What the actual fuck is this guys problem?

he was smart enough to write capital

Pretty much this
Marx was right that capitalism has problems but he falls into its trap by thinking in material and worldly terms which capitalism will always win out on

t. dualist

he's a jew

His boots didn't have straps

Intellectual. Sits around spewing ideas that appear good on paper. Whether or not they are remotely applicable in life doesn't matter.

Capitalism is the driving force that has advanced every aspect of humanity in history. Read a basic economics book sometime.

His criticisms are valid of course but he ignores the concept of individualism for better or worse. Not everyone is created equally mentally, physically, motivationally... so economic incentive is the only way to herd the cattle into doing something. I believe we will end up in a marxist society but not until scarcity is solved and honestly it would take nothing short of AI social monitoring and enforcement to achieve this.

Every single other system that has ever been tried is always worse.

This is the right answer.

Did it even drive those advances that occurred before its existence.

The idea that history is just a progression of class struggle with can be explained by a materialist view of the world
I personally believe ideas have shaped history and societies more than material things

i dont think its possible to have a reasonable discussion about marx, to most he's either buddha or the bogeyman.

in reality, he's just another author of books on political economy with some good ideas and some bad ones like any of the others

ressentiment

Except he doesn't, which you would know if you actually read the book instead of pretending to have read it.

Being a Jew

I think capitalism isn't inherently good or evil, it's neutral and can be used as an efficient driving force for change and advancement but people are fooling themselves if they think it shouldn't be kept on a chain, because it WILL run rampant.

Basically, communists are dummies for thinking that a total tear down of the current establishment will lead to a better society but maybe not letting major corporations do whatever the fuck they want would help a lot.

yes, everyone else "not reading it" is the reason every society that becomes communist starves to death

I love sowell!

>mentions "feudalism"
into the trash it goes

Not as if reformists ie socialists get their way anyway even though they are right to do so

people here are smarter than your average bear, so writing a book about how bad obvious things are and making unrealistic suggestions is like telling a toddler they did good when they complain of fireplaces and ask for the mechanics of fire to be cooler instead of just not touching the bloody fireplace.

He didn't read Bookchin

ITT: People who haven't read Marx

no but it sure as hell made it faster. Before capitalism, it would take a couple hundreds of years before a civilization found a new way to avoid dying from infections. The amount of innovation before capitalism is negligible to even seriously consider the point you're trying to make in this post.

>complain of fireplaces and ask for the mechanics of fire to be cooler instead of just not touching the bloody fireplace.
This is exactly what I hear everytime someone describes communism as "a utopia" or "a great system in theory".
If a theory disintegrates upon contact with reality - it's the theory that's wrong, not the reality.

>"society that becomes communist"
I dont think you know what that means

I think pollution and other externalities is a good time for a government to step in. Not the other 99% of the times government wants to step in. The notion that you can plan the economy efficiently is simply false, and I believe history has shown so time and time again.

Socialists, communists and people on the left generally are quick to blame capitalism for what is, at closer look, problems of socialist policies, of government interference.

But the real danger isn't the economic failures that policies of the left will cause, capital can always be built anew when there is still human capital. The real problem is the vast and all-encompassing power-structure the left wants to build up and the fact that eventually, if not instantly, it will be overtaken by people with intentions less noble.

The problem with Marx was that while he was right on some accounts, he was wrong on many important things.

He believed change came about through the Hegelian model: thesis, antithesis and synthesis, where violence was at the core. He also believe, falsely, in the labour theory of value. Demand is what value is based on, not how much time and energy you put into something. You can put a hundred hours into something but if people don't want it, it lacks value.

Disagreements over sense gratiffication

>socialism is when the government does stuff
>doesn't understand Hegel's dialectics
>doesn't understand the labor theory of value

>Describing Hegel using Fichte's terminology
Totally trust the detailed and well read analysis thanks user

People need to get out of the Marx - Capitalist dichotomy. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Capitalism and the Catholic Church and Catholic thinkers have levied many against the system. Usury is a evil and it is an inherent part of Capitalism as we know it. Many of the Capitalists in this thread need to realize that there are legitimate problems with their way of thinking. It is one of the reasons conservatives are intellectually dead, they dismiss ideas that seem to criticize Capitalism, but act defeated when the free market morality leads to sexual liberation, homosexuality, and all round Judaism.

>seem to criticize Capitalism
>seem
that word shouldn't be in there

Capitalism differs from other economic systems in that it does not "exist" in the sense that humans invented it and put it into practice. The market forces are all natural, they do not require human intervention, or at least very little (regulations to deter crony capitalist practices), to reach the optimal end. The forces of supply, demand, competition, scarcity, so on and so forth, all existed long before the days of Adam Smith.

See famines in the USSR as an example, which were caused by, among other things, the inability of the Communist Party to set an optimal grain price -- a free market would have naturally arrived at the optimal price without any human intervention.

>optimal
lel there's that word again

>Be self-employed contractor
>acquire your own means of production (tools/computer/etc)
>sell your own labor/products
>profit

Marxists BTFO

>strive for what Marx thought humans wanted
>Marx BTFO??
If you're implying that capitalism as a system could operate with everyone working "self-employed" you are far more idealistic than Marx.

This. Conservativism in the west is a farce. They are oblivious reactionaries, or worse crypto-liberals who pay lip service to "Tradition" while worshiping the very instrument that indirectly destroys traditional values.

I said marxists, not Marx. You know, the ones who seem to forget that there's nothing stopping you from working for yourself or forming a cooperative business with others WITHIN a capitalist system

>If you're implying that capitalism as a system could operate with everyone working "self-employed" you are far more idealistic than Marx.
And you think a "communist" (whatever that means) system could work that way? LMFAO

>Read a basic economics book sometime

Sorry, I'm too busy reading advanced economic books.

...

That doesn't solve the internal contradictions of captialism, it just at best means you don't take part in it that much since you are still living under one

...

Don't know where you read that, it certainly wasn't in the comment you linked.

>never had a real job his entire life
>writes a treatise on how to re-organize the entire world and labor dynamic
lol

wtf I hate reals and love feels now, thanks libcuck

Both his parents were Jews.

This is the worst fucking meme of them all. Capitalism requires a state to enforce property rights and punish breach of contract. Capitalism is no more "natural" than any other socioeconomic system.

>tfw no jewish mommy milk
;_;

sorry wrong post lmao

how does he introduce alienation from a material point of view? is it just sleight of hand or is he not as materialist as he pretends?

is that a meme name?

False. Everything you said was false. Pls read Chaos Theory.

retarded jew cant handle his money and throws a world wide shit fit that leads to the most horrid regimes of mass murder and oppression in the 20th century: the book

>wtf I hate reals and love feels now

communism isnt reels over feels. Neo-marxist (you) are litterally the exact opposite and your entire philsophy is about denying the reality of the failure of marxism and adopting a childish "m-maybe if we believe enough, it will magically work!" tinker bell tier world view.

>That doesn't solve the internal contradictions of captialism

who gives a shit? Especially coming from what amounts to islamic radicals who shill some retarded utopia and murder anyone who suggest it might have some problems as heretics.

>All critics of capitalism are Marx-Leninists
If you actually read up the reply chain, I was highlighting how that user's actions don't solve the problem that Marx or marxists wanted to solve. It is a good step though so you can't say I am making a Nirvana fallacy

>Russia
>Goes from backwards monarchy of peasant farmers to winning a world war and becoming one of the only global superpowers within 50 years
>China
>Goes from shitty colonial drug hellhole to global economic powerhouse and eternal Boogeyman for Western politicians under Mao
>Cuba
>Goes from shitty vacation Gomorrah for rich westerners to virtually eradicating homelessness and illiteracy, and having some of the best medical education in the world, also within half a century
Lmao only capitalism gets anything done

Karl Marx would enthusiastically agree with you

holy shit, Im screen capping this post and then posting it on Veeky Forums so we can laugh at Veeky Forums for being fucking retarded

Why would you believe this? If ideas led to material development rather than vice versa, how were enlightened societies like the Athenians, the Roman Empire, the Sassanids, and the Song Chinese able to be overrun by their much more low-brow enemies?

Any close analysis of history makes it clear that culture is downstream from economics. You can't have a sophisticated intellectual tradition if you don't have a sufficiently developed economy able to sustain a scholastic class.

??

The material process of capitalistic development atomizes workers and alienates them from other aspects of society, such as products or different groups of people . For instance, a man who spends his life assembling hardwood chairs in a factory lacks the ability to purchase a chair from himself.

It's a strictly materialist concept.

There is -- monetary cost

>It's a strictly materialist concept.
by that standard ants would be alienated too, but they aren't, there has to be something else there, may we call it an alienable human "nature"? and once you open that door i don't see how you can justify closing it in other cases and retreat to material conditions when alienation plays a central role on the theory

Marx described alienation as it occurs under capitalism. Ants don't have anything remotely resembling capitalism, so this comparison is pointless.

Marx did not apply some ideology to currently existing society, but instead analyze society and draw conclusions based on his research.

Marx's LTV is pure idiocy and has no conception of opportunity cost. The function of the capitalist is to forego consumption and engage in the act of saving, and this saving has a very important role to play in the production of commodities. If a worker co-operative were to decide today to pool their collective resources and produce engines (the useful kind, not steam engines), they'd most likely have several problems. The most important problems are that they'd have no income until they sold the first engine, and that they'd have to assume the risk the engines sell. Wage labour isn't theft of surplus value, the wage-earner is getting something for it; they're avoiding the risk the product won't sell (they still get paid for their labour no matter what), and they're being paid now instead of later. If they weren't paid now, they'd have to have saved enough to see them through the production process, and as mainstream economists know, the value of money now is much higher than the value of money later (hence, interest rates). The capitalist isn't stealing surplus value, the labourers are foregoing the surplus value in exchange for mitigating the risk the product won't sell, and to satisfy their time-preference for money.

And yes, the more the state takes over the economy, the more socialist an economy you get.

Yes

What the fuck have you been smoking? And again, I don't know how many times I've said this on Veeky Forums already, but you retards always fail to ask the question "compared to what?". Compared to countries where capitalism has been the dominant economic system, every single country you just mentioned is pure and utter shit - economically, politically and socially.

You utter, utter fool.

>sheltered autist living off Mr. Engel's magical cuckbux writes a fantasy story about a struggle he hasn't experienced nor will ever come close to experiencing

he's the original "super decadent, ultra-bourgeois, but ultimately clueless Jew sanctimoniously defends the downtrodden, inadvertently ruins everything" archetype

/Thread

The exploitation of the masses, obviously.

Auov uad auon acnurop ias iicinecu ertac iulunmod asiz. Aiutseca iulusacal iulutnafs ia irotacafenib is irotiulim irotanihcni.

Uezenmud iul rolibor roletacap aeratrei is aerasal aeratecrec aeriutnam aetatanas aecap ataiv alim urtnep magur en as iulunmod. Auov uad auon acnurop ias iicinecu ertac iulunmod asiz.

>ITT people who don't read Marx complain about Marx

ITT: people who've read Marx and didn't understand a single word defending it with tooth and nail

No one is saying that the free market can fix everything. Conservatives - I'm not american, but I often visit your lovely country - tend to believe that government intervention is necessary when it comes to four things: law and order, military defense, border protection and externalities (like pollution).

Comparing anything to perfection, or to an arbitrary standard solves nothing. Until you can show evidence of a superior system, no one has any reason to switch.

not an argument

>not an argument

stop green texting and make an argument
oh wait you don't have one

Why should I, I'm okay with things. You're the one whining like a little sissy about how oppressed you are, so produce the evidence or hang yourself.

correct

>critique of bourgeois political economy is wrong because of these theological terms that i uncritically accept from bourgeois political economy

>the labourers are foregoing the surplus value in exchange for mitigating the risk the product won't sell
except they aren't, because if the product doesnt sell the capitalist can sell the capital, make a killing, and fire them all lol. they assume all risk.

Which chapter did he say that in? Or, like literally everybody else, are you repeating things you’ve heard people say about Marx which sound smart and reasonable, but youve never bothered with the reading part?

Wow, not knowing Hegel AND Marx in one go. As others have pointed out, Hegel never said ‘thesis, antithesis, synthesis’ that was Fichte, and is misattributed to Hegel by people who don’t know any better.

And on literal the first couple pages of Capital Marx is very clear to say that just because something required work to make, unless there is a demand it doesn’t have value. His definition of use-value, which he directly takes from the existing consensus, pre-supposes something is useful to somebody such that they would buy it at some price.

The paradox of value is very simple for Marx. The labour to gather water is minimal compared to the average necessarily labour to aquire diamonds. There are different assumptions made in each volume of Capital, as he tries to generalize his theory, but in the first volume at least, he’s essentially saying that in the short run price will approach value, where value is the average socially necessary labour time, while in the long run what is ASNLT changes based on the change in plant in the industry and the material inputs.

Largely because alienation is a concept he talked about when he was a young Hegelian, and which as he developed his mature views he stopped talking about.

Also there are immaterial things in his system. When he talks about value and money, he’s always talking about something immaterial, but objective. It’s like a social construct. There is no ‘thing’ which money is, money is not simply the paper and ink itself, there is something extra on top of it which allows it to have the social function which is money. Money is a social construct, and money’s value is dependent strictly on the social context in which it exists, you can’t you American bills to buy from Amazonian tribes. Likewise for Marx, value is objective, it’s effects on the world were regular and predictable, yet it was not identical with the things which embody the value. So what exactly consititutes a strict Materialism is a bit up in the air.

this

>And again, I don't know how many times I've said this on Veeky Forums already, but you retards always fail to ask the question "compared to what?". Compared to countries where capitalism has been the dominant economic system, every single country you just mentioned is pure and utter shit - economically, politically and socially.
it's almost like if at a race one guy has a running start while the other one is manacled in the stadium bathroom and also the guy with the running start keeps leaving caltrops and firecrackers on the manacled guy's track he's gonna need time to catch up

The most incredible thing to me is when people say Marx was some sort of retard for his Labour Theory of Value, as if he was the one who first thought that labour was a unique input, or as if before him there was some better theory of value which he ignored.

Adam Smith and David Ricardo both also had labour theories of value. Marx wrote an improved version of theirs, and if people bothered to read the literature, they’d find his is a dramatic improvement over theirs.

What kind of third world shithole do you live in where employers can just fire you without giving you your final paycheck?

>Critique of Marxism is wrong because it doesn't come from Marxists

m.youtube.com/watch?v=agjf_QK4I9o