Why has Marxism been so attractive to the academic class?

>>377530
It's a great tool for critique and gives you a lot of options to write about.

Plus it's really an extension of a certain side of Hegel, which, already, is pretty cool to think and write about.

Regardless of its accuracy.

>>377530
Being kek is a common theme in leftism, so they want an ideology where they get the same pay as an illiterate dung herder

People want free stuff

>>377530
>Why are intellectuals attracted to the best means of ending inequality?

>>377556
I know this is 4chan but try to be serious on /his/ please.

Because it allows you to be an academic without actually having to do anything that requires intellect.

>>377556
But communism has been a monumental failure.

Surely if it was the best it would have at least succeeded somewhere for a year or two.

File: 3fc03a084ed7cceee50688d9725843a8.jpg (36KB, 474x616px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 474x616px

Judging from the PKK of today, libertarian socialism seems way better than Marxism, why was Marx so against it?

>>377556

I love how you rephrased it in a way that you think is so obvious and yet that very way is only "obvious" if you accept a certain set of dogmas.

I'm pretty sure you made this thread before.

>>377556
>to the best means of ending inequality?

That's not the point of Marxism and you misunderstand it if you think that's Marx's argument.

They don't want to 'end' inequality or choose a way to end it among many other options. But they see that they have LIVED THROUGH the maximum inequality possible and now they are channelling the inevitable: equality.

It requires a bit of Hegel to understand. They are Reason coming to understand itself through history.

>>377574
Because Marx thought the Labor Theory of Value was true. Under the assumption that it is businessmen are literally stealing from workers.

But we now know it's not of course, so the entire point is moot and the equivalent of asking "why are doctors so attracted to miasma theory?". They aren't. It's wrong and fails to do what it sets out to do so doctors don't do it, only people who like to roleplay doctors give it any credence just as only people who like to roleplay intellectuals give Marxism any credence.

>>377601
That's not a very strong critique of the labor theory of value.

You're better off saying something like "A Mona Lisa painting is worth as much as a piece of junk if it took you the same time to make if Marx's labor theory of value is correct."

Read a book, nigga!

>>377601
This doesn't really answer my question. Why would the LTV require Marx to be against ideologies like PKK?

>>377530
Jews

File: 1448566692266.jpg (51KB, 394x569px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 394x569px

>>377542
>>377554
>>377566
>>377623
/pol/ please go and stay go

>>377618

>That's not a very strong critique of the labor theory of value.

He wasn't critiquing it, he was just flat out stating the truth.

If you study the humanities at uni do they care about how good your style is or do they just care purely about the content? I don't want creative writing feedback but if I was doing academic work I'd at least want it to be stylish instead of dry, e.g. I would use Schopenhauer or La Rochefoucauld as rolemodels.

Do lecturers give you feedback on aesthetic style?

File: 1445995124077.jpg (32KB, 300x378px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x378px

>>377644
/lit/ please go and stay go.

>>377530
Real answer:

Academics care more about ideals than personal success. That's why they're academics. They either chose to study something with no practical application other than academics, or they chose academics instead of being a private sector practitioner. Academia is a way of life, it's not just a career, it requires a passion for knowledge and thinking not just as a means to an ends. You simply would not get into academia otherwise.

Of course, that's not always the case, there's a few fields where being a professor and publishing ups your credibility, and ups the amount you can charge as a consultant, which can be very lucrative if a corporation wants to push an agenda and want's a smart sounding person to back them.

>>377530
Academics end up being the top dogs in almost every socialist country. The peasants never rule, it's always the "intellectuals".

>>377700
This.

People can always be trusted to act in their own interest, regardless of creed. 'Qui bono?' is the rule, my friends.

>>377665
>please go to the place where you read a fucking book

>>377757
>/lit/
>read books
ha

File: 1448310598482.gif (2MB, 177x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 177x150px

>>377764
>/pol/
>read anything

>>377713
Cui bono*

But of course you're right, and left-wingers do recognize that. None of those who make up the backbone of any leftist movement will lend any credence to an academic and his words, until he proves himself on the field, in the Fight - and even then, they'll just "use" his words as tools, ignoring their speaker. That's the beauty of it.

File: thomas sowell.jpg (58KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 850x400px

>Academic

>>377830
Beat me to it.

>>377556
>inequality
>an issue

>>377821
Beauty of what?

>>377530
Marxism gives intellectuals power.

see: Raymond Aron

>>377872
Esl, let me rephrase. The beauty of how one facet of the Left (the one I described, the fighty kind, those who spur parties to work freely) relates with academics - I can appreciate that utilitarianism

>>377530
Because of pride. People who believe they are smart and logical fall for bullshit more easily.

>>377700
Except where they're exterminated

File: 1445918832871.gif (2MB, 330x275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x275px

It's an ideology born in a classroom/academics, and ticks all the boxes that people in those environments like to see. It doesn't account for the nature of humanity however, and therefore doesn't survive contact with reality when put into practice. It's an ideology for the ideal humanity, not the one we have, things that get difficult to see and acknowledge from the top of the ivory tower.

My suspicion is continental Europeans just really love writing in weird jargon.

>>377979
Upvoted.

>>377556
>marxism
>ending inequality
>every socialist country ever was a shithole with wealthy nomenklature elites ruling over loads of poor people reduced to serfdom

>>377530
One of the very first political philosophy to address the problems of industrialization, which is still very relevant to today.

>>377979
>muh human nature

Human nature is dictated by material conditions and cultural standards.

>>378013
Marx please fuck off

Because children are stupid and all the professors are Marxist that push their shit onto them

File: tmp_9131-1448578651551-1033712096.png (703KB, 475x637px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 475x637px

>>378013
Kill yourself.

>>378013
>What's evolution?

>>378013

Anger, greed, jealousy, foolishness, tribalism, and plain old hunger for power are universal in humanity. And even if you suppress all this in yourself you'll find yourself quickly replaced and made irrelevant by those that don't.

File: 12905235.jpg (21KB, 268x403px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 268x403px

>>378018
>>378035
>>378040
>>378057
>Being this reactionary

File: OWG.jpg (43KB, 365x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 365x450px

>>378074
>Hitler
>reactionary

This is what marxists actually think, holy shit

File: how to get rid of commies.jpg (100KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 736x736px

>>378074

>>378074
I am not a reactionary son. Communists are the true reactionaries, as communism is nothing but neo-feudalism.

File: 1923591.jpg (103KB, 1024x777px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1024x777px

>>378080
>>378082
>>378091
>Facists getting this assblasted

File: gulag.jpg (43KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 540x960px

>>378126

>>378126
Fascism and communism are much more similar than they are different boyo ;^)

>>378091
I don't think you know what any of the words you're using mean.

>>378126
>posting picture of a guy who ganged up with Hitler against Poland
>accusing anyone of fascism

>>378013
Epic.

File: 1442278766589.jpg (20KB, 435x503px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 435x503px

>>378141
>horseshoe theory

>>377757
> go to /lit/
>enjoy discussions about books
>come to /his enjoy discussions about history and philosophy
Based Hiro

>>378152
Horseshoe theory is correct, but also the "political spectrum" is a lie.

Politics are not binary and cannot be plotted on a one dimensional line, or even a 2 dimensional model.

Communism, fascism, and monarchy are remarkably similar in how they operate.

File: sowellsysvalid.png (86KB, 823x225px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 823x225px

>>377530
because this

>>377530
>Why has Marxism been so attractive to the academic class?
Because it hasn't and you're pulling this claim out of your ass.

>>378210
>being this ignorant

I can't tell if people are talking about Marxism or "Marxism", and speaking about academia in primarily English-speaking countries, or the Continent and elsewhere.

>>378222
>believing everything you read on 4chan and taking it at face value
Just because you see those ebin meme's where universities are depicted as a place for evil leftists to brainwash the masses being posted everyday doesn't make those ebin meme's reality.

>>378262
I went to college bro. The increasing radicalism of the academic left has been a hot topic for many recent articles. It's not a meme you communist faggot.

>>378329
Link us to some of those, meme lord.

>>378329
Do you even understand why "I went to college" doesn't add anything to the discussion? Are you sure you did go to college, considering you should be familiar with the concept of "anecdotal evidence"?

>>377621
fuck your question, this is now a medium to spread my ideology and outlandish beliefs

>>378339
>>378351
Have you chucklekeks even been paying attention to the whole yale and mizzou scandals? The success of bernies campaign amoung undergrads, the state of the humanities? The Vox article?

Upper middle class students are yammering about heteropatriarchal cisnormative white supremacist capitalism and marxist analysis while you guys are covering your ears and screaming "IT'S JUST A MEME"

>>377700
You don't let a dog practice medicine either.

>>378415
This isn't just about the current state of western academia either, hence why OP has a photo of the red guard.

The growing marxist influence in universities has been a problem for nearly 100 years.

Yoy guys are also fucking retarded, since the philosophical foundation of the New Left (born from the academe) has strong marxist influence from top to bottom.

Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and through them, the events of history.

- Keynes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs

They might as well put this link in the /his/ sticky. It would spare us from these redundant threads.

File: hayyy lmao.png (709KB, 933x703px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 933x703px

>>378466

https://mises.org/library/intellectuals-and-socialism-0

File: top hayek.png (320KB, 933x703px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 933x703px

>>378481

>>377661
Depends, most have not but some have pointed out my writing style

>>377556
Equality is a figment of the human imagination. By pursuing equality you are pursuing a fantasy. If you want to help people live materially richer lives, then you should understand that such a thing depends on the level of capital accumulation in society which in turn depends on maximum economic efficiency which follows from the natural working order of the economy free from government planning. How levels of wealth differs among individuals and groups is irrelevant. Absolute wealth, not relative wealth, is what is important.

>>377971
>almost every socialist country
Remember to read posts before you reply to them next time.

>>377757

>/lit/
>read

File: collectivism in the current year.png (2MB, 1866x1406px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1866x1406px

>>378503

>>378415
> The success of Bernies campaign among undergrads are a sure sign of Marxism

wew lad we're getting a little to meme for even me.

C'mon /pol/. All you need to do is show us research supporting your claim. Literary all you need to do is find a proper poll regarding people in academics and their political opinions. I don't even think it's hard to find. But that would be actually having support for whatever shit you're spewing, a foreign concept I presume.

>>377530
> Academic class
Ph.D students, post-grads and academics make up less than 1% of the population of any given society. They aren't a class.

File: mfw central planning.png (4MB, 3078x2319px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3078x2319px

>>379225

>>379234
>bernie
>marxist
What am I reading.

Also there was a huge success among undergrads with Ron Paul meme too, wasn't there?

>>377530
Becuase they've never had to do physical labor in their lives.

>>378329
It actually is a meme, because the ideas have been spreading and taking root in this collective consciousness of the academic left.

>>379234
>Literary all you need to do is find a proper poll regarding people in academics and their political opinions.
Actually, it's a bit more complex then that, if we're assuming OP wasn't just trolling.

Which is also an answer to OP's question. Marxism was attractive to academics because it's an academic methodology, not a political outlook.

Marx is popular with academics because he basically redid how we do human history.

>>378466
>because intellectuals are smart enough to know what's best for everyone
wow

>>378013
No. This is Marx greatest error. It's where his engineer's disease shows through.

Human nature is fixed and immutable. We are cavemen with a knowledge base and adequate nutrition and this is the source of our alienation and the reason why Marx was a hack and why /lit/ is as useless and stupid as /pol/: We have built something so advanced that we do not belong in it.

File: 1424535761871.png (238KB, 662x749px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 662x749px

>>377979
This

File: Foucault5.jpg (15KB, 244x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 244x300px

>>378018
>>378040
>>378057
>>379295

>>378466
And people say the Left is anti-intellectual

>>377530
>Implying any here reads Marx.

>>379302
>A government in advocacy of forcing people to think and believe a certain way (community before self)
hello 1984, the way to hell was paved with good intentions and all that

File: pareto.jpg (241KB, 626x787px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 626x787px

>"Probably the intellectual has more difficulty than the common man in freeing himself from this ideology which, like the State which derives from it, is his especial handiwork. The Soviet government rules in the name of a doctrine elaborated by an intellectual whose life was spent in libraries and interpreted for the past century by countless other intellectuals. Under a Communist régime the intellectuals, sophists rather than philosophers, rule the roost. The examining magistrates who unmask deviations, the writers coerced into socialist realism, the engineers and managers who are supposed to execute the plans and to interpret the ambiguous orders of the central authority—all must be dialecticians. The Secretary-General of the Party, master and arbiter over the lives of millions of men. is also an intellectual: at the end of a triumphal career he offers to the faithful a theory of capitalism and socialism—as though a book represented the highest accomplishment. The emperors of old were often poets or thinkers; for the first time the emperor actually reigns qua dialectician, interpreter of the doctrine and of history."

Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals

>>378013
See that's the problem of marxism. It refuses to acknowledge the human condition as that of Sentient beings. It degrades humanity into nothing more than cogs of the greater marxist machine; interchangeable and disposable. Like farm animals or gears and wheels.

Why have the worst tragedies happened under marxist rule? Holodomor in Ukraine led by stalin. Cultural revolution by mao. Pol pot's many purges, etc etc.

Because Marxism at it's core disrespects humanity. Why do marxist's hate families? Because to a marxist a women working in a factory is of better use to the idealogy than at home raising children. Why do marxists promote equality? Because of everyone's equal than noone can feel bad about their inadequacies or good about themselves for their strengths.

>>377530
The majority of academics are unproductive and supported by the establishment. The rest follows logically.

>>379347
>See that's the problem of marxism. It refuses to acknowledge the human condition as that of Sentient beings. It degrades humanity into nothing more than cogs of the greater marxist machine; interchangeable and disposable. Like farm animals or gears and wheels.
Funny, that's just what I was thinking about this: >>379350

>>378207
That guy doesn't believe in climate change

>>379311
Wait, did I just score Foucault points?

I know literally nothing about the man.

>>378013
>tabula rasa

Nice try, Descartes!

>>379375
He's an expert in the history of dungeons

>>379347
>It degrades humanity into nothing more than cogs of the greater marxist machine; interchangeable and disposable. Like farm animals or gears and wheels.


Just like capitalism...

>>379347
>It refuses to acknowledge the human condition as that of Sentient beings. It degrades humanity into nothing more than cogs of the greater marxist machine; interchangeable and disposable. Like farm animals or gears and wheels.

Right, because it's actually looking at the people as they are rather than ideology or how we want them to be. It's simply looking at the course of history and saying "right, and what are our patterns here? Rather than taking what people tell themselves and others at face value let's think about what materially might be causing decisions and conflicts materially."

When you do statistics you don't wonder about the feeling of the people behind the stats. If 8% of the population has stolen from friend's and family on multiple occasions then that's the way it is. Trying to figure out their individual justifications is only vaguely important when you're trying to craft a response policy.

>>379285

>smart enough to think they know what's best for everyone

ftfy

>>379431
Ha ha!

No. Socialism tries to end this condition and kills millions. Capitalism wipes it's ass with people and suddenly they have sanitation, adequate nutrition, an education and running water.

>>379364
I didn't say they're mindless cogs in a machine. I said they're unproductive parasites with a vested interest in growing the establishment - creating worthless jobs for their unproductive comrades.

>>377979
>It doesn't account for the nature of humanity however
This has always been a terrible argument because even if people were stuffed with all the good in the world at birth there are a plethora of factors that could fuck things up like organizational roles that engender conflict, antagonistic philosophical positions, different conceptions of good, or sheer lack of practical knowledge to carry out a task. Your doctor having some vague sense of moral goodness does not make leeches a good idea or mean that they know how to effectively run a hospital. The "human nature" theory has little if any explanatory power when it comes to why Socialism turned out the way it did.

>>379481
>antagonistic philosophical positions, different conceptions of good, or sheer lack of practical knowledge to carry out a task
I've always considered thise things part of human nature.

>>379461
All of those come from government public spending

>>379318

Anyone with a working brain should be able to understand that no clique of intellectuals, however smart they may be, can run the fucking market better or more efficiently than it runs itself

>>379473
It's called education. It's a value in itself. Judging it solely in terms of its production value is seeing people as cogs in a machine.

>>379507
Well then your concept of human nature is so wide it is more or less worthless.

>>379513
But that's not what socialism is

File: ahahaha.gif (777KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 400x300px

>>377556
>best means
>dicking about with people's lives like pieces on a chessboard, and then blaming the capitalists when millions starve

File: 079 - HlpjdcF.jpg (63KB, 532x689px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 532x689px

when will this meme end

>>377530
Because Marxism is not just political Marxism, and Marx had a huge influence on historiography, considering economies and capital, ordinary people and their interaction with society rather than the almost exclusively big man history that predominated, history from below not above.

But you knew already this from every other time this thread has been posted on /his/, and just wanted to have another circlejerk crywank over ivory tower pinkos.

>>377661
As time passes and you read the work of your lecturers, you'll no doubt find that most of them have terrible writing styles, stifled from years and years of being caught in the conveyor belt of efficient and mindless production that is modern academia. If any lecturer tries to give you advice on anything resembling literary style, be absolutely sure that he or she is a person that can write halfway decent work before putting the advice to use in anything other than that seminar's paper. It's not a given; most academics can't really write for shit, even if they're smart in class.

>>377530
Lenin argues that it is because the bourgeois-intellectuals are the only ones with the time to develop revolutionary consciousness. He puts himself, Marx and Engels into this class.

>>377556
>Everyone shitting on this anon
Communism is the best means of ending inequality! When everyone is dirt poor or dead it means that we are all equal.

>>377530
Because academic classes really have no basis in reality. Go to a trademans class and compare it to an English class or History class. You'll find that one caters to a real world where things are built and the other is about dealing with how thing "should" be done, but really aren't needed.

>>379521
>It's called education.
No, it's called indoctrination.
>It's a value in itself.
Nothing is intrinsically valuable. Value is subjective.
>Judging it solely in terms of its production value
If producers are being forced to pay for it, why shouldn't it be judged in terms of its value to producers?
> is seeing people as cogs in a machine.
You're seeing producers as cogs in the machine that supports academia, since you deny them a choice in the matter.

>>377830
individual rights seem to work perfectly fine tbf

>>377665
That's photoshopped, right?
Mary never smoked, right?

>>379400
Does he know anything on dragons?

>>377530
>academic class
Who is an "academic?"
What is a "class?"

Answer contained in initial theoretical terms: no value in debating.

Provide coherent theory, sources, and empirically engagable claims if you want to be treated like an adult.

>>379512
And regardless, they only happen under capitalism because an economic engine that productive is the only way to ensure a proper tax base

>>379975
The funny thing is, if he engaged in a rigorous class analysis, and their class interest, he'd be doing Marxism.

>>379975
>academic class
It's what I have tomorrow at 8:00 AM.

Its accepted in fields where its applicable. Economists universally reject it. Sociologists are more accepting. Its only taken in parts. There are not many full-bore marxists in academia

>>379993
Go to sleep anon!

>>379868
>Nothing is intrinsically valuable. Value is subjective.

Does money have no value?
That seems to undermine capitalism completely

>>379996
not necessarily. If one were a student of economics in Japan during its boom years one would be expected to learn marxist economics, sometimes from marxist economicists themselves.
It was very much an "academic" marxism, Though. Less about "how does revolution" and more "how does avoid financial crisis".

>>380020
I'm only speaking for america. I really don't know how it is in other countries.

>>380034
Western economics has been about pushing everything under the rug, desu. Since Keynes classical economists, if they are even taught, are done only briefly or taught in order to criticize them.

>>380042
There's lots of neoclassical economists. Neo-keynesian is the biggest, surely across the US but its not universal or anything.

I actually see more neo-classicals at my university, but Texas A&M is weird and not at all representative of normal college demographics.

Either way, market economists make up pretty much all economists in the US and that of course contributes to bias even if they are more right.

>>380042
Anyone whose theories aren't directly related to post-School Economics won't be taught because they're simply irrelevant. You'll learn about them in History of Economic Thought or some similar course.

>>380063
What class are you?

>>379814
History is about how things were

I think you're on the wrong board friendo

What is with all these high school dropouts posting about how /pol/ tells them colleges are?

>>380063
Keynes isn't really a classical economist, classical is mostly 19th century and before. There's neoclassical folks, there's even neo-ricardians kicking around, but they're still mostly a minority in economics departments, as far as I know.
Even the japanese marxists were very much market economists. It's a matter of theoretical basis, rather than fundamental basis.
>You'll learn about them in History of Economic Though
poli sci departments devote like a fourth or more of their classes to its history. One class is well and fine, but it's very much an exceptional situation to only have one class on such in an arts program. You're right in saying that such will be irrelevant, but it's a matter of why. Western economics are extremely dynamic compared to a lot of other fields.

>>380069
I don't know enough really. I took a few economics classes for fun, and am into it, but its not my field. I'm a physics major.

To me, the neoclassical route would be preferred, but I do think that you need to allow a bank to adjust for consistent aggregate demand and things like that.. I don't fully trust neoclassical on their ideas on LRAS and things like that.

But like I said, not my area of expertise.

File: onward, comrades!.jpg (95KB, 720x346px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 720x346px

>>377530
Because it's right. I know the shitposters have said otherwise, but let's put this in perspective OP:
>smart people are attracted to Marxism
>meme-fuck anons are anti-Marxists

>>380095
>physics
Oh. Which profs did you have for your econ courses?

>>379981
>if he engaged in a rigorous class analysis, and their class interest, he'd be doing Marxism.

It isn't funny, it is sick. Your options are Gramsci, Lukacs, Frankfurt or Autonomism to deal with it.

>>379993
>It's what I have tomorrow at 8:00 AM.
Get drunk, those fucks won't know the difference between the quality of your lectures.

Oh wait, you meant you're a student, ha ha ha ha.

>>380100
Pedro Bento and Yonghong An

>>380096
More like detached

Admittedly it must take a lot of mental processing to convince yourself Marxism could work

>>380126
>Pedro Bento and Yonghong An
New blood, I guess. Edwardson, Wiggins, Anderson, Varghese, Jansen ran that shit. Everyone else seemed to be on a constant rotation. If you're interested in Economics still try to take a class from Wiggins, http://econ.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/10/Wiggins_2014.pdf look at that fucking CV.

The program was basically founded on neoclassical microeconomics, too.

>>380111
>It isn't funny, it is sick. Your options are Gramsci, Lukacs, Frankfurt or Autonomism to deal with it.

It's funny to me because Marx was so successful, and so influential, that even supposed anti-Marxists slip into half-understood Marxist novelties.

Before Marx came along, no one would talk about Academics as having a class interest, and this being a thing that motivates their decisions and behaviors subconsciously.

Marx is so useful, and successful, that all of his innovations are just regarded as obvious things, that of course you would do.

There are, properly speaking, exceedingly few actually anti-marxists.

>>377530
Because people who've never done a real hard day's of work in their lives find it much easier to discuss the concepts of work than to actually do it.

>>380135
>Admittedly it must take a lot of mental processing to convince yourself Marxism could work
Exactly, Marxism requires thinking, which is entirely lacking among the anti-Marxists.

>>380224
You do realize Marxism is about a post-scarcity economy, with highly mechanized labor to the point people don't have to do a "hard day's work" right?

>>380224
Strawmen inside strawmen

>>380149
Definitely will do this summer or so if he's available.

>>380232
>>380233

that's pretty far off

explain why the academics think it's even worth discussing in the modern era, much less 50 years ago

>>380232
>post-scarcity economy

You know what a post-scarcity economy and Candyland have in common?

They'll both forever be non-existent.

>>380224
>hard day's work

Careful there, might snap your bootstraps if you pull them up too high

>>380259
fuck you. I will make candyland happen

>>380224
It's weird. Because Marx is the only modern economist or political philosopher who actually values working.

>>380274
>Marx
>modern economist

>>380274
>only

You sure about?

Seems like you're outta date buddy.

>>380251
>that's pretty far off
No, you basic fuck, it's all strawmen in that post. First, of all, academic work is fucking work. Maybe you're a dumbfuck and unable to appreciate it, but it is. Second, I am sorry, but academics do not all come from some trust fund, but come from the working class. Third, of course, the ivory tower academic is a nice meme but it is of course not a universal truth. Now kindly kill yourself.

>>380251
Marx was the first person to look at societies, and see the underlying role of economic structures playing out without regard to states, dynasties, prime ministers, etc.

He's also the first to employ a rigorous understanding of class based on how it was practiced, rather than how it was defined.

He represents the tail end of the Historical Revolution that took place in Germany in the 19th century. Modern historiagraphy starts with Marx, and Marxist history no longer dominates not because it was rejected or undermined, but because it was refined and synthesized with other techniques.

Asking why Marx is worth discussing in the context of history is like asking why Newton is worth discussing in Physics. It was all dicking around before him.

>>380259
But the move to post-scarcity has already happened.

>>380278
>Marx
>Not antedating 1500
>Not using methods antedating 1500

>>380290
Who do you have in mind?

>>380303
And the difference between Marx and Newton, and this needs to be said because there are so many shitheads in this thread that want to make good boy ideology points, is that Marx's observations about economics and society are, yes, still relevant, despite Marx dealing with a different capitalism and global society.

>>380309
Economics starts with the Physiocrats, there are no "Classical" Economists in the scheme you want to apply.

>>380322
>>380298

I'm sorry but find the nearest cyanide gas chamber

thanks

>>380226
Not that guy.

This is actually a huge problem for you guys. The implication of your statement is that Marxism requires huge amounts of planning and effort to maintain. By extension, can then infer that it is not self sustaining. You call this a feature but it's actually a bug and a historically verifiable one to boot.

Now compare this to capitalism. A system that uses prices to allow people who have never met to coordinate their activities across an ocean. They don't need to be able to spout class-war jargon. They don't even need to necessarily have gone to college though that is a benefit that is certainly attainable. They just... Function with higher productivity, more positive externalities and fewer negative ones than comparable societies based on Marxist principles.

This is why people like me are now the future and you're some crank who will never have to take responsibility for anything that happens in the world anymore so at least there's that.

>>380326
If you want to define it as such, cool. Then Marx is really the only economist that actually valued labor.

I didn't want someone pulling a monk from the middle ages on me and arguing the point there.

>>380361
"Marxism"isn't an economic system, anon.

>>380298
>transhistorical claims.
Re read Marx on the class status of the school teacher.

>>380361

this is correct

>>380368

this is a typical Marxist pedant response when faced with a truth he knows shits all over his pet ideology

>>380361
> more positive externalities and fewer negative ones
Triggered desu

File: aral sea.jpg (19KB, 240x204px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 240x204px

>>380381

>Aral Sea

>>380377
I'm not a Marxist. I'm a person who knows what Marxism is.

You're not even an anti-marxist.

>>380392
Fine Marxian economics. Are you happy now?

>>379098
Relative wealth is absolutely important, unless you're saying you'd be fine with living as a slave so that somebody else could absorb all the value of your labor.

>>377979
>It doesn't account for the nature of humanity however, and therefore doesn't survive contact with reality when put into practice

lol have you read anything of marx's works? He absolutely cares about the nature of people, hell, his primary concern is the social relations between people. If anything his theory of value is the only one that does take human nature into account

>>379978
except the greatest economic growth of the mid 20th century came out of the soviet planned economy, and for the majority of the 21st century the greatest economic growth came from china

>>380381
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

The only reason that you heard about Chernobyl and not this was because Chernobyl occurred inside a major population center.

This released a much larger plume.

>>380402
No. "State Capital theories guidedby Marxist economics".

Guess what? Centrally planned state capital economies were shit with classical economics guiding them too.

>>380361
Marxist here.
Soviet economists spent more time with mathematical models than they did with "class war jargon." saying something "just works" is fundamentally different than being one of the innumerable middle managers in charge of keeping everything running smoothly. Infamous soviet bureaucracy was not a huge financial burden until wage reforms under Khrushchev, most importantly the move away from the piece-wage system (as an aside, piece-wage is a huge no-no for orthodox marxists, and it was also what kept Stalin's USSR operating, well, "efficiently enough".).

>>377530
those living in luxury easily gets bored

>>380421
State Capital Economies.*

Fuck, I should go to bed.

>>380414
And what was the body count?

And how many of those systems are around today in unreconstructed form? North Korea? Democratic Kampuchea?

>>380428
About half a billion people for non-state capitalism.

>>380428
Progress, especially rapid progress, hurts bruh.
North Korea was, for a time, more developed than South Korea. Neither had fully functioning economies, both their growth being driven by foreign aid, and the ability for the soviets and the chinese to provide financial aid waned with time.
As for Cambodia, bro we supported the Khmer Rouge over the Vietnamese communists, the latter having actually developed the country.

>>380421
Yes, and...?

>>380423
1) You're playing semantics.
2) You're actually reinforcing my point. Especially if those models are meaningless outside of a 19th century production economy.

>>380437
Where the fuck do you people get these numbers?

>>380460
Go ask UoHawaii

>>380454
1. No more than you, I assure you. I merely wish to take this topic in a more in-depth direction.
2. 19th century? Quick question: what year was the october revolution? What years were Khrushchev in power?

File: various number.png (196KB, 1423x922px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1423x922px

>>380414
>greatest economic growth of the 20th century
>Not America
>Not China after opening to capitalist investment
10,000 KEKS

>>380460
By reaching as far as possible.

>>380466
That's basically because China stole away foreign investment capital, and got ton of returns because they had way more capital than they could get domestically.

The revolution was in 1917, Kruschev took power in 1954.

>>380463
You're going to have to be more specific than that. Is that a blogger or something?

>>380019
>Does money have no value?
It has value to the people who agree to use it.
>That seems to undermine capitalism completely
Subjectivity only undermines authoritarians who would force everyone to use a particular currency or no currency at all.

They forget that the intellectuals are the first ones put against the wall and shot.

>>380454
>Yes, and...?
Your criticism about the nature of centrally planned state capitalism is not unique to marxist economics.

No other economic theory will get you around it.

>>380476
Meant for >>380464

And yes, the communist manifesto and Das Kapital were written in the 19th century. That's where my criticism comes from.

>>380439
We did not support the Khmer Rouge during their rise to power. They were a wholly owned subsidiary of the PRC during their revolution while the Vietnamese communists were Marxist-Leninists.

>>380466
>1 child policy
>per capita gdp literally doubles

>>380484
Okay, that's fine. I'm a capitalist, I don't have an ideology that specifically calls for a worker's dictatorship so I don't have to defend that kind of order.

File: 1446401897239.jpg (41KB, 324x394px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 324x394px

>>380481

>>380493
kek, that's fair I guess.

>>380498
>I'm a capitalist
What do you own?

>>380488
Correct on your dating, on all counts. What is your point, exactly, in regard to the latter dates? The bits on the publication of Marx's works? Did Marxism and its study cease to exist in 1883?

Did I say their rise to power? We supported them after the 1978 invasion by the vietnamese. With support from the chinese as a result of the sino-soviet split, of course.

>>380477
Exactly the same source as the "other death tolls."

>>380498
Could you explain to me what a workers dictatorship is?

>>380515
Yeah but where is the source anon? Point me to it. Give it to me, When I google UoHawaii all I get are links to Urban Outfitters and the University of Hawaii. Help me understand.

>>380527
… Exactly what I thought. Never bring up comparative rates of death ever again.

>>380513
No. Your implication was that we supported their rise rather than their economic system.

It would be nice if you could just come out and say "all of those people had to die for the greater good."

>>380505
I don't care about your definitions or your class consciousness. Next question.

>>380522
Can you?

>>380549
>I don't care about your definitions or your class consciousness. Next question.
Nice question begging dickhead.

>>380545
But I didn't bring it up. So I take it to mean you just made up those numbers?

>>380545
The only way that you could reach that number is if you added deaths by natural causes under a capitalist system.

So, if I grant you this absurdity, then let's add in the green revolution. That brings us to a net half-billion lives saved under capitalism.

>>380556
Is that all you have?

>>380563
Exactly like the Black Books' numbers. From whole cloth.

>>380568
It is sufficient.

>>380551
I asked first.
>>380549
I said
>bro we supported the Khmer Rouge over the Vietnamese communists, the latter having actually developed the country.
bruh, you reaching with this claimed implication. There's only one historical point here we can consider a khmer rouge vs vietnamese communists conflict, and it ain't the rise
sry I thought someone on /his/ would know history, my bad

>>380549
>I don't care about your definitions or your class consciousness. Next question.
If you don't care about definitions, how can you meaningfully say anything about Marxism? If you reject the idea that Marxism refers to anything in particular, how can you say the Soviet Union was in any way Marxist inclined.

>>380587
Because I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether or not I'm a capitalist based upon Marxist definitions. I am ideologically capitalist. That's all that you need to know.

>>380585
Technically, they'd been fighting a cold conflict before that. The Khmer Rouge started as a rump party of the Viet Minh before reenacting the sino-Soviet split in miniature and going full Mao. During their take over of the government, which is the relevant part of the story, they were a creature of the CCP. This is who's tune they danced danced to when I brought them up in regards to the casualties caused by the implementation of the communist program.

American endorsement is the end of that story, not the meat of it.

>>380587
If you had asked them whether or not they were Marxist, they would have disagreed quite vociferously with your statement.

>>380705
After the split, the jive of peking looked remarkably similar to the jive of washington.
Seeing as they held the UN seat until 1982, with the conflict continuing over the decade, idk if that's the "end of it".

>>380725
The main thrust of the conflict ended when Pol Pot gave up power in 1979. It was still a complete and total fuckstory but it was the effective end of the hot portion of the conflict.

According to Sowell, academics favor hard left positions because as far left positions increase in popularity, the prestige and power of the academic class increases.

Basically they do it because they see themselves as leading the revolution, and after the revolution will surely be in a position to exert their influence.

>>380757
The hot portion? Pol Pot was fighting right up until the 90s.

>>379644

Hah

>>380705
>If you had asked them whether or not they were Marxist, they would have disagreed quite vociferously with your statement.
But you are uninterested in such definitions.

> I am ideologically capitalist. That's all that you need to know.
Yeah, you've made it clear you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Theres a Papa Johns in Moscow now.

I pay in Croatia with euros.

Russian gascompany sponsors my football together with a japanese one.

Gommunism failed. And its supporters now are to busy deciding wvich genderfurrykin they are. While paying artists loads of dosh to see those furrykins fucking in a drawing, further fueling capitalism.

>>377830
This, I live in a third world country and my family had to work for what we have.
My dad would never give a single penny to street beggars and our house robbed before the thought of giving free shit to people who don't deserve it is retarded

>>377830
>Thomas Sowell
what a fucking hypocrite, apart from his stint in Korea he's sucked on the grant money teat the same as those he criticises in that quote.

>>377665
Funny how /his/ is seen as a battleground between /pol/, a top 5 traffic board, and /lit/, one of the slowest boards that doesn't revolve around niche interests

>>380829
yea so why are you alive little shit?
do you work?

I am ok with Marxists of other nationalities, but American marxists should be butchered and cured like the oinking pigs they are. Dirty SJWs

>>380856
Top 5 traffic doesn't mean a lot when people are just posting memes every 30 seconds.

>>380844
>apart from his stint in Korea
Military welfare queen

File: image.jpg (127KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 650x650px

>>378126

File: image.jpg (35KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x375px

>>379546

>>377530
Because it appeals to the weak.

>>380876
Goddammit, Jeff.

>>380799
Uh huh.

>>380856
No, that's just /pol/ trying to blame unpopular boards when someone calls them on their bullshit. Since the reign of Chairman Pao, they've been screaming "reddit!" at people but they now seem to be going back to "tumblr."

>>377556
Show me one successful communist nation of even the slightest relevance in history ever. Christ there are more potent monarchies than even most socialist societies, let alone communist. Inb4 no true Scotsman based arguments

Schumpeter has an interesting thesis on this.

About how critical academics naturally lends itself to hating the capitalism that allows for it.

Have any of you ever been to an active/former communist country?

I'm from cuba and that place fucking sucks!

You have 99% of the country living in absolute poverty. With little to no basic necessities. Everything is regulated out the ass. You cant fix your own leaky roof, because that's this guys' job, you cant fix your own plumbing because that's the plumber's job, you wait months maybe years to even have basic needs met. 6+ months for a checkup. Years to have your home renovated by government approved contractors. And if you dare do anything yourself you can be jailed and lose the only things cubans are allowed to own, your home, your car and your dignity.

While the 1% of the country live in luxurious palaces that rival those of african dictators, pumping propaganda into the minds of the youth convincing them how great cuba is and that we all must suffer for the great good of socialism. These kids absorb the message and pledge their undying loyalty to marxism(and who knows maybe one day they will be the boot). They are encouraged to snitch out their own family members!

The control of information is tightly controlled unless it's to defame their enemies(I didn't know about many historical events because they were removed from ourhistory books).

Whilst the Elites thrive, the rest of the population barely survives. The government has a monopoly on force, it owns all arms and uses them against the people at will. The job of Military and Police is to enforce the will of the aristocrats to keep us down. The castro's know that if the cuban people really knew how well the outside world has it, we'd revolt and kill them all.

Everyone is corrupt as fuck, the black market is the only thing keeping the country afloat, everybody even the elites need the services of the black marketeers. My parents had to bribe a doctor to see me, because I almost died from an easily preventable staph infection but the government thought that I was disposable and would've let me die.

>>377530
I have an answer for socialism in general: Because when "properly implemented" its state mandated empathy that works to solve legitimate humanitarian concerns like cyclical poverty, starvation, as well as a means of reducing certain civil problems like crime.

The problem with socialism is that it comes with an increase of authority, almost by necessity. If the government is going to be more involved in providing for society, it needs the authority to do so, it needs the funds to do so, and it needs the means to collect those funds.

I do not have a reason why so many of them become straight up Marxist, however. This continues to evade me. I believe its because this is the only economic theory they've ever read, and economics is not normally part of the curriculum for most majors.

Its not the 60s anymore, OP.

>>381216
>why is a country that has been embargoed by it's richest neighbors and left to trade with a very limited supply of 3rd world countries poor?

It's like me saying the only reason mexico is fucked is capitalism.

>>381247
So trade is good then?

>>380226
Just because you are thinking doesn't mean you are processing good ideas. When you detach yourself from reality, ignore history and perform whatever mental gymnastics necessary to justify your fantasy the only end result you're going to produce is the mental equivalent of a steaming pile of pigshit.

>>381227
What you are speaking of is Social Democracy in a Liberal system, redistributing wealth through taxes.
Socialists believe that wealth does not need to be redistributed, but that it should be distributed fairly at the means of production.

Socialist states thus need to enforce rules on the democratisation of the workplaces, and simply have governments enforce this, nothing else.

Centrally planned states were designed to take agrarian states into functioning industrial economies, as it is one of the fundamental beliefs of Marx that you can only Communise and industrialised nation.

That is why all of the socialist projects of the 20th were so fucked, all of them began in pre-capitalist or pre-industrial areas, and one of the fundamental principles of Marxism is that you must go through a period of Capitalism and Industrialism to reach Communism.

>>381247
The ability of western communists/socialists to ignore anything they don't want to hear is stunning. I bet that a genuine survivor of pol pot telling his story straight to your face would get the same kind of denial out of you.

>>381257
You still have trade under communism dipshit.
Capitalism doesn't mean the ability to trade money for things.

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit,"

So trade would be directed by the State.

>>381283
>all socialists deny cambodian genocide

I don't, I think pol pot was fucked and in no way support, no one does.
The irony of your post is astounding though, what about all the atrocities commuted under capitalist regimes? Why do you not immediately reject these evils as the evils of capitalism?

it' simply short sighted to say that what pol pot did was just because he was a socialist, and not a batshit crazy psychopath.

>>381277
Nice excuses. But command economies simply fail on their own merits no matter how and where they are established simply because they run counter to the way humans actually behave. Without the market and without incentives you simply repeat the Soviet Union's mistakes.

>>381216
>>381216
Ever heard of Greece?
Well they are more fucked under capitalism that you have been after years of socialism.

Also, prove that you are cuban.
I simply don't believe you, sound like some kid from florida making shit up based on the ramblings of your asshole grandad.

>>381293
>excuses
But I'm just saying that what you posted earlier, is not communism.
It is just a left wing form of Liberalism.

>>381293
>command economies fail
Please go read about The Firm

>>381292
Batshit insane and bloodthirsty actions are the norm rather than the exception amongst socialist/communist regimes. Sheer weight of numbers does not fall on your side, capitalist democracies may not be perfect by any means but no one capitalist democracy has yet matched the levels of carnage inflicted by Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin on their own citizens.

Even in more "civilized" socialist states like the former east Germany, people's rights and human dignities were repeatedly and flagrantly violated. You're going to be hard pressed to present a socialist state in which the people have the same level of freedom, prosperity and safety that they do under western capitalist democracy.

>>381313
While we're making suggestions, why don't you actually read a history book or two that isn't written by socialist revisionists.

>>381320
I have, quite often. They do about half the work in my field.

If you don't know how stupid you look, regarding the firm, then please read about it. It was a major finding by bourgeois economic sociologists. American ones.

>>381304
Not the cuban but I don't think you realize how fucked Cuba is. Your comparison with Greece just shows you haven't been in any of them

>>381314
Cuba might be poor.
But their state has not even committed anywhere near the same amount of injustices on their own population as the US has done in this year alone.

You post critising countries that violate the rights of its citizens while posting on one of the most heavily monitored means of communication of all time.

The west is simply better at covering up the shit it did.
The Stasi and the CIA have so much in common it is ridiculous.

And implying most socialists today support any of those regimes, they were monumental failures corrupted from the start.

>>381338
You realize you're talking about a government that limits the ammount of food people can eat and forbids their citizens from leaving the country right?

>>381338
I haven't been to cuba, but i have been to Greece recently.
And I know two people who went to Cuba for university exchange, and they fucking loved it their.

Not having the newest toaster and having to ride around in old cars isn't the worst thing.
And the country does have issues, the point is other capitalist countries have it worse.

It's simply shallow to say cuba is only poor because of socialism and not because of the embargos, corruption and general secret service fuckery.

>>381355
> and forbids their citizens from leaving the country right?

As of 2013 any Cuban with a valid passport can leave the country at will.

>>381356
This was meant to be for >>381324

Also, >>381355
Would you rather have limits on how much can be eaten, or a society that simply lets the poor starve while the rich eat?

And they can leave their country, i've met cuban tourists, they just aren't allowed into many countries because of American treaties.

>>381356
> And I know two people who went to Cuba for university exchange, and they fucking loved it their.

Not the guy you're talking to, but you're aware that a foreigner in Cuba for a university exchange is going to have a much different experience of Cuba than a Cuban citizen, right?

>>381359
As of 2013. Just a few years late eh. A shame for all the cubans that died on their way to Florida.

>>381356
Cuba is a propaganda master. I doubt your friends saw the real Cuba.

>>381361
If you think poor people are starving in developed countries you must be insane. A "poor" person in the US or Western Europe is a more well fed than a regular cuban.

>>377530
Its a cult that lets you stroke your ego

>>381322
I look stupid? The fact that you work in the field of history and yet still support socialism, despite the overwhelming evidence against it as a societal model makes you infinitely worse than I. I may be unaware of one work, but you are yet fail to grasp cause and effect.

>>381382
You're avoiding the firm mate. Capital manifestly failed to reproduce itself until the British.

>>381373
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-million-britons-using-food-banks-according-to-trussell-trust-10186142.html

I'd rather live through shortages than have a country believe my poverty is what I deserve for not working hard for a maths exam when i was 16.

>>381388
You actually sound like a 16 year old so time to work on your math. You don't know what being hungry means.

>>381382
>>381373

Also you are ignoring the fact that the reason the west was such a great place to live post WW2 is because of the implementation of heavily socialist policy in Europe.

20th century capitalism was good, because it was regulated, minimum wage was so high in the UK you could buy a new house after working 3 years in a factory.
Now someone on minimum wage will quite literally never be able to afford a house.

The great capitalist systems you are thinking of are only considered great because of how heavily socialised they were. Which made life good for the common man.

>>381396
>don't have an argument
>post really bland insults

Really proving your point here bud.
The argument for socialism is a moral one, it isn't an economic model designed to create vast sums of profit, but to have us living in a just society.

Also, cuba wouldn't be poor if it wasn't for the embargo, deal with it.
People are starving by design in the west.

File: marxist jew.jpg (238KB, 615x401px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 615x401px

Go look up the ethnoreligious group most professors in US Britain belong to.

File: A3584600FC0D609B9ACA9B844297B5A4.gif (15KB, 400x466px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x466px

>>381403
You're ignoring the fact that it was only possible to implement *social democrat policies in the West becuse of the prosperity brought by unregulated capitalism, including the immediate years post-ww2. Welfare came later.
This will continue until money is over. Soo.

>>381427
You're point is redundant if you don't believe in fatalistic racial essentialism.
Doesn't matter if jews like capitalism when our behavior is not informed by our race, but by culture.

>>381443
The prosperity was brought around in America because they profited from selling weapons to the allies in WW2 and suffered no major infrastructure damage.

Again it was not the merits of capitalism alone, it was a completely contingent event.

And the point is no one would remember that capitalist boom so fondly, if not for those strong socialist policies.

>>381451

Jewish culture is an integral part of Jewish identity. Besides 80% of American Jews are atheists. All they have to bind them is culture and a sense of solidarity and hostility towards the dominant group (Whites)

>>381421
How can you argue with someone who says he'd rather experience hunger instead of having the opportunity of not being through it because it's "unfair"?
There's nothing moral about socialism. It can only work through coercion. All socialists experiments prove that, Cuba being a blatant example. The moment you forbid someone to eat is the moment you lost your moral ground.

>>381460
Read up on Sweden, I could say the same I said using that country as an example. People love to say it's a good example of social democracy but it actually only is what it is today because of it's earlier free, unregulated economy.
It's still a freer economy than a lot of other countries.

>>381469
Marxists fundamentally believe you have to pass through a period of capitalism to reach a communism that works.
That's why all the regimes of the 20th century failed, you cannot turn an agrarian society into a communist one without condensing all of the evils of unregulated capitalist industrialization into a few years.

And more people would be dying in cuba if not for these food policies, they are not made out of whim, but necessity.
And if they were not a socialist country they would be able to import the food they cannot grow, and if too poor to buy would at least be eligible for food aid from the west.

Cuba is poor because the west has made it poor, you cannot blame them for implementing survivalist policy when they are the victim of decades long economic warfare.

>>381480(me)

Quick clarification, but saying they would be able to buy, I mean that we would sell it to them.
The point is not that they can't buy it, but that the west refuses to sell to Socialist countries.

>>379958
Mari-san ga sutte imasu

>>381480
I'm not talking theory, I'm talking reality. Communists states fail because central planning is inherently unneficient, because you need to coherce people into giving up property (tip: people fight back) and because competition and profit are the drivers of progress.

>And more people would be dying in cuba if not for these food policies, they are not made out of whim, but necessity.
(citation needed)

>And if they were not a socialist country they would be able to import the food they cannot grow
Even if the US embargo them, they can buy from other sources. Cuba didn't diversify their exports base because it received Soviet aid. No incentive to do so. They are paying the price for it now.

>and if too poor to buy would at least be eligible for food aid from the west.
It already is. https://www.wfp.org/countries/cuba
The big bad west gives food to them.

Truth is, when Cuba was a western Banana Republic it was better than what it is today. The failure of communism is that big.

Soon people will look at Panama and Dominican Republic and see what Cuba might have become. Even with all problems those countries have at least they are going somewhere.

>>381523
>coherce

>>381530
not my first language.

>>381463
>All they have to bind them is culture and a sense of solidarity and hostility towards the dominant group (Whites)

Nice job conflating white people with anti-semites. I see how that serves your agenda, Billybob, but it's hardly true.

Also, what solidarity? Orthodox and liberal Jews tend to dislike each other, and they all hate the haredi. They're one of the most self-hating groups of people on the planet, along with white liberals.

>>381536
It is also really obvious you don't read in the area.

>>381552
How so?

>>381523
>citation needed
The rich would buy the food, the poor would starve.

>they can buy from other sources
Almost no other developed nations, especially none with a surplus of food resources, can cuba trade with.
The american embargo includes many other countries.

>diversify their exports
They have a limited number of natural resources to take advantage of.

And I was wrong on the food aid issue, but I fail to see the morality in crippling a countries economy and then providing a small amount of food to attempt to morally justify your position.

Cuba would likely be more like Jamaica or the majority of other completely fucked up Caribbean islands.

And neither Panama or the dominican republic are good countries to live in for 90% of the population, they deal with more poverty than the average cuban, it is only the extremely wealthy and western expats who think panama or the dominican republic are shining jewels of the Caribbean.

Most of Cubas surrounding countries are worse of than they are.
Save for the ruling classes.

>>381558
You're saying what you want to believe. "The rich would buy the food, the poor would starve" is simply not a good argument. The only rich people in Cuba today are government officials. Unless you're talking in a hypothetical world where today's system would not be in place and it still doesn't make sense. There's one only place in the Americas I can think that people still starve and that's Haiti (and maybe Bolivia?). Food rationing is simply the most glaring proof Cuba's system failed.

>Almost no other developed nations, especially none with a surplus of food resources, can cuba trade with.
The american embargo includes many other countries.
Wrong. From the top of my head, they can trade with almost all of Latin America. A region known for exporting food. Also I could look into this, but the EU has criticized the embargo a lot. Cuba probably can also trade with them.

Cuba crippled its own economy. That's a fact.
Also as for Panama and Dominicam Rep I said "soon". They are still developing but far from rich. It's a matter of time. Cuba is liberalizing its economy though. I can bet money that if they continue to do so, the country will become better and people will say it's because of socialism.

>>381593
We are both saying what we want to believe.
This is the nature of ideology.

Also the reason they need food aid in the first place is because of a hurricane in 2001, not because socialism failed.
Their food resources were wiped out, and the economy was only further devastated.

>a capitalist country could have fixed it by now

New orleans is still fucked as hell in the biggest capitalist economy on earth.
At least there is no where like detroit in cuba.

>>381610
Cuba has been in need of help since the end of the Soviet Union. Natural disasters only intesifies it.

I never heard any news of New Orleans after Katrina. I doubt people there have to rationalize food today though. The same for Detroit (destroyed by democrat rule, btw). Also I hope you never venture outside Havana, Your dreams would be destroyed.

>>381631
I'm not an idealist, although it may have come across that I have completely romanticised the place.
But there are issues, government corruption etc
But the issues with the economy are contingent, based on many outside influences and often by mistakes by the government.

The issue is the hypocrisy or blaming anything bad that happens in a socialist country on socialism and anything bad that happens in a capitalist country is merely down to poor decision making or unforeseeable outside influence, not the inherent issues of capitalism.

>>381643
Ok then. I'm off to lunch. Nice talking to you.

>intellectuals spread and install communism in their country
>get shot by the proletarians

ebin

>>381631
also, about new orleans

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/new-orleans-cuisine-capital-food-insecurity

Also i had other links, but according to the system they are spam

>>381656
fair do's

>>380844
>>381087
You've completely missed the point

>>381427
>>>/pol/

>>381657
>intellectuals own factories and companies

nice meme
next you're going to tell me how all smart people are rich and vice versa

It's understandable that the history board would think that communism couldn't work. It has been "tried" in the past and that's given communism a bad name. This is the history that you go off.
But this is to say that something that has never worked yet cannot ever work. This view is flawed.

>>381827
Flawed in that it isn't revered with absolute certainty; yes. But it doesn't take a historian to realise patterns and acknowledge traits. Beyond that the striving for common good in the early stages of communism contradicts itself, be it shady political dealings or all out revolt - harm is caused upon those who disagree with a marginal group. It's join us or perish in most cases, and will be until the entirety of a population agrees in favour of communism. Why then must intellectuals and those of social power impart upon the masses for their insinuated good? Only an 'intellect' would insult the pool he is swimming in and compliment the ground of scorching hot coals outside of the pool

>>379326
all Marx threads are a bunch of morons conflating socialism and LVT with Marxism

File: 1449417380719.jpg (100KB, 543x481px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 543x481px

>there are people in the year 2015 who literally and unironically believe that communism is a good idea
literally freshmen: the thread

>>381199
Even though you're right, I don't think that comparing a few decades of failure to thousands of years of trial and error is very fair.

>>381922
>there are people in the year 2015 who literally and unironically believe that capitalism is a good idea

literally wageslave: the post

File: 1447672625153.jpg (31KB, 594x393px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 594x393px

>>381928
capitalism has done far more good than harm and has propelled the world into unprecedented levels of peace and prosperity

Marxism has provided a cause for the top 2 biggest mass killers in history to rally behind and has been a complete social, economic, and humanitarian failure every time its been tried

File: 1446265980731.jpg (23KB, 354x209px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 354x209px

>>381942
never 5get the trillion billions

>>381805
Dude wut

>>381953
only people who are getting shot or at least sent to reeducation camps by commies are land and factory owners

>>380226
>Exactly, Marxism requires thinking

>Marxism requires lots of thinking
>my large amount of thinking is work
>because of the work involved in this, it has value
>therefore marxism is correct because of marxism

It's an absolute show-stopper for marxism and I don't understand how people don't see it. Even if it were 100% correct, the complexities of it mean it has such a high maintenance requirement that literally no society imaginable could actually achieve it.

Simple theories are good because it's hard to break them. How do you break a wrench? Complex theories are bad because even tiny unforeseen circumstance can seize the whole thing. Ferraris are nice cars but the maintenance required to keep them running is insanity on a large scale.

This is one of the reasons why communist governments historically have been so authoritarian, deadly, and unproductive. A percentage of the population must be dedicated towards maintenance of the system which is not only an investment with negative returns but has primarily been done at gunpoint. Any system which must dedicate so much of its sum of effort towards negating other human effort is a recipe for disaster.

Contrast this to more capitalist societies, where maintenance is a positive feedback loop instead of negative. Capitalist societies produce excess, or pollution and garbage or whatever, which are a catalyst for increased effort in order to acquire wealth or to clean up pollution or to build new things or whatever.

>>381359
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/cuba-reimpose-travel-permit-requirement-doctors
>The Cuban government has announced that it is reimposing a hated travel permit requirement on many doctors, requiring them to get permission to leave the country in an attempt to counter a brain drain that it blames on the United States.
>The new policy was announced hours after the end of a meeting Monday between US and Cuban negotiators in Washington to address a crisis in Cuban migration, which has reached its highest levels in at least two decades.

File: Marquis-de-Sade.jpg (26KB, 236x270px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 236x270px

Why do progressives consistently have more sex than conservatives or reactionaries, at any given point in history?

>>382236
Data on young Germans from around 2006 show that neo-nazis have sex most frequently, while far-leftists have it least frequently.

>>377995
>every socialist country ever was a shithole with wealthy nomenklature elites ruling over loads of poor people reduced to serfdom

Denmark? Socialist and literally the happiest country on the planet?

>>377530
On paper it's the best solution

Poverty is a bigger problem than racism or sexism. Redistributing wealth ends poverty and leads to a more just society.

>>377574
Libertarian socialism IS Marxism

>>377665
/lit/ and /int/ created this board.

Sorry.

>>383098
>Libertarian socialism
This is a contradiction in terms.

>>382414
When was Denmark socialist? They are still a monarchy.