How do I win debate against a Marxist?

>>9104685

read marx. seriously. how the fuck are you expecting to have a serious critique of a work if you never read the work?

You don't because Marx was right about literally everything

File: r926916_9677185.jpg (19KB, 340x227px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 340x227px

>>9104685
You literally can't.

>>9104685
>How do I win debate against a Marxist?
First of all one articulates the sound of "kek", this in order to claim your intellectual territory right from the start. Second, you pursue the strategy of creating a strawman and claim your opponent is destroying the pale humans by using cultural marxism. At this point it is necessary to call him a cuck.

This is how all geat /pol/ intellectuals work

With a bullet.

leave the english and sociology block in your university

You can't "win" a debate.

Something about gulags maybe? What's your audience?

You just wait 10 or 20 years until they grow up and realize on their own that Marxism is idiotic.

>>9104690
/thread

>>9104690
No time

>>9104760
Retards need not apply

>>9104764
20-24 year olds and a few professors

>>9104685
Don't directly attack the monolith Marx/Marxism, because he's generally respected and you'll come off as partisan. Instead, develop a solid understanding of Marx's ideas, and show that they lead to a different conclusion. You can safely contradict two or three of his premises on the way there, but any more will make for poor optics.

Example:

>If we suppose that capitalism is necessarily exploitative, and that historical crises will eventually lead towards liberation from said exploitation, we still have to develop a utilitarian equation which justifies allowing said crises to happen in order for this progression to be ethical.

>In order to do so, we must show that the utility generated by communism outweighs the utility generated by capitalism, as well as establish that the instatement of communism lasts a worthwhile span of time. Marx establishes this first point via the labor theory of value, and the second with the assumption that communism will spread across Earth uniformly, eliminating all colonial powers in the process.

>However, both these premises are deeply flawed. The labor theory of value is demonstrably incorrect (counter-examples include digital art & artificial objects which can also occur naturally), and the notion that any economic system will be instated rapidly enough to automatically overcome resistance is silly. Furthermore, even if communism does become global overnight, we immediately face a tragedy-of-the-commons problem, wherein a moderately-well-organized militia could reap vast benefits by acting as a spontaneous colonial power.

>One might attempt to counteract this by backing communism with a strong central government which uses taxation and other coercive methods to provide a national defense, but this would lead to the same sort of social strife communism seeks to alleviate (albeit to a lesser degree). Furthermore, in order to ensure that tax revenue is consistently useful, a certain degree of central planning becomes inevitable. This, again, eliminates many of the gains communism claims to offer. As we often see in history, states which are ostensibly communist tend to recreate the same problems of capitalist states, and regularly invoke state-capitalism themselves, as responses to the challenge of colonialism.

>Essentially, the mere possibility of colonial overthrow causes communism to game-theoretically self-destruct.

If you want to defend this position, you'd better read up on game theory, research historical examples of the phenomenon, and thoroughly understand why the labor theory of value doesn't hold up. Once all that falls into place, though, you challenge communism both in practical and ethical terms, which is a lot for the other side to deal with in a format where rebuttals are shorter than opening statements.

And never, ever use the prefix "cultural." You'll look like a fucking joke.

>>9104685
Kill their parents and watch them starve to death.

>>9104685
Postmodernism and identity politics.

>"Not everything is about an economic theory, right?" Clinton asked her audience of a few hundred activists, most of them wearing T-shirts from the unions that had promoted the rally. "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?"

>"No!" shouted her audience.

>"Would that end sexism?"

>"No!"

>"Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?"

>"No!"

>"Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?"

>"No!"

Why does it matter if people suffer under current conditions?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a central thesis of marxism and it's pretty easy to debunk if you're not talking about a hypothetical post-scarcity scenario. Who gets to decide the individual needs of people when dealing with finite resources and so on and so on.

File: giphy (1).gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>9104964
If you take that statement as literal or essential to Marxism, you know nothing about Marxism. It's a popular slogan coined by Marx, not an element of his theory. You have to distinguish between stylistic elements of Marx's prose and his actual ideas.
>inb4 "then he's a bad writer"
All philosophers do this, and many STEM writers do it too. Theories would be easier to understand without embellishments, but they'd be much less compelling.

>>9104685

A key part of Marxist thought is that the common worker is being taken advantage of, because they are not in control of what they produce. This is clearly a silly position, because if the worker really thinks they deserve ALL of the fruits of production, then why don't they quit, and do it themselves?

A common laborer is provided with tools, designs and sellers. Most of them provided by people taking substantially more risk than them.

A coal miner, a lumberer, a cook, these laborers are all using tools, instructions and markets provided to them. It's not like they are producing it on their own.

>>9104827
Yep this is good advice

"He is a German."
*walks out*
*cue Ghostbusters theme*

The best thing you can do is read Marx and Engels. Know your enemy. Most self proclaimed Marxists are idiot kids who have never read the basics.

Explain that the Labor Theory of Value is bunk, which consequently means that the rest of Marxism falls apart.

If they ask you to prove it's bunk, ask them how much the time/effort they waste in asking stupid questions is worth. Alternatively, tell them to dig a 6ft-deep hole, ask them how much that hole is worth, and then shoot them in the head. With the grave already dug, you'll save a lot of time/effort burying them.

>>9105009
Marx directly addresses this argument, and his rebuttal is solid. The workers can't "quit and do it themselves" because they don't own the means of production. He also talks about tools and machines for pages when he lays out the labor theory of value, with the express goal of showing that it handles cases like these.

>>9105050
Or, you know, you could prove it with a counterexample.

t. guy who actually bothered to read up on Marx before rejecting Marxism

File: 1486698019905.png (39KB, 341x316px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 341x316px

>>9104685
You don't; they're incapable of rational discourse.

>human nature tho

>>9104685
Few people on this website have enough brain cells to seriously debate a Marxist.
Source: I'm a former Communist who went from the far-left to the center left.

>>9104685
>trying to "win a debate" rather than come to a mutual understanding of each other's point of view
Faggot.

File: tfw to smart for lit.jpg (94KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1144x888px

>>9105150

Who needs brain cells when you have muscle cells?

>>9105218

I want to murder and rape, you don't. Let's just molest.

>>9104964
We are living in post-scarcity, bucko. All scarcity nowadays is artificial.

>>9104685
Watch these videos:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeIcQSnepig
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmJLh3QCNgM
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBibWSh8L8Q
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1tUFx_StSo

>>9104827
/thread

>>9104690
but i have youtube

>>9104685
Start by reading Marx. Read everything he has written. Then read his critics. Everything. Then, form your own opinion using both Marx and his critics to support your claim. This is the only way to do it. Everyone these days wants a shortcut to sounding like an educated person and it doesn't work like that. Becoming smart takes years of reading and writing.

The good news for you is that most modern self-proclaimed Marxist teenage communists in the street have typically read nothing but Marx and Marxist literature. If you've read Marx and his critics, you should win any debate with ease by simply being more diverse in your approach. Marx is easily beaten, but to know how, you have to read him.

>>9104685
"Why aren't you redistributing your own wealth right now?"

>>9104827
>communism seeks
And you blew it.

File: glassball socialism never tried.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>9104685
You can't. No because he will be right (he won't) but because he will never change opinions.

>>9105391
Every single time Bolshevism has been tried it has been wildly successful.

It's not Lenin's fault you think his success is your failure.

File: wut.jpg (36KB, 414x413px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 414x413px

>>9105395

>Every single time Bolshevism has been tried it has been wildly successful.

>>9105337
Wrong. There are finite resources on Earth. If there were an infinite amount of resources at our disposal then we would be post-scarcity. Star Trek is post-scarcity because they can magic shit up in their magic shit maker.

>>9104685

Pretty much everything he believes in is based one way or the other on the LTV, which is bad science from the 19th century.

Basically, just explain to him why subjectivist theories of value are correct and that's it, you won. Whether he understand that or not is irrelevant.

>>9105399
Oh, I guess I imagined the creation of the USSR and all its various copycats.
>>9104964
>lol the central thesis of this future society envisioned by some Victorian fucknugget doesn't apply to current society MARX BTFO
"To each according to his contribution" and "he who does not work neither shall he eat" are both central tenets of Marxism, btw.

Shit I'm not a Marxist and I know this.

>>9104685

Very, very easily. Remember: just because the Marxist keeps on talking, does not mean that you have not won the argument. People who lose arguments go on talking all the time.

t. guy who has won dozens of arguments against Marxists (they never realize it, though).

>>9105381
>most modern self-proclaimed Marxist teenage communists in the street have typically read nothing but Marx and Marxist literature

Are we sure this is true?

>>9104690
because today's marxist have actually read him right

>>9105405

The stuff that isn't based on the LTV is rooted in blank-slatism or psychoanalysis or some other retarded thing depending on the type of marxist you're facing.

And remember that if you're to the right of democratic socialism, he would probably kill you or order you to be killed if he had the chance. Provided he's sincere, of course.

>>9105419

You're right. He's being wildly generous in assuming they've even read any Marx/Marxist literature.

>>9105409

>Oh, I guess I imagined the creation of the USSR and all its various copycats.

No, you didn't imagine them. You're just looking at them through extremely rosy glasses.

>>9104685
>application of marxism
>application of free market

>>9105419
that and Harry Potter

File: 7f3f618090b3c19fc370881c4db4d9ac.jpg (254KB, 800x571px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 800x571px

>>9104685
Start off by accepting the fact that you can't use capitalism to beat Marx. You have to use feudalism. Capitalism and communism both lead to the same end.

File: Untitled.png (25KB, 585x436px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 585x436px

Anyone else notice that whenever you talk to a communist its like they're speaking a completely different language?

>>9105437
Capitalism and communism both lead to the same end.

care to explain

>>9105431
>You're just looking at them through extremely rosy glasses.
Or maybe I'm not and you just can't read my fucking post:
>It's not Lenin's fault you think his success is your failure.
i.e. Bolshevism did what it was meant to do: seize power, and hold it.

And because they were successful, suddenly a bunch of other faggots copied them. And they were successful too; of course they were (who knew violence and coups were so effective?). And then faggots like you get self-righteously butthurt when other socialists tell you that Bolshevism was a special-snowflake fringe ideology before Lenin made it big by taking control of one of the biggest powers in the world.

>>9105438
lmao I hate those cuck shills with their SJW faggotry. They don't worship Pepe like me (praise Kek)

>>9105395
Never mind the gif. Socialism has indeed succeeded in everyone of its technical actual goals. If you like it, you won't change opinions, as I said.

>>9105050
http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf

Abstract:

>This study aims to investigate the empirical strength of the labor theory of value. Using input-output data and labor hour statistics for Sweden it replicates tests done by Cockshott and Cottrell (1998) for the British economy. Its results are broadly consistent: labor values are closely correlated with market prices. When it comes to reality, the labor theory of value works at least as well as the theory of production prices.

There is no scientific consensus on LTV's power vs other theories, saying it is debunked will discredit you

>>9105459

Is that supposed to be how non communists talk?

>>9105468
No you faggot it's meant to show that jargon doesn't mean cultiness, unless you think 4chan is a cult.

>>9105466

>There is no scientific consensus on LTV's power vs other theories


top fucking keks, always with that piss poor paper

Is your next post going to be "lysenkoism is probably correct" ?

>>9105447
not him

Another lie that Communists still erupt today, is to pretend that the enemy of capitalism, which are not, but worstly, are the worst capitalists. Lenin and Marx were born in the wealthy capitalist families, and were not satisfied with their benefits under the legal system, have conspired to overthrown anyhthing to get on the path to becoming a capitalist emperor, under the papacy of money worship. The Communists are not the proletariat, but the worst kind of capitalists who are trying to avoid justice. Communism = Capitalist Anarchy = Capitalist syndicate man-farm

>>9105472

The words you listed are not loaded in any way. They're just simple words or memes that can be easily defined if they're not readily apparent. Try to explain what use-value, wage labor, petty bourgeoisie, division of labor, or labor-power means in a single sentence. That is loaded language that is almost completely exclusive to communists and it is cult-like behavior.

>>9105490
>technical language is cultish jargon
Woah those STEMfags are worse than I thought!

>>9105488
r u eastern euro? me to!!!

File: 413MdpkxpwL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (18KB, 229x346px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 229x346px

anyone ever read this?

>>9105476
Did you read the paper are you judging it by conclusions?


Here is a global version of the study, examining many non-social-democratic countries. Again LTV predictions and real values is as good or better as the TPP

http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Zachariah_LabourValue.pdf

File: Untitled.png (27KB, 597x431px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 597x431px

>>9105494

Those STEM guys sure are plebs aren't they? They can't even keep up with our jargon.

>>9105395
This. It's not the Bolsheviks fault that goys think the mission is to create a utopia when in reality it's a Gentile-genocide machine of global proportions and the end-goal is to enslave all non-Jews.

>>9105494

It's not "technical language" if basically everyone who actually works in the field agress that it doesn't map on anything real. Same reason why scientology words aren't "technical jargon".

>>9105506

>still with zacharia

Yeah, and wait until you hear what doctor Wakefield has to say on vaccines!

>>9105507
Man I sure wish these dead guys would stop manipulating me.

>>9105517

What are you talking about?

>>9105524
You're finding tiny details which could apply to anything which needs to use its own language to explain anything (for example, Aristotle's works) while ignoring all the cult leaders and shit which are supposed to be there -- and aren't.

>>9105524

He's saying there is no way by which dead people can manipulate individuals.
And he's right, I mean, they could be capable of extending their influence on people beyond their death if there just was some way of recording words, maybe like by painting them.

>>9105530

You're getting overly offended at something being described as cult-like behavior which in itself is cult-like behavior. The language used by Aristotle was not obscure to his contemporaries BTW.

Are you a member of any socialist clubs or groups?

>>9105535

Well I guess Scientology isn't a cult since the founder is dead.

>>9104814
Then you will lose all the time senpai.

File: Untitled.png (20KB, 587x314px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 587x314px

The ends justify the means. Does that remind anyone of anything? Anyone?

>>9105400
Thats a misunderstanding of what the other anon was saying. We have the means to provide every person on Earth with adequate food, shelter, and access to entertainment (film, music, internet, clubs, etc). The issue is the logistics, figuring out how to set-up and maintain those systems in a capitalist system is extremely difficult.

Earth has finite resources, but those resources will last penty long enough for us to develop technology to mine from asteroids and set-up colonies on other terrestroal bodies before running out is even a concern.

None of this is saying the other anon is correct, or at the very least, misleading in his language. Scarcity is only "artificial" in that it theoretically could be ended.

>>9105494
>STEM language correlates to clear and explicit meanings/definitions.
>Postmodern language has endless debates on what terms mean and no one can agree on definitions, yet said language gets parroted endlessly.
Fucking retarded STEMfags, amirite?

>>9105387
That was poorly-phrased, you're right.

A better phrasing:
>this would lead to the same sort of social strife Marx claims communism would alleviate (albeit to a lesser degree).

>>9105490
All of those terms can easily be defined in a sentence.

Use value- a product's utility
Wage labor- work for temporally based, fixed remuneration; rather than work for the wealth one creates
Petty bourgeois- small business owners, managerial workers, and the like
Division of labor- splitting the creation of a product into multiple independent activities for the sake of efficiency (also this one is hardly exclusive to Marxian economics)
Labor power- one's ability to work

>>9105585

Don't stop there:

dialectical materialism
commodification
commodity fetishism
alienation
equivalent form
lumpenproletariat
universal equivalent
sublation
modes of production
means of production

>>9105568
>Scarcity is only "artificial" in that it theoretically could be ended.
I think this is the main point. It could be ended but that would mean a more 'even' distribution of wealth across the globe. This would severely harm some people and severely help others. There are billions of Chinese and Indians, for example, and many have very low standards of living.

>>9104685
Become a even better Marxist.

>>9105556
>Does that remind anyone of anything
The modern way of thinking.

>>9105609
Dialectical materialism- Marx's reworking of Hegel idealist dialectical logic to be applicable to the existent, physical world. Essentially, the effects of economic life on human thought and behavior.
Commodification- the monetization of activities and products traditionally located outside of the sphere of civil society.
Commodity fetishism- Belief that products have inherent value, outside of the labor and subjectivity that one "alienates" into a commodity for its creation.
Lumpenproletariat- criminals and others pushed to the fringes of capitalist society, equivalent to Hegel's "Pöbel"
Universal Equivalent- money
Sublation- another Hegelian term regarding the final dialectical movement, whereby to (often) contradictory concepts are transcended by a third.
Mode of Production- economic System
Means of production- the capital necessary to produce.

Don't bother sending another list as I don't agree with your premise that a philosophy using neologisms or referencing Hegel automatically makes it a cult.

>>9105688

Why would you not use "money" instead of "universal equivalent?" That type of language is unnecessarily loaded and it is cult-LIKE. You're confusing terms here. When I say cult-like I'm not saying cult-literally, as in literally a cult. I'm saying the behavior is cultish. Nobody talks like a communist.

u don't u just think u do

>>9105699
Marx's works are as much works of history as they are philosophy. He uses the term universal equivalent to show the role money played in its emergence in bartering systems. Many of these terms require context, but aren't meaningless. And for what it's worth, I would find someone walking around spouting these terms strange as well. They're mostly just used in academic settings, if at all.

File: Pass on the ressentiment.jpg (72KB, 647x960px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 647x960px

>>9104685

Point out that he is guilty of ressentiment.

Game over.

>>9105721

>Marx's works are as much works of history as they are philosophy. He uses the term universal equivalent to show the role money played in its emergence in bartering systems.

That's an odd way of defining a word in a single sentence. Are your other definitions so overly simplified as well?

>>9105699
Have you ever had any contact with any philosophy whatsoever? Have you ever tried reading Kant?

"Money" can bear a lot of meanings, but Marx is specifically talking about the object that measure by which other products are priced and blah blah blah

File: 1458238269423.jpg (115KB, 634x876px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 634x876px

How do you determine value and need?

>>9105781

> but Marx is specifically talking about the object that measure by which other products are priced and blah blah blah

Then universal equivalent cannot be defined as "money." You have overly simplified the definition to the point of meaninglessness.

>>9105726
>lol ur jus jelly

is there a worse "philosopher" than neetshit?

>>9105758
Dam n, u trolled me

Low ability individual/low IQ person here.

Do I need to apply and know advanced mathematics in order to read Das Kapital? I opened a couple of pages here and there and there was lots of things that looked like mathematics.

Also what is the Das Kapital directing criticizing? Capitalism of course, but any writers it directly goes against

why marx call the roman empire capitalist?.
it is?.

>>9105859
> why marx call the roman empire capitalist?.
> it is?.

He didn't and it wasn't.

>>9105791
please answer

>>9105791
>that's the joke

>>9105472
>>9105459
>jargon
>12 year old /pol/ blather
k

>>9104690

FPBP

File: ThisMachineKillsCommies.jpg (51KB, 394x499px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 394x499px

>>9104685

File: communism.png (263KB, 1024x439px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1024x439px

>>9104685

>>9105420
Then you'll have an even easier time winning the debate

>>9105846
It's pseudo-math, so you can more or less ignore it. Read a secondary source first to introduce you to the concepts, then try to understand the more detailed writings of Marx himself later.

>>9104685
You wouldn't debate someone with Downs' Syndrome, would you? Marxists are roughly as intelligent as that. Don't waste your time and read some right-wing literature instead.

YOOMANE NAYCHU

>>9106329
Can you check the last question?
I thinK I need to read first what the Kapital is criticizing before reading it, that's makes sense in my double-digit IQ brain, no?

File: 14344159_335404503462182_8631728198870923129_n.png (57KB, 480x377px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 480x377px

You can always rely on the good old
>muh human nature
Best thing about it, is it's true

File: 1452965696069.jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>>9104827
or you could just deny the morality of utilitarianism..................

i fucking hate redditors

>>9106457
Commie says human nature is dependent on material conditions, your move?

>>9104827
>he thinks marxists base their arguments on utilitarianism.

>>9106552
Tell him human nature is set in stone, for whatever reason.

>>9104685
Ask him to prove the Labour Theory of Value without fabricating a non-empirical definition of value.

When he fails to do this, he has de-facto lost the argument because without the false claim that labor determines the value of goods, the claim that Capital is exploitative collapses and the moral legitimacy of Marx's theories disintegrates. This reveals Marxism for what it is: A naked call to theft, motivated exclusively by jealousy. It may then be dismissed as the criminality that it actually is.

File: f26eb65c789d2663533e8113de61b24c56a8e958446400008d86ed306e6a154f_1.jpg (42KB, 475x531px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 475x531px

>>9106465
>year of our lord two thousand and seventeen
>not a utilitarian

File: 2807368-3x2-940x627.jpg (59KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 940x627px

>>9104685

>>9106552
what human mind can make with material conditions is unwritten.

>>9106847
Wait, what is that?

>>9106933
That's the island where Anders Breivik did literally nothing wrong a few dozen times.

>>9107050
*tips fedora*

>>9104685
Eat food in front of them.

>>9104685
You don't win, because having a logical argument with a marxist is impossible.

>>9105009
>Most of them provided by people taking substantially more risk than them.

People with a bunch of capital aren't taking much of a risk. Their livelihoods aren't on the line like workers when they quit. Oh, they might lose a bit of their cash, fucking boo hoo

Why would you even lose your time debating an autist who stills follows some outdated German philosopher of the XIXth century?

Would you debate a follower of Afrikan Spir or Friedrich Schelling?

>>9107155
>Why would you even lose your time debating an autist who stills follows some outdated German philosopher of the XIXth century?
But that describes 100% of this board.

>>9107155
>(((German)))

>>9105499

Stunning academic work--used it a lot for my own undergraduate essays last year. Be sure to pick it up. No substitute for getting into the primary material though.

It was very useful for Hegelian origins, and deciphering Marx's more inaccessible works like 'Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right'. It was also handy for placing Marx within his historical context and showing his departures from the Young Hegelian movement, the 'Utopian' socialists, and anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin. The final quarter of the first volume deals nicely with the theoretical variations between Marx and Engels; particularly regarding Engels' own formulation of dialectal materialism in the Anti-Duhring (1878) that eventually became official Soviet Doctrine.

In short, its good.

>>9104702
Just remind them of 1991. Yugoslavia, USSR.
If it doesn't work, you're not dealing with people you can argue with.

If they have valid points to give back, take the media and bureaucrat classes under inspection. Mention that Marx worked under the false premise of automated progress; that technology always grows and nobody is behind such a process. Marx didn't take innovation into account, and all actual innovation will choke on the rails of bureaucracy.

>>9104685
Probably can't since even if you argue with things Marx said they haven't read him.

Anyway, the best arguments are all the attrocities commited by Communists and Socialists. Look at what Mao's regime did, as well as what Stalin and others did. Soviet Russia alone tortured and killed almost 70 million of it's citizens who they felt were incapable of conforming (even if they didn't resist).

>>9106552
Asceticism.

>>9107172
Thatt's probably why we don't have many real debates.

Keynesian economics

ask him why don't he have a job

File: ce178deaa7d2601354f234e9bf2c2b9009047fc203f65baf50237a8bebcb0ebe111.png (107KB, 736x416px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 736x416px

>>9107357
Neo Marxian economist Michał Kalecki BTFO'ed Keynes so hard he give birth to the Post Keynesian school, to this day Post Kenyans have a soft spot for Marxism, not to disregard the HUGE neo Marxian economic tradition, Oskar R. Lange a neo Marxian was the guy who BTFO'ed Hayek so hard he rewrote his whole economic theory

File: 51Q28xwX6WL._SX340_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (33KB, 342x499px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 342x499px

>>9104827
>Utilitarianism
Anglo scum detected.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (200KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 960x1280px

>>9105345

>>9105384
"bc that's not Marxism, you flaming retard."

>>9107301

If he's still going on pure Marx he's what we call an "entry-level pleb."

There's a reason the term post-marxism exists now. Marxist theory was reformulated after the failed revolutions. The core thesis of the Frankfurt School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (whence came the cultural marxism meme) was basically "it's no longer possible to do marx's proletarian revolution, what the fuck do we do now"

>5800 markets

>>9105395
>Bolshevism
Basically feudalism: the rulers set quotas and the populace has to achieve them. Politics degenerates to exchanging personal favours so you can meet quotas, so you can advance in the party ranks.

The application of Marxism as Leninism is utterly retarded. Marxism is also very spooky.

>muh false consciousness

>>9108350
Sounds like a success to me.

>>9104859
Horribly underrated post.

>>9104685
Marx is just a fucking nihilist. That's all he is. That's all any of it is. Hatred and fear of other humans, and the possibility of their enterprise.

He was the original edgy neckbeard. Men that praise him are huge fucking edgelords that need some more push ups and pussy in their life. Out of shape losers with a hormonal imbalance. Women that praise him are mentally defective skanks that ruined themselves by spreading their legs for every swinging dick they met in high school. If they're not that, they're at least dumb af and haven't read him, or couldn't for how dumb they are.

Yes I've read Marx. Suck my cock. Swallow the means of production.

>>9108820
Bad post

>>9108820
Good post

>>9104685
You'll never win a debate with a Marxist because any honest and competent person will tell you that economically, Marxism has been proven both wrong as well as outdated so all you're left with now are believers in an ideology that mixes economics with class warfare with identity politics with ethics into one big blend of champagne socialism and if 100 million dead humans don't convince them, then you certainly won't by using something as futile as reason.

That said, if there is any serious socialist in this thread, I'd love hearing their answers to a few questions.

>>9104685
>>9104827

Marxism isn't necessarily marxist because it's signed by Marx. The same applies to works or political regimes that claim to be marxist and even Marx himself wasn't born Marxist. The whole point is removing economic and humanist interpretations, in 1840 to 1842 was a primary period of liberally rationalist humanism inspired by Kant and Fichte, 1842 to 1845 show a communitarian humanist (utopian problematic) inspired by Feuerbach, 1845 show Theses on Feuerbach and The German Ideology and only after 1845 the problematic effectively becomes marxist and scientific.

You find in marxism points that are never really elaborated (ideology, the State, the revolutionary power...) which show that marxism isn't a system which is neither definitively established, nor out of touch.

Young Marx writings show humanist theses on human dignity refused to the proletariat and bourgeoisie is victim in itself to money and utilitarianism. You won't find class struggle but human beings subjected to inhuman objects.

Marx is scientific in two ways, science of history since man just like nature can be a subject for knowledge, you find this will to produce scientific knowledge in opposition to produce ideologies.

And completely new, an entirely new philosophy that moves philosophy from the state of ideology to the state of a scientific discipline, which is dialectic materialism (which is science of sciences).

So when you separate science and ideology, what's ideology? There's a distinction between a repressive apparatus and an ideological apparatus of the State.

To exist all social formation must at the same time that it produces, reproduce the means of production by replacing what's depleted or used in production and replace human labor. The reproduction of labor is maintained through salaries which Marx shows correctly, that pay not only the completed work but also the repredocution of labor, not being determined biologically but historically. This minimum is defined by historical needs of the working class defined by the bourgeoisie but also the needs imposed by the struggle of classes against the increase of labor time and inflation.

The question remains on how does this rapport with the means of production reproduce itself and this is where it becomes an ideology.

>>9105308
>Who needs brain cells when you have muscle cells?
I will use this.

>>9108912
>if there is any serious socialist in this thread, I'd love hearing their answers to a few questions.
was it autism

>>9108820
>mentions fear of other humans
>calls everyone stupid
projection

>>9104685
Well, first you read Marx and then you realize you can't stop there.. because we progressed from industrial capitalism already, so although his diagnosis held true.. bourgeois economics itself changed, so then you have to continue further than Marx and Engels.

If you want to 'win' an argument with a Marxist then you have a LOT of reading to do.

>>9104827
>Implying Marxism leverages reductionist utilitarianism
Phew.. almost had an argument there. Except, you know.. you didn't.

File: costanza.jpg (23KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x600px

>>9109061
>because we progressed from industrial capitalism already

You might not work in an industrial factory but more people globally do now than ever before, where the fuck do you think all your electronics come from?

>>9109087
Industrial factories and their existence or even lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with what quantifies or distinguishes between 'industrial capitalism' and 'contemporary capitalism.'

I don't know how you even insinuated that's what I meant when a simple Google search can show you even a brief explanation on the differentiation between agrarian capitalism, mercantilism, industrial capitalism, and contemporary/modern capitalism.

>>9104690
This. Being a libertarian and having read Marx and the philosophers he paraphrased out of context is what keeps me from being a meme to my friends and family.

File: vladimir-lenin-51.jpg (58KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 900x750px

>>9104685
You read Marx. Its how I became a marxist my self. Also you should read State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin.

>>9104685
You have to be an ex-Marxist. Follow Nick Land's example. They won't tell you all their secrets unless you join, and you'll never be able to independently verify your claims if you were never attendant at the meetings, no matter how obvious it is to you that your points are correct.

t. ex-Marxist

(If you want an easy tip, though, friend of mine - ask them about Kronstadt.)

>>9109562
How does a lack of critical thinking skills help one debate Marxists? If you're stupid enough to read Marx and not immediately notice that his predictions were objectively wrong, you aren't going to win anything.

>>9109590
>Kronstadt
Is that when the Bolsheviks killed all the anarchists?

>>9109597
That's because he was wrong in a few places. Lenin fixed his work with his theory of the vanguard party.

>>9109597
Capitalism will collapse when robots take all the jobs.

File: suckling pig.jpg (96KB, 1633x228px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1633x228px

>>9109609
Just like it collapsed 80 years ago when robots started doing all the farming.
Oh wait.

>>9104685
With brute force. There's no reasoning with people who usurp reasoning reason to further an agenda which seeks to destroy that which reasons reason.

>>9109625
It can't go on forever.

>>9109652
Whyever not?

>>9109358
>Being a libertarian
>keeps me from being a meme
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>9108315
What a sad man.

>>9108315
The Patriarchs were the legendary founders of Israel.

>>9109774
The tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Alternatively the heat death of the universe.

>>9104692
he was incompletely right.

>>9104685
say "COMMIE BASTARD YOU DIRTY SOCIALIST BTW I VOTED FOR TRUMP CONTAIN YOUR LIBKEK TEARS" also get a print-tee of a meme hilary supporter screaming.
if you served in the military in any capacity you can also bring that up.

>>9110115
Ironically, it seems the military is pretty on-edge about Trump.

But then, I only have anecdotal evidence.

>>9110130
>it seems the military is pretty on-edge about Trump.

What makes you say that?

>>9110142
All the people in the military who I've spoken to. Admittedly, by nature they were relatively high-up, and I also heard from them there were small groups of soldiers cheering on Trump.

>>9110130
yea well i'm talking more about the "patriots" who wear their army tees in public looking to get into an argument with anyone who dresses remotely fashionably and is smaller-sized.

>>9110142
They don't appreciate the whole "torture the family members of terrorists" concept.

>>9110208

How do you know this?

>>9110214
Some of my close friends are officers in the navy. Admittedly they might not be representative.

>>9105409
>USSR and all its various copycats.
becoming failed states in less than a century aren't signs of wild success

>>9109625
They're already automating service jobs. There are no more sectors for the proles to shifting into after that.

File: polisci chart.png (1MB, 1321x1727px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1321x1727px

>>9104685
Step 1.

>>9111411
>B-but pe-people will work f-fixing the machi-machines

>>9111417
what do the different colors mean

File: william-f-buckley-statue-hillsdale.jpg (91KB, 920x537px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 920x537px

>>9104685
by punching them in the god-damn face

>>9111513
green is core, yellow is accessory.

>>9111417
That chart is disgusting.

>>9111650
visually or content? mind telling me whats wrong with it?

>>9111520
Though I am not quite a conservative, I love Buckley passionately.

I think Ben Shapiro is sort of a contemporary, inferior version.