Marxism lost any credibility it once had 40+ years ago, so why

>>1944673
Because we are totally better than the people of the past. We can do what they failed at just because.

how many people are actually for marxism? or actualy communism aside from 'well wouldn't that be nice if we could all get along...'

most marxist academics i've known and read papers by wouldn't call themselves communist or marxist in a political sense and often only use it as a term to say 'here i'm going to analyse this thing looking mainly at class structures and maybe a sprinkling of marx's dialectic will show through'

>>1944678
>We're totally better than the people of the past.
We really aren't.

>>1944681
I know a couple of people who describe themselves as communists but they are mostly bourgeoisie college students who like to argue with their conservative parents. I personally don't know anyone who is both working class and a communist.

File: 1388470654573.jpg (39KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x399px

>>1944690
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm

>>1944705
Bloody hell.

>>1944699
You are not from a former communist country, are you?

>>1944699

there are certainly some still about, but it's such a tiny number they're not worth thinking about (different in non first-world countries though >>1944874 )

Because the vast majority of marxists oppose the soviet union.

Many good sociologists are often also Marxists; I don't care for the morals of Marxism, but I can respect it as a method of understanding the social world today.

>>1944673
>make a thread bashing communism
>get told
>just make a new one to loose the people educating you
>repeat daily

>>1944901
>make new revolution bashing capitalism
>get [collapsed]
>just say it wasn't real communism to loose the evidence chasing you
>repeat daily

>>1944929
>loose

>>1944889
Who do you mean as the vast majority of Marxists? the Chinese?

Theoretically it's a good idea, but it's not compatible with the competitive nature of humanity, thus impossible at a large scale.
Retards are still for it because they are retards.

>>1944964
>Muh Human Nature

>>1944964
this is always regurgitated in this discussion. has it been proven by science. I mean really, you can completely blame the soviets for failing they lost the cold war, maybe what people really mean by 'competition' is that communism is less able to sustain itself in a wartime and thus less competitive to t&e alternative? Seems alittle shitty to say my shiny new toy doesn't work when someone intentionally broke it.

Marxism will always be attractive because he elucidated what capitalism is really all about and his analysis is as valid today as it was then.

Whether or not a global revolution against capitalism will be worth the trouble like I dunno man. At the end of the day your boss always pays you less than you produce and you can't tap dance around this.

>>1944673
nice try disinformation agent/cuck

>>1946005
You can try to negotiate your wage.
You'll probably get BTFO'd.
Then you'll look for a place where you can be paid the real value of your labor. Protip: you won't find it.
Then you'll settle flipping burgers for minimum wage and jacking off to Marx on your spare time.
Unless you actually decide to seize things in your hand and provide a product/service to society by your own merit (starting your own thing).
Welcome to Capitalism

>>1946072
I'm a well paid software engineer, thank you very much.

Great rebuttal though! Really activated my almonds.

Хopoшaя книгa, coвeтyю

>>1944673
>le stalinism is the only true marxism

You're literally falling for Soviet propaganda

>>1944964
The human nature argument fails because capitalism allows humans to act on their greed and abuse other en masse.

>>1946086
дa? я дyмaл coлжeницын был дocтaтoчнo oбычным нaциoнaлиcтoм
хoтя cмeшнo былo кoгдa из гapвapдa eгo пpиглacили, дyмaли мoл либepaл, нaш пaцaн, и oн нaчaл яpocтнo пиздeть пpo зaгoвop бoльшeвикoв-eвpeeв

Give atleast one(1) reason for why the workers should not own what they produce and instead have it go to a person who have never worked a day in their life. Give me one(1) reason why the rich elite should hold absolute dictatorial power over the economy and everything it influences instead of a democratic rule of the economy.

File: 1.png (628KB, 1208x1148px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1208x1148px

>>1944699
I'm a working class communist and I've basically been gentrified out of it by weird rich people who are afraid of hard work or violence. I've basically disgraced myself with social democracy because communism is too thoroughly infiltrated by the fugging bourgeoisie

>>1946150
Because the average worker doesn`t even know to save small amounts of money.

>>1946150
>Give atleast one(1) reason for why the workers should not own what they produce and instead have it go to a person who have never worked a day in their life
because the workers didn't buy the equipment or raw resources they are producing with, among other things

>>1946230
The workers desgined, gathered, transported, organized and everything else involved in the process of production while some dude sat back and did nothing but have his name slapped on a piece of land that is his becuase he has the money to buy enough fire power to make sure it stays that way.
>>1946207
Funnily enough worker coops seems to be much more money efficent with spending and investments as less of it goes to insane bonuses for the top dogs

File: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.jpg (48KB, 498x460px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 498x460px

>>1944929

>>1946092
that's human and animal nature in general

File: 1464515440573.jpg (42KB, 588x597px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 588x597px

>>1946257
[citation needed]

>>1944678
You say this jokingly but many people genuinely believe this.

>>1944889
This simply isn't true.

File: IMG_0336.jpg (113KB, 704x514px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 704x514px

>>1944934

>>1945844
>the Soviets never attempted to undermine the US
They had both covertly attacked each other repeatedly and the Soviets lost. This victimization of the KGB is embarrassing, honestly.

File: bernie15.jpg (95KB, 557x867px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 557x867px

Stupid people never learn.

A lot it is clearly retarded. For example if everyone received exactly the same for working, why the hell would I want to become a manager who gets shit loads of work when I can just be the guy who stamps letters and barely do anything? You'll just end up with millions of unskilled workers because realistically for a lot of people the idea of having more is what motivates them.

>>1946072
You could also overthrow your country's government and watch as millions of people starve under the inevitable new regime of historically and economically illiterate tyrants.

I'll keep my desk job, thanks.

>>1946005
>At the end of the day your boss always pays you less than you produce and you can't tap dance around this.

Except insofar as whatever him or his company has enabled you to enhance your production, which he has a very valid claim on.

>>1946285
Maybe it wouldn't be as retarded if you stopped being a complete retard only making up strawmen about it based on not having read a single fucking word about what your talking about.

>>1946282
>wow, this image with impact font sure showed me the error in my ways
>golly gee, I wish I was as wise as whoever made this witty and insightful commentary

File: marx.jpg (125KB, 630x699px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 630x699px

>>1946005
>marx
>valid theories
>buhu I don't get paid a billion a year

Great "arguments".

>>1946309
>buhu I don't get paid a billion a year
Great summary of marxism, anon. I don't know why he wasted his time writing 2000+ pages of economic theory in das kapital really.

>>1946247
>The workers desgined, gathered, transported, organized and everything else involved in the process of production
and every step of the way they needed the resources possessed by the owner to do so

>>1946313
>muh property
Marx read Stirner, did you?

>>1946150
>and instead have it go to a person who have never worked a day in their life
Do Marxists even recognise the sheer level of cringeworthy butthurt that they embody when they say shit like this?

The vast majority of business owners hold other jobs prior to attaining their current positions. Most businesses require several years of dedicated work experience before management positions even become an option.

>>1946312

Probably because he was a retarded socialist? I mean he can't work for money so he'd rather bitch and moan in a book instead.

>>1946325
Could you quote a part where he "bitches and moans"?

>>1946331

From the first word til the last word.

>>1946333
Perhaps a single line from his vast work anon, it shouldn't be too hard since it's all he does. Otherwise one might reach the unimaginable conclusion that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

>>1946313
Who only owned them by threat of violence so that he could continue to get richer by doing nothing. But if you're absolutely fine with licking some rich dudes boots all day thats fine by me.
>>1946323
Boohoo. a few of them had to attend some menial jobs before they inherited their parents wealth.

File: IMG_5171.jpg (78KB, 736x501px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 736x501px

>>1946302
What part of his post is a strawman?

He's right, the law of supply and demand means that people WILL do less work if there is no incentive otherwise. They will also consume more resources as long as there is no penalty for doing so, hence Soviet bread lines.

Were these people "strawmanning" too?

File: 1461671626510.jpg (97KB, 696x462px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 696x462px

>>1946348
>Boohoo. a few of them had to attend some menial jobs before they inherited their parents wealth.

>>1946354
Becuase nowhere in the works does it says that everyone should get the exact same compensation for any kind of work. Somewhere in the heads of retards they read that workers should own the means of production and through some alchemy of words they get to
>EVERYONE GETS THE SAME
>IF YOU WORK HARD PEOPLE WILL TAKE EVERYTHING YOU OWN
>IF YOU DECIDE TO MAYBE DECORATE YOUR TOOTHBRUSH IT WILL BE IMMIDIEATELY SEIZED AND GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE

File: marx.png (69KB, 369x364px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 369x364px

>>1946346

“But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.”

>>1946376
But if you were to incentivise doing jobs which require more effort that would generate wealth inequality now wouldn't it? Doesn’t that defeat the point of ‘muh workers revolution’ in the first place if someone were to just end up receiving more?

File: IMG_5173.jpg (78KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 350x500px

>>1946312
Great point.

I'm still waiting on someone to refute Stan Lee's Spiderman. After all, there's more than 58,000 pages of content to debunk, I doubt if ANYONE possesses oratory capable of rebutting such a dense and thoroughly constructed thesis.

>>1946354
Not him but

>What part of his post is a strawman?
You are implying communists defend something they don't. The definition of a straw man.

>He's right, the law of supply and demand means that people WILL do less work if there is no incentive otherwise.
Partially true, but not quite. In primitive societies work effort was related to societal pressure, not to monetary incentives. In the early days of the industrial revolution, the supply curve of labor was believed to be inverted: higher wages meant less work since workers paid more than subsistence wage could chose to increase their leisure time (which was practically non existent). Even today, both effects coexist. So the determinant of work effort is not so linear.
And in any case, industrial democracy seems to me like a context in which workers have great incentive to work.

>Were these people "strawmanning" too?
This sentence makes no sense, anon.

>>1946387
>there are people this dumb on /his/

>>1946348
>Boohoo
>a few of them
>they inherited their parents wealth
You realize these are not arguments, right? Have you even considered the possibility that you grossly overestimate the value of your own labor? Wouldn't this serve as a reasonable explanation as to why the vast majority of Westerners are unwilling to depart from capitalism or are at least complicit with it? Meanwhile, Venezuelans today (and Russians before them) risked their lives regularly to escape Socialism.

>>1946380
>descriptive sentence
>whining

>>1946387
Well, surely someone who compares Spiderman to Marx must have the intellect to do it.

>>1946386
Despite all the memes and propaganda your head is full of socialism is not about absolute equality at any costs. Just because someone pointed to the current system and said this is really fucking unfair doesn't mean that in a different slightly more equal society the equality gestappo is going to kick in your door for having a nice chair you made. The vast amount of inequality running rampart today is mostly created out of private propety enforced with violence and a state that is merely a puppet of the biggest private property owners that do the most they can to keep things the way they are.

>>1946410
Do you genuinly you believe the "you can be a brazzilionaire only if you try" meme

>>1946348
>Who only owned them by threat of violence so that he could continue to get richer by doing nothing.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "threat of violence". Are you talking about government guarantees for personal property?
No matter what you mean though, your argument is garbage. The fact is there are many, many costs associated with businesses besides labor. Workers do not pay any of them.

Marxism as a scientifically rigorous doctrine died with Karl Kautsky. Ever since the 1920s, Marxism in the West is best understood as an intellectual culture that absorbed thinkers who stood waaaaay outside the common definitions of Marxism as doctrine (Foucault can be considered a Marxist philosopher, even though he is far closer to reactionary in practice).

Marxism as an intellectual culture is popular because it gives intellectuals as a caste a easy way to achieve power in a society, either through the instrumentalization of any social conflict through Marxist lens, or, in countries like Italy and Brazil, through its popularity as the doctrine of intellectuals itself.

File: penn_jillette.jpg (31KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x400px

>>1946440
>psychological explanation of an ideology
This should be a bannable offense. Pure speculation that doesn't add anything to the discussion and contradicts a million other psychological explanation that retards like to make about ideologies they don't like.

File: 1466947511602.png (484KB, 600x1373px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 600x1373px

>>1946439
And all of these things can be managed by the workers for the workers

>>1944699
no offense but historically the "working class" is too ignorant to be successfully anything. They are constantly led by the more educated aristocracy/bourgeosie. Thats why most revolutions are started by educated but somehow disenfranchised or liberal or not as rich as the ruling class people.

>>1946354
>Soviet bread lines
>czarist-era signs

>>1946434
Remove "only" and that claim is truth.

>>1946457
The owner is a worker

>>1944673
You just cannot go over marxism.

>>1946358
social mobility still exists

>>1946457
nope! in order for a large operation to be efficient, at some point there have to be managers and overseers. and the top one is what you refer to as the "owner".

>>1946612
>>1946640
A manager is not an owner, retards. I could buy the stocks of a company and make money without moving a finger.
And yes, people with a more general overview are generally needed in a company, which doesn't imply the need for a hierarchical structure.

>>1946640
No one is arguing for the removal of managers, they are a vital part of a productive industry. In fact most managers aren't the ones raking in the surplus value of workers.
>>1946612
Yes, often in smaller businesses the owner work along side the workers and take part in the production but in much larger corporations no, the owner rarely does much of anything, in fact thats how venture capitalists became a thing. rich old dudes who have no idea what to do with their money hand it over to others to manage it.

>>1946640
And? Worker owned coops hire CEOs what's your point?

>>1946651
No you couldn't make money off the stock market, you're too stupid. There are people much smarter than you paid to do that and they still don't get it right. Stop roleplaying.

>>1946668

In larger corporations, the owner is usually literally millions of shareholders who each own an infinitesimal piece of the company.

>>1946681
Are you literally retarded? I'm not taking about speculating with stock, i'm saying that owners of big companies are the stockholders not the managers. And the owners make their money through dividends without working, they don't manage the company, at least not in large companies.

File: amen.png (22KB, 1784x181px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1784x181px

>>1946681
>Stock markets
Even if you're somehow a stock magician you won't make much money of stocks. Most money in stocks are made through investments and then interactions within the world to make stock prices rise/fall. They don't jsut buyt and sell and look through their crystal balls to see what will happen. With zero influence in the world and just some money even if you're the smartest economist who have ever lived you're gonna need some real good luck to get anything out of it.

Resentment. Also feelings that capitalism is cruel to many people, and grabbing the most obvious alternative without proper consideration.

>>1944673
Because the same socio-economic dissatisfaction that made Marxism so popular to begin with still exists in some form. People would like to think that there has to be a better way, thus you get the "not muh Communism" argument. That, and people have short memories.

Well argued.

>>1946626
Which is why I smuganimefaced that commie retard.

File: 1416260475935.jpg (72KB, 630x891px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 630x891px

>>1946348
>Boohoo. a few of them had to attend some menial jobs before they inherited their parents wealth.

>mfw Orthodox Marxists STILL live in the 18th century

You keep using "marxism" synonymous with "communism"
Don't do that.