Redpill me on marxism

Marxism, according to itself, says that through class conflict, naturally generated through history, capitalism will eventually dismantle itself.
However, due to capitalism's other problems and the eventual necessity for state intervention and ethics in general, capitalism started reducing its class conflicts. Marxists, being pissed off at this, take positions in the media and in banks to artificially exacerbate class conflict and produce communism. Because of this, as you can see, anarcho capitalists, neo liberals and the like are simply crypto marxists trying to brute force a revolution.
Pro tip: it ain't gonna work.

Not the user you are addressing but no, "something for next to nothing" is not capitalism. Capitalism is building wealth by trading goods and services in a free market.

Don't conflate high finance with capitalism. The clusterfuck on Wall Street is state-sanctioned gambling, a nitroglycerine bubble allowed to exist only because it creates political donors and keeps the economy afloat on imaginary promise. It will burst in my lifetime. The clusterfuck of healthcare in America is also not capitalism, it's a state-controlled market that is driving all but the largest (who can afford to take losses over time) and politically connected out of business.

Why do we have to do your homework for you?

How can you be so lazy? You could read a single book like Fine's "Introduction to Marx's Capital" and in less than an hour have a better sense of Marxism than you will get from hours of posting and lurking on this godforsaken website.

its not just descriptive, its also prescriptive.....dummy

>t. reddit.com/r/socialism

Le red pill detox

>Yes, I support a system that killed million and gorillions of people, I'am the superior Man. :-)
Sent from my iPhone.
>wow so brave thumbs up wow liberals ar so intlligent :)

>Yes, i support Nazional socialist, i just want to work with my people okay? -_-'
>wow kys fucking MORON enjoy geting brutally raped by antiFAs>:)

>Capitalism is building wealth by trading goods and services in a free market.
No, this is nothing. It has never existed and never will. Capitalism is nothing more than the totality of forces which allow the private ownership of the mode of production to exist. Your "free market" needs the state to ensure certain things, to protect them from outside dangers, to ensure the safety of their property, et cetera. It's the same reason why you get "free market" advocates who talk about throwing commies out of helicopters

>Dude, the only way to bring about a post scarcity and post state society is through a central party and dictatorship!
>What if we just ignored the actual value of goods and services and measured them by use value instead lmao
Autism

read a book read a book read a mother fucking book

>Dude, the only way to bring about a post scarcity and post state society is through a central party and dictatorship!
This is maybe a bad strawman of Leninism
>What if we just ignored the actual value of goods and services and measured them by use value instead lmao
Capital already generates abstract value in this way. Maybe this is the view of certain misguided lefties and anarchists today, but even a cursory reading of Marx leads you to see this as a half-measure.

>about a post scarcity and post state society is through a central party and dictatorship!

ML isn't the only form of marxism

>ML isn't the only form of marxism

Its the only one which managed to form a semi-lasting state though

>Capital already generates abstract value in this way.
stop the handwaving at once and explain what you just said

also to clarify capital is pure subjective it can not be accounted solely by labor

Abstract value means what it looks like. It is abstracting from various elements a certain value, and selling at that value on the market. Both of what were mentioned (actual value of goods, use value of goods) are forms of abstract value. The point is that the process of Capital already produces such abstract value, and it needs to produce it in order to function. A value of a commodity can be based on what the employer needs, use value, or even a pseudo-marxian concept like the labor theory of value. It can even be based on all three.
>capital is pure subjective
What did you mean by this?

just interested but why in your estimation would it be a bad idea?

so, what you're telling us is
>true capitalism has never been tried
interesting

abstracting a value of a good for what purpose? At the end of day you want to sell it quickly and a sure way is to set the price in agreement with the buyers. There is no need to quantify and abstracted anything that is why I said it is pure subjective. It is not dependent on you to set the price, the price fluctuates by its demands

Well there is a need to quantify and abstract. I don't know if what I said (other than that) contradicts with what you just said. Supply and demand works perfectly well within this framework, because the abstract value (price) relates to concrete circumstance (supply). I suppose my disagreement is that it isn't a purely subjective phenomenon, in fact it has real causes and real effects

Why's everyone gotta be so dogmatic about this shit?

Marx was right about some things wrong about others. We learn from open discourse. Let history be the final arbiter.

Holy shit, user has just transcended stupidity to reach the most profound of retardations.

Bitch please, you can't stop the dialectic
Reaction is futile

Capitalism is generalized commodity production, nothing more. Wether the means of production is owned by the state, private persons or the workers themselves doesn't matter; its still capitalism.

Of course it has real causes and effects but human are only able to comprehend that much. Until recently we only made a sufficient understanding of economics model based on stochastic methods but we are still far away from understand it perfectly. My gripe with Marx is that he wasn't an economics, and his ignorance leads to the deaths of million people in Europe and the World

>le radical centrist *tip*
marxists deserve insults and strawmens and rightfully so

The application of it tends to lead to certain prescriptions but it shouldn't be mistaken with communism, dummy.

suck my reactionary dick faggot

I support the further understanding of the economy, and nonetheless I don't think of the entire history of economics as a bunch of bullshitters who didn't know anything or whatever. It is only that, as a Marxist, I have problems with the current economic system

> Your "free market" needs the state to ensure certain things, to protect them from outside dangers, to ensure the safety of their property, et cetera

oh, right, like anarchist communes

> reee stop synthesizing

How are they a threat for free market?

Leftist here. I'm a weird leftist because I basically agree with a lot of conservatives on this board when it comes to cultural marxism, theory, etc.

Cultural Marxism and Marxism are two different things. Marxism is very simple: change the material basis of society after analyzing the material basis of society enough to expose how it is not inevitable that things are the way they are. Cultural Marxism is capable of camouflage because it is much more concerned with description, with showing how something is related to the material basis of society. As a result it is totalitarian in the sense that the Cultural Marxist project spans all of society. Classical Marxism doesn't give a fuck about the totality of society, just the stuff that matters for change. There's a reason Marx doesn't try and describe communism, because it would be an interminable project, a waste of time. "The point of philosophy..." goes the famous thesis.

The cultural marxists are actually sort of out to ruin everything by calling it tainted and trying to make a magically pure version of that thing (or showing that thing to be a false end rather than a tainted end, which it always is) instead of committing themselves to the revolutionary project that will itself purify.

I think, legitimately, that the Scandinavian socialists are acutely pretty close to communism. The NHS, etc, also lends some credence to Marx's analysis of England and industrialism. The problem was Marx's thinking was Romantic as well as Modern. He was fundamentally an Edwardian. He didn't see how half measures would retard or subsume things.

I didn't say they were, but they can't preserve their own hegemony without the structure and safety of a greater organization they may or may not despise

>I think, legitimately, that the Scandinavian socialists are acutely pretty close to communism.

I don't know much about anarchist communes but I'm pretty sure that's not part of it.

"communes" need the state to ensure certain things, to protect them from outside dangers, to ensure the safety of their property, et cetera

This is actually a pretty clever satire of modern social media dynamics. Everyone not a nazi btfo.

there's nothing radical about what I say. the big picture is so beyond your grasp it's not worth getting so mad over

I don't think they want you or the state to do that for them, actually.

Yeah sho sho go be a faggot somewhere else

you can dialick my crusty balls faggot

what they want is different from what they require (sources of electricity, sources of production to produce what their commune cannot, sources of societal institutions to provide them with fresh recruits with a common ideology and language, sources of stability to prevent roving bands from raping and killing them), most of which taken for granted in the same way one takes the maintenance of roads and supply lines for granted even when living in the sticks

this applies whether you are Jonestown or Cape Town or le ebin burning man collective

Marxism is, as far as I know, the word applied to those that mostly agree with Marx's body of work and worldview. Marx mostly wrote critique and analysis. So Marxism is a worldview.

Communism (imo it's a meaningless word) in its most coherent definition is applied to Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. It's the set of policies, actions, and values of the governments of the USSR and Maoist China, along with the writings of Lenin. Lenin mostly wrote how to do a successful revolution and more practical thought based on Marx's writings. So Communism is more a set of policies informed by a worldview.

Marxism is "religion is the opium of the masses". That is a critique that region is used as a tool of control by the elites for the common folk, to keep them distracted from want of a better life in the now and justify power structures.

Communism is the USSR enforcing state atheism.

You can agree with the Marxism, without believing in the Communism. You can follow the Communism without believing in the Marxism.

The same reason Jordan Peterson thinks it's a bad idea: '...it might add excessively to current polarization...' It would be like McCarthyism-lite, demonizing professors because Peterson doesn't agree with all of their views.

What you say is ultimately required from an outside source is what they want to provide for themselves.

this

The bourgeoisie are Jews.

No, it doesn't need anything. Those are wants.

No, the capitalist class destroyed their own system in the 1929 Crash. Historical memory of just how strong the communists were has basically been erased, but the communists and other radicals were very active, dedicated and organized. People also had the Soviet Union as proof that worker and peasant states were feasible, notwithstanding the very real horrors of Stalinism. So under FDR, the capitalist class made concessions to the working class to buy them off and keep them quiet. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the capitalist class unilaterally revoked the New Deal contract between the workers and the capitalist class. And no, this isn’t some Marxist propaganda. I can go through the shocking statistics of wealth inequality if you think I am a butthurt Marxist

I love how capitalists always do the same thing they accuse Marxists of doing

>Point out flaws in actually existing capitalist practices
>No, no, no - that's not REAL capitalism

Marxism = jewish attack on white society and culture.

>Communism is the USSR enforcing state atheism.
unless you've read Marx, in which case you actually know what the word communism means. Communism is an end state to the material dialectic, it's a mode of production which is voluntary, democratic, and stateless. State socialism (i.e. the seizing of the means of production) is a far better definition of Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, ect. To be really specific it was totalitarian state socialism. Using the word communism to describe the USSR as a state is lazy political theory at best.

if I read this correctly, those with money and influence are being allowed to do dangerous things bc they have resources that give them inordinate influence.

sounds like capitalism

Take the zizekpill
youtube.com/watch?v=AXVEnxtZe_w

So paradoxically, the Jews are the wily cultural Marxists using their mind control magic to destroy White culture, but the Jews are also the wicked capitalist exploiters?

I'm beginning to thnk that /pol/ is... dumb?

So, Jordan Peterson?
Oh right you have to pay for "self authoring"

The jew is incapable of creating a strawman-less argument. It's why they have the reputation they do as liars who can't live in one place for very long. They're just bad people.

>neo liberals are crypto marxists trying to brute force a revolution
sigh

Just how much cocaine do you have to ingest on a daily basis as to develop a compulsive nose-touching habit this bad?

I like the use of irony in your post. Very specific, too!

No. Communism means a society in which the value form and private property have been abolished.

Marxism is a system of political and economic analysis based on class.

Banks are not run by Marxists lmao

That's actually a hilarious conspiracy theory

Is Stirner a meme I need to know

bump

the guy clearly suffers from anxiety about public speaking which expresses itself through these tics. most of this board does worse when talking to a woman, myself included.

Just grab them by the pussy and your tic will naturally lead to a quick climax.

it's mostly just nervous laughter for me but it's pretty intense. maybe i can press my face against a pussy and stimulate the clit as my face shakes with uncontrollable giggling.

Few people take his work seriously but he gives you a lot to think about