pollinated by bees, it's not just flowers. Do you have any education in biology, at all?

>>1533579


Are you fucking retarded? How does fruit work? How do you get more trees?

>>1533591
We dont need crops though, we would have vertical farming in regulated environments, we can also easily get robots to plant trees and maintain them.

>>1533558
>My biggest concern is the lack of future hydrocarbons
Green energy will be post scarcity. There will be more than enough electricity for everyone. Hydrocarbons will be used at a very small rate for certain applications.

>degradation of the environment
Which happens because more ecological forms of production cost more.

>potential collapse of ecosystems humans depend on
One would assume that people are self interested enough to preserve their ecosystems to some extent.

>overpopulation
That's a hard one, but humans seem to have lots of children when trying to make ends meet for some reason. Birth control will be post-scarcity. Things like education and shit will be post scarcity as well which seems to drive down childbirth rates, despite giving financial means to support more children.

>>1533583
I'm talking about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

>>1533606
>what happens with you cross commies with nazis

as I see it, capitalism is degenerate.

Capitalism is inherently degenerate... it destroys traditional societies, religions, and/or folk-cultures, it strips the land of traditional agrarian workers, and floods them into cities and slums.

but this degeneracy is not the end of it... for it does things... things that make a better world in the end.


Occasionally stories emerge from places like Iran, where people get in trouble for stuff like western pop music or dancing. Coca-Cola is drunk world wide.. Europe is largely atheist, and religious types are apathetic in modern societies.

I see in combination of these things something emerging, a secularist consumerism that will be/is/has effectively taking/taken the place of religion. Sure it's full of it's own sins, but I see it as a way to better society, to disarm the religious lunatics, and to basically sand-out the differences between peoples.

When everyone is consumerist, and consumerism is the uniting force, with multinational corporations and tax-haven countries ever weakening the old national governments, I think the stage will be set for something vaguely resembling marx's revolution.

>but I'm a faggot.

>>1533581
>hybrid systems
They're just inching closer to socialism anon.

>Eventually, the concentration of wealth
And there's the crux. You do realize not everyone 100% agrees with every word Max said. Certainly every single "Marxist" state has been run by revisionists.

So is /his/ just an extension of /pol/ because this entire thread wouldn't exist if more of you actually read the communist manifesto

>>1533598
>We dont need crops though, we would have vertical farming in regulated environments, we can also easily get robots to plant trees and maintain them.
Vertically grown crops don't need pollination? And no, robots is an absolutely absurd answer, given how expensive they are to maintain and how many crops we need.

>>1533600
>Green energy will be post scarcity. There will be more than enough electricity for everyone. Hydrocarbons will be used at a very small rate for certain applications.
[citation needed]

Not to mention green energy is not zero impact.

>Which happens because more ecological forms of production cost more.

Yes, at scale impossibly expensive.

>One would assume that people are self interested enough to preserve their ecosystems to some extent.

Intentionality isn't a part of this discussion

>That's a hard one, but humans seem to have lots of children when trying to make ends meet for some reason. Birth control will be post-scarcity. Things like education and shit will be post scarcity as well which seems to drive down childbirth rates, despite giving financial means to support more children.

It is a contradiction, yes, and one with no simple solution.

>>1533606
I mean what does that have to do with revolution?

>>1533238
Read the book you fucking idiot.

>>1533641
>Inching closer to socialism

Socialism is a completely different set of property relations anon.

File: your post.png (8KB, 958x244px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 958x244px

>>1533195
>>1533228
>>1533236
>>1533283
>>1533400
>>1533409
>>1533502
>marx
>utopia
At least read the fucking books before trying to post about it.

>>1534549
> MUH "SCIENTIFIC" SOCIALISM

>>1534565
>MUH RATIONAL COUNTERARGUMENTS

>>1533195
>Why are communists so dumb?
As somebody who Finished an economics class immediately before taking a political science class (In which marx was an extra credit assignment) I've pondered this for quite some time now

Having read Economics and Marx back to back, I felt I was the only one in my polsci who could give the writings of Marx an objective assessment; they are literally nonsense and therefor incapable of being understood

>>1534655
What is political science class like?

>>1534678
>What is political science class like?
If ever you took a government class in highschool, it's about 75% or more of the same stuff

>>1534680
I didn't so please elaborate
As far as I know government and politics in my school was just looking at the UK parliamentary system and then the American system. Is that what it's like? I'm moreso interested in political philosophy than that sorta stuff.

>>1534655
>they are literally nonsense
In what ways?

File: 51Jp4DYI6SL.jpg (49KB, 365x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 365x500px

>>1534695
>government and politics in my school was just looking at the UK parliamentary system and then the American system.
>Is that what it's like?
Pretty much
>I'm moreso interested in political philosophy than that sorta stuff.
Then you'll more than likely have to study it on your own time. Polsci was almost entirely about the mechanism, not the motivation; It's more a study of how it works rather than why it works

>>1534713
>In what ways?
So many that I wouldn't know where to start. I'd basically have to pick out a chapter of Das Kapital and just rebuke it one paragraph at a time.

However, if you have not done so in the past I encourage you to study more mainstream economics on your own time so you can see for yourself. I'm not talking fringe and oddball thinkers like Rand and Friedman, Really just any basic economics textbook is enough to give Marx a total rebuttal (pic related)

File: AYY.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>>1534770
>So many that I wouldn't know where to start.
yeah k

>>1534770
>Friedman

I assume you mean David and not Milton?

New Keynesian economics ( I.e mainstream ) is 5/6th Monetarist. http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/11/monetarism-the-hegemony-that-need-not-speak-its-name.html

Milton is a giant in mainstream macro.

>>1534655
Thank God You're so Rational Like A Fucking Positivist Genius

>>1534770
>I'd basically have to pick out a chapter of Das Kapital and just rebuke it one paragraph at a time.
HAha it's one of these fuckers

Cocky as fuck, make a blog and dissect Marx please, I really mean it, I'll have a fucking blast reposting your updates to philosophy forums to laugh at how retarded you are

File: laughing girls.png (348KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 449x401px

>>1534770
>I TOOK A 101 CLASS
>THEREFORE I CAN REFUTE MARX

The memes write themselves

File: reac.png (75KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 200x200px

>>1534770
>I wouldn't know where to start
>I'd basically have to pick out a chapter of Das Kapital and just rebuke it one paragraph at a time.

>>1533195
>return to feudalism
Mostly because technology has far surpassed the point that feudalism is attainable.

Were capitalism to actually collapse what would happen is either continued capitalism in a degenerated form or as Marx suggests a worker control of the means of production and subsequent communism. The latter being inevitable as long as the human race doesn't wipe itself out before we reach post-scarcity.

Not to mention capitalism collapsing doesn't necessarily mean the post-apocalypse, in this case it refers to a revolution breaking down the capitalist mode of society into something different.

>>1533236
>>>1533221
>Which is a horseshit utopian idea. Even historical materialism and the idea that ideology just mirrors the material base is completely bogus.

Historical materialism, if it is actually understood across the full scope of Marx's work, actually pretty clearly rejects technological determinism.

Leaving aside arguments about whether Marx's ideas were right, he was awful at summarizing his own work, and his summaries of historical materialism tend to be very reductionist. The technological determinism reading of his work is extremely reductionist, and doesn't really capture what he meant.

>>1533497

That's a ridiculously Hegelian reading of Marx.

Teleology has no place in historical materialism. History develops as a contingent result of classes trying to reproduce themselves AS THEY ARE, not because history as an agent demands it.

Capitalism replaced feudalism because the development of market determined rents on enclosed land in England led to a situation where tenant farmers became compelled to innovate the means of production in order to lower their production costs so they could continue selling food into a glutted market at enough of a profit to keep paying their market determined rents.

This, around 1650 was the accidental birth of capitalism's Law of Value, and led directly to the agricultural revolution in England, which in turn led to the industrial revolution.

Thee was no logical necessity or immanent tendency for Feudalism to result in capitalism, but once Capitalism's laws of motion came into existence, it's expansion could not be stopped.

Also, Marx did not believe in any such thing as a fixed human nature, he believed the very fact that humans have existed under radically different and contradictory modes of production proved that humans could not have any such fixed human nature.

>>1533195
there's literally nothing wrong with feudalism tho

>>1534655

I love how some insipid little undergrad takes one intro to econ course and thinks it gives him the tools to dismiss one of the most important economists of all time.

You literally have no idea of what you are talking about, you arent even capable of identifying the hostility of assumptions that precludes any dialog between those approaches that doesn't amount to pure empiricism (I'm which neoclassical economics does quote badly I might add, since none of their models can actually be made to match reality at all well).

>>1535022
fucking undergraduates, am i right?

>>1534776
>>1534786
>>1534795
>>1535022
>Here come the fanboys, flustered that somebody dare attack their sacred cow
On an economical level, Marx is such garbage that a simple econ 101 class is the ONLY thing needed to refute it. This is analogous to how just a basic cognitive science class (IE, Neurology and/or psychology) is enough to refute the entire canon of Phrenology.

Remember, we are not discussing somebody who was business owner, an investor, a merchant, or even a fucking academic on this topic. This man is not even worth of being called an absent minded professor, he was nothing more than a common activist. Had it not been for the rise of the USSR (which many modern Marxists heavily quarrel as to weather or not it was "real communism") he would have just been another forgotten relic of the 19th century

>>1535022
>I love how some insipid little undergrad takes one intro to econ course and thinks it gives him the tools to dismiss one of the most important economists of all time.
One of the most important Economist of all time? According to whom? Marxists and nobody else?

I would go as far as saying Marx not even economical in nature. Economics is about the study of scarcity, or rather how people deal with it. Marx is about wealth redistribution, it's baseline assumption is that there is a Surplus

>>1536215
It's funny how people who have never taken Econ 101 say this. They probably think socialism means command economy welfare state too.

>>1535022
You don't even need basic econ classes to BTFO Marx, the only way post-scarcity works is if you completely ignore the laws of physics and biology

>>1536245
>not knowing what post scarcity means

>>1536215

More overconfident ignorant undergraduate drivel.

You don't even learn enough neoclassical economics to do more than mindlessly repeat platitudes in an Econ 101 class, and you are going to presume to talk about other streams of economic thought you know literally nothing about?

You don't even realize that multiple non-neoclassical approaches to economics exist (I.e. Saffrian, Marxian, non-synthesis Keynesian, other Institutionalist approaches) and you are on here puffing out your chest like you know something.

You are literally the poster child for modern neoclassical economics intro courses serving as nothing more than propaganda, particularly given how much of what you are taught in an intro course is demonstrably empirically wrong.

>>1536250
>Post-scarcity is a theoretical economy in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely
Only, y'know, the only way you can keep this up at this rate of population growth is if you start culling

>>1536251
>Another marx fanboy getting sphincter shattered
Nothing to see here, folks

>>1536253
Post-scarcity doesnt ahve anything to do with marxism dummy

marxism is is a /b/tard thought up a economic and political system.

>>1536270

At which point did I defend Marxian economics?

All I said was that some overconfident undergraduate who took an Econ 101 course and read at best the Manifesto and the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy was in no position to meaningfully advocate or attack either of them.

File: btfo.png (5KB, 207x125px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 207x125px

>>1536271
Durr

>>1536250
Let's get one thing straight; We are not living in a post scarcity world, not the way that food is currently produced (by farming, the same way it has always been produced)

as of this moment in time, scarcity may be inoculated (in the first world) but that doesn't mean it is a problem that has been solved once and for all. Remember: Food a food supply is something that needs to be continuously maintained

Any number of things could happen that disrupt or hamper our ability to feed our own countries (Famine, climate change, natural disaster, pests, disease, market volatility). Modern governments go to great length to maintain stability with their food prices. Not growth, not agressive expansion, not breakthroughs, just stability

>>1536253
Just limiting population growth. If you give women educations and things to do other than being mothers they tend to have fewer children. In the US women high school graduates average less than 2 children. Numerous studies have correlated education with declining birth rates. Japan even has a shrinking population. How is that counter to physics and biology?

>>1536276
>At which point did I defend Marxian economics?
right here >>1535022
specificially when you referred to Marx as
>one of the most important economists of all time.

At what point did I say I am currently an undergraduate and that Econ 101 and The manifesto compose everything I know about Economics and Marx respectively?


and you accuse somebody else of being overconfident and ignorant

>>1536303
How? Euthanize niggers? I agree, but those bleeding hearts at the UN might have a thing or two to say.

And that's only if the amount of arable land stays the same. which it won't; due to
>rising sea levels
>increasing soil pollution
>changing climate

Oh, and let's leave food alone; what about oil and the other non-edibles that make the wheels of society go round and round?

>>1536297
And? No one implied such a thing. Post scarcity either comes after the collapse of capitalism or will completely change market capitalism as we know it. Post scarcity is the theoretical turning point that causes socialism to become communism, and I wouldn't necessarily agree with Marx on that point.

>>1536330
Development is the most powerful contraceptive.

After hydrogen cyanide.

>>1536340
Yes, but many of those high fertility countries consider women as nothing more than brood mares, so your only way of developing them is by force

A socialist utopia is literally inevitable as technology progresses

>>1536215
You're really, really retarded.

t. major in economics

>>1536330
You do realize there are things like recycling and renewable energy and people have the ability to change lifestyles. Nothing is going to prevent heat death of the universe not even capitalism. You don't live the same way your ancestors did.

Post scarcity doesn't mean infinity. It means within a time frame resources are so abundant relative to demand that scarcity is not the primary consideration in the distribution of goods.

I know you like being an edgy faggot, but studies have also correlated better education and opprotunity with lower fertility rates even in Africa.

>>1536337
>And?
I'm just saying, that post scarcity is much harder to achieve than it sounds. As long as food needs to be grown out of the ground, the world is not post scarcity.

>Post scarcity either comes after the collapse of capitalism or will completely change market capitalism as we know it
I have my doubts. We have seen scarcity become near nonexistent before; Remember how salt used to be as valuable as gold? The world of capital didn't crumble into oblivion, it simply redeployed to take advantage of the changing market.

Even if every basic need is fulfilled, there will always be wants and nothing short of Star Trek's replicator and holodeck can permanently solve that

>>1536365
>You do realize there are things like recycling and renewable energy and people have the ability to change lifestyles
1. You assume the oil and coal lobby will just let it go
2. You assume the people will change their lifestyle because, what, you told them to?

>It means within a time frame resources are so abundant relative to demand that scarcity is not the primary consideration in the distribution of goods.

Which is basically, never ever? Greed is the most powerful emotion of all

>but studies have also correlated better education and opprotunity with lower fertility rates even in Africa
yeeees, but first you gotta get that better education and opportunity there, but oops, not only do they distrust the West, the Chinese are already there

>>1536362
Care to elaborate?

>>1533195
Funny thing is Marx's capitalism is gone. And modern capitalism sounds like something he would have liked.

I don't like modern Marxists, but the man himself did have highly reasonable complaints about his own time period, what they don't seem to understand is that we don't live in that world any more.

>>1536325

His importance to the history and development of economic thought has nothing to do with whether I agree with him.

You also asserted that Econ 101 was sufficient to "debunk" Marx, which is exactly the kind of flippant reductionism undergrads are known for.

Besides, trying to attack Marxian economics from Neclassicism's premises is like using Catholic doctrine to argue against Hinduism.

Usually only undergrads are insipid enough to not realize how idiotic and futile a pursuit that is.

In the meantime, maybe you should look into the circularity of marginal utility theory, it might expand your horizons a little bit.

>>1536377
Marx's work built upon and improved the works of adam smith and ricardo. He solved some of the problems in their works and failed to solve others, but he was an important economist of the classical tradition that could be considered "orthodox" for his time. He certainly was an academic in the topic, and pretending that he wasn't just because he doesn't conform to what you learned in your neoclassical class or pretending that he was some kind of economic loony just shows how little you know of the subject. Your posts reek of dunning kruger.

>>1536376
>You assume the oil and coal lobby will just let it go
>new energy source is cheaper than fossil fuels, because of an improvement in alternative energy, or a shortage of fossil fuels
>people buy the cheaper product
>?????????

>>1536399
>trying to attack Marxian economics from Neclassicism's premises is like using Catholic doctrine to argue against Hinduism
>comparing systems of economics to systems of religious faith

>>1536407
Not him but seems about right.

>>1536407

It's an analogy, does it help if I say attacking Plato from Aristotle's assumptions? Every school economic thought necessarily is underpinned by a set of assumptions which must be taken axiomatically.

>>1536413
>>1536417
Seriously, I'm still confused.

>this doesn't work
>WELL IT WORKS WITHIN ITS OWN SYSTEM

Like, shouldn't the point of economics be to set measurable goals and achieve them?

>>1536402
There is no way it'll be cheaper than fossil fuels, trust me.

And even if it is, the lobbies will bribe and harangue the government in halting it, and the public in fearing it, like they did with nuclear energy

>>1536373
No one ever said post scarcity was easy. What it is is a prerequisite for theoretical end stage communism. Salt is a single commodity. Air isn't scarce in the economic definition either. There's a tipping point where only a marginal amount of labor is required to survive. Furthermore if you want to talk wants vs needs, the maxim to each according to his needs applies to needs. Marx thought men should be able to utilize their labor to pursue their wants. He was optimistic and thought those would be productive wants.

>>1536423
Most of economics is ridiculous assumptions mixed with unfalsifiable statements. Hence why i agreed with his comparison with religions.

>>1536424
>humans continue to extract fossil fuels
>the more is extracted, the more difficult it becomes to extract more
>prices reflect the increasingly challenging deposits
>eventually, the price exceeds that of alternatives

Wind power is already pretty close, actually.

>>1536423

And you think neoclassical economics does this? The best neoclassical models ever developed of the economy have such a low predictive value that it is literally laughable.

An undergrad wouldn't know this though.

>>1536376
Which is why Marx said it could only happen after capitalism collapsed. He thought capitalism would not have the incentives to drive technological change to the point of post scarcity. You don't even know what you're trying to argue against.

>>1536437
Which is incredibly useless and doesn't produce enough energy for a 10th of the world's need?

>>1536399
>You also asserted that Econ 101 was sufficient to "debunk" Marx
Because it is. Anything else after that is just beating a dead horse.

FYI, my econ 101 class was not exclusively a study on neoclassical economic philosophers. It was a very broad introduction to the topic, cataloging everything from thinkers of the age of enlightenment to present speculation on the 2008 recession
>>1536400
>He solved some of the problems in their works
Such as?

>He certainly was an academic in the topic
Presently, some century post mortem, yes. Not while he was alive

>>1536449
Concrete and steel aren't exactly rare resources.

You'd be right that at the current level, if new technologies don't come about, living standards will drop significantly.

However, living standards in the industrialized world are anywhere between 20 and 50 times that of the pre-industrial world.

If we assume that a total elimination of fossil fuels would reduce the current economic output of the developed world by half, we're still way better off than before.

And that isn't getting into the increasing pressure for things like nuclear reprocessing, that would actually begin to exist once the current technology isn't meeting demand.

>>1533195
His problem can be boiled down to two (2) inherent mistakes: That all men are equal, and that all men are inherently good

>>1536439
>An undergrad wouldn't know this though.
He's not the "undergrad" your smug ass has been talking down to. I am.

and before you make another cringeworthy comment on neoclassical economics, please read this post >>1536456

>>1536397
Still no solution to the accumulation and concentration of capital, especially inherited capital not derived from the labor of the individual. Markets don't regulate that and inheritance is based on anti market principles. Needs more taxes on the rich and inheritance taxes.

At that point you're just democratizing the fruits of capital rather than control over capital itself, leading to rich people complaining about gobs medals because a welfare state is a backwards but workable solution to preserving capitalism.

And with high inheritance taxes, capital is really only owned privately during your life.

>>1536480
>gibsmedats
Fucking autocorrect

>>1536456
>Because it is. Anything else after that is just beating a dead horse.
Debunk him then. I'm not even a marxist, but you're ridiculous. I'll be waiting.

>Such as?
He managed give an explanation for the creation of new value by the workers without breaking the ltov, which ricardo and smith failed to do. He also explained how to reconcile the different "organic compositions of capital", as he called it, in different industries with a single rate of profit across them, which ricardo and smith failed to do (although his explanation is garbage in my opinion). He managed to give a better explanation for the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Etc.


Seriously, you're retarded.

>>1536456

Can you even define the basic framework and concepts of Marxian economics?

>>1536472

Condescension is well deserved for people who feel that can smugly dismiss entire approaches to economics without knowing , substantive about them.

>>1536397
>Funny thing is Marx's capitalism is gone
Is it? People in textile factories in Bangladesh making 20 cents a day would disagree. Or Chinese workers at foxconn being worked to the point of suicide.

>>1536426
>No one ever said post scarcity was easy. What it is is a prerequisite for theoretical end stage communism.
Frankly, I say that's WAAAAAY too far down the road to worry about. Those of us living in the present short be more focused on our immediate and intermediate concerns

>He (Marx) was optimistic and thought those would be productive wants.
Optimistic is an understatement

>Marx.
>Still politically relevant.
Yet balding middle class white men who live in sheltered communities still worship him.

>>1536518
Post-scarcity is like hard science fiction for economists. (Utopian welfare state is like space opera for the masses) Some people think it's trivial and inconsequential. Other people enjoy speculating about a future with new paradigms like space colonization and robots, offering insights as humanity walks down that path one step at a time. But no, it probably won't happen in you lifetime. A hundred years of robotic development later, it will probably become increasingly relevant. The best way to look at these visions of the future are not their predictive value but the insights they offer as humanity progresses. He's not a prophet.

>>1536215
>This is analogous to how just a basic cognitive science class (IE, Neurology and/or psychology) is enough to refute the entire canon of Phrenology.
This isn't even fucking true, in a 101 class they TELL you phrenology is bunk, but it doesn't make you sophisticated enough to do the science and statistics to prove it's bunk.

>>1536510
Low pay because productivity is low. Their wages are rising as well. Why would they work in a multinational corporation's factory if they had a better option?

>>1536480
>Still no solution to the accumulation and concentration of capital

Creative destruction

>>1536215
>One of the most important Economist of all time? According to whom? Marxists and nobody else?
There is plenty of citation, work, praise and recognition by mainstream neoliberal economics for Marx. It's not my fault you're so conceited you don't look for evidence before posting!

>>1536594
Gee I still don't see any evidence.

> Minor post Ricardian

Marx BTFO by Paul Samuelson

>>1536397
Marx recognized many different capitalisms.

>>1536456
>It was a very broad introduction to the topic, cataloging everything from thinkers of the age of enlightenment to present speculation on the 2008 recession
This is hysterically funny

>>1536583
Lack of capital(opprotunity) and needing to meet basic needs. Both of which are problems socialism attempts to remedy. But it's generally faster and more reliable to join a trading bloc and seek foreign capital investment(using capital from a developed country) than developing your own capital.

As long as capitalists can move capital from one nation to another, they can make nations compete for them and societies won't be able to seize the means of production.

>>1536621
The lack of capital is reflected in the low productivity. Trade is good for developing nations, seizing the means of production is not.

>>1533462
>>Just accept that the future of humanity is strife until death.

Nope, because that's bullshit. Pessimism ultimately has a poor track record.

>>1536588
I don't think that really applies, but I do like Schumpeter's Marxian analysis and the distinction between entrepreneurs and capitalists. That is a fascinating contribution to economic thought. He actually thought corporatism would kill capitalism like a cancer though.

>>1536644
You asked why they would choose to work like that. Because of lack of capital which as we agree results in poor productivity for their labor. Therefore they sell their wage labor to someone with capital. The owner of the capital pays for the wage labor at rates close to the low productivity no capital labor and profits off of the difference in value between labor with no capital and labor with his capital.

So again, it basically comes down to capital. The fact that basic needs have to be met means it's excessively difficult for them to raise their own capital.

>>1536602
You're still barking up this tree?

I'm going to give you one piece of advice for your undergraduate future: stop acting like you know anything.

>>1536673
My point was that the nation has a lack of capital, capital ( owner by the capitalists of course ) per worker is low, which is the root of low productivity, not because the worker himself doesn't own much capital as this would lead to low productivity anyway in a communal system. Wages track the marginal productivity of labour so profits aren't normally that large. What you are suggesting doesn't happen although some capitalists do break contracts but that's a failure of the legal and policing system.

>>1536649
Wanting to endure hardship is a sign of strength, not of weakness.

>>1536659
Capital accumulates in the hands of the big companies owners, creative destruction occurs and that capital is lost as the entrepreneur brings down the existing state of play as he is on his way up, fulfilling his role in the drama.

>>1536682
I'm not the idiot who was posting that but I've been watching the debate.

>Minor post Ricardian

I'm still not seeing much evidence of
"neoliberal" mainstream economists commending Marx. Only one I can think off is Schumpeter and he is neither modern nor (entirely) mainstream.

File: 1435309626860.jpg (73KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 396x382px

>Another gommunism thread
I'll never understand /his/'s fascination with this tired old subject

>>1536735
They're bitter history nerds who want attention; but don't know how else to get it anymore, otherwise than through pointless flame wars.

>>1536735
>stop discussing history on the history board!

>>1536741
>Stop discussing the same thing we have trending in three other threads at any given time
FIFY

>>1536685
I said as much when it comes to seeking foreign capital investment. It's ultimately an issue of access to capital no matter how you phrase it. No native capital means no access to native capital. Saying individual and communal capital in the same sentence like that is nonsensical.

The point I disagree with is wages correlating with marginal productivity. The function is the relative opprotunity cost of the next alternative. There are still lots of sustenance agrarian non industrialized labor markets to tap into, meaning a factory might be the only alternative in town for the individual, but there are many undeveloped villages to build a factory for the capitalist, although he needs to consider matters of logistics.

I'm not even saying it's bad for them compared to the alternative. I'm simply talking about the distribution of profits based on wage-labor and capital, and saying the explanation is capital.

>>1536783
Sorry your phrasing in your previous response made me mention individual and communal capital.

What you mention about labour moving from sustinance farming is like the Lewis model.
Many developing countries ( China, Vietnam and Bangladesh among others I think ) have seen wages track productivity although they might ( must? ) Be beyond the "take off point" where the sustinance farming labour dries up.

>>1536821
I would argue that it comes from development of local capital in the form is skills and connections for the individual, and infrastructure, logistics, reputation, etc which competitors can take advantage of and a company can not claim exclusive rights to, so it is essentially communal capital. Keeping in line with the concept of next best option.

The wages track the productivity and value added of this communal and individual capital, as it gives those workers a competitive advantage versus converting farmers to workers. Wages grow in proportion to the additional value productivity that is not controlled by individual capitalists (the effectively communal capital and skills) not by overall productivity, and not in proportion to the productivity of the capitalist's capital.

So I still think it's access to capital.

>>1536215
Can we get this kid banned?

File: image.jpg (104KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x667px

>>1533333
Nobody checked his quints
Bad omen for 7 years