Is this a valid critique of Marx?
Is this a valid critique of Marx?
Other urls found in this thread:
If you accept as hominems to be valid
I don't agree with Marx but the image is basically ad hominem.
if you think it is you belong in a gulag
Marx's ideas are incredibly flawed but they'd be flawed even if he was part of the proletariat class
The third, fourth and final point are bald lies. The second point requires a state centred analysis that is tendentious to the point of dishonesty.
Ad hominems aren't valid.
And that isn't a critique.
So it is not a valid critique.
proletarian is the adjective, proletariat is the noun.
No, but this is.
He was a Champagne Socialist.
>Wasn't a finch
>Wasn't a turtle
>Fucked his cousin
Considered by many to be the most influential biologist of all time.
We have still never seen a rock turn into a lizard.
>We have still never seen a rock turn into a lizard.
But we have seen countries turning into poop.
Not even close.
I thought insane, right-wing capitalists thought that everything was a market. We can thus interpret Marx's life as him being PAID by Engels for producing great philosophical works. It's totally a valid interpretation under market economics.
Also, the phrase "all applications of his theories have ended in failure" is an absolutely absurd statement beyond my comprehension.
I think he was wrong but not because he didn't own a factory. I don't know a single fucking person who owns a factory, and I'd bet that's the same with most of the people I know.
Only semi-Asiatic tankies believe that their Soviet barbarism was anywhere close to Marxist scientific socialism.
You forgot about the old men of the orthotrots
''ad hominem'' is not valid in formal logic, but in real life it's totally valid.
Remind me to stab you to death.
Within the realm of Marx, it is.
>use numbers from 1990 when those economies basically collapsed due to neoliberal "shock therapy"
C'mon now. Communism was a shit episode but that's not fair.
>Never had any job
Uhhh wasn't Marx quite a famous journalist in his earlier life?
And pretty sure his job was essentially an academic/writer, for example he was commissioned to write the Communist Manifesto.
Only the last phrase
Also IIRC, though don't take my word for it at all becuase I can't even really remember where I read it.
But I recall reading some economists discussing how the way we measure soviet economics is inherantly going to make them look worse off than they are.
Only part with failures in applications is legit. You can be a good theoretic without much practice in the field so most of arguments are retarded here.
>But I recall reading some economists discussing how the way we measure soviet economics is inherantly going to make them look worse off than they are
Yes, GDP isn't designed for planned economies. And at any rate their economies worked in a generally flawed but workable fashion up until the last decade or two when problems showed up from a lack of political drive to modernize the economies, made even worse by the militarism inherent to bureaucratic government.
That is what you get when you apply Marxism to reality. There's no way around it. His theories have been thoroughly empirically debunked by reality and philosophically he was torn to pieces by Karl Popper.
Marx was a shitty human being.
Marxism is a set of ideas, separate from the human being.
all that shit is appeal to authority
only the bottom part can qualify as 'critique'
No. Why should direct experience be more important than decades of rigorous theory?
Nobody mocks Adam Smith for being a full-time intellectual
Why the fuck should GDP define the well-being of a population?
It doesn't mean shit if a third of your people are starving
Do you even know what an ad hominem is?
Damn, I hate that in that picture they place Milton Friedman beside those shits rand and the ancap retard. I always see socialists critique ancaps, because ancap is the only idea worse than their own.
Marx is a joke and so is marxism.
It's not even a critique. Why do you think it is?
For those who think that we can't criticize Soviet economics from a liberal perspective, that is perhaps true. However, I can't remember where, but I read that a critique (i.e. from the internal logic. Many obviously from leftist scholars too) is more destructive and brutal than narrowminded strawmanning from liberal ones. For example, if you examine how the factory optimization works. It's not with that stupid 'muh market input calculation problem' approach and argument, and only pure math. You'll find that the bureaucratic meddling was inherent within the system, entirely from the top into the bottom, in order to cut down the myriads of conditional problem, with each slowing down the cog. If the choice is to cut it down, obviously the quality of the goods decrease too from the ideally desired ones.
It gets even worse if you use 'historical materialist' perspective, as there's no way the statement 'there is no need for a revolution in a socialist state' could hold water.
Correct me if I'm wrong, It's been a while since I read all of those outda-I mean abandoned theories.
Because the only places with a high GDP where people are starving adhere to a vaguely socialistic or communistic form of government or are in Africa.
What are the ones who have high GDP (PPP) but a third of their populations starving?
>m-muh real marxism has never been applied
Marxism is a method of critique, not a positive programme. Read the fucking sticky.
Marx also was a avid racist. He basically hated Slavs, Balkan peoples and was a Zionist. Look at how many quotes he had regarding them.
There is a small chance he was born some kind of supergenius, it is possible he came up with a few good ideas, but realistically in order to be the "greatest social, political andd economic philosopher of all time" you would expect him to have a good background, the same reason you would expect the greatest programmer or the greatest swimmer to have the necessary background.
No, in fact the only part that could be considered even remotely valid would be "all applications of his theories have ended in failure" until you start reading him ad find out that the statement is kind of absurd.
This is a simple statement of Marx, not relevant to his theory.
Nevertheless, the thesis of objective value has been disproved for a century and a half, and all Marxism should have fallen with it, not for the fact that Marxists do not usually read or think.
Not in the slightest.
Marx did have a job, he worked as a journalist, on top of that, him, his wife, and his children did live in some really poor conditions over the years.
>Shit is valuable because people give it value!
Disgraceful. Economics will never be a science thanks to you.
>>Shit is valuable because people give it value!
You post this like its a silly statement but its quite obviously true
Value is irrelevant. Price is determined by market factors.
Prove be wrong.
How is the Friedman one an insult?
He read Adam Smith and got everything wrong.
and he is still alive
That isn't ad hom it's reverse appeal from authority.
The man has no credentials so anything he says must be invalid. - Not a valid critique.
It's an easy and intuitive mistake to make. People may have valid or "good" ideas (whatever that means) even if they are the most despicable, unvetted, idiots you have ever seen. Unlikely but possible.
You'd think 40 million Chinese would suffice as valid critique of Marx.
Go back to the grave, RJ Rummel
The price of anything is basically the sum ( or weighted average, whatever) of the psychological values people attribute to it in relation to other stuff.
>Value is irrelevant. Price is determined by market factors
'Market factors' are not some magical laws of the universe that give shit values and price. The market is people.
Socialism isn't being a viable economic theory doesn't mean that ad cheap ad hominems count as a valid critique of someone
I love how while that targets the economist it can, it leaves out Von Mises, the influential austrian economist and mentor to Rothbard. He was a soldier, worked with market systems involving real estate, and had practical experience working with economic theory. Also, being a government bureaucrat is still more practical experience then whatever Marx did.
Quality post friendo