Why is he so brilliant and influential?

Ashkenazi genetics

maybe 100 years ago

>brilliant
He wasn't, in fact he was a retard

>influential
Lots of retards in the world

>>2017281
Because Steiner, spooks.

>>2017281
>Why is he so brilliant
Actually, he was an imbecile
>influential
One imbecile waxing idiotic is sure to appeal to other imbeciles

He's a genius.

his theories are just common sense really for anyone who has done a minimum wage job

>>2017323
>>2017348
>implying you've read marx
Even if ultimately wrong he was an advancement in every single aspect he studied. Materialism was a step up from hegelian idealism, his economicism is a step up from great men theories, his ltov is a step up from ricardo's ltov, he's one of the founding fathers of sociology, etc. If you compare his work with some of the people in his time he was incredibly advanced. Hell, he was explaining economic cycles based on how capital accumulation takes place while economists like Jevons thought they were the consequences of fucking sunspots.

>>2017967
People with minimum wage jobs aren't being paid to think so they wouldn't know.

>>2017283
>Khazar genes
Another Turkic victory

>>2017996
>t. college freshman who took an intro philosophy course

you're adorable when you think you're smart

>>2017963
>>2017967
back to rebbit

>>2018001
You don't have to be paid to think to actually think

If you believe this you are a moron

File: d26c5af345f1cd35d83fab7478267b328f839fc0ea9ea7a47b19c4d2dbfc9118.png (2MB, 1350x1023px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1350x1023px

>>2017323
>>2017348

>>2018010
t. Cletus who dropped out of community college

>>2018018
Sorry but I have STEM degree

>>2018014
I'm telling you to get back to work, slacker.

>>2018010
Major in economics. Not that it's relevant.
>i have to make shit up because i have no arguments

>>2018016
nice rehashed maymay reddicuck

h-he is? I never thought so. His views on economics is on par with George Lucas's views on astrophysics. He makes nice assertions but are incomplete at best.

>>2018022
Explains it. STEM doesn't require you to think in a philsophical way, it requires you to be autistic with numbers.

>>2018028
dont let reddit fool you, he was influential for his time but ultimately 100% wrong

>>2018022
So you've never had sex?

>>2018016
>economics 101

>>2018013
>>2018025
>People with different opinions then mine must come from certain backgrounds!

>>2018030
>takes a philosophy course
>thinks he can actually think philosophically now

you're the only autist here anon

File: 1478544288826.png (31KB, 1234x246px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1234x246px

>>2017281

>brilliant

>>2018033
Agreed. The best stuff came after him and turned it all on it's head.

>>2018034
No I have, stop by your mother's house and you can watch us

Here's some intro to Marx, for those who never read him.

Communist Manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Value, Price, and Profit:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

Capital:Chapter I:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

Critique of the Gotha Programme:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/06/09.htm

The Principles of Communism:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

The Myths about Marxism:
http://www.marxist.com/the-myths-about-marxism.htm

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

>>2018044
I didn't mention philosophy as a course, did I?

>>2018016
faggot.

>>2018044
>takes a philosophy course
Not him but pretty sure the austist is the one making up fictional biographies for the people he discusses with.

>>2018051
Why would anyone need to read this hot garbage

>>2018050
I found a strap on in my mom's drawer. You must be who she uses it on.

because most people are too stupid to notice the flaws in his arguments or simply don't care

>>2018038
back to rebbit

>>2018056
You thought that was a funny insult but that's actually my fetish :3c

>>2018051

>wall of shitpost propaganda

WE STORMFAGS NOW

>>2018060
>i'm a newfag who arrived after the stormfag invasion and thinks that everyone that isn't a /pol/tard is from reddit
Back to your containment board.

>>2018072
back to rebbit

>>2018072
There's nothing wrong with /pol/, you're just an asshole.

>>2018057
What is your favorite philosopher

Marxist historiography is the best.

>>2018055
>I refuse to learn what the other opinions are about, but I'm still going to hate them

>>2018070
>propaganda
All of them are from Marx himself, except for like one

>>2018046
>their "means" become defined for them
What part of marx's work are you deducing this from?

>it's elitist, or at least leninism is
Irrelevant in a discussion about marx.

>it contradicts modern economics
Pseudoscience.

>marxist ideologues seek to (...)
Irrelevant in a discussion about marx.

>it's confrontational
Good.

>marxism appeals to naive people persuaded by emotional arguments
Marx work never appeals to moral/emotion in his work desu. Even the parts about industrial conditions of child labor in das kapital are mostly descriptive.

From a technical standpoint Marx had a lot of great ideas. Historical materialism and what not. His ideology itself is shit and only leads to decadent degeneracy.

>>2018091
>All of them are from Marx himself

Yes, and they are all propaganda

File: stormgag_infiltration.png (356KB, 1360x1888px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1360x1888px

>>2018079
>There's nothing wrong with /pol/, you're just an asshole.
>entire board cucked by stormfucks
>nothing wrong

his idea was simple and totally made sense in the context of the time too bad the autism of the 20th century ballooned it into a massive monstrosity where feudal backwaters with no factories attempted to apply it while financialization and derivative markets radically transformed what capitalism means in the countries that used to have all of the factories

oh well

>>2018079
Yes, you are insufferable retards that seem unable to stay in your board and end up shitposting in unrelated boards/threads.

>>2018096
This

Marx had good ideas but all forms of communism are cancer

File: karl harrison.jpg (29KB, 480x491px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x491px

>>2018094
>Pseudoscience

as opposed to marxian """""economics""""". there's a reason why socialist countries always fail, you know

>>2018100
The entire board isn't cucked by /pol/, the entire board IS /pol/

>>2018100
I'm confused. What's wrong with Stormfront? Fascism and ethnic nationalism is just as valid as the beliefs of cum guzzling marxists.

>>2018046
>Modern economics
>Modern economics is one Monolith and there are no variations or schools of economics

What do Marxists think of Leszek Kołakowski?

>>2018102
/pol/ is containment for politics, not for ideology, dumb reddicuck

File: 71b.jpg (100KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 736x736px

>>2018094

>Marxist
>calling anything else a pseudoscience

Theres a reason only basketcases "philosophers" worship him and not any actual economist

and if you are going to proudly say you are confrontational, then dont bitch after you get BTFO

>>2018109
Marxian economics have nothing to so with socialism/communism. Nice way to show you have no idea what you are talking about, m8.

>>2018113
>hurr durr superabundance is possible!

>>2018094

>Pseudoscience.


Pot, kettle.

>>2017281
He makes you feel good. Marxism is like crack for the cooperative, Christian mind.

>>2018120
>Theres a reason only basketcases "philosophers" worship him and not any actual economist
Not really true. There are no marxian orthodox economics of course, but that is a tautology.

>>2018130
Materialism doesn't make me feel good.

>>2018120
>Who's Antonio Gramci

>>2018137

NO ONE who knows anything about economics regards Marx in high regards. Only leftist space cadets do because they live in la la land where "muh theory" rules

Marxism is the creationism of economics

>>2018138
It should unless you're autistic

>>2018143
literally who

>>2018143

Sardinian manlet with tbc who received a far better treatment in fascist italy than fascists or even slightly right wing intellectuals received in communist countries.

File: different opinions.gif (922KB, 550x352px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 550x352px

>>2018099

>>2018151
>NO ONE who knows anything about economics regards Marx in high regards. Only leftist space cadets do because they live in la la land where "muh theory" rules
Again, false. Besides the obvious neomarxian school, the post-keynesians are probably the most important heterodox school and have marx in high regards.

>Marxism is the creationism of economics
Now, this is an internet meme from people who know shit about economics. Even if you thought marx is wrong, he was part of the classical orthodoxy of his time, he would be more like the equivalent of classical mechanics (vs modern quantum mechanics).

>>2018168
What does that have to do with his economics?

>>2017996
>Implying Marx created his materialism or his economicism
>implying the takeover of sociology by Marxists is due to the effectiveness of Marx's theories

>>2018070
Hey, if a strategy works.

File: PURE IDEOLOGY.gif (892KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 500x342px

>This entire fucking thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18qD9hmU9xg

>>2018151
Austrian school is quite literally the creatonism of economics, as in the believe in a literal god like figure, the invisible hand

>>2018180

His economics are still shit, like every other marxist.

Marxist are literally creationist-tier about pretty much every scientific subject they've written about. Another example would be idiotic radical environmentalism about psychological differences between individuals.

>>2018070
>thread about X
>hey guys, here's X's work in case you need it
>OH NO PROPAGANDA!
What the fuck are you doing in a thread about marx's work if you haven't read him and don't plan to?

>>2018190
you seem to be very educated on this matter

>>2018187

Yes, communism is pure ideology. If it was purely about science it would have been completely dead by now instead of just functionally dead with a few autists still goin around on the internet.

>>2018194
>i'll just repeat it until it sticks, without any actual arguments

>>2018111
>Fascism and ethnic nationalism is just as valid as the beliefs of cum guzzling marxists.
Some Marxists were nationalists.

>>2018197
Yep, I am

Most people who hate communism or socialism have been preconditioned to hate it by capitalist societies.

"Why do you want 20 hour work weeks? Are you lazy? You should work 40+ hours like everyone else, because if I can't be happy nobody else should."

>>2018200

>you have to prove a theory of economics that nobody in the field takes seriously to be wrong, it's not like I have to prove it to be true in the first place!

no

>>2018208

Name me all those wonderful communist societies in which the work week was of 20 hours.
Go ahead.
oh, wait...

>>2018194
>His economics are still shit, like every other marxist.
And why? Can you elaborate and Gramci's economics? Have you read any works by Gramci?

>>2018211
To be honest i don't adhere to marxian economics, i just think you are a retard that spouts memes without any knowledge of the subject.

>>2018213
Deutsche Demokratische Republik

>>2018222

>You need to have a degree in astrophysics to know the earth is round

Truly I have been enlightened

>>2018223

You're kidding, right?

>>2018213
Not necessarily 20 hours, but the Paris commune abolished night works.

>>2018213

Name one not-crumbling Capitalist nation.
Capitalism has always been a short-sighted get rich scheme. It cannot sustain its infinite growth and it functions similarly to a pyramid scheme.

>>2018235
No

>>2018083
Can't really decide, John Stuart Mill is kind of neat.

You will point out flaws like his comments on colonialism, however flaws inevitably arise when you try to tackle the real world. Marx said.

>The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

Yet he didn't really go into the practical details, did he. For instance he goes straight into conversations with the assumption his hypothetical working classes and communists are morally virtuous because of class meme magic, capable of carrying out his abstract goals, ignoring one of the most ubiquitous dilemmas in philosophy.

>>2018238
It has lasted longer than any socialist nation that I know of

>>2018223
>Stalinism
>Communist

>>2018064
That explains your faggotry

>>2018248
For example?

>>2018249
I wasn't even gonna give him the fact that real communism hasn't been tried yet, would be information overload for him

>>2018223
hahaha sauce?

I wonder why everyone tried to flee from DDR to West Germany and not the other way around

>>2018238
>Name one not-crumbling Capitalist nation.

Most of them. You just think they're crumbling because media is sustained on sensationalism and you're inundated in it.

>>2018051
So reddit followed through with trying to spread Marxism on His

>>2018242

The work week wasn't 20 hours in east germany.


>>2018237

>but the Paris commune

Setting aside that it didn't do that and you said so yourself, something that lasted 3 months isn't a good example to evaluate the validity of any model except models of [COLLAPSE]


>>2018238

>Name one not-crumbling Capitalist nation

Aside from, like, half the world?
Are you trolling me?

>>2018228
>classical economics is the equivalent of a flat earth
Case in point, a retard that doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>2018266

I don't even know what your point is anymore, first you pretend to be a marxist, then you're not, then you blabber incoherently. What the fuck are you even trying to say? That marxist economics are taken seriously? By whom? Marxists?

File: joke.jpg (48KB, 460x454px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 460x454px

>>2018254
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

>it will work next time!
>not REAL socialism!

>>2018257

>I wasn't even gonna give him the fact that real communism hasn't been tried yet

I wonder why

>>2018263
>Aside from, like, half the world?

Almost all of Europe exists out of social-democracies, not a good example for capitalism

The US is a shithole

>>2018201
I know. Mussolini was a socialist in his youth. I'm referring to the more insidious, contemporary renditions of marxist thought.

>>2018286

>Almost all of Europe exists out of social-democracies, not a good example for capitalism

Social democracies are capitalist states.

>>2018248
Lasting longer doesn't mean that it worked.
>>2018261
>>2018263
Most of them are actually crumbling. America and most of Europe have been on the steady decline. Only the super wealthy oil nations are doing fine due to their oil production.

>>2018094
>Marx work never appeals to moral/emotion in his work

>"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers. The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."

No appeal to emotion whatsoever. Frankly, Marxist ideas of class have no basis in reality. Where do we draw the line, between his two proposed classes? Is every employer bourgeousie who should be killed? Is the CEO who works day and night running the company for the shareholders a member of the proletariat, as he is paid salary in exchange for his time? Marxist interpretation of the world don't match observations, don't make accurate predictions, and don't seem to even be applicable to most real world situations. It's clear that Marx was entirely wrong about the world, and economicism is an extremely limited worldview.

>>2018293
but in terms of short-sightedness, socialist take the cake. and it has worked pretty well in comparison to anything else

>>2018292
Communist states (the ones which have been tried) were capitalists states aswel, not a point

>>2018293

>Most of them are actually crumbling

Yeah, like the proletariat revolution is """actually""" going to happen soonTM

>>2018293
>Only the super wealthy oil nations are doing fine due to their oil production.
except Venezuela

commushits managed to fuck even that up

tip toperoo kek

>>2018293
>Most of them are actually crumbling.

No. They're not. Their economies continue to grow, and their metrics of prosperity remain stable.

>>2018274
Marxism is just a particular case of classical economics, and both are respected (although because history of economic thought is no longer being taught in a lot of universities, non-academic economists may not even know what they are about). And economics doesn't really advance linearly like hard sciences do, there's heterodox schools that still follow the classical economics "research program". Neoclassical economics (orthodox economics) is called "neoclassical" because it owes a lot to classical economics. The founder of neoclassical economics, Alfred Marshall, was even more fond on ricardo than on marginalists.
So, no, marxism is not creationism, the classical school of which marx is part has not been completely overcome, and modern economics is not completely detached from it.

>>2018195
It's not "a thread about marx's work"

It's a reddit shitpost from those fags over at /r/socialism

>>2018294
Descriptive sentence.

>>2018306
It's not that capitalism 'doesn't work', it's just that it's not an ideal system

Suicide rate is the highest in countries without social security and high work pressure

>>2018298

Considering how the US has been vigilante in destroying socialism and any early signs of it, I'm not surprised. The Red Scare, The Cold War, assassination attempts on characters like Fidel Castro, you name it and America has tried stopping it.

Capitalism thrives by force, it exists because it continuously exploits. The few nations that have benefited from capitalism did so because of the labor and resources of weaker colonized nations.

>>2018263
>COLLAPSE
The Prussian army surrounded the city and blocked it, thus causing massive famine.

>>2018237
>>2018263
>20 hour work week

In the 20th century, yes that would be absurd, but in the era of automation and computerization why should we still be doing 40 hours of largely busywork.

We can make our economy more efficient, there is no reason we should use the workweek established 100 years ago as the metric for all future workweeks.

It's like football formations, if some team came out with a 2-3-5 formation they'd be slaughtered

>>2018262
>spread Marxism
I was just introducing Marx's works to people who never read him.

>leddit
Isn't reddit full of trump supporters and liberals though?

>>2018306

Economy isn't everything. The economy may be growing, but the welfare of the people living in their nation has declined. The death of the middle class, terrible education systems, homelessness, suicide rates, lowered happiness indexes, and overall disillusionment with the government are clear signs that things aren't alright.

>>2018335
No not really, it's filled with #imstillwithher faggots and asshurt socialists like the tards at /r/enoughtrumpspam

File: 1480430835.gif (4MB, 416x233px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 416x233px

Communism asides, who wants to talk about worker's alienation and commodity fetishism?

>>2018343
Sounds like you are from reddit...
Fucking /pol/tards.

>>2018350
/r/the_donald is a /pol/ launchpad to redpill reddit, how clueless are you?

File: 1479451854816.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

Watch out this thread might just [COLLAPSE]

>>2018354
I don't know, i don't go to reddit nor follow /pol/'s cancerous personal army. I guess i'm a retard that thinks it's pre-2010 and 4chan is not about stormfag indoctrination and internet militancy.

>>2018344
You can fix worker's alienation by giving the workers more power, and more freedom in the things they do

This would also increase productivity

>>2018277
Most of them were Stalinist nations, which is debatable among Marxists, since a lot of Marxists will argue that they weren't socialists, while others will argue that they were.

Also:
>I'm so afraid that those Marxists will pop up one day, so I have a picture that mocks Marxists saved

>>2018354
>redpill
>not 3rd pill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-0VMnFmnL0

>>2018365
It's always been this way dear anon, you just didn't realize

>>2018399
No, it really hasn't, you're just a newfag.

>>2018354
doesn't the fact that that reddit thread? is still up means that there are a lot of trump supporters in reddit?

>>2018401
denial is the first stage of grief my friend

>>2018399
Raids were common, but they weren't usually /pol/ driven

>>2018156
But materialism is a requirement for autist.

>>2017281
>brilliant
not brilliant.
he rehashed Riccardo with moralizing dogma

>influential
he was a moralizer that offered a self-referential, dogmatic, secular alternative to christian (in particular Lutheran) moral ethics for the western winter-soul

>>2018401
Seconding this.

>>2018862
>moralized

>>2018316
not a description. its an analysis rooted on an heavily moralizing worldview

marxists that constantly try to refuse the clear ideological position of marx and simply take his work as simply analytical/scientific piss me off

own your ideology. admit the moral precepts
Admit that Marx saw his Is by the lens of what he tought it Ought to be

>>2018178
Transformation Problem

solve it

then we can talk

>>2018306
GDP Ain't the most important thing you know, india makes a lot of money but there's still people living in muck and shit.

>>2018962
not per capita, you fucknut

File: 1353333460594.png (320KB, 676x3825px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 676x3825px

Marxism is the most retarded ideology on the planet.

Why does it keep coming back?

Why is the world filled with such gullible idiots?

File: 135024089604.jpg (196KB, 782x775px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 782x775px

>>2018094
>Pseudoscience.
Marxism is pure pseudoscience
It's on par with scientology.

File: 1353332947851.jpg (255KB, 651x1335px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 651x1335px

>>2018096
>Historical materialism and what not.
LOL

YEAH GREAT IDEA

SUPER INTELLIGENT THEORIES

File: 1353329306641.png (469KB, 1455x837px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1455x837px

>>2018190
Why are marxist scientologists so butthurt?

>>2018030
>STEM doesn't require you to think in a philsophical way
Your arrogance, naivete and shelteredness hardly constitutes as philosophical thinking

>>2020157
socialsim=/=marxism

>>2020142
see >>2020562
>>2020572
>>2020616

>>2018949
That's a criticism of soviet central planning, not of marxism.

>>2020157
Your ms paint pic sure showed everyone the superiority of austrian economics buddy.

>>2018096
>>2018108
Almost all professional historian reject historical materialism

ITT: People who haven't read Marx explain why Marx was wrong. Anons get into a debate about marxist politics and economics and like two people touch on his historical theories.

Keep on being shit /his/.

>>2020746
See
>>2018055
>>2018070
>>2018262

>>2020746
Do to /pol/s rising anti intellectualism, it is now cool to discuss something while being completely ignorant on the subject (and proud of it). See >>2020760.

>>2018178
>the post-keynesians are probably the most important heterodox school and have marx in high regards.
That's a bit of an ironic twist considering John Keynes called the writings of Marx "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world"

>>2020777
due*

>>2020715
Maybe the reject dialectics (because they don't understand it) but all good historians are materialists.

>>2018200
>i'll just repeat it until it sticks, without any actual arguments
Yes, that's exactly what marxists do

>>2018949
TSSI

>>2020787
Well, keynes went from being the disciple of marshall to trying to debunk neoclassical theory.

>>2017281

Marxism is the only method of inquiry which is actually interested in how the economic totality functions. "Economics" is the study of private profit.

>>2018319
>it's just that it's not an ideal system

Have you considered that being idealistic might be the defining flaw of it all?

>>2018247

>>2018247
>Yet he didn't really go into the practical details, did he.

confirmed for not even reading one page of capital

>>2020795
No they reject it, and materialism for that matter, because it vastly oversimplifies how people make decisions.

Your suggestion that they dont understand it suggests you dont know that it was at one time very popular but grew less so after people started poking holes in it and theories moved away from the idea of a scientific history

>>2020835
Provide literally one example of this.

How does someone reject materialism and not regress?

>>2020821
Funny then how Marx used contemporary economic ideas for his own purposes. But when latter experts poked holes in those ideas they are still valid when Marx uses them .

Its almost like your obfuscating

>>2018339
>but the welfare of the people living in their nation has declined. The death of the middle class, terrible education systems, homelessness, suicide rates, lowered happiness indexes, and overall disillusionment with the government are clear signs that things aren't alright.
Be as that may, everything that went awry with all of those very different problems is caused many many many different factors and some starry-eyed peddling Marxism as the solution to each and every one of them is more than likely far more deluded than the people he claims to be saving. You should never trust any one or anything whose solution to every convoluted dilemma the world finds themself in is the same simple answer. The radically religious are not exempt from that predicament, Marxism is not either

>>2018018
As a real life Cletus who finished community college I think that Marx is an important thinker, a stepping stone to better and deeper ways of thinking about how cultures change. His ideas are ultimately simplistic, however, and lack the nuance to describe the world with a resolution that would make them useful predictively. Similar to Malthus in a way. All in all not too shabby for a dude in the 19th century with no real access to the types of ethnographic data we have today.

The Marxists didn't really help anything either, I'm afraid. Unlike the followers of Darwin, the Marxists did/do not tend to interrogate Marx's ideas with the necessary vigor to make his theories more robust/accurate/predictive (which of course entails a willingness hold no beautiful idea as beyond destruction ) but rather to prove Marx right.

Marcin Harris is a pretty tight dude influenced by Marx imo though.

Bye Y'all!

>>2018862

>moralizing
>>Marxism

>>2020133

>"inevitable dialectic of history"

blew it literally in the first sentence. this is propaganda.

>>2020845
I have little time do dig through my old books for the one chapter that covers the historiography of theories of history and why we dont use them anymore.

materialism might have been an improvement over great man theory but it fails to capture the complexities of things.

If you actually get into upper level courses on historiography you'll find many professors, even left wing ones who are critical of Marx's work

>>2020855
Young Marx was full of moralizing. He skipped it after Stirner utterly rekt idealistic left-Hegelianism and forced Marx to adopt a materialistic stance.

I'm going to do this from the ground up. Marxists, I have an earnest question for you;

What benefits would there be from the world adopting Marxist ideology in mass?

I personally think he wouldn't have enjoyed the outcome of Marxist belief at all.

>>2020891
If this is Marxism, then I am no Marxist. Was as I recall what he said of what Marxism was becoming before he had died.

>>2020142

>1.
>>Instinct
bourgeois humanism reified as "scientific" discourse. evolutionary psychology is the very height of pseudoscience, invented by people with a wikipedian's understanding of darwinism extrapolating to an equally wikipedian understanding of behaviorism.
>>the environment
...which determines how people are able to appropriate the natural resources the environment furnishes, and thus determines how they produce, which then determines their social formation. to deny this aspect of historical materialism is to deny the existence of necessity, which is its only absolutely indispensable assumption—but try going a week without food or water and tell me necessity does not exist.
>>random happenstance
does not need to be addressed. this is purely rhetorical, having no frame of reference or basis in reality.
>>violates the laws of causality
"laws" which are hotly contested in science and philosophy of science today, but that is beside the point. Marxism in practice involves a great deal of debunking illusory causality, anyway.

>2.
this whole sentence is nonsensical and is just a rhetorical inversion of marx's propositions adduced without a lick of evidence or definition of terms. does not need to be addressed further than this, except to say that invoking the "value of labor" agrees already with Marx, but once you've done this—that is, agreed that labor is valuable in itself—you cannot arrive at the conclusions 2. arrives at.

>3.
not only is this demonstrably untrue, as the perpetual cycle of crisis and growth which has been unfolding since 1900 shows, but unless your also denying global warming then the collapse of all society is today inevitable. and all society is capitalist.

>>2020142

>"three points that show this"

>>1.
marx would never have denied that "capitalists and entrepreneurs" are not the most productive contributors to society. they own capital, they own the means of production. capitalism is the system whereby owning capital makes you the most productive member of society. furthermore producing value and exchanging valuable commodities for the money commodity are not the same thing—so yes the capitalist does take on "risk" when he purchases labor power, but he reaps that value and the surplus value it produces regardless of if he sells it or not

which brings me to
>>2.
the labor theory of value does not "locate" value in labor as such, but in the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodities society needs to continue to reproduce itself. society does not need the labor of "hitting a stick against the barn." this is the old mudpie argument: hurr i spent 6 hours working on mudpies, pay me! society does not need mudpies; that labor is not socially necessary; it is not valuable to society; it creates no value.

>>3.
they cannot open up their own firms because they do not own the means of production and are unable to acquire the means of production because necessity compels them to sell their labor for a "living" wage.

whoever wrote this dreck has only read the wikipedia article on marx, and not even very closely. this is propaganda.

>>2020921
>would never have denied that "capitalists and entrepreneurs" are not the mos

are** the most productive, my bad

>>2020847

>used

actually Capital is subtitled "A Critique of Political Economy." to say he "used" their ideas, as in merely replicated them as the foundations of his own theory, is, well, "almost like your obfuscating"

or maybe you haven't even read the cover of Capital? who would have thought idiots don't read.

>>2020869

the conclusion is true but your reasoning implies some kind of weird embarrassment was involved. psychologizing is not critique. but if you'll read Capital you would find that exploitation is not portrayed as a "moral" issue—Marxists are only required to note it occurs, not that one thing or another "ought" to be done about it. in either case labor, at one time, tended to do something about it quite on their own, but neoconservatism has done a great job at making them think that is against their interest, so.

>>2020945
top tier post

>>2020960
Oh I wasn't critiquing Marx. I'm not the same guy you were talking to.

I was just pointing out that he was for a good chunk of his career a moralist.

Also I'd contend there was a certain amount of embarrassment involved, since he ultimately never published his attempted refutation of Stirner's work.

>>2017967
Marx himself had never done a minimum wage job.

>>2020157
This isn't something I would be ashamed of as a Marxist.

The picture is both funny and somewhat accurate.

>>2020945
>to say he "used" their ideas, as in merely replicated them as the foundations of his own theory,

Of course he changed them somewhat, his labor theory of value originates with him and is merely based on earlier work, but its not so radically different that it stands on its own

>>2020979

meh, fair enough. as a marxist i do not only disagree with the psychologization—inb4 hurr idolatry durr hero worship—but i frankly just do not find it very interesting. it is truly remarkable, on the contrary, that by the late 19th century capitalism had developed itself to such a degree that its entire structure was visible in microcosm, and still describable in lieu of the neoconservative arguments that would follow in Marx's wake.

>>2020986
he did however spend a lot of his time organizing labor movements, writing voluminously, including dispatches for various newspapers to pay the bills, which he was often unable to pay anyway and thus he lived in abject poverty for most of his life. he may not have known factory labor, but he knew the necessity that often drives people to it.

>>2020995
you don't know what critique means—it is not "chang[ing] them somewhat"—nor do you have any idea how scholarship works if you believe ideas are argued spontaneously ex nihilo. labor theory is derived from ricardo, who got it from smith, who worked it out from reflections on empirical data combined with his study of moral philosophy, which traces itself back to fucking aristotle. you're just stupid my dude.

>>2021017
I no what critique means.
> labor theory is derived from ricardo, who got it from smith, who worked it out from reflections on empirical data combined with his study of moral philosophy, which traces itself back to fucking aristotle. you're just stupid my dude.

And that was what I meant by "based on earlier work"

>>2021022

still wrong. just give it up. i can tell you're getting upset because you cannot distinguish between "no" and "know" any longer. interesting that it appears that you have said the former to the imperative to do the latter: you literally know nothing my man. call it quits while you're behind, lol.

can't anyone provide a single argument that i am unable to immediately eviscerate? can none of you bourgeois tools provide even one single coherent defense of your masters' ideology?

File: 1467954586862.jpg (68KB, 720x529px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x529px

>>2021035
>still wrong.

I didn't even say anything other than I agree with your description of the history of the theory of value, and that I know the definition of critique.

Not that Marx's or your own critiques on modern economics are valid. They are not, and you cannot demonstrate that they are.

>>2021059

marc's critiques on modern economics don't exist, because marx predates it. as i said, economics is perfectly valid—as a study of how capitalist firms derive profit, not as a study of what makes "society thrive," however abstrusely that is defined. marxian economics strives to appropriate empirical data for the explanation of the continual relevance of Marx's theory for understanding life in capitalism as a whole, rather than for understanding how firms are able to profit and expand themselves. don't be fooled into thinking GDP or the human growth index are good indicators for how good life is for wage laborers. they aren't. they indicate, for the most part, how easy it is for large firms to profit in the selected environment. there is however no reason, historically speaking, to suppose that increasing those variables improves the lives of the world's poorest—they don't. what you see over the course of the 20th century is not the "disappearance" of the industrial poor. they were merely relocated to other countries. capitalism, remember, is a totality, not a "kind of economy" deployed in this or that country. no one gets to opt out. so just because life is better in America under capitalism—a capitalist hegemon if there ever has been one!—does not mean that life has become better for the majority of living people, and that not even necessarily WITHIN this country.

but i know you just still can't get over the fact that i've called you out on not understanding critique, and am continuing to call you on your continued display of how you don't understand what it means, and are just changing goalposts to catch me in a contradiction. but contradiction is the very fuel of the dialectic, so please, carry on. this is fun for me.

>>2017281
After the death of God, Marx offered a new Christianity.

File: 1453530751037.gif (1MB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 270x270px

Calling All Marxists, I have an earnest question for you;
How would the world adopting the beliefs of Marx En Masse be beneficial?
Not shitposting, I genuinely want to hear your answers

>>2021093
You call be out on something by insisting that I am wrong (I have not even given a definition so knowing I am wrong is quite the feat) Yet you have never explained how I am wrong. If you have spent much time around academics as you seem to imply, you know that providing that would be essential. But for the sake of brevity let us move onto what you just said.


What makes a "society thrive" is not necessarily a question of economics since its essentially a value judgement.

But neither are you correct that economics is "as a study of how capitalist firms derive profit" That would be a pretty minimalist view of what they do. You certainly will find studies on how government and corporate decision effect the average worker, and even more esoteric questions outside finance as long as the data can be quantified properly.

In a sense, your explanation of Marxian economics "strives to appropriate empirical data for the explanation of the continual relevance of Marx's theory for understanding life in capitalism as a whole" Is problematic since it is only uses the methods of economics to the extent they can uphold Marxist theory, which on the whole is more philosophy than anything else. by doing this the Marxist economist takes on the role not of the economist but an apologist, someone who knows "truth" and uses facts to argue it.

>>2021153
no one gets to exploit capital for a profit

>>2021179
>no one gets to exploit capital for a profit
How is it being exploited and why is profiting a bad thing?

>>2021153
The consequence of adopting a belief is irrelevant in assessing whether the belief is true or false.

>>2021191
In Marxist economics, the workers under capitalism don't the get full return of their labor. The wage they get is less valuable then the labor they create.

Also Alienation n shiet

>>2021156
>You call be out on something by insisting that I am wrong (I have not even given a definition so knowing I am wrong is quite the feat) Yet you have never explained how I am wrong. If you have spent much time around academics as you seem to imply, you know that providing that would be essential. But for the sake of brevity let us move onto what you just said.

see >>2021017, a post you misread as clarifying your argument about the meaning of critique, rather than on the contrary decimating it.

>>2021156
>You certainly will find studies on how government and corporate decision effect the average worker, and even more esoteric questions outside finance as long as the data can be quantified properly.

yet these are always skewed toward the smooth functioning of capitalist society, expanding markets, hastening production, lubricating exchange—all things from which capitalists profit. higher orders of abstraction to not change the basic assumptions, which are still basically rooted in economic liberalism.

>>2021156
>problematic since it is only uses the methods of economics to the extent they can uphold Marxist theory

wrong. empirical data =/= the methods of economics. marxism is not philosophy, its a method of historical inquiry.

>>2021156
>by doing this the Marxist economist takes on the role not of the economist but an apologist, someone who knows "truth" and uses facts to argue it.
apologists for what? the most vicious critiques of marxism are not delivered from stooges like you but from marxists themselves. it's not uncommon to hear of the so-called "marxism without marx," or postmarxism as it is sometimes called, too. consider the debate, for instance, on the asiatic mode of production, easily the least fortunate of marx's theories. the only truth marxism absolutely requires is necessity. totality of capitalism is usually assumed from the outset, but this can be argued from the hard kernel of the necessity of men to produce.

>>2021156
>>2021204

and anyway i challenge you to find someone in any field disagree with the notion that capitalism is today a global system, something predicted by marx and confirmed by ernest mandel in the 70s, before it even completed itself to the degree we see today.

>>2021191
how is getting a greater profit off your labour than you are not exploiting you?
profiting is not bad, profiting off someone else's labour is bad.

>>2021191

the use-value of labor, or the qualitative utility of producing more value for the person who owns it: when i labor on a bible, i create value by transforming less valuable materials into the valuable and completed bible. but the exchange-value of labor is not found in the commodities labor is able to produce qua producer of values. it is rather found in the value of the commodities required to sustain labor for a day: food, shelter, etc, in whatever proportion is necessary to keep the laborer alive to show up to work again tomorrow. once this latter value drops below what labor can produce over the course of that day, you have exploitation, because by purchasing that labor on the day right, the capitalist as already appropriated for himself the total value his labor-power will produce that day, while only being obliged to pay the laborers, say, 6 hours worth of what they actually produce.

>>2021191
>>2021232

so profit is not inherently a "bad thing"—it is totally justified by the equal exchange capitalist and laborer fairly enter on the open market. what politically organized marxists generally speaking would like to see go away is the exploitation which occurs outside of this fair exchange, within the sphere of production.

>>2021201
>In Marxist economics, the workers under capitalism don't the get full return of their labor.
How does one determine the value of labor from the position of Marxist Economics

>The wage they get is less valuable then the labor they create.
Yes, of course. They certainly wouldn't pay them more what their labor is worth. No business, no matter how small or how large, would willingly hire an employee that COSTS their company money. It's counterproductive to the very reason the business exists

>Also Alienation n shiet
Does Marxism stipulate that workers have no agency of their own?

>>2018004
pls

>>2021196
>The consequence of adopting a belief is irrelevant in assessing whether the belief is true or false.
I didn't ask if it was true or false, I asked if it was beneficial

>>2021240

labor is valued in whatever proportion is socially necessary to keep a human being alive to work the following day.

i won't address your middle comment because all you are doing is explaining why capitalists exploit labor from their own perspective, something not damaging to marxism and about which i don't care.

finally, laborers have "agency," in the sense i think you mean, but they must eat to live.

>>2021249
>if it was beneficial

for whom? there is no "good as such" or "benefit in itself." everything is already politicized.

ITT:
>I don't know dick about Marx, Marxism, or the history of economic & social theory but I'm going to stick it to those commie bastards anyways

>>2021204
>a post you misread as clarifying your argument about the meaning of critique, rather than on the contrary decimating it.

that was not a definition of critique nor did I mean or really imply that critique was simply "changing things somewhat"

>yet these are always skewed toward the smooth functioning of capitalist society, expanding markets, hastening production, lubricating exchange—all things from which capitalists profit. higher orders of abstraction to not change the basic assumptions, which are still basically rooted in economic liberalism.

There are two assertions here, one that all or the majority of their work is for the benefit of capitalism, and second that the assumptions of classical liberal economics are not correct.

>empirical data =/= the methods of economics.
No but it is essential for their work.

>marxism is not philosophy, its a method of historical inquiry.

Marx touches on far more than pure history. Is ideas involve sociology, history, economics and philosophical viewpoints. when he does touch on history it is pretty poor stuff. Much like most economists reject is theories on value most historians reject his theories on history. In both cases your dealing with ideas which have not been mainstream in their academic field for decades if not a century. No history professor ever suggested to me I even use Marxist ideas as a lens for analysis, let alone as a definitive theory of history.

>>2021240
>Does Marxism stipulate that workers have no agency of their own?

The idea is that workers chose to work for a boss because their other option is to starve (and fending for themselves isn't allowed either, see: the enclosures as an example of the capitalist system working against that). It's something more pronounced in the system of his time, but elements of stay around (since it's basically a requirement of a wage labour system that you ensure there's a very good reason that people will accept the shitty end of the stick).

>>2021264

what the fuck is "pure history?" do you think history is just the narration of events? do you think it is possible without sociological reflection? without exploration of economic production? without reflection on the philosophies common to the time being studied?

>most historians reject his theories on history.

where are you getting this from?

>>2021264
>No history professor ever suggested to me I even use Marxist ideas as a lens for analysis, let alone as a definitive theory of history.

look, i know you believe strongly in things like "consensus," but really, study up on any single issue in any single field except, like, arithmetic, and you'll see that knowledge is constantly and hotly contested by countless countervailing forces active within discourse. your notion of mainstream is a totally ideological fabulation of the institutional conditions within which knowledge is produced and disseminated.

this is your brain on positivism, folks. i'm going to bed.

>>inb4 he says I'm just giving up because i can't face his argumentative brilliance

all his arguments have just been trying to nitpick apart specific clauses of my propositions. he has been persistently on the defensive except when trading in abstractions without any basis in fact, theory, or practice, abstractions like "pure history" and "mainstream" and "his history professors," which altogether indicates that he has no idea what he is talking about.

let this be a lesson in how not to defend your ideology on the internet.

>>2021224
>how is getting a greater profit off your labour than you are not exploiting you?
Does the laborer have no ability to negotiate what they feel is a fair wage?
>profiting is not bad, profiting off someone else's labour is bad.
Why is it bad, though?

>>2021232
>it is rather found in the value of the commodities required to sustain labor for a day: food, shelter, etc, in whatever proportion is necessary to keep the laborer alive to show up to work again tomorrow. once this latter value drops below what labor can produce over the course of that day, you have exploitation, because by purchasing that labor on the day right, the capitalist as already appropriated for himself the total value his labor-power will produce that day, while only being obliged to pay the laborers, say, 6 hours worth of what they actually produce.
Many first world nations have Minimum wage laws and labor unions to address this problem. Do you feel those are inadequate?

>>2021252
>labor is valued in whatever proportion is socially necessary to keep a human being alive to work the following day.
In Economic thought from John Keynes onward, the value of Labor is determined by the same thing that determines the value of everything else; Supply and Demand. Manpower is a commodity no different than Oil, Steel, Food, Housing, Cotton, Arable land, Silver or any other resource. If there are too many laborers and not enough jobs, the wages will fall. If there are too many jobs and not enough able or otherwise willing laborers, the wages will increase.

Do you feel that assessment of Labor of the value of labor is Truthful in any way?

>i won't address your middle comment
Why not? Is there something wrong with it

>>2021252
>finally, laborers have "agency," in the sense i think you mean, but they must eat to live.
Do they have the ability to negotiate their own wage is what I am asking

>>2021256
I honestly do not see a problem with this.

>>2021319
>Many first world nations have Minimum wage laws and labor unions to address this problem. Do you feel those are inadequate?

yes, i do, but to think that if they could capitalists would pay them even less than this is naive and ignorant of the history of the labor movement.

>>2021319
>Do they have the ability to negotiate their own wage is what I am asking
in america they technically do not; collective bargaining has all but vanished. >>2021319
>In Economic thought from John Keynes onward, the value of Labor is determined by the same thing that determines the value of everything else; Supply and Demand. Manpower is a commodity no different than Oil, Steel, Food, Housing, Cotton, Arable land, Silver or any other resource. If there are too many laborers and not enough jobs, the wages will fall. If there are too many jobs and not enough able or otherwise willing laborers, the wages will increase
yes but from whence these demands? and from whence the supply? free market economics cannot really explain production except by relying on abstractions such as these—the invisible hand is nothing but the combined actions of men, and men produce things by laboring.

>>2021319
>>i won't address your middle comment
>Why not? Is there something wrong with it

only the things i listed.

>>2021319
>Do you feel that assessment of Labor of the value of labor is Truthful in any way?

insofar as the only other available explanations are metaphysical spooks and the invisible hand you've just invoked, which also is a spook, yes. if someone else can explain how value as a measurement of things arises—not value as in price, disabuse yourself of that bad concept; they are not the same thing—then id be happy to hear it. but all market explanations assume value is already somehow "there" without really explaining why we value in the first place. Marx's critique of LTV not only does this, but also explains from this the whole of capitalist production.

>>2021302
>
what the fuck is "pure history?" do you think history is just the narration of events? do you think it is possible without sociological reflection? without exploration of economic production? without reflection on the philosophies common to the time being studied?

Here are a lot of rhetorical flourishes that do not reflect anything I said.

>where are you getting this from?

From books on the historical method (since you are such an expert I assume you have read some other than marx) and yes, from the professors of history who taught me those methods. It is what I have my degree in (in before a history degree is useless)

>look, i know you believe strongly in things like "consensus," but really, study up on any single issue in any single field except, like, arithmetic, and you'll see that knowledge is constantly and hotly contested by countless countervailing forces active within discourse. your notion of mainstream is a totally ideological fabulation of the institutional conditions within which knowledge is produced and disseminated.


Yes things are hotly contested, but this is not peer review, we are not comparing evidence. It its a message board. And rejected theories should not be spouted as if they are equally valid to the academic consensus.

>this is your brain on positivism, folks. i'm going to bed.

I dont consider myself a positivist, but as systems of organizing information both history and economics are properly approached analyticalally. there is a "historical method" like the scientific method that a historian should follow.

>all his arguments have just been trying to nitpick apart specific clauses of my propositions.

Where in our conversation save for the blip of history of the LTV, and this >>2021215
which we agree on, have you presented evidence to the soundness of Marx's (or your) theories? You have presented assertions, which without backing I am under no obligation to go into besides pointing out that they're not supported

>>2021319
>Does the laborer have no ability to negotiate what they feel is a fair wage?
he doesn't?
and what's a fair wage? it's entirely determined by the person offering the job. and what the labourer feels is a fair wage would also be determined by the people offering the job.
>Why is it bad, though?
why is slavery bad?
i mean if you enjoy being enslaved then i can't argue against that.

>>2021372
>Here are a lot of rhetorical flourishes that do not reflect anything I said.

you're illiterate.

>>2021372
>From books on the historical method (since you are such an expert I assume you have read some other than marx) and yes, from the professors of history who taught me those methods. It is what I have my degree in (in before a history degree is useless)

it has clearly failed you, in any case. historical materialism is still the only theory which does not need to rely on anything other than raw necessity to explain itself. whatever else it is you're relying on, i haven't seen it. but i will wager it's spooky as fuck.

>>2021372
>Yes things are hotly contested, but this is not peer review, we are not comparing evidence. It its a message board. And rejected theories should not be spouted as if they are equally valid to the academic consensus.

this is incoherent.

>>2021372
>I dont consider myself a positivist, but as systems of organizing information both history and economics are properly approached analyticalally. there is a "historical method" like the scientific method that a historian should follow.

and historical materialism is one which is still widely and effectively used.

>>2021372
>have you presented evidence to the soundness of Marx's (or your) theories? You have presented assertions, which without backing I am under no obligation to go into besides pointing out that they're not supported

i don't give a shit what you believe my man. i'm just giving you the arguments and you're just failing to meet them except by saying muh evidence. I'm not going to fetch production tables for you, lol

>dude everything's a spook lmao

>>2021319
>In Economic thought from John Keynes onward, the value of Labor is determined by the same thing that determines the value of everything else; Supply and Demand.
The concept of "supply and demand" already existed in classical economics. It was just deemed just worthless to understand long term "equilibrium" prices.
On the other hand, wages are hardly determined by supply and demand in the traditional sense. Labor supply is not really upward sloping (if i paid you a million dollars per hour, would you work more or less than if you made minimum wage? in an economy where most people depend on their work to survive, why would their supply have any elasticity?). Keynes thought wages were determined nominally by market forces and they were downwards-inelastic, which is not "a commodity no different" than any other. In your own post you mention labor unions as a determining factor, even though it is exogenous to a supply and demand determination. Not to mention that there is a natural minimum price for labor: you can't pay for it less than the cost a laborer has to survive to the next day. It's also not the same as any other commodity due to macroeconomics interactions, but that's another subject.
Marx would agree that labor is like any other commodity though.

>>2021399
>Labor supply is not really upward sloping (if i paid you a million dollars per hour, would you work more or less than if you made minimum wage? in an economy where most people depend on their work to survive, why would their supply have any elasticity?).
This is a hideous misrepresentation of what a supply/demand curve illustrates.

>>2021372
>>2021393

not to mention that now you're just copying my own rhetorical technique lol. you're unbelievably transparent.

compare this:
>>Here are a lot of rhetorical flourishes that do not reflect anything I said.

to this

>all his arguments have just been trying to nitpick apart specific clauses of my propositions. he has been persistently on the defensive except when trading in abstractions without any basis in fact, theory, or practice, abstractions like "pure history" and "mainstream" and "his history professors," which altogether indicates that he has no idea what he is talking about.

of course my own polemics are far more eloquent; i am just smarter than he is. but the attempt to dodge out to rhetorical factors sloppily employed here is a a pale shadow of my own original critique of his obfuscating rhetoric, obfuscating not because convincing, but because it obscures precisely nothing—he has no point to make, he just "believes" i am wrong.

>>2021406
No, it isn't. The supply of labor is derived from the wage needed to compensate the disutility of working according to neoclassical economics. But being paid a lot will (usually) make you work less, not more, making the supply curve inverted.

>>2021406

the problem is not his representation—its that labor exceeds representation by supply and demand. it is an interesting paradox that labor is only exceptional from the perspective of bourgeois economics.

>>2021393
>you're illiterate

And you read into what someone wrote rather than just taking what they say at face value.

> historical materialism is still the only theory which does not need to rely on anything other than raw necessity to explain itself

speaking as you do of incoherence, In what way is historical materialism necessary? How does an idea become justified outside an ideological framework?

>this is incoherent.

Put simply, the academic consensus carries more weight than fringe theories. You are in the position of the creationist arguing against evolution.

>and historical materialism is one which is still widely and effectively used.

You may consider it effectively used, but its not widely used by modern, professional historians. If it is used its only to look at a problem from an angle, not as an all encompassing explanation.

>i don't give a shit what you believe my man. i'm just giving you the arguments and you're just failing to meet them except by saying muh evidence.

If you only present theories, I really need not do more than that. I can also nit pick your propositions as you put it, and it this case that would be more than required to dismiss you.

>>2021417
>No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. The slope of the curve doesn't demonstrate that an individual worker will work more for higher pay. It demonstrates the ability of the employer to purchase labor hours at that paid wage.
Do you believe that you won't find more people willing to work for $1m/hr than at $7.25?

>>2021411
writing in complicated language is the opposite of what a good writer does. A good writer writes in a way the majority of the population can understand.

I really am not making any point but that yours do not hold water, and you know very little about how history is properly done

>>2021436
>Yes, it is. The slope of the curve doesn't demonstrate that an individual worker will work more for higher pay. It demonstrates the ability of the employer to purchase labor hours at that paid wage.
You're joking, right? The employer is reflected in the demand curve, not in the supply curve. Do you even know what you are talking about?

>Do you believe that you won't find more people willing to work for $1m/hr than at $7.25?
If we are talking about a context in which that is the normal wage in the market, then yes, you'll have a harder time with $1m/hr, since with $7.25 per hour the laborers are forced to work max amount of hours.

Can someone explain what the fuck is dialectics? It sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me

>>2021472
It is. Sadly, marx was corrupted by cancerous hegelian thought.

>>2021465
You're legitimately, unironically saying that a firm has an easier time filling labor requirements at lower wages?

>>2021368
>but to think that if they could capitalists would pay them even less
Of course. But again, that is why laws and unions exist

>in america they technically do not; collective bargaining has all but vanished.
Actually it hasn't

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

Some unions have suffered a stumble in recent years IE construction and automotive manufacturing but that was due to stagnancy and globalization respectively; things that are well beyond the ability of both Capitalism and Marxism to curtail

>>2021368
>yes but from whence these demands?
The businesses who need additional manpower as to keep up with the requests of their clientele
>and from whence the supply?
The general population of Able-bodied adults
>free market economics cannot really explain production except by relying on abstractions such as these
But it has many times; Most blatant example of the value of labor skyrocketing was during the black death in Europe. There were not enough laborers to do common work and the employers then found themselves competing over workers instead of workers competing over employers
>the invisible hand is nothing but the combined actions of men, and men produce things by laboring.
not exactly sure what you mean

>only the things i listed.

Is the explanation Valid or not. That is all I am asking

cont...

>>2017323
You can disagree with Marx, but he was no retard

The level of analysis in Capital requires enormous methodological skill

>>2021522
Cont...

>>>2021368
>insofar as the only other available explanations are metaphysical spooks and the invisible hand you've just invoked, which also is a spook, yes.
No spookposting, please. It's a complete copout. I could just as easily deride everything you've said as being spooks and we would get an endless stream of spooks calling spooks out for being spooks

>if someone else can explain how value as a measurement of things arises—not value as in price, disabuse yourself of that bad concept; they are not the same thing—then id be happy to hear it.
Intrinsic value is the thing being discussed here as it is the only value that the majority of people can agree on.

>but all market explanations assume value is already somehow "there" without really explaining why we value in the first place.
Markets do not seek to explain 'why', that is a psychologists job. They are only there to observe 'how' and their stance is that simply 'If people are willing to exchange for it, then it is valuable'


>>2021387
>it's entirely determined by the person offering the job. and what the labourer feels is a fair wage would also be determined by the people offering the job.
Exactly. Bear in mind that both the employer and/or the prospective hiree can not come to an agreement and the hiree can choose to look for work elsewhere
>why is slavery bad?
I asked why profiting off of someone else's labor is bad. I did not say slave labor. I was under the assumption the entire first world outlawed slavery quite some time ago

>>2021526
>The level of analysis in Capital requires enormous methodological skill
How so?

>>2021517
Are you actually retarded? I'm talking about lower prevailing wages, not a specific firm with lower wages than the market normal wage. I said this in the post you quote.

>>2018046
>le Marxism is about equality meme

>>2021532
He uses big words my puny brain can't understand, so he must surely be very smart.

>>2021532
There was no rigorous examination of labor relations before Marx. Drawing some from Ricardo, he identified the inherently exploitative nature of capitalistic employment -- profit is generated primarily through employers paying their workers less than the value in exchange of what they produce.

In addition, Marx analyzed the role capital played in politics, sweeping the rug out from liberals before liberalism was even universal in Europe. While nobody except hardline Marxist-Leninists really takes the dialectic seriously these days, Marx's commentary on history essentially created the modern study of social history.

>>2021532
Can we stop this meme? It's obvious after reading two pages from marx that the guy was smart. That doesn't make him right, but pretending he's stupid doesn't serve any purpose.

>>2021565
>Marx's commentary on history essentially created the modern study of social history.
But I thought cultural marxism was a "alt right conspiracy theory"?

>>2021576
What the fuck does the meme of cultural marxism have to do with his post?

>>2021153
It's kind of self-explanatory. Evolution past capitalism would liberate billions from exploitation and oppression, the world's natural ecosystems would no longer be abused at such an unsustainable rate, and political conflicts would drop sharply in frequency and intensity.

>>2021582
I you clinically retarded? I literally greentexted the part.

File: downward slope of supply.png (14KB, 963x662px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 963x662px

>>2021540
>Labor supply is not really upward sloping
This directly implies that a higher price (wage) results in a lower quantity of labor.

>>2021559
Thanks for the confession.

>>2021586
How can you be sure that Marxism...

>1. Is even needed for such a transition

>2. Will even yield the desired results

>3. Will not have unintended consequences during and after implementation

>>2021576
Marx was the first major philosopher of history to examine groups of people based on shared material characteristics. This is intrinsic to social history, because social historians regularly seek to analyze history from the perspective of the masses rather than the perspective of leaders.

Marx never said "let's castrate white men and make women dye their hair" or whatever cultural Marxism is supposed to mean.

>>2021592
I'm aware that you greentexted something that you thought led to your conclusion. It doesn't. Which is why i asked what you meant.

>>2021599
I'm aware. Those are market, not individual, curves though.

>>2021605
As of yet, the writings of Marx include the best critique of capitalism and best proposed alternative.

There are absolutely unintended consequences in the implementation of Marxist theory. This is why Marxist states often fail.

>>2021607
This is not true though, class analysis predates Marx. In fact even the concept of class struggle predates Marx.

Marx added the whole retarded historical determinism and "end of history" messianic garbage.

>>2021609
> It doesn't.
It does, sorry your brain is incapable of making the connection.

>>2021614
Great argument.

>>2021612
>As of yet, the writings of Marx include the best critique of capitalism
Yes
>best proposed alternative.
No, and here is why...
>There are absolutely unintended consequences in the implementation of Marxist theory. This is why Marxist states often fail.
...It must be proven to be successful for it to be considered the 'best alternative'. A 'best alternative' that results in failed states is not much of 'best alternative' at all

>>2021617
Not an argument

>>2021574
Is it better to be wrong and smart or stupid and right?

>>2021624
Name a better alternative.

>>2021624
>*Edit

It must be proven to be successful (or at the very least, sustainable)...

>>2021633
I'm not the one advocating for an alternative, I am advocating against it.
>But for the sake of Argument...
Mixed economy

File: latuff-us_bank_crisis.jpg (100KB, 800x548px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x548px

He was influential because he was right about everything.

>>2021633
Why would you need an alternative to the best?

>>2021648
>Marxism could have prevented the 2008 financial crisis
>only because it would have stagnated anything and everything from even progressing that far along in the first place
Truly was this a battle of wits

>>2021655
And thus the thread ended.

>>2018110

>the entire board is /pol/

No, we actually acknowledge that the holocaust happened

>>2021643
A planned capitalistic economy is still capitalism

>>2017281

Intellectual, for sure

Brilliant? Debatable

He was Spooked AF and his ideology lead to mass suffering when attempted.
I'd prefer people like Wolff and Kropotkin

>>2021744
Would you also argue that mercantilism or a palace economy are capitalism?

>>2021768
Did Marx really said anything about, that we need to attempt to do communism instead of wait when it happens naturally?

>>2021744
Planned economies and Mixed economies are not one in the same

In any case, it doesn't matter. I am not advocating for an alternative to our current system. it is on whoever is arguing for an alternative to prove that their alternative is both preferable and achievable. If Marxist societies are the -best- alternatives (Failed states and all) then, frankly, I don't even want to know what the worst alternatives look like

>>2021774
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Mercantilism

>>2021768
He was unspooked by the time he wrote Kapital.

>>2021779
It happens naturally by people attempting to do it. The USSR tried hyper accelerated socialism to get to communism as fast as possible when it wasn't even ready for socialism. It might have worked better if they let socialism be socialism. It's also something that pisses me off about communists, they don't see socialism as a worthy goal of in itself. To them it's just a stepping stone.

>>2021656
Stagnation shouldn't be considered a bad thing. Any economic system that requires growth to exist is unsustainable and perennially unstable.

>>2021844
>Stagnation shouldn't be considered a bad thing.
I suppose so but seldom is stagnation good
>Any economic system that requires growth to exist is unsustainable and perennially unstable.
You must not know what stagnation means in economics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stagnation

Seriously, that cartoon is like saying "If only cars were never invented/mass produced then there wouldn't be so many deaths and injuries on the roads"

>>2021844
>Any economic system that requires growth to exist is unsustainable and perennially unstable.

And you know this how? ALL economics models require growth, even the ones put forward by Marx himself. We've known for quite some time now that innovation and expansion are essential to keep the machine moving forward. His ideas being put into play have a track record of yielding the opposite of their intended effect on the economy, among many many many many other negative consequences


>Ideals are peaceful, History is violent

File: 1480125253603.jpg (262KB, 1487x1980px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1487x1980px

>>2017967

>>2017281
Because he understood history and society as relations between material forces.

>>2018190
it's a fucking metaphor lol

>>2018096
>Historical materialism
a joke

>>2017281
Because he was a smart philosopher

>>2018208
great stupid claim

>>2021393
holy shit marxists are brainwashed

Good thread. Anti-intellectual /pol/tards getting btfo left and right and grasping for some capitalist balls to suck.

>>2021411
god tier bro

holy shit that anon got btfo

File: brit.png (980KB, 1618x1000px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 1618x1000px

>being a Marxist in the current year

File: reddit_trump.png (17KB, 200x94px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x94px

>>2018060

>>2017281
>Muh Hegel

>>2017281
Because he has become extremely popular with academics, who assume that under a marxist or communist society THEY will be the top level bureaucrats in charge and get to make all the decisions for the poor ignorant masses. By saying they're Marxist they're stroking their ego by fighting for the little guy, but it's actually just a power fantasy

File: 9c6.png (740KB, 441x1025px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 441x1025px

>>2023291
>psychological explanations for ideology
>literally made up impossible to falsify garbage

>>2017281
Was Marx the last time anyone tried to formulate a comprehensive theory on economics?

>>2023317
>impossible to falsify

this is one condition of knowledge among many, and one that only accounts for a very limited range of phenomena.

>>2023706
>/pol/ is free speech
>/pol/ never censors anything
>/pol/ deletes gommie thread
What did they mean by this?