/marxism/

>>9922425
OP you fucked up. You should have made a thread about Brecht or Gramsci or Luxemberg or someone the /pol/tards wouldn't recognize as a marxist.

>>9922425
Marx is soooooooooooooo 20th century

Why are we still discussing him? Not to be that guy but we really haven't had one succesful lasting truly Marxist nation, despite the fact that we've had like 1.5 centuries of time to get it right.

Can communism actuallly work in reality?

>>9922435
Not to be that guy but the material conditions weren't/aren't right yet. I think communism could work in a theoretical future but the conditions for it don't exist right now.

>>9922435
>Not to be that guy but we really haven't had one successful lasting truly Marxist nation, despite the fact that we've had like 1.5 centuries of time to get it right.
> truly Marxist nation

I'm guessing you wouldn't consider Vietnam or China to be truly marxist nations? I think it's important to remember communism's liberatory effects. Not all nations had democratic revolutions to topple feudalism. It's hard to discount what Lenin or Mao did, when compared to the systems they toppled. China was a fucking imperialist puppet state, Mao wrecked it and built something new, that is now one of the greatest nations on earth. It wasn't all him, and it wasn't all Marx, but without them the China would probably look a lot more like India and suffered at least another 50 years of colonial rule.

Why do we talk about Marx? Because any substantial critique of capitalism and imperialism likely has origins in his writing.

File: Marx.jpg (215KB, 893x587px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 893x587px

What did he mean by this?

I'm looking for some traditionalist shilling from a Marxist perspective, I enjoyed Adorno's critique of the culture industry.
Is there anything similar?

>>9922465
>mfw conservative
>most other conservatives are pushing le free market meme
>can't discuss Adorno & Horkheimer with them because they fell for the frankfurt cultural marxism meme
>only degenerate Marxists have the intellectual rigor to talk about this
How do I shill Marxism to conservatives /lit/?

File: bonzi.gif (16KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x400px

>>9922482
I know the feel anon. I have to be careful where I mention names like Nick Land and Jean Baudrillard because the leftist Vampire Castle has deemed them forbidden.

The trick is to talk the ideas, without mentioning their names. Often times these people won't recognize their ideas, only their names.

>>9922506
>>9922482

How do you reconcile conservatism with Marxism? Socially conservative, economically liberal? In almost all instances, I find that Marxists are Leftists. I'm somewhat conservative/traditionalist myself. Are there any readings you would rec me? How do I approach Marxism from this perspective?

>>9922515
Oh, you'll have to ask the first guy. I'm not a conservative, but I'm interested in author's who the Left has decided are 'problematic', which causes some leftists to think I'm a conservative or white supremacist or something

I would imagine a conservative's interest in Marx would be a rejection of capitalism, consumerism and the reduction of human life to pure labor. Check out some of the Christian/Marxist cross-over..

>>9922530
That sounds right down my alley. I'll definitely look into that, thank you.

>>9922530
>Christian/Marxist cross-over

Liberation Theology to be more specific.

>>9922550
Ah yes, I knew it had a more specific name. Haven't read much of it specifically, but I met a catholic missionary who worked with the Zapitistas to make it legal for them to export coffee to America. Sounds like interesting stuff, but too reformist for my tastes.

File: rr.jpg (33KB, 332x499px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 332x499px

This was good.

>>9922550
Catholicism is incompatible with Socialism no matter how hard to try, even secularists have produced a better theory of combining Christianity and Marxism than the liberation theologists.

>>9922684
>what is distributism
Catholicism is far more compatible with socialism than protestants, the current pope shills a lot for commies

>>9922506
>>9922482
>actively trying to subvert and manipulate your friends' sensibilities for your own gain
Yup, marxists

>>9922704
>suggests book to friend
>somehow trying to "subvert" and manipulate them
>>>/pol/

>>9922697
You can't be a socialist and support both private property and anti-trust legislation, unless your a democratic "socialist", in which case your in the wrong thread.

And the current Pope is one-step away from receiving a formal declaration of heresy by his own cardinals and being absolutely destroyed by the SSPX.

>>9922506
It's become easier to bring up accelerationism since Zizek started mentioning it, for what that's worth. Though where Zizek heard about Land I have no idea.

>>9922848
sometimes i regret wasting my 20s on marxism, but some of that shit is p comfy tho

>>9922848
>Throwing Proudhon, Rousseau and Marx on the same list
Just /leftypol/ shit.

>>9922857
Proudhon maybe, but Rousseau fits on the list

>>9922880
And Rousseau himself takes a lot of influence from Thomas Paine, so in a way there's a direct lineage from the American founding fathers to Marxism.

File: Kelmscott_Manor_News_from_Nowhere.jpg (1MB, 1054x1474px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1054x1474px

I'm not a Marxist but I like William Morris.

>>9922889
thomas paine was born after roussaeu tho so how did that work

>>9922425
>Debate: Marxism -- legit or meme?
well, lets look at countries where marxism was implemented
...oh look they're all terrible

>>9922899
Morris is the originator of Bernie Socialism, where you give him your daughters college money so he can purchase his third house while the people around him pick up the pieces from yet another failed project.

kys

>>9922921
True. He was a utopian for sure. But his intentions were good and he and his idol John Ruskin added a conservative element to socialism which has been neglected in recent years. Plus he helped preserve many of Britain's ancient buildings for which I am eternally grateful.

>>>/leftypol/

>>9922515
>How do I approach Marxism from this perspective?
You don't, Marx, Mao and Lenin are all socially conservative although they all unsuccessfully experimented with appeasing feminist factions they eventually went back to enforcing socially conservative benchmarks like making abortion illegal, jailing and hanging homosexuals and making divorce next to impossible etc.

Academia just ignores this side of them and pretends it didn't exist.

File: 1462390169460.jpg (518KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 900x675px

>>9922461
>that is now one of the greatest nations on earth
Are you seriously clawing to find a link between Mao's China and the modern Chinese state?

The modern Chinese state is completely unrecognisable to the original marxist ideals through the 20th century. Its entire political system behaves like a gigantic capitalistic conglomerate.

>>9922853
As someone in their early 20s with a superficial interest in Marxism, what warnings could you give me?

>>9922996
Ask your communist professor how he can afford to buy a secondary home in the bay area.

>>9922989
I think the point that OP was trying to make is that Mao, for all his faults, greatly modernized China is a very short span of time, which led to its becoming a greatly important nation in geopolitics rather than a semi-feudal puppet state shithole.

>>9922435
>Marxist nation

And there's your problem right there.

>>9923023
A unified nationalist China would have been decades ahead of where China is now.

Both the US and Soviets were supporting the Nationalists in order to stabilize and modernize China, and yet what they got in Mao was basically the prototype Pol Pot, with only the Soviets keeping him from destroying the little he left of China.

What they have now is a totalitarian surveillance state with no history or culture, which is why Americanos are jerking themselves raw over them. And NOT a successful nation, by any actual measure.

File: tfwnojewishkibbutzgf.jpg (181KB, 656x650px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 656x650px

>>9922425
What do you guys think about the kibbutzim?

>>9922425
failed ideology that needs to be updated in order to fit in to contemporary society so it can fail again.
>>9922461
>china
>marxist
this is your brain on communism

>>9922433
Brecht is underrated on /lit/.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-hEFKs9gk

Why do any of you think it is intellectually defensible to embrace an intrinsically genocidal and fundamentally unworkable ideology? Delusional utopians who do not understand human nature.

>>9924355

They have an emotional attachment to it, it has nothing to do with the intellect.

>>9924314
>decades ahead of where China is now.

This is a stupid assertion that demonstrates absolutely no understanding of the KMT or the Chinese Civil War.

You should learn the actual history of a place before you criticize Marxists for their own incompetence.

File: You_fucking_idiot.png (270KB, 790x500px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 790x500px

> It's yet another /pol/fags and marxcucks get baited into arguing for 500 posts episode

>>9924355
Those are both false claims, as you're well aware.

>>9924351
Brecht is actually so awful. I am not kidding when I say that he was probably the worst thing I had to read throughout High School. I think it was "The Good Person of Szechwan" we had to read and it's the most cliched, trite Marxist propaganda you can imagine. The play literally ends with the narrator turning towards the audience and telling them that the reason these people are bad is all due to the evil """system""". He is overrated garbage of the worst kind.

>>9924355
>human nature
Which is not tied to any specific system of social organization and adapts itself to material conditions.
I don't understand this meme argument. Was collective tribal hunting not human nature?
Furthermore, every worthwhile social change was achieved through struggle, violent resistance and blood, it is supremely utopian to posit that capitalism can go on without at least a viable socialist threat to constrain it.

What do you think caused the post-ww2 socdem consensus, the golden age of capitalism? It wasn't benevolence of the capitalists, it was the existence of a mass labour movements and communists making them shit their pants. Capitalism will grant you a decent life only when it's threatened on all sides, there is no "equilibrium" here, that takes some heavy kool aid to buy into.

>>9922889
Wait: Marx > Thomas Paine > Rousseau?

0/10. SEE ME.

File: You-could-have-prevented-this.jpg (259KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 960x640px

>>9924736

>What do you think caused the post-ww2 socdem consensus, the golden age of capitalism? It wasn't benevolence of the capitalists, it was the existence of a mass labour movements and communists making them shit their pants.

Thanks for nothing fuckface.

>>9924736
This tbqh, had it not been for communists and such external threats we'd still be working 16 hours a day in factory lines, not to mention how technology wouldn't be nearly as advanced as it is today without the U.S/soviet military race, most advancements were made under the Apollo program and set out the way for the devices we use today, conflict really is what pushes civilization forward

>>9924869
Fascism was a reactionary movement to communism, Hitler's whole platform was built on the Bolshevik giant to the east antagonism.
no commies means no nazis either

>>9924355
>Why do any of you think it is intellectually defensible to embrace an intrinsically genocidal and fundamentally unworkable ideology?
Are you talking about capitalism?

>>9924869
Why do idiots online always fall back to retarded fucking identity politics when they're confronted with opposing views? I have a lot higher tolerance for pop-culture which I am in no way forced to participate in than the garbage that is NatSoc.

>>9924869
The international labour movement has been dying off since the 70s. Has this made western civilization better? Did the "fall of communism" usher in a prosperous global order?
No, you fucking braindead retard. The atomized consumer society is the result of right-wing ideology, the vanguard revolution of Reagan-Tatcherism and their sycophants in the economics profession. Neoliberalism is cancer and if fascists oppose it that doesn't suddenly make it left-wing, it's the logical result of unrestrained capital accumulation.

File: ee2de38f7248efb5cdaebf05cddbc20411a0d2220b3562d5e048e90e16c506b2.png (159KB, 604x954px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 604x954px

>>9924869
>you could have prevented liberal global capitalism by corporate ethno-capitalism
Yeah sure Adolf

>>9924883
Capitalism is a mode of production, you absolute fool.

>>9924961
>corporate ethno-capitalism
literally gibberish

File: 1481966921663.png (2MB, 1080x1019px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1019px

>>9924961
>le hitler was bad because he tried and failed mémé

>>9924970
>Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. They favored corporatism and class collaboration , believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists), while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).
>An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

>Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social ."

>In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Fascist governments declared the trade union movement illegal, and replaced it with labor organizations under the direct control of the government, which ensured that workers could not undertake any effective economic action.

It's just a retarded form of capitalism with a big smattering of ideology.

>>9924993
That's not capitalism at all. Note the huge role played by the state in the economy.

>>9925000
The relative role of the state doesn't make something a different mode of production. The Soviet Union wasn't socialist because "muh state" but because it strived to abolish markets and production for exchange in general, and instituted social ownership.

>>9925000
You're in a marxist thread, capitalism is seen as a mode of production, your post might work if you were in a lolbertarian subreddit though

>>9925011
I thought you were using "capitalist" to refer to an ideology, not a mode of production. If capitalism is a mode of production, then fascism -- as an ideology -- being a form of capitalism ("corporate ethno-capitalism") makes no sense.

>>9925040
You seem to think capitalism if referred to as a mode of production is mutually exclusive with ideologies, if that were the case we wouldn't have such a political divide in the first place

Any Marxists here will enjoy this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMR_wIqtmQs

>>9925136
That debate is fucking gold, academic pseud was blown the fuck out and yet he's still crying all over twitter and YouTube.

>>9925136
Reminder that when academic agent was asked if he read Hegel, since the question came after being asked if he read Vol.2 and 3 of Das Kapital, he assumed that "Hegel" was another book written by Marx

File: kek.png (11KB, 592x112px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 592x112px

>>9925136
>>9925443

File: 08f8e5fbfe3fe4147e0149b77a2a9d0c9010b356f436fae36c8836bc81d9663b.png (21KB, 666x104px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 666x104px

>>9925515
Gotta go to a group that conforms more to your intellectual capability

>>9925523
Progressives are Marxists. It's literally the same thing.

>>9925565
>wanting capitalism to be more including to minorities is being a Marxist

>>9925565
No. It literally is not the same thing. Your stupidity reveals you being an American voter.

>>9925136
Jesus Christ what a couple of pseuds.

>>9925577
>thinking this is all progressivism is all about

It's the seamless continuation (not even modernization or evolution) of marxism. It's literally the same. Some marxist Spaniard whose name escapes me invented this whole "new" ideology in prison as a means to make marxism more socially acceptable in a time when marxism was seen with the same spite as nazism today.

>>9925599
this has got to be bait

File: how you doing fellow Marxists.jpg (88KB, 900x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 900x720px

>>9925599
>another revisionist trying to pass social democracy as being socialism
Marxism is still socially accepted outside of Burgerland, not everyone equates economic theory with racial genocide

>>9922737
I seriously hope so. I do not respect Catholicism anymore, and tell ppl I am Christian. Pope is fucking disgusting and I truly hope Catholics sort that shit out

>>9925599
Good lord. >>9925605 I certainly hope so.

>>9924869
>o no saggy pants im gonna cry

>>9925599
read a book

>>9924898
>identity politics

Name a better way of preserving culture than in a homogeneous national socialist country.

>>9922848

In order to be a Marxist today I think you have to read the more modern approaches to Marxism. At least when it comes to the Marxian economics component. I think "Monopoly Capital" should be the minimum and at the same time it's the best starting point for this sort of thing since it very clearly shifts the focus on competitive markets of traditional Marxian theory to markets dominated by oligopoly and monopoly. This has very important consequences which affect ideas like the tendency of profit to fall. It basically turn it the other way around leaving capitalism with an entirely different set of problems.

>>9924869
I disagree with socialism and communism being good alternatives, but they aren't what made the world the shithole it is today. That glory goes to liberal social values accompanied by rampant capitalism. Socdem with national preservation is the goat system t. /pol/tard

>>9922433
I come from /pol/ and know Gramsci, what now ey?

>>9922425
what's the end point of marxism?

>>9922482
>>9922506
here is a tip: stop identifying yourself as marxist or conservative

>>9927214
Marxism is a critique of capitalism.
The endpoint of socialism is communism.

>>9924949

Reagan and Thatcher weren't "conservatives."

>>9927478
According to you. They presented themselves as such, it's not any better of an argument compared to "Bolsheviks weren't REALLY socialist".

File: toobrutalforukido.png (339KB, 377x570px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 377x570px

Confirmation bias much?

>Reading things you already agree with

Try something critical of your belief system.

Try some gulag....

>>9927532

By their fruits shall ye know them.

>>9927539
>Try some fiction

Marxist here and it's a shame Americans are so against it. A disgustingly selfish group of people capitalists are. Even more shameful when they consider themselves Christian but share none of the values with Christ.

File: Estranged Being.png (2MB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x853px

>>9927461
>Marxism is a critique of capitalism.

Marx's project was really just a description and investigation of capitalism.

>>9922425
If you are a marxist kill yourself
Left Hegelian master race

>>9927532
Thatcher always made clear she was a Gladstonian liberal.

>>9928052

cri·tique
kriˈtēk/Submit
noun
1.
a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.
synonyms: analysis, evaluation, assessment, appraisal, appreciation, criticism, review, study, commentary, exposition, exegesis
"a critique of North American culture"
verb
1.
evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way.

Cunt.

File: Zentralbibliothek_Zürich_Das_Kapital_Marx_1867.jpg (784KB, 997x1681px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 997x1681px

>>9928052

>Das Kapital
>****Kritik***** der politischen Oekonomie

Stupid, ignorant cunt.

>>9922435
Things that have to happen before Marxism can be successful
>90% of the world's population exterminated
>Supremacy of the west demolished
>Old regimes all abolished
>National borders abolished
>Racial distinctions abolished
>Political distinctions abolished
>Nuclear family abolished
>All rural populations displaced to cities
>No more scarcity of resources
All this stuff is now coming to pass or will do so in the near future. Communism will win!

>>9928369

The nuclear family was capitalist cold war propaganda. There is nothing wrong with living as a family, and only Americans are stupid enough to not do it.

>>9922848
>chomsky
it's a leftypol pasttime to recommend a book without actually ever reading it

File: uPGXmNu.jpg (567KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1000x750px

>>9922425
You have to be legitimately retarded to think the economic theory of a man who couldn't feed his children and died in poverty after leeching off his friends family all his life is worth a squat. Then again, we all know the sort of people that read Marx.

>>9928685
edmund burke talked to himself in front of other people and died alone, does that make conservatism illegitimate now?

>>9928689
>Edmund Burke invented traditionalism and Western values
Communists everybody

>>9928691
>implying marx invented socialism either

>>9928692
>Communist literacy
Reaffirming, as we all know, /leftypol/ can't actually read

>>9928692
last i checked he conceptualised marxism. that is what we are talking about, no?

>>9928685
This is a marxism thread, no one gives a shit about the man himself, we only care about his ideas.
I could use the same line of reasoning to discredit any ideology you subscribe to.

>>9928764
The grand irony of your post being that in every nation his ideas were instituted tens of millions of people met the same fate his children did, thus affirming just how fucking stupid you must be to believe in them.

>>9928764
his ideas were worse than his life

>>9928777
Which one of his ideas do you exactly object to, since you're commenting on a theory thread I assume you have read him

File: 1463912592347.jpg (174KB, 1533x961px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1533x961px

>>9922425
I honestly don't understand why so many people are obsessed with this man and his ideas. The foundations are so wonky and demonstrably false. The idea that we live in a post scarcity society seems completely ridiculous to me (especially if you were to implement any of Marx's ideas which would bring an end to any supposed post scarcity anyway). But from this post scarcity idea he develops 'the labour theory of value'. From this he asks 'how can profits exists?' to which the answer is that the labourer is being exploited by the capitalist. From this any form of crimes against humanity seem to be justified in the eyes of the Marxist. Executing entire families of men women and children are justified because they 'exploited' the working class. However, should the labour theory of value be proved wrong, then the idea that the working classes are slaves is also proved wrong, and thus also is the justification for crimes against humanity. The labour theory of value can be proved wrong by anyone that knows a thing about business, value is determined by a mixture of supply and demand as opposed to Marx's idea that value entirely comes from the supply side, but if you were to run with his idea that value is determined entirely by the supply side, you would still come to the conclusion that the capitalist also puts his own form of labour and capital into the creation of a product (of course the Marxist will disprove this by posting a picture of a pig wearing a top hat). From this I can only see Marxism as a useful lie to be used by far more nefarious people in the creation of the regimes that we have seen set up in its name.

>>9928788

A marxist would probably dismiss market demand as "commodity fetishism" or some such.

>>9928782
He's just another iteration of slave-morality that idealizes fantasies for the weak of bringing down men stronger, better, and smarter than themselves.

File: tell me more anon.jpg (46KB, 500x490px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x490px

>>9928788
From this any form of crimes against humanity seem to be justified in the eyes of the Marxist. Executing entire families of men women and children are justified because they 'exploited' the working class.
Olympics tier mental gymnastics, a Marxist addresses the system that allows that exploitation not the individuals on the top themselves, a Marxist does realize that the capitalist too has no choice but to participate in the system, capitalism molds people into a competitive nature and in order to survive you have no choice but to take part in it, what you posted is like a centrist trying to equate "capitalists" with "jews" and call both sides bad.
>The labour theory of value can be proved wrong by anyone that knows a thing about business
Academic agent is that you ? >>9925136
Value under Marxism is not the same thing as market prices, if you honestly believe that disproving the LTV was this easy then every bourgeois economist would be shitting on it, but they don't because they know the statement you just made is too dumb to even pass as an argument, especially when the falling rates of profits only further enforce the LTV.
Anyone equating price with value shows that they have not read Marx.
>>9928800
Not only have you not provided a single criticism to Marxist theory, but you also managed to post reductive Nietzsche reading in a single post, I'm impressed.
Read Deuleuze brainlet

>>9928812
>From this any form of crimes against humanity seem to be justified in the eyes of the Marxist. Executing entire families of men women and children are justified because they 'exploited' the working class.
forgot to greentext sorry

File: 1498513310389.jpg (21KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 248x189px

>>9928812
>your disporivng of the LTV is dumb
Gee that sure proved me wrong.
>every bourgeois economist would be shitting on it
You mean like they already do?
>the falling rates of profit
Still stuck in the 19th century I see.

>>9928812
>if I link to someone else saying the same thing it will prove them wrong

>>9928812
>human nature is a capitalist concept
Marxists truly are mentally ill

File: 1499728183667.jpg (21KB, 284x347px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 284x347px

>>9928812
>the tendency of profits to fall theory states that profits will fall as more labour is put into production
>the labour theory of value states that profits will rise as more labour is put into production
I don't get it.

File: 1502845302055.jpg (1MB, 1308x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1308x2000px

>>9928844
Well Marxists often seem to believe that human nature must change in order to suit their philosophy. I would argue that if you need to fundamentally change people to suit your philosophy (which aims to understand the nature of humanity) you've probably got an incorrect philosophy.

>>9928869
While the profits rise when more labor is put into production, the capitalist will seek to invest on constant capital in order to make production more efficient and make more profit (since he can reduce wages by automating tasks), but by doing this the socially necessary labor required to produce the goods will fall, thus making it's price lower, and so in their pursuit of profits the capitalists end up reducing the overall rates of profit, that is one of the fundamental contradictions in capital.
Reminds me of a Zizek quote where he says that "Knowledge is anti-capitalist in it's nature", since knowledge is not meant to be consumed and destroyed like a commodity, and it does not lose value by sharing it, you will notice that nowadays that big companies make data and research protection to be primordial, once a new way of manufacturing something gets out, then the cycle of falling rates of profits begins again.

>>9928875
>Marxists often seem to believe that human nature must change in order to suit their philosophy.
they don't

File: nerd.png (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

Nice religion nerds ahahahahaha

>>9928889
I don't know, that idea seems to be based around the assumption that business owners aren't intelligent enough to run their own business. Which is a sip too many of the Marxist kool aid.

>>9922425
i believe marxist critique and it has led me to become an ultratraditionalist
what now?

File: 1483669602921.png (526KB, 565x457px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 565x457px

>>9928924
Now you take the Varg pill.

>>9928927
i was actually being serious

>>9928922
Not at all when you consider the nature of markets, capitalism is not a centrally planned economy, most business owners are not looking for the long term stability of the system, all they care about is their own profits.
This is why it's a contradiction in the system itself and not in the behavior of the agents taking part in it, the actions capitalists take are only the natural outcome of the systems mechanics itself, I mean to quote bourgeois economic Milton Friedman himself : "There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud"

>>9928924
Read Adorno

>>9928929
>Read Adorno
i dont know why youd think i would be drawn to the frankfurt school

i mean, i could read it, but i dont think it would offer me any real insight

>>9928928
So was I.
>>9928929
>most business owners are not looking for the long term stability of the system
I didn't say they were, but I was saying they're looking for long term stability of their own business, which in turn would surely add to long term stability of the capitalist system. But that's besides my point, which is that business owners would not continue to invest in something if they see it's going to push marginal costs up.

>>9928938
>So was I.
if you take varg for anything other than a clown you should finish primary school first before posting here

File: 1487537302702.jpg (49KB, 651x604px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 651x604px

>>9928943
You got me lad, I was only joking with you. But I do like his comfy lifestyle.

>>9928936
Adorno's critique of the culture industry seems like a good Marxist insight from a traditionalist view
>>9928938
The stability of their own business implies that they need to invest in capital or else their production will fall behind and they will go bankrupt without even competition, the stability of the capitalist system is mutually exclusive with the stability of the business in itself, unless every capitalist on earth agreed to not invest on development departments then the rates of profits will keep on falling.
From a business owner perspective, ask yourself this, would you rather let your business crumble while others are making their production more efficient for the sake of preserving the system itself?

>>9928949
False dichotomy. There are far more things that a business owner can do than let their business fail or invest in long term failure.

>>9928929
>the actions capitalists take are only the natural outcome of the systems mechanics itself
the last time i made a post like that people claimed that actually it's just the jews

>>9928949
im already pretty familliar with critique of the contemporary world
id be more interested in people with actual solutions

>>9928948
THANK GOD
this is the only place in the world i can come to get away from retardation to talk with serious intellectuals
>But I do like his comfy lifestyle.
true, but it seems to only be reserved for popular chad musicians

>>9928954
Such as ? if you do not make your production as efficient as that of the competition then you will fall behind
>invest in long term failure
a business owner is not looking at things that way, this is a marxist perspective which means you're looking at the mechanics of capitalism in itself, a business owner sees the market as a means of making profit that's all

>>9928963
I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that the decisions taken by a business would vary on a case by case basis and I would end up having to write out an entire exam paper explaining what different decisions can be taken by a business in various cases (which neither of us want).
Your post starts by stating that investing in something that will put marginal costs up is efficient, which seems to be the opposite of the truth. In fact in the long term it would be better to let your competition invest in bad decisions, the business that does not do this would not fall behind but would have the long term advantage. I guess this is just where I fundamentally disagree with Marxism is in its view of business owners as idiots only interested in their own downfall. It's a very simple way of looking at the world of business.
>a business owner is not looking at things that way
I can speak from personal experience that views like this are incorrect. Otherwise there would be no forecasting in business. I really hate resorting to stereotypes but the old 'Marxists don't understand business' stereotype seems to be true more often than not. It's admirable to look at how capitalism works, but Marxism seems to do it in an incredibly simplistic way that seems to be more founded on jealousy and anger rather than actual intellectual dispute.

>>9928982
>intellectual dispute.
I meant intellectual aspiration, not sure why I wrote dispute.

File: Smirk_Face_Emoji_grande.png (123KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 600x600px

>>9928797
>A marxist would probably dismiss market demand as "commodity fetishism" or some such.

do you know what commodity fetishism means or did you just hear the name?

>>9928982
>In fact in the long term it would be better to let your competition invest in bad decisions
You seem to be fundamentaly misunderstand the Marxist perspective, you're looking from inside the system, a Marxist is looking from the outside, let's take the mobile market, what you're implying is that for HTC to make a good business deal it would have to let Samsung and Apple compete with each other and just watch on the side lines since if they were to also mass manufacture those mobiles their prices would fall (which by the way is a good example of the falling rates of profits, technological innovation rapidly looses it's steam once it's put into a mass production scale, that is not to say that Samsung are making bad business decisions but the mechanisms of capitalism are just constructed that way, they will not keep on making the same profits they started out with after the first sales of the innovated product, that's why phones keep going down on prices after they're abundant in the market), that is simply not how the theory works, it doesn't comment on business decisions, it talks strictly of capitalist structure. a business is bound by the laws of capitalism, much like we are bound by the laws of physics.

>>9929026
I am not saying that business owners are dumb, in fact most of them outsmart each other on a daily basis to compete, I am only saying that their behavior is following a certain pattern that the system itself forces on them

>>9929030
>behavior is following a certain pattern that the system itself forces on them
How naive are you. Simply because you're too weak/dumb/lazy to compete doesn't mean it's a system holding you down sweetie.

>>9929051
I doubt you're the same guy I was talking to but congratulations on not understanding a single word of what I wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p2QfjaSIUo

>>9929054
Well, if you write a bunch of aimless bullshit it's hard

>>9922433
>Talk about some of the most well-known and influential Marxists of the 20th century, nobody will recognize them!

File: 1503064907871.jpg (57KB, 733x511px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 733x511px

People think of Marxism as a strange, alien force, but all of its shit came out of the salons of Paris, which in turn had evolved from the Anglo meme of Calvinist universalism.

Marxists are really just the cousins of Anglo liberals.

>>9922697
Distributism is NOT socialism and shouldn't even be compared to it. Belloc and Chesterton idealized distributism because they knew capitalism was immoral, but they knew socialism was immoral aswell. It's actually much easier to compare distributism with mutualism than with socialism.

>>9922433
>Gramsci
In order to keep /pol/tards away from these threads, we should start threads talking about Marcuse, Lukács and other authors that are not as known as Gramsci, Engels & Marx but are equally important.

>>9924898
All politics is identity politics.

>>9928369
/pol/ pls go

>>9929260
fuck off with this slogan
https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2017/07/23/not-all-politics-is-identity-politics/

>>9929168
Lukacs is just as known as Gramsci.

>>9929267
Universalism is a very interesting mental condition, it's fascinating to trace the various forms it takes in religion, politics, moralism, etc.

File: pad0r52vg59y.png (186KB, 1130x581px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1130x581px

Do modern Marxists still base their edifices on labor theory of value, or have they moved on from that? Seems like the whole capitalist exploitation thing wouldn't really work without "surplus value", does it?

>>9929351
good explanation of it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsKb4qC30Ro

btw that Jack guy says he's willing to talk to anyone who reaches out to him

>>9922425
trying to read capital but I'm to much of a brainlet and I don't get a lot of it. What should I read first.

>>9929434
use this
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0A7FFF28B99C1303

>>9929447
Thanks.

>>9929449
oh also this is super accessible
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL80E7B20E05FD7651
(each "sessions" is a different playlist)

>>9922737
>SSPX becoming legit and taking over the Catholic Church
THE YOUNG POPE WHEN??!!!