Which thinker made the most legitimate case for Marxism? I think

There are no degrees of legitimacy in favor of Marxism

>>284435
????
also more like luke ass
also also Foucault made the best point for marxism

>>284439
I disagree. From essentially any standpoint, Marxism is clearly the most moral system of economics.

The problem is that it can't be properly implemented.

>>284486
>From essentially any standpoint, Marxism is clearly the most moral system of economics.

How?

Lukacs was just a literary critic as far as I know. Gramsci was a genuinely smart political thinker. Foucault was too but he had more French functionalism and Nietzsche in him than Marxism.

>>284486

>Marxism is clearly the most moral system of economics.

What is Marxism? Please explain in precise terms. And explain how it is more moral.

>>284435
Marx
everyone else was a shill

>>284490
No poverty and no exploitation is an ideal situation, at least from a Western/Christian perspective.

>>284517
I'm defining Marxism as the belief that there ought not be a group of people on top who exploit a group of people on the bottom.

>>284524
>No poverty and no exploitation is an ideal situation, at least from a Western/Christian perspective.

But this is something that could just as well happen in the current system, it's not a unique ideal of Marxism

>>284524

>I'm defining Marxism as the belief that there ought not be a group of people on top who exploit a group of people on the bottom.

I asked for specifics. We can't talk about anything if you don't first define your terms.

>>284528
How can we fully eradicate poverty without abolishing Capitalism?

>>284548

How is poverty usually reduced?

>>284548

Poverty is relative, first world "poverty" is nothing like third world poverty.

Where you draw the line for what is or is not poverty depends entirely on your goals.

>>284557
Social liberation is by far the most common. Abolishing serfdom or slavery, worker insistence on better pay, etc

>>284557

Development of capital, which is usually the result of cultural changes that put value in hard work and saving.

File: 1320554024250.png (9KB, 297x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 297x300px

>>284524
>I'm defining Marxism as the belief that there ought not be a group of people on top who exploit a group of people on the bottom.

>>284548

Are we talking totally, 100% free market capitalism here?

Because that kind of system will always evolve into a situation where few hold power over many. Money is and will always be a huge boon and an advantage to any one person who has it. Thus any rich person can simply manipulate the situation to get more money - if gaining money is the endgame (which it is in capitalism).

That's why free market capitalism doesn't work. It's why we put regulations on productions for the benefit of the enviroment, workers health and salaries.

You hear it already. Companies don't want to raise the minimum wage but can't really explain why. If you put more money into a consumers pockets, that WILL benefit the economy at large, but it will NOT (directly) benefit the company who employs. That's why capitalism cannot work unrestrained.

>>284435
Asger Jorn.

>>284791
>Are we talking totally, 100% free market capitalism here?

>Because that kind of system will always evolve into a situation where few hold power over many.

Unless you're Adam Smith

>As explained above, for classical economists such as Adam Smith the term "free market" does not necessarily refer to a market free from government interference, but rather free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.[3] This implies that economic rents, i.e. profits generated from lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition.

Yes, I'm mad every time someone tries to bring up Adam Smith or classical economics in support of deregulated markets.

>>284548
Mechanisation.

>>284791
>Companies don't want to raise the minimum wage but can't really explain why.

companies don't want to raise the minimum wage because it would require them to spend more money. companies, being companies, wish to spend less money. of course they don't give a shit.

but there is a long running legitimate economic debate regarding to what extent minimum wage laws help the least well off. it sure as fuck is not as black and white as "well OF COURSE it's good for the economy but BIG BUSINESS and INSANE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS are against it because they couldn't care less about the poor". minimum wage laws *do* raise the cost of labor which in turns drives down demand and might possibly result in higher unemployment especially among unskilled uneducated workers.

>>284791
>Because that kind of system will always evolve into a situation where few hold power over many.
What makes you think that, also that's how our system is now no?

>>286696
>minimum wage laws *do* raise the cost of labor which in turns drives down demand
False, it increases the costs of the supply side. It can increase demand given that minimum wage workers have more to spend. If there's a negative on the demand side, it's because people are unemployed, and there is less money circulating in the low poverty ridden class. Don't mix up supply and demand.

>>284486
>any standpoint

Fuck off, nigger.
Being impossible to implement Marxism isn't a minor problem. To the natural rights deontologist, Marxism fails the most basic concepts of human freedom even in theory. A decent consequentialist would reject it on history alone. Capitalism is counter-intuitively much more utilitarian in the long run, and Marxism certainly denies the positive hedonist and ethical egoist the pleasures they consider good. Divine command theorists would also call it immoral because it's explicitly atheistic, although other forms of communism are not.

>>286696
>Companies won't provide better salary pay for tenured labour in order to compete
Okay.
>>284791
>that kind of system
As though a) you are beyond the historical development involved in "that system's development" and b) that such a system is a priori to categories of historical development.
>That's why capitalism cannot work unrestrained.
As though the question of judicial development implied as the structural centre for "that system" were secondary to the consideration of an inevitable failure.
>>284558
Hunger is hunger.
Criteria for differentiation in material development are never separate; only the conditions of subsistence for labour.
>>284486
>>286719
>The problem is that it can't be properly implemented.
>'Marxism' is a political project
O i am laffin.

File: words mean things.jpg (53KB, 320x312px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 320x312px

>>284524

>The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the 'coming social revolution') their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified. Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a 'conventionalist twist' to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.

>>286753
>Marxism is a supra-historical dogma which at once intercedes and suspends its own historical framework.
Bourgeoisie please go.

Marxism never works.
Only communist anarchism works out.
Both are supposed to end with the same goal, but Marxists fail to realise that a socialist state does not wither away.

>>286716
Well here's what you don't take into account with your argument

The amount of people on minimum wage after receiving a $15 wage will not boost the economy much at all because there simply isn't enough power in that market to shift the economy much at all so in reality people will lose jobs.

File: how a bill works.jpg (99KB, 617x720px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 617x720px

>>284791

>>286796
>Corporate lobbyists buying political favor
>Not a direct result of deregulated free market

No really what were you expecting? You don't generally make it to the top of the corporate ladder by being a good guy.

>>286760
>Well here's what you don't take into account with your argument
I did. Just because you were wrong doesn't mean you can deflect that easily.

I said
>If there's a negative on the demand side, it's because people are unemployed, and there is less money circulating in the low poverty ridden class. Don't mix up supply and demand.
I didn't say that raising minimum wage would necessarily increase demand, I said it could.

You're the one mixing up supply and demand. You claimed
>raise the cost of labor which in turns drives down demand and might possibly result in higher unemployment
Which is false. Your causality is backwards. Raising the cost of labor increases the cost for the supply side, which increases prices. Either because of reduced sales, or in anticipation of reduced sales, due to the new equilibrium, people are laid off. This can cause demand to decrease when buyers no longer have the means to buy the product due to being unemployed.

It's pretty obvious you get spoonfed your economics by conservative pundits. I mean if you've ever even taken a single look at an equilibrium graph before, you'd know price and quantity are the axis, and supply and demand are the curves.

Frankly, I think minimum wage jobs are a good thing, if only because it increases the socioeconomic mobility of some people, even if it comes at the expense of a greater number of unemployed people. Employing those people at the cost of others' socioeconomic upward mobility and increasing the number of people trapped in poverty or with downward economic mobility is not a good thing. If the minimum wage is not above the cost to live and save some earnings, then I'm not really sure that job should exist in the first place. All it does is allows for the predatation of desperate people whose choices are joblessness or poverty and downward economic mobility. Since it's tied to cost of living, minimum wage should really be tied to region.

>>286815
minimum wage laws are a good thing*

>>286815
naa I'm not that guy, I'm a new dude pointing out the flaw in your argument.

>>286812
It's not deregulated if the government can directly influence the economy. Shit like bailouts and investment incentives are very much interventionist.

>>286851
It wasn't a flaw though. I mentioned it, even when you claimed I didn't mention it, so you're still wrong. I simply said it was a possibility.

>>286865
Classical economists like Adam Smith would call you stupid and a deregulated market a perversion of the Free Market.

>>286815
>Since it's tied to cost of living, minimum wage should really be tied to region.
The dumbest shit anyone has written.

>>284435
>george lucas
>marxist
go to his million dollar ranch and tell him he's a marxist

>>286872
Adam Smith was a retard dude, I don't know why you're appealing to his authority.

>>284557
Free and unobstructed availability of Education.

even with that poverty won't be totally eradicated, youll always have those who are too damn lazy to make something of themselves.

>>286876
>The dumbest shit anyone has written.
Why? The economic mobility function of income is directly tied to cost of living, because the cost of living determines how much of that income does not improve your economic status.

You don't seriously think a minimum wage worker in bumfuck Kansas should get as much as a minimum wage worker in NYC, when the costs just to break even with poverty are vastly different. The relative increase in minimum wage for a place like NYC isn't going into the worker's pocket. It's going into the landlord's pocket and the store's pockets. It's not like the worker is getting more discretionary income than the person in Kansas.

>>284445
Have you read Foucault? He argues against Marx in the best way I think, he is definitely not a marxist.

>>286883
His IQ was 212, about 3 times your IQ.

>>286900
I'm white though.

>>286906
Adam Smith was pure white. You're probably mixed and 1/16 Black, Mexican, American Indian or Gypsy.

>>286910
>implying I'm American
m8 ...

>>286914
You're 1/16 Gypsy then.

>>286872
You didn't mention it at all, Look here's some maths for you

3.54 million on or below the minimum wage, lets say for arguments sakes they all earn the minimum wage as it stands
So 3.54 million X $7.25 = $26.1 million

with the increase to $15 they would instead receive all up 54.0 million
That's an increase of only 27.9 million
Now lets say that these minimum wage workers spend 100% (lol) of that income on goods and services only equates to just over 1% of US GDP

Now do you get it?

>>286895
>Why? The economic mobility function of income is directly tied to cost of living, because the cost of living determines how much of that income does not improve your economic status.

Reverse this logic; the cost of living is determined by the mobility of labour in proportion to rates of surplus labour. There is no absolute law which determines market development regionally; any attempt to fix regionally distributed minimum wages would end up in neocolonial tactics within one's own state. Regional controls on wage-labour would cause a failure in the reproduction of capital. It isn't viable for so many reasons - none of which can be pointed out when you determine the rationale for an argument behind "supply side" economic theory.

>>286924
>You didn't mention it at all
I mentioned either was a possibility. Your "rebuttal" was based on the assumption that I asserted something I didn't specifically assert.

>Now lets say that these minimum wage workers spend 100% (lol) of that income on goods and services only equates to just over 1% of US GDP
Wow, you mean just like it cost 1% of the GDP to pay them that money. Comparing it as a fraction of the GDP is pointless. What were you expecting, it should double the GDP or something? This statement has no meaning. What is an economic multiplier?

>Now do you get it?
I get you're strawmanning and you really have no clue about economics. I'm inclined to think you might actually be the same guy you claimed you weren't. I mean your argument is clearly not coherent.

>>284548
The Singularity. Don't worry, it's coming soon according to Ray Kurzweil.

>>286948
Is there any definition of the Singularity that doesn't fall into the realm of absurd science fiction?

>>286964
Just believe, anon. Just believe.

>>286936
There's the fact that there's a reasonable distance you can expect a minimum wage worker to travel before they get significant diminishing returns, so workers are essentially geographically tied to their jobs. If a job has negative downward economic mobility, that job is going to be a failure in reproduction of capital anyways. If a job can be done somewhere else for cheaper, then why should that job exist as an unsustainable living in a place with high costs of living. You should not be operating a farm on Wall Street. A Starbucks barista should be making at least poverty level (as defined by actual costs of living somewhere within reasonable commute distance, not national poverty level) to allow them some means for upwards social mobility. And fact of the matter is regional minimum wage laws are already on the books and have been there for a long time.

>>286943

Anon, this is the first guy you were talking to replying for the first time. When I said "higher cost of labor drives down demand" I was referring to the labor demand itself.

>>286948
Probably the most insufferable piece of shit I was ever forced to read.

>>286972
Okay then. But I think most people would naturally assume a generic demand would be the one generically used for most goods and services. Labor demand is a more specific concept, and if that's what you meant, it would have been much more clear if you specified that.

>>286943
It's saying that the cost to business outweighs the potential economic benefits how daft are you?

From what I can see you throw around buzzwords but really have nothing to back it up

Comparing to GDP of course has a point are you fucking daft?
This is literally economics 101.

Am I being trolled here?

>>286991

Yes, sorry. Should have been more specific.

File: macx.png (619KB, 969x511px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 969x511px

>>284486
>The problem is that it can't be properly implemented.
But it already is. Marx is literally inescapable outside of complete annihilation.

Capitalism can only perpetuate by either proving enough concessions that satisfies the workers or else by dominating them in strict class repression. Pursuing the former results in increasing wages, increasing worker participation in business and society, and decreasing class relations and pursuing the latter results in class-consciousness, people's war, and the seizure of the means of production by force. There was no escape for feudalism and there won't be an escape for capitalism.

As it is, capitalism has done a decent sitting on the fence between these two, keeping the first world workers distracted and the second and third world workers dominated, but both of those conditions are reversing and reversing quickly.

Marx is the call coming from inside the house, you dumb fucks.

>>286993
>It's saying that the cost to business outweighs the potential economic benefits how daft are you?
Expressing it as a percentage of the GDP is incredibly daft.

>From what I can see you throw around buzzwords but really have nothing to back it up
You seem to have a hard time even making a coherent argument. As I posited multiple times before, I never said an increase in the minimum wage would necessarily increase demand in the market. I said it could. I said it could also lead to a decrease as well, but you chose to only quote the first line as if I said that were the only scenario.

>Comparing to GDP of course has a point are you fucking daft?
Is that the best you can come up with?

>cost to business outweighs the potential economic benefits
You didn't even compare the cost to GDP, you just said the increase in wages would only be 1% of the GDP. 1% of the GDP which incidentally might have a higher economic multiplier. You didn't even really make any point except that 1% of the GDP would be redistributed.

>This is literally economics 101.
Yes, you should take it.

>Am I being trolled here?
No, you are the one doing the trolling.

>>284528
Capitalism creates poverty because it requires it.

>>286971
That entire paragraph is fucking stupid.

Labour mobility does not equal distance travelled to work. Work as a vocation in itself is not tied to social mobility. Specialised labour moves as necessary - there are no farms on Wall Street for that precise fucking reason - not with regards to an abstract ideal of market uniformity. Regional minimum wage laws are determined by the state's allocation, as are trade agreements and tax levies. The reproduction of capital is not dependant on some mythical fixture for social mobility either; stop arguing according to your own personal utopian creed.

There are so many more issues that you could redress by reading Volume 1 of Capital. Grafting 18th century political economy - written in a time when profit was reaped as much from the distribution of goods through a form of mercantile trade - onto 21st century economics is fucking stupid. Stop responding.

>>284435
>george lucas
>marxism

kek

>>284524
>Western/Christian perspective
Blatantly wrong. Christianity is essentially "if you're poor and pious you will be rewarded in heaven", not "let's eliminate poverty and make everyone equal". In fact the New Testament explicitly states that the kings have a divine right to rule and hold power, granted by Jesus, the king of kings.

>>286971
>If a job has negative downward economic mobility, that job is going to be a failure in reproduction of capital anyways.
>muh theory

So will we be able to realize a global (or even a bunch of smaller local) communist state once AI is sufficiently developed to be able to distribute goods extremely efficiently?

>>287041
>oecumenical councils were a mistake
>t. god

>>287048
Marxists, literally relying on pipe dreams and outlandish sci-fi scenarios in order to make their shit work.

>>287050
I don't think you know what ecumenical councils were.

>>287037
>Regional minimum wage laws are determined by the state's allocation, as are trade agreements and tax levies.
This meaning that regional minimum wage laws are in fact always fixed by one means or another - judicial apparatus, or state GDP - to a particular rate, which never fluctuates as a base.

>>287057
>pipe dreams
You cannot deny the fact that truly intelligent AI will eventually be created. Maybe not in our lifetimes (though the advent of quantum computers may again speed progress), but it *will* come. The question is whether it will enable us to create a society where the overhead of distribution is managed by such an AI, allowing humans to create a true communist state.

>>287057
You don't even know what a Marxist is, cunny. Also, you spell oecumenical like a cückbitch.

>>287037
Minimum wage jobs are not specialized labor. Yet most people would agree, you need some amount of this low wage labor even in places where wages tend to be high. You're right, reproduction of capital is not tied directly to economic mobility, if the employer is simply taking all of it any then some, leaving the employee with only negative economic mobility. What it does mean is that the employer is leveraging their economic power, and could likely bear an increase in wages.

Although to be honest I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say about distribution of goods. Distribution of goods is still a huge part of the economy when you consider the mark up from the producer of a finished product to the final retail price.

File: 441.jpg (31KB, 298x403px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 298x403px

>>287068
>it's coming guys!
>just wait it WILL come bro!
>anytime now...

>>287068
>You cannot deny the fact that truly intelligent AI will eventually be created.
[citation needed]

>>287078
>You don't even know what a Marxist is, cunny.

Is it even worth knowing in the first place? Marxists should be grateful people still give them attention after 150 years of spectacular failure.

>>287068
Or maybe robots will just kill all humans.

>>287087
>>287089
I *did* say that it would probably not come in our lifetime, but even current-day AI tech such as speech recognition, machine learning, pattern matching, categorizing data, etc. is accelerating very rapidly. Even just 10 years ago shit like Siri/Cortana/Google Now was unthinkable. It's still at the level of being more of a gimmick than anything else but in the next 5-10 years I believe such programs will be deeply integrated into everyday life.

>>287112
KILL.ALL.HUMANS.
I
L
L
.
A
L
L
.
H
U
M
A
N
S
.

>>287112
Why in the fuck you need to recognize speech in order to distribute goods?

>>287122
That way the robots can understand and spy on the humans, and be prepared for the day of the distribution of death to all humans.

>>287122
You don't necessarily. I used speech recognition as an example of AI tech that has progressed tremendously since even 2005. It's also considered by computer scientists to be one of the core components of strong AI (not strong as in the colloquial sense, but in scientific terms, e.g., strong vs. weak proofs).

>>287135
Value is subjective, so shit like "fair distribution" is pretty much impossible.

>>287081
You're right; there is no category called "minimum wage jobs" - only jobs which pay at the minimum wage. The necessity for "essential services" is determined by factors not stemming from an abstract "need" given by most people's agreement - but by market requirement. A uniform minimum wage sees fit that these essential services pay at the same level, to prevent anyone falling below the level of subsistence, as the level of subsistence depends in the first place on the average labour rate: something not fixed by geography, but determined by market growth.

The minimum wage ensures the growth of capital according to a sustained development in the availability of surplus labour in tandem with the productive forces. This argument is circling over the same issue of why the minimum wage is not regionally allocated: were a regionally allocated minimum wage implemented economic development would be unequal.

You're arguing this from the perspective of wage labour, not from economic necessity - hence why you have no idea what's being said with regards to the distribution of goods and profit extraction between the different centuries.

Finally, if an employer were to employee yet more labour, there is no guarantee for equitable growth: Starbucks can only higher a set number of individuals before profit loss. Again, something dependant on market growth, and rates of consumption.

>>287149
hire* holy fuck.

There is no legitimate reason to argue for a regionally locked minimum wage.

Stop saying "muh social mobility". You're arguing against social mobility by locking wage levels according to region.

>>287148
I'm pretty sure I didn't say the word "fair". I agree that fair distribution is not a realistic goal unless we reach post-scarcity.

>>287165
What sort of distribution are you aiming for? Because communism was supposed to be all about fairness.

>>287175
The end goal *is* fair distribution, as in everybody gets the same amount of goods.

However, that's not realistic while we still have shortages of some goods and surpluses of another. An AI that hyper-efficiently distributes goods can alleviate this to a degree, but the simple fact exists that we have less uranium than we do steel. In the "short" term I see society transition to a state where production/distribution is taken care of by AI with robots doing the drudge work, leaving humans free and unemployed to mostly do as they wish, save for some very specialized fields, supported by a universal basic income to allow them to live comfortably.

>>287149
>>287156
You're saying that like people who lose their jobs due to a minimum wage law can't simply move somewhere else and migrate to somewhere they can get a minimum wage job that provides upward mobility, just like the Wall Street bankers move to Wall Street, and somehow with a minimum wage law, you need to ensure 100% employment or something because you're implying something about Starbucks hiring more baristas than is profitable. Poverty trap jobs are traps. People get trapped in them for various reasons, and then they end up trapped. I don't believe in them. It's really as simple as that. It's better for them to just seek employment elsewhere if the choice is between joblessness and a poverty trap.

Still, minimum wage is regionally allocated. whether you like it or not. It's a fact of life, and you denying it doesn't change the fact that there are regional minimum wage laws on the books.

>>287215
>Still, minimum wage is regionally allocated. whether you like it or not. It's a fact of life, and you denying it doesn't change the fact that there are regional minimum wage laws on the books.
Sick meme.

>>287212
>same amount of goods
That's not what communism preaches, it was all about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". The "needs" part is tricky, since needs are subjective, unless we're talking about bare minimum biological needs so your AI would keep the population butt naked in a cave and feeding them a bowl of porridge every week.

>>287218
But they are. Just because you say they aren't doesn't make it so. Minimum wage laws help actors make rational choices by removing irrational choices like poverty trap jobs from the market.

>>287232
>Minimum wage laws are regionally distributed
>Minimum wage laws enable rational choices within the market
Pick one.

>>287241
Both, unless you have some sort of weird definition for regionalism.

>>287219
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
Keep in mind that phrase originated in 1850s Europe. Honestly I consider that old-style communist thinking outdated and akin to a Christian saying that Christianity can be reduced to "love thy neighbour". That said, we can sit and argue all day about what it really means for distribution to be fair, but that's a whole different discussion.

>>287250
>>287250
How do you confront reality knowing that trade controls and state loans push the minimum wage towards a constitutional level and not a regional one?

>>287252
But anyway, what's the point of giving everyone exactly the same amount of shit?

>marxism thread
>only ever about economics

>>287272
Everyone gets the same amount of money and can buy whatever they want. I don't mean goods in the literal sense. For example, some people would own more shoes than others, because they like shoes. That's not unfair because they still receive the exact same stipend as everyone else, they just choose to spend it differently.

>>287271
Where is the minimum wage in the constitution?

>>287287
>Everyone gets the same amount of money
Yeah but WHY?

>money
Whatever you're proposing, it's not communism.

>>287289
$50 an hour.

>>287289
>Constitutional level law must refer strictly to American law
Dohoho

>>286755
funny what >>286753 said is basically what they had to say about Maxist history in my theory of history class in college.

>>287299
>implying constitutions arent made for geographic regions

>>287306
Tell me more my family.
>>287314
Oh right they are.

>>287296
I never said it was communism. I'm talking about the near-talk proto-communist direction that society is already heading in. However, this *will* eventually lead to a true communist society.

>>287296
Communism is not about the abolishment of money. It's about creating a classless society where the means of production is controlled by the workers.

>>287319
>Still refusing to answer the question

I'm done.

>>287330
>Everyone gets the same amount of money
>but WHY
You're nitpicking irrelevant shit that is inconsequential to my main argument, which is that the creation of AI will lead to a socialist society and eventually a true communist society.

>>287337
>true communist society
What a fucking meme.

>>287318
Well basically the professor said attempts to make history conform to scientific standards like Marx did met with failure. We can't really test history like a science so "scientific" theories of history don't really work.

Most of my professors were leftists, yet few spared Marx from some level of criticism when he was brought up. His view of history just is not popular with most historians, even if they don't necessarily like capitalism

>>287337
Which is something that won't happen ever.

>asking about the entire motive behind this dogshit idea is "nitpicking irrelevant shit"

>>287342
I had a teacher that was a straight up Marxist sympathizer and liked Cuba, but also stressed the shortfalls of Communism.

I seriously don't understand the /pol/ stereotype that college teachers teach Marxism comes from. It's like they've never gone to a college before and all they have are second hand stereotypes of hippies.

>>287342
Except, a large majority of Marx's writing were polemics against the philosophers of his time, utilizing a form of the Hegelian system.

>>287352
>Marxist sympathizer
What does that even mean?

>>287337
i love high school

>>287387
You need to be 18 to post here, son.

>>287352
To be fair there are a lot of quasi socialists and leftists in history departments. For one class I had to work with post grads that talked about the Chicago school of economics with a sneer. The papers they wrote that I had to read were dripping with political commentary. I met one lecturer who passionately defended the efforts of various socialists who were following the Comintern. Its one reason I picked classes that focused on ancient and military history. If I really wrote honestly what I thought of their papers I probably would have gotten in trouble.

>>287371
Marx's theory made predictions which failed to occur. Think whatever else about his other work but he was wrong about those things.

>>287371
>>287342
>Most of my professors were leftists
>I had a teacher that was a straight up Marxist sympathizer

That is probably where the "stereotype" stems from.

>>287415
I don't think he was wrong about the mechanization of labour leading to an "overthrow" of capitalism. He just got the time scales wrong... Although he eventually abandoned that idea.

>>287415
Can you please cite an example which does not include the Communist Manifesto.
>>287405
Are those departments really out of the way of the political trends which run through Academia?

>>287423
But even the leftists don't advocate Marxism. I'm pretty sure /pol/ just isn't college educated because they got failing marks on essays when they cited infographics.

>>287425
>Are those departments really out of the way of the political trends which run through Academia?

Not really, if anything history is still a little better of that some of the liberal arts and social sciences. But its disturbing to think there are people getting teaching positions with such large political axes to grind.

this is my personal perspective, but I think historians should look at events dispassionately and do there best to withhold moral judgement, even about something you would normally find horrible.

"C'est comme la poésie, il rime."

-George Lucas on Communism.

>>287440
You have to understand, to the average American having any sympathy for Marxist positions is akin to being a communist.

I say this absolutely loathing Marxism myself

>>287448
But that's my point. They don't teach Marxist positions, yet /pol/ claims they do because
>to the average American having any sympathy for Marxist positions is akin to being a communist.
That leads me to believe that /pol/ never actually graduated from college. They just pick up on any small liberal bias and go on a huge tangent from there.

>>287456
Its hardly a small liberal bias, I mean it might be thought that way in Europe, but in America those positions are traditionally considered pretty radical.

>>287440
>Citing infographics

Anonymous ( 2015 )

[Accessed 5 days ago*]
https://www.4chan.org/
*It's probably 404'd

>>287441
I would've thought Historians struggle more over positions of tenure within their respective departments with clique forming. I.e. a senior lecturer only promoting those who invest time in expanding the frontiers of their own work. Disregarding passion and in place attacking the credibility of historians who pursue methodologies which aren't status quo / don't satisfy the University Alumni.

>>287463
Isn't this just proof that Americans have extreme views, when harboring just sympathies with ideals, but vilifying it in practice is "radical"? You have to vilify everything to not be radical.

>>287486
I was just a humble BA though Ive thought about going back but seeing how hard it is to get tenure I have doubts that its worth it economically, even though I do love history.

But I did see enough to know anyone with conservative or libertarian leanings would be wise to keep their head down

>>287499
Whether a view is extreme is culturally relative. To Americans its Europeans who have extreme views

>muh librul bias
>lolbertarianism not being all the rage
wat, given it's died down some now that Ron is retired but still

>>287507
What part of America do you live in /pol/?

A flyover state?

>>287512
>libertarianism all the rage on college campuses.

Are you from the mirror world?

>>287523
I did hang out in pol, but they went down hill the last few years, I mean really down hill. Just religion threads and hate speech.

Lets make things clear, pol is crazy, but most Americans are to the right of college professors

>>284435
None. The most convincing (yet wrong) was Marx, and most interested in remedying the abysmal failures of the system (and failing resoundingly) was Lange.

Lukács can hardly be placed as a theoretician of Marxism. He, like Gramsci, was a missionary of Marxism. His studies were directed to propagate Marxism, and not to understanding it.

>>284435
Zizek

>>287025
underrated post

File: newsies laughing.jpg (170KB, 1280x544px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x544px

>>284524
>Marxism means no poverty

>>287025
This