Why do people still cling to Marx?

Im not much of a marxist, but i think alot of it is simply many academics simply can't let it go, because like you said that's what they been trained in

Marxism had been thoroughly refuted. Just Google it for countless sites

Academia is a giant circle jerk for acceptance and tenure that exists in a government subsidized vacuum

Durkheim and Weber were both greater sociologists than him..

yet sociologists flock to this guy...its sad

>>8420348
Marx was right.

If you aren't a Marxist you're an idealistic cuck.

Explain why labor should not determine value

Because his political theory has many good ideas that we should learn from.

Also because we need to put a stop to Alex Jones and take away his free speech

A lot of sociology and philosophy is premised on Marxism. I don't think it will be willfully abandoned anytime soon. If it goes, it will probably fade into irrelevance slowly. Pretty much what OP and >>8420357 said too.

>>8420503
STEMfag here. manufacturing.
you're an idiot.

I can spend an equal amount of time making a product on a CNC lathe, say a driveshaft, one from 1040 steel and one from stainless steel. What the hell makes you think that both products have equal value. My boss would slap you across your face if you didn't understand the value of material properties, that's such basic shit.

You don't measure the value of an object by the labor involved. I've dug ditches and I've manufactured oil drilling pipe and I've welded cages for air tanks and if you mean to tell me that the value of the work lies in my labor and not the final result you're a delusional artsfag.

>>8420628
>he doesn't understand labour stored in tools/ machines
Everyone point and laugh.

File: Flying Spaghetti Monster detail.jpg (47KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x640px

>>8420348
Cas regardless of his ideas of Communism, his Marxist criticisms of Capitalism are spot on. His work is always an eye-opener., and unlike many philosophers, he fucking backed it up with empirical data.

>>8420628

Other STEMfag here.

There are mathematicized versions of Marxism that are equally as true and useless as those of other systems.

You should really recognize the power of axioms and object definitions if you've studied steMMMMMMM, or the other side of the coin which is the universality of quantitative reasoning.

>>8420503

If I go for a walk and find a diamond lying on the ground I didn't expend any labor at all but it's still worth a shit ton. There are rough diamonds lying around in some areas, like in Canada.

The price of a stock fluctuates according to subjective factors, not expended labor. The firm may not have very much employment at all.

Why does land have value? No labor goes into land.

Why are some pieces of art or antique valuable, even if the artist just wrote his name on a urinal or splattered paint on a canvas?

>>8420628
>>8420723
>STEMfag

You've made your choice. Get off this board already.

>>8420729
hi jeremy1122

>>8420738
Diamonds value is held by monopolies on the sale of diamonds and cultural manipulation.

Arts value is an elaborate way to trade and hide money used by rich jewish families

>>8420348
>cue the parodies of why can't people just let go of:
>the greeks
>the existentialists
>christianity
>nationalist figures
Etc etc...

>>8420738
>>8420628
I thought everybody would know that when we talk about value we talk about it being framed by a market composed by consumers and organized entities dedicated to sistematically obtain (the easiest way of doing this is via straight exploitation/production, not ramdom encounters with diamonds) and sell what those consumers demand.
That being said, I'm fiercely anti marxist tho.

>>8420348
I posted this in a nationalist thread about a week ago, his critique of capitalism is very good if you ignore the alienated labor. I would say that most sjw idiots have read the communist manifest, at most. His early writings are pretty redpilled. He makes prostitue and irish potato famine jokes as well. The thing the academics and sjw idiots will gloss over, is that never, not once does he say that capitalism is unjust or that communism would be just (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#5 (read the morality section)). Leftists and libtards love him because he justifies their oarasitic existence. They assume his criticism was on point, therefor his solution must also be good. In Critical notes on "The King of Prussia and Social Reform" he says
> pauperism has developed into a national institution which has inevitably become the onject of a highly ramified and extensive administrative system, a system however which no longer sets out to eleminate it, but which strives to instead discipline and perpetuate it.

If that doesnt describe modern day libs idk what does. They like the parts about wealth redistribution but ignore where he shits all over the government. If youre a kid who identifies as a marxist, you have not read marx. The professors convince kids to like him so the gravy train doesnt stop. If he were alive today he'd hate all these people.

>>8420865
Sorry about typos im on my ipad and my rat-looking dog keeps farting.

>>8420484
Only good thing about marx is that he is dead. fucking commie.

>>8420348
people cling to Marx because he has a intelligible explanation for our contemporary crisies

>>8420899
Reminder that intelliglible doesn't mean accurate, but only easy to digest.

>>8420908
An explanation of the problem is no great feat, Marx couldn't formulate a workable solution.

>>8420908
smart, invaluable post

>>8420913
>workable
read more Marx m8

>>8420930
Read something more than Marx m8

>>8420933
Type something you know about, ass

>>8420939
No you

>>8420940
here's your you, ass

>>8420930
Why can't marxists ever give coherent justifications to their ideas instead of invariably telling you to read one of the 4 of 5 authors they know?

>>8420945
I'm not a marxist, but you're obviously an ass, writing these shitty retorts.

>>8420744
You're an idiot

t. sociologist

>>8420961
wdtem

>>8420961
Summerfag go to bed. Your Marxist older bros are talking.

Marx gave the basis to everything that's wrong with humanities today.
Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucault, the entire School of Frankfurt, Zizek, all these hacks built their oeuvre over Marx's teachings and unleashed shit like deconstructivism and discourse theory on the world, shaping academia as nothing but a massive "politized" circlejerk.

With that said, it is important we study his works, if only to see they don't work in any way, be it directly and literally, or adapted to the times.

>>8420348
Dialectical materialism is an interesting tool to analyse human history, even if you don't agree with Marx prognosis about the future of capitalism, or if his advice is not really useful for today's problems.

Moreover, the guy is one of the main influences on something that is widely accepted today: economic and material conditions shape ideas. This is obvious today, but it wasn't back in his day.

>>8420972
not even, bro

>>8420981
>With that said, it is important we study his works, if only to see they don't work in any way, be it directly and literally, or adapted to the times
progressive detected

>>8420992
No way anon, I'm really conservative and Marx is wrong about work and the evolution of capital, I swear

>>8420369
>Just Google it for countless sites
Jesus.

File: Reading-Capital-front-1050-253f815b1b25629a3b617704d5c9d0d2.jpg (349KB, 702x1050px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 702x1050px

>>8421133
m.maybe anon meant jut JSTOR it for countless articles?

t.this is /lit/ right?

>>8420484
It's funny because this is the opposite of whats true

>>8422093
Marxism is based on materialism. Your retarded liberal capitalism is based on idealism.

>Letting some rich guy extract all the value from your labor and giving you back a fraction of its true worth
>not cuck AF

>>8420348
It's a real right place / right time thing. A big part of it is simply a transfer of the appeal of Hegel's logic to academics into political and social structure, but with a leftist twist. The greater part of the social class that forms academia in the west was a class that originated out of the recovery from the great depression, which was a leftist recovery in at least image, if not reality. The idea of s

>>8420628
Because you're a STEMfag, I can forgive you for not being all that familiar with the basic classical political economy. But I really wish you and >>8420738 didn't talk about authors you clearly haven't read. If you had actually read Adam Smith or (not and), David Ricardo, you would understand why this is an inane response: because labor necessarily is not equivalently valuable by in time, by conditions which Smith spells out that naturally arise in part 1 of chapter 5 of The Wealth of Nation. But it is clear to all the political economists that because there is rarely any sort of equilibrium of supply and demand in labor markets (or any market), conditions, therefore, arise that have nothing to do with natural inequalities - which make perfect sense. That is why if you had only read the first page of Kapital you would know that it was as clear to Marx as anyone that "hurr everyone should be paid the same who works the same amount of time" is not what he is arguing: he argues that use value (something we all know as a factor in demand) does not consistently match with the exchange value.

I really wish people who talked about the labor theory of value actually read about it rather than say things that the classical economists and Marx all knew quite well.

Don't paint me as somebody defending Marx's analysis, or even the analysis of the followers and predecessors of Ricardo. That's not the point of any science - it's to develop and critique giants. But to not have to go through the arguments that were all addressed so early on in the science of economics, and worst of all in the really early chapters of their principal works, would be so nice. It's just embarrassing that a literature board discusses concepts in books that they don't read.

And here's where I'm really gonna trigger you: this didn't happen so much until /pol/ "redpilled" every single board with their reaction images and aggressive infographics. There was shitposting, but people read the works they discussed, or at least had elementary understandings of the work. In fiction threads, people ask questions about works they read. As soon as politics comes up the opposite happens and you have a great deal of far right extremists who bring up elementary arguments that everybody who reads is familiar with.

File: 1452569831228.gif (3MB, 474x266px)

3MB, 474x266px

>>8422396

Fine I am a big dumb dumb. Enlighten me then, does Marx ever explain why land has value, or why value is subjective ie in art or stocks? Because to upper middle class people like me the labor theory of value seems intuitively wrong.

>>8420738
these are 101 critiques which show your complete ignorance.

the vlaue of a product is the average amount of time to make it. if everyone could pick up diamonds then they would be worthless. using a random. the diamond has value because you normally have to expend labour to mine it out of the ground, it is not something intrinsic the object itself, it is social relation.

price and value are different so the stock example isn't a problem. when stock prices become to divorced from the underlying value we get crashes.

land has value because you can accrue rent from it. and rent comes from using labour on the land

value is a about reproducible commodities, marx never claimed it was applicable to art not is it necessary. he was trying to explain the functioning of commodity production not the price of intangible things

>>8422559

>you normally have to expend labour to mine it out of the ground

You could spend roughly the same amount of labor mining other gems, but other gems are worth less. Copper mining is not that different from gold mining, yet gold is more expensive.

>price and value are different so the stock example isn't a problem. when stock prices become to divorced from the underlying value we get crashes.

So the TRUE value of the stock is zero, even though my portfolio is worth millions. Okay buddy.

>land has value because you can accrue rent from it. and rent comes from using labour on the land

Nobody labors in a house. They just live in it.

>value is a about reproducible commodities

Ok.

>>8422459
reading is fun, try it

>>8422459
As a business economic major this post gave me cancer.

>>8420369
>Just Google it

I should use this in my next bibliography for university

>>8422459
>>8422459
Marx did not differ very radically from anyone in assigning why land has value: it is a traded commodity. But do you think that value has nothing to do with labor? You can examine the transfer of land from feudal or colonial to capitalist ownership, which of course involves the labor, say, of the American revolution, the Louisianian purchase, the Mexican-American war, the enforcement of the Indian Removal Act, and many far far more labor than just that in the United States alone, and Marx does that kind of thing in Chapter 27 of capital in describing that European transfer. But simply look at the careers of upper middle class people like you and me. The realtors, bankers (and therefore a mysterious mix of the laboring borrowers), lawyers, accountants, insurance agencies, people who work for all of those, and theoretically law enforcement, are all involved in the trade and securing of land, and therefore their labor is a factor in the purchase thereof.

The point is that all commodities with a subjective value (which influences the actual prices of commodities) are originally created and exchanged first through labor and then the labor from which their value was extracted is exchanged through the money-commodity. This is not Marx: this is Smith.

The point Marx is making is that through markets, the real price paid by the laborer and the money/exchange price of labor is exchanged for become radically different in markets. His term for value assigned to labor is far more thorough than that of the classical economists: socially necessary abstract labor time.

If there were nothing like the stock market (and I don't mean independent, amateur investors - I mean a whole infrastructure of investment banks) then there would be no such subjective value to stock ownership. The fallacy is that wall street is "natural", a dangerously vague term.

File: 1471631762187.gif (2MB, 300x332px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x332px

>>8422613

I'm not reading 1000s of pages of crazy German ramblings. This is like the papists who tell you to read the entire Summa Theologica to find out why god is real. If you can't succinctly explain why I'm wrong then you're not much of a big smart thinker yourself.

>>8422624

Kill your're self

>>8422666
You are wrong because you expect the world to do the work for you. You are wrong because you don't want to read to understand. Your mind is made of memes.

>>8422666
Nobody is asking you to read Das Kapital: they are just asking you not to discuss what you don't understand. You really have no room to critique catholic theology if you haven't read Summa Theologica, but nobody is asking you to critique Catholic theology.

If you don't like idea and thinking and arguments, just don't read and don't spout bullshit about it on 4chan. Nobody will complain. It would be far more fruitful to read the Wealth of Nations than Das Kapital if you want to understand the LTV, but I'm no asking you to do that either. Just don't go around refuting the concepts you don't have an elementary understanding of.

>>8422734

Okay daddy. I've learned my lesson about shitposting - at least for today.

I'll try to figure out these big concepts and then maybe you can quiz me on them.

>>8422610
the true value of stock is its value. prices reflect value in the future, or that's the idea anyway, they become instrument of speculation ie fictitious capital

its what that land could be used for otherwise. the rent that can accrue to the ownership of land if it it is used productively determines the rent on all other pieces of land whatever they are used for.

>>8422396
>If you had actually read Adam Smith or (not and), David Ricardo, you would understand why this is an inane response: because labor necessarily is not equivalently valuable by in time, by conditions which Smith spells out that naturally arise in part 1 of chapter 5 of The Wealth of Nation. But it is clear to all the political economists that because there is rarely any sort of equilibrium of supply and demand in labor markets (or any market), conditions, therefore, arise that have nothing to do with natural inequalities - which make perfect sense. That is why if you had only read the first page of Kapital you would know that it was as clear to Marx as anyone that "hurr everyone should be paid the same who works the same amount of time" is not what he is arguing: he argues that use value (something we all know as a factor in demand) does not consistently match with the exchange value.
Locke, who really is the big daddy when it comes to LTV, only argues that labour entitles you to the value of your work product. In fact only entitles you within reason, you cannot be said to own something if ownership is at the serious expense of others. That's really the essence of any LTV, labour confers entitlement because who else can be said to own any improvement in value?

>>8420981
>Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucault, the entire School of Frankfurt, Zizek, all these hacks built their oeuvre over Marx's teachings
They're mostly Nietzscheans if anything.

Critical theory is more about turning a idealist theory into a materialist one. And it has a lot to do with Freud's work, not only Marx.

File: female stirner.png (31KB, 220x567px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 220x567px

>>8422734
Lmao you don't need to read a mountain of Catholic theology to refute it. It's a paradox that refutes itself. 70% of philosophers reject religion for a reason.

File: image.jpg (4KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x57px

>>8423473
>this is the average memegoist

very appropriate captcha too

>>8420721
Every plan works until it's put into action. Data is meaningless if the concept can't be implemented.

File: rule 63 max stirner.png (70KB, 220x557px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 220x557px

>>8423664
You're just making blind assertions without reading the work of a real journalist. Don't be a Fox News sheepie. Marx cited data on poverty and class in Das Capital to back up his claims. You don't want to try to refute that because you're not as great a man as he is.

>>8423687
News is for people who don't go out into the world and form their own philosophy for themselves.

>>8423687
I was talking about how his ideals where corrupted by power seekers and his "glorious" revolution was deluded by those who took advantage of it. I said nothing of his works and data being incorrect.

>>8420628

yeah but more value has already been congealed in the more valuable steel, thus resulting in your labor transferring a greater magnitude of value into the driveshaft it produces.

>>8420628
>My boss would slap you across your face if you didn't understand the value of material properties

either because he knows their value derives from the labor that went into them before he bought them, and doesn't want you knowing he's exploiting you (he is), or he's just as much of a cuck as you are.

>>8423687
>dont be a fox news sheepie
>every other news source is marxist
>only real journalists are marxist

there is a fundamental problem in your logic

>>8420738
>If I go for a walk and find a diamond lying on the ground I didn't expend any labor at all but it's still worth a shit ton. There are rough diamonds lying around in some areas, like in Canada.

when we speak of labor, we always mean socially necessary labor time, not the individual labor of one man "finding" a diamond. thus, while your particular diamond took a few moments to find, on average, when you abstract labor, the amount of labor-hours required to dig into the earth, find a chunk of diamond, extract it from the earth, cut it, carve it, and set it into jewelry, not to mention the amount of labor spent in transporting it between and among the different laborers who perform each of these tasks, is immense. not to mention as others have mentioned artificial supply shortages, which do in fact drive up demand, as well as subjective factors, but these are all external to the VALUE of the good, relating only to its PRICE, or the EXPRESSION of that value which is socially determined.

>>8420865
But marxists refuse government since forever, I don't know where this social democrats = marxist meme comes from, but americans sure love it.

>>8422610

value =/= price

>>8420981
Foucault, Sartre and Simone are much more nietzscheans than marxists, specially, and that's a BIG specially, Foucault.

I know you're talking about the Frankfurt school because of muh cultural marxism, but you'ven ever read them

Zizek is a marxist, but hardly guilty about any of that.

Also, analysis of discourse comes from hermeneutics, and modern hermeneutics stem directly from Heidegger, who was pretty much the opposite of a marxist.

>>8422637
I have a professor who I used to be friends with, and once I had to write an article on Debord, and on the bibliography, which I knew no one would read, I just put "you know exactly what, Huizinga, Debord and your stuff".

He later told me he did it himself, but if the university ever found out, they could fuck me (and him for accepting) on a small scale for lack of academic rigor or some shit.

>>8423473
You can deny it, but can't refute it.

They're presenting you their argumments, you're literally replying with made up numbers.

>>8423707
Marx lived in the apex of 19th century industrial revolution, in Berlin and London, two of the most urbanized cities back then, while you're probably some titty NEET living either in a college dorm or in Culdesacsville, WASPahoma, USofA

>>8423473
>>8424275

stop thinking about philosophy in terms of refutation. it's not easily comprehensible evolutionary process.

>>8424291
I don't, I just pointed out if this guy can't work on theology's therms, he can't say it's right or wrong

>>8424295

i know, it was more directed at him.

>>8424291
Asking someone to prove a negative is a fallacy you'd know if you actually studied philosophy.

>>8424237
two sides of the same commie coin

>>8424237
The greentext quote was showing how marx would shit on social democrats. I did not say social democrats are true marxists, but they self identify and attempt to follow him like a messiah. Also I dont know where you are getting the idea thats marxists REFUSE government. Marxism/ Communism is a mode of government. Marx acknowledged the usfulness of capitalism and recognized that it is a necessary phase. Marx's rejection of government was that a government is unable to cure inequality and it needs to be a social movement. It has to come from ones private life rather than public life.

>>8420348
>I want an honest answer.... I don't understand why many still cling to him...

The problems Marx addressed were popular problems, and have remained popular to this day. Keeping that in mind, it's easy to understand why one of the earliest and most prolific authors on the subject of capitalism and its connections to those problems is still widely read. Easy, that is, unless you've not bothered reading any of his work yourself and don't trust anyone who says it's worth the time. Marx had contemporaries who were better known, more prolific, and respectable to boot. Their work just wasn't that good, so no one gives a shit about them anymore.

>Is it nostalgia, many people simply can't leave the 60s alone.

I genuinely can't tell whether you're an out-of-touch antiquarian referring to the 1860s, or a philistine who thinks Marx wouldn't matter if people would get over the 1960s.

>is it more of an aesthetic appeal to the ideas of Marx, without actually thinking about its practicality

Marx rarely suggested practical models for anything, and the exceptions were very context-sensitive. You can't take the Critique of the Gotha program or the Manifesto and try to make it a modern political platform—that would, ironically, be fundamentally opposite Marx's method for forming those historical programs. If you spent any time actually engaging with Marx's work, you would know that.

>I think many academics remain marxist, not because they honestly think it is applicable, but because that is the reference frame they have viewed society through their whole academic career...its hard for many to adopt a new approach

His work was good. As is usually the case with good work, it was built upon and adapted. However, I suspect you mean 'Marxist' as a political slur rather than a type of analyst. There is no simple way to explain this to the uninitiated. Marxism as a method of work is not a political movement or ideology. I understand that it is popular to use the term as a reference to the Soviet Union or a specific brand of socialist ideology, but popular usage has no place in academia where terms must have definite meaning.

tl;dr: People 'cling' to Marx because his work was good.

>>8424672
You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you even read the wiki on Marx?

>>8424447

that fallacies are only important in formal debate is something you'd know if you'd studied philosophy.

>>8424672
>Marxism/ Communism is a mode of government.

Wrong on both counts! astounding.

>>8420348
His ideas have been corrupted by the Jewish bourgeoisie.
Hell, he even said he wasn't a Marxist, shortly before his death.

>>8425464
Uhh, that wasn't him refuting his own ideas but going against the idea of making a political "brand" out of his ideas. People were already calling themselves marxists during his lifetime and I think it's easy to see why a theorist would be put off by that kind of blind allegiance to your theories. It's a very common reaction for any kind of intellectual or artist when your work becomes some kind of movement or brand of idea.

>>8420628
If value were determined solely by the composition of raw materials, then profit would literally be impossible. If you purchase raw materials to produce a commodity in a universe without labor theory of value, then the final product would cost just as much as the raw materials used to produce it. The reason profit is possible at all is because the labor of transforming materials into a commodity adds value to the final product.

>>8420348

Because he offers the most serious critique of Capitalism available.

There is also no time limit on being a Marxist. The collapse of the Soviet Union does not invalidate Marxist critique.

>>8420369
>refuted countless times.

Refuted by your standards, but not by the standards of Marxism itself.

>>8420420
>greater

Do you mean more influential? More "correct"?

>>8420945
Because most people who criticise Marxism on this board and elsewhere on the internet make the same fundamental mistakes that do not really require an explanation, and can be satisfied by simply reading it for yourself.

Not to mention most of them are not actually interested in a sincere discussion, and would rather just express their feelings on the subject and then be done with it.

>>8420992
>against people reading Marx, even critically
I bet you complain about censorship all the time you dense fucking faggot.

File: alliser.jpg (51KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x360px

>>8420348
because he was simply offering a critique on capitalism, which was valid. however, he didn't offer a better solution and that's where Marx and his brain dead followers lose any respectable footing. he's fun to read and write papers on, but outside of the critical world, he only appeals to lazy, do nothing college kids who dream of a world where they no longer have to work.

>>8420369
>Just Google it

But then you have to separate insightful critiques of Marx's models of society from screeds on how he's the final boss of western degeneracy.

>>8420420
This is complete bullshit. Sociology has evolved since Marx, and even before him there was great sociologists. Look at Bourdieu, Tardieu, Tocqueville... Here we're more speaking about his political works

>>8426974
Your "critiques" stink of something scrapped together from secondary sources that never read or understood Marx. Is there any argument more lazy than

>yeah he had some good points but it doesn't work in the REAL world

or in your case "critical" world. whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

File: kimbo.jpg (548KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1365x2048px

It's hard for nobodies and intellectuals to let the dual dream of collectivism and central planning go.

>>8428531
he is right though, kinda

no marxist (or leftist for that matter) has offered a truly workable alternative for capitalism; 20th century communist projects failed miserably, there was something horribly wrong somewhere, probably right from the start. any half-responsible marxist should accept this and work on it

just a harsh truth for us leftists. the alternative is still to be worked out and the current project should be precisely that working out

>>8428546
>us leftists
samefag detected

>>8420913
>An explanation of the problem is no great feat
someone who has never read any of the 3 volumes of capital shouldn't say this. and i know you haven't, since anyone who has read any of the 3 volumes of capital would never say this.

>>8428546
The failure of the 20th century leftist experiment is no more of a death sentence than the early failures of capitalist society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru%E2%80%93Bolivian_Confederation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_the_Rio_de_la_Plata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande_do_Sul#Guarani_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entre_R%C3%ADos_Province
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mexican_Empire

Leftists need to be critical of the material circumstances and ideological shortcomings that led to the failure of the great leftist experiment without forgoing it altogether.

>>8422135
underrated post-- nietzsche said as much

>>8428549
oh, precisely my point

I'm only against the kind of commies that just lazily go all "well uhh some bad guys fucked our project up"

there must be critical self-reflection and rereading of theory, which I know many people do

>>8428547
same with which post?

File: eric-hoffer1.jpg (30KB, 382x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 382x600px

>>8428539

>To the intellectual the struggle for freedom is more vital than the actuality of a free society. He would rather "work, fight, talk, for liberty than have it." The fact is that up to now the free society has not been good for the intellectual. It has neither accorded him a superior status to sustain his confidence nor made it easy for him to acquire an unquestioned sense of social usefulness. For he derives his sense of usefulness mainly from directing, instructing, and planning — from minding other people's business — and is bound to feel superfluous and neglected where people believe themselves competent to manage individual and communal affairs, and are impatient of supervision and regulation. A free society is as much a threat to the intellectual's sense of worth as an automated economy is to the workingman's sense of worth. Any social order that can function with a minimum of leadership will be anathema to the intellectual.

>The intellectual craves a social order in which uncommon people perform uncommon tasks every day. He wants a society throbbing with dedication, reverence, and worship. He sees it as scandalous that the discoveries of science and the feats of heroes should have as their denouement the comfort and affluence of common folk. A social order run by and for the people is to him a mindless organism motivated by sheer physiologism.

>The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated. They hanker for the scribe's golden age, for a return to something like the scribe-dominated societies of ancient Egypt, China, and Europe of the Middle Ages. There is little doubt that the present trend in the new and renovated countries toward social regimentation stems partly from the need to create adequate employment for a large number of scribes. And since the tempo of the production of the literate is continually increasing, the prospect is of ever-swelling bureaucracies.

>They who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually, their innermost desire is for an end to the "free for all." They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

>The ratio between supervisory and producing personnel is always highest where the intellectuals are in power. In a Communist country it takes half the population to supervise the other half.

>>8420628
Fuck STEMfags are dense sometimes. Just do your fucking homework before you open your mouth and stop embarrassing yourself. You won't find people going onto a science board and lecturing people about particle physics who don't even know what a nucleus is, but for some reason STEMfags think they can get away with it the other way around.

>>8423730
Marx is mostly revered still in academia for his critique on capitalism, not his vague notions and calls for a communist society.

He was the best theorist on capitalism that has ever been. Widely influential. That's why people still "cling" to him, for the same reason people cling to other important thinkers -- their ideas were important and still remain relevant to current cultural and socio-political analysis.

You don't throw out Newton because Einstein came along.

>>8422610
>Nobody labors in a house. They just live in it.

You want to rethink that?

>>8422666
>I'm not reading
yet you're on /lit/, the board for literature. this isn't a politics board or a philosophy board, you know: this is a board for discussion of written works, which of course often involves politics and philosophy, and sometimes must go further than explicit discussion of books

go to I don't know, /his/ or /pol/ if you want to be proud of only talking rather than reading and then talking

>>8428546
lmao fuck off

>>8428562
>marxist retard thinks he knows anything

kek

>>8428577

I don't think artistic value or historical interest is what people look for when they want non-fiction. It would be like a biologist reading Lamarck. Speaking of which, Lamarck's theory of evolution was officially promulgated in the USSR. . .top fucking kek.

>>8428629
>I don't think artistic value or historical interest is what people look for when they want non-fiction
What do you look for when you want non-fiction, anon?

>>8422559
>Price and value are different
Top shrek

>>8428600
>>8428629
>>8428639
I know you won't accept this, but you're way out of your league here.

>>8420628
>>8420628
>if you mean to tell me that the value of the work lies in my labor and not the final result you're a delusional artsfag.
I understand why one should value results but I must remark that defending the integrity of the work like you do is acting pretty artsy-fartsy.

>>8420348
>nostalgia
I don't know any 140 year old Germans so I couldn't ask them

In general, they "cling" because hes such an important academic. He showed that the economic system we live in can fundamentally alter our social relations and to a greater extent, our minds. No academic, not liberterians or fascists, disagree with this point.

>>8420369
When you say refuted, do you mean refuted refuted or just misunderstood him?

>>8428600
Except that I'm not a marxist. I've just read Marx though, and plenty of other marxist theory. It's pretty obvious when people haven't done their homework but insist on making arguments anyway.

>>8422396
>that's not the point of any science - it's to develop and critique giants. But to not have to go through the arguments that were all addressed so early on in the science of economics
what should someone read if they want to learn about the current critiques against the labor theory of value.

>>8424672
Marxism is a critique system
Communism is the absence of governments

>>8420628
All these assmad reds pissed off you basically BTFO'd them.

>>8429388
wrong

>>8428633

In history people don't read Gibbon anymore. I'm sure Gibbon is a pretty good read but historiography has moved on a lot since the late 1700s.

If I wanted to read about economics or political science I would read something from the last century at least. It would be important to read a summary of Marx's main ideas but telling that guy to read all three volumes of Kapital is stupid. It really is like theology, Marx didn't just think the proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie, he wanted them to. He tried to project this image of the cool headed scientist but he ended up drinking his own kool-aid. Too much romanticism and daydreaming for an objective philosopher.

>>8426955
>>refuted countless times.
>Refuted by your standards, but not by the standards of Marxism itself.

>ideology hasn't been refuted by its own standards
wew

>>8428554
Tell me how this isn't true in our deeply specializated society that makes people study 4 fucking years to work on HR based on self help techniques

>>8428661
It's the same as Freud, really.

You can "debunk" him as much as you can, his original concepts of trauma, symptom and etc. / Marx's dialectical materialism and critique system are still both true and extremely important.

Both have also managed to transcend their areas, Freudian influenced aesthetics are G-O-A-T

File: 1471499577698.png (156KB, 362x259px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 362x259px

>>8430002

>Marx's dialectical materialism and critique system are still both true and extremely important.

Dialectical materialism has been getting btfo since Schopenhauer

>>8430011
>Ideas are like my GPU which I change and ignore forever every couple of years :^)

>>8430020

Your ideology was a lemon, it was defective when it left the factory

>>8420503
I just spent 8 hours straight bashing my head into the wall. It was very hard work and I am very tired. Should I get paid?

>>8430189
Value (or exchange value) is a property of things that are producted. You produced nothing, therefore, you're not gonna get paid.

>>8430248
I have produced an indentation in the wall.

>>8430256
Which is not a product. It's not useful and it cannot be exchanged.

>>8430268
>It's not useful
To whom?

What do you guys think about the fact that Marx was a grub in his personal life? Any bearing on his ideas or credibility?

File: 1459185212570.jpg (153KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1334x750px

>>8430002
marxist aesthetics are up there too, this is interesting anon

>>8420503
Because risk is a thing that exists.

>>8420348

People are still interested in Marx because of the vastness of his vision and the fruitfulness of the groundwork he laid.

Simply put, Marxism is about everything in the human world. It encompasses history, economics, sociology, philosophy, psychology and all the arts, and ties everything together in a comprehendible system, and claims to have done so scientifically and materialistically.
More than a set of claims about the world, Marixism is a tool, it's a method of investigation and analysis that can be applied to any subject.
At its most pure and methodological Marxism is the idea that a given thing can be understood in terms of the conflicting elements within it, and that anything places the role of an opposite which together form a larger thing, this is what we call the dialectic. The ideas of socialism are the result of dialectically analyzing capitalism and discovering that class struggle propels change in society.
The fundemental idea about society that Marx created is the idea that economics, not ideas are the foundation, and first element of a society, and that the ideology of a society is whatever justifies its economic system and rather than a society coming to an economic system from an ideology. It means that if you want to understand why a person does something, don't blame the motivating ideology, look to the conditions that allowed that ideology to exist in the first place.

Essential academics love Marx because his ideas are flexible enough, and wide reaching enough to be able to be applied to an endless series of different things, often producing far more parsimonious theories than liberal counterparts who lack a proper class analysis and are thus lost in idealism.


Also I can tell most people here never have opened a single page of Marx after seeing; 'but if I just find diamonds', 'what about the value of art', 'but I make nicer stuff and clearly the product matters more than the time put in'. Great, literally the first 10 pages of Capital separate out use value from exchange value so maybe actually read a book or something. Also understand that Captial or Critique of Poltical Economy is meant as an expansion and critique of the works of Adam Smith and Divid Ricardo, people who he was very well versed in.

>>8430189
Did you do 'useful' labour? No? Okay so shut up

>>8430002

I'd go as far to say that the fact that both psycho-analysis and Marxism are both subject to frequent attacks still to this day, ages after they were allegedly disproven, debunked, discredited or what ever else people want to declare them, shows not that they are certainly dead but rather that they are still quite vital and threatening to the establishment power structures.

>>8420888
Kek bless

>>8420348
the communist manifesto is truly inspiring
but once all the 60s fags and rinos who cant give up the cold war retire/die he'll lose prominence

>>8431353
well if the labour required it then yes it would be useful

>>8420348
He critiques capitalism well but his solution is shit

>>8428554
What a lot of nothing

game theory > conflict theory

prove me wrong marxtards

>>8431353
Define "useful" without subjective value.

>>8420348

Still the best roadmap for a free and just society.

>>8428565
this

File: tips morality.png (106KB, 318x444px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 318x444px

>>8432042

>free
>just

>>8432122

Given how much time and paper Marx devoted to 'refuting' Stirner, you do have to wonder if the latter was on to something...

File: Triggered.jpg (55KB, 524x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 524x400px

Popular philosophers will always have their blindly loyal cultists.

The biggest contemporary example is Chomsky, but given how many modern philosophers/theorists are merely riding on Marx's coattails, then it comes as no surprise that so many people cut out the middle man and go straight to Marx.

What bothers me more is how many 20th century philosophers/theorists hijacked Nietzsche for Leftist/Liberal ends.

>>8432138

>What bothers me more is how many 20th century philosophers/theorists hijacked Nietzsche for Leftist/Liberal ends

My nigga. He'd probably have a fit if he could see what Foucault/etc were doing in his name.

Just a reminder that all intellectuals are leftists