There is one important thing Marx forgot to consider when writing this book; human nature

There is one important thing Marx forgot to consider when writing this book; human nature.

Other urls found in this thread:

jstor.org/stable/20008832?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/isaak-rubin-essays-on-marxs-theory-of-value.pdf
libcom.org/library/anti-semitism-national-socialism-moishe-postone
youtube.com/watch?v=5HL22xsVK4c
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Can we not? Please not have another 300 comment Marx thread. If you want to talk about Marxian analysis of literature then sure, but if you want to discuss how Marx conceived of “human nature” go do that on reddit or something.

Everybody else should read Fredric Jameson’s The Political Unconscious.

Go read Kapital, then come back.

reading is for gays and losers

>want to criticize Marx
>never read Das Kapital

go back to school

>not attacking Marx's conception of exploitation via value-nihilism
>not underscoring ANY of the contradictions that arise from a labor theory of value
>not pointing out that dialectical materialism is an oxymoron
>not realizing that "alienation" isn't unique to capitalism, and takes place in any economic system where labor specialization takes place
>not highlighting the fact that the category of "proletariat" is overbroad, and that many middle-class proles have more in common with the petit-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie than lower-class proles
>not being aware that economics is a subset of politics, that politics is first and foremost the art of constructing incentive systems which either directly or indirectly coerce people into filling certain social roles, and that any functional society requires a level of coercion beyond what most contemporary Marxists, and even Marx himself, would find acceptable

all of that is nerd bullshit for booktards lmao

>implying every person is a human
>heard of niggers, pajeets, bastards, psychos?

It's kind of impossible to argue that human nature exists. There's always some faggots who'll say, "Where is this human nature? Prove to me it exists." Because they're autistic. They expect you to be able to weigh and measure human nature as easily as if it were the length of a tree or something. I guess that's human nature.

All good points until the very last bit. Marx was fine with coercion. He just thought it would disappear after some amount of revolution. Plenty of contemporary marxists are also perfectly on board with violent means for achieving their goals.

Marx is the most accurate evaluation of class relations and the inherent contradictions within capitalism and the alienating effect of techno-capital on humans. that he was wrong should be expected, especially from human nature advocates and doesn’t entail his insights were useless or ill conceived, they certainly predicted the M&A raiding, lunatic trading of the 90’s and 00’s, the growth of finance, the death of manual labor, the death of the middle class, the falling rate of profit (why do you think you’re billed more every year for rent and why they gate all your online services now?), the use of fascism to crush the nascent workers movements (fascism ruined the chance to overthrow the Western regimes, if not for corporate and state fascism from ‘20-‘60ish there would’ve been revolutions in America, Germany, UK. Basically a visionary, absolutely essential for understanding where modern social policies will go as they draw from his body of thought to stabilize themselves on their way down into the void. The only people who advocate for full throttle capitalism hate humans and want them all killed or mistakedly think a) they will become so wealthy by doing this it won’t matter b) the consequences of acceleration will allow for social restructuring instead of permanent fracturing. the insane, the greedy and the stupid advocate for techno-capital. its clear as day that its going to kill all life on Earth and then spread endlessly through the cosmos digesting anything that would further its ascent into techno-divinity. you can nitpick and manipulate stats, the sole occupation of economists besides writing books about cooked stats, but he was basically dead on in his critiques of capital. just, the solutions are garbage. don’t be a communist, do read marx

Only a non-human species can measure human nature

The worst part about this post is how smart you think you sound.

Value nihilism doesn't change the fact that workers are paid less in wages than their labor is worth, there's no moral judgment involved as such.

Communists aren't human, so no problem there

Mah nibba

utterly crushed, incapable of even mounting a defense. very sad stuff. must be upsetting having to shill for a system that’s genociding you and your whole race

Marx wrote extensively about 'human nature', early on, under the influence of Feuerbach, later he began to think of Man as a product of his environment. Marx' notion of Species-Being functions as a critique of ahistorical notions of 'Human Nature'
jstor.org/stable/20008832?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


>not attacking Marx's conception of exploitation via value-nihilism
>not underscoring ANY of the contradictions that arise from a labor theory of value

Marx' Labor theory of value is explicitly NOT a theory of price formation, nor is it a theory of scarce resource management. Marx wrote about these topics elsewhere. What Marx REALLY cared about was social relationships and how the creative powers of humanity were being managed.
thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/isaak-rubin-essays-on-marxs-theory-of-value.pdf

>the art of constructing incentive systems
woke neolib technocrats have almost succeeded in creating a lab rat world in which everyone is 'nudged' the right way in order to maximise abstract metrics, which produce upward trending graphs to impress the stockholders. This can only result in the rationalising away of humanity.

>as if it were the length of a tree
Trees are measured by height. After they have been cut they become timber, at which point they are measured by length.

>Both Communism and true oligarchical Capitalism are picking at the bones of the general populace.
I do not disagree. The greater enemy plays both sides of the fence.

the only difference between sjws and /pol/ James D'Amore types lies in their choice of metrics. Autists can't into globalised postfordian capitalism, because they remain trapped in a 20th century framework centered around rationalised production and 'efficiency', while sjws understand modern capitalism is all about producing governance, about creating a whole world of contented narcissist subjects molded and defined by institutions. The end result is the same, the total banalisation of being and the reduction of humans to machine components, be it by woke algorithms or unwoke race science algorithms, it makes no difference. The naive liberal subject of bugmen capitalist apologists is a vestige of the 19th century, the means of technical communication of the 21st go beyond the subject, they decompose the subject into multiple exploitable components.

What the fuck is it with all the marx spamming? Leftypol must be making a last desperate push to corrupt this board.

Jewish subversion has absolutely no place being taken seriously here, fuck off back to leftypol or r/latestagecapitalism.

>Leftypol must be making a last desperate push to corrupt this board.
All it will do is refine our minds and steel our hearts to them. Stand fast, brother.

Leftypol was a breakoff from Veeky Forums anyway. Moot wouldn't create an alt politics board in 2014 so a group of posters formed their own one elsewhere

most capitalists are whytes, most wealth is owned by whytes and asians. the riches people on earth are whyte or arab or asian
Veeky Forums is a leftist board you subhuman, hence the reading

its not even that, Marx is just fundamentally wrong in his assertions of economic value systems. Labor Theory was clearly not modelled realistically.

What is required, then, is an explanation in terms of a social-historical epistemology. A full development of the problematic of anti-Semitism would go beyond the bounds of this essay. The point to be made here, however, is that a careful examination of the modern anti-Semitic worldview reveals that it is a form of thought in which the rapid development of industrial capitalism, with all its social ramifications, is/ /personified and identified as the Jew. It is not merely that the Jews were considered to be the owners of money, as in traditional anti-Semitism, but that they were held responsible for economic crises and identified with the range of social restructuring and dislocation resulting from rapid industrialization: explosive urbanization, the decline of traditional social classes and strata, the emergence of a large, increasingly organized industrial proletariat, and so on. In other words, the abstract domination of capital, which—particularly with rapid industrialization—caught people up in a web of dynamic forces they could not understand, became perceived as the domination of International Jewry. [...] The problem with such approaches, however, is that “the modern” would certainly include industrial capital. Yet, as is well known, industrial capital was precisely not an object of anti-Semitic attacks, even in a period of rapid industrialization. Moreover, the attitude of National Socialism to many other dimensions of modernity, especially toward modern technology, was affirmative rather than critical.

This form of “anticapitalism,” then, is based on a one-sided attack on the abstract. The abstract and concrete are not seen as constituting an antinomy where the real overcoming of the abstract—of the value dimension—involves the historical overcoming of the antinomy itself as well as each of its terms. Instead there is the one-sided attack on abstract reason, abstract law, or, at another level, money and finance capital. In this sense it is antinomically complementary to liberal thought, where the domination of the abstract remains unquestioned and the distinction between positive and critical reason is not made.

The Jews were not seen merely as representatives of capital (in which case anti-Semitic attacks would have been much more class-specific). They became the personifications of the intangible, destructive, immensely powerful, and international domination of capital as an alienated social form.
libcom.org/library/anti-semitism-national-socialism-moishe-postone

>maybe if we just keep on lying, they'll start to believe us?

>fails to account for original sin
t. every utopist ever

From each according to his ability, to himself according to his need

...

What the fuck am I reading
This is your brain on "Marxian economics" and the LTV

advanced stages of schizophrenia are always shocking when one sees them user, you have maybe 10 more years before it takes you completely
lol

>most capitalists are whytes, most wealth is owned by whytes and asians. the riches people on earth are whyte or arab or asian
You appear to have something to say but you just beat around the bush. Just say what it is that you have on your mind.

aren’t you all good at reading between the lines?
ah neotenized psychotic sperging instead of data or arguments from the LARP schiz

Capital is subtitled: a critique of political economy. It's not about efficiently managing bourgeois society, but about laying the groundwork for a radical alternative to it. Why is it that you don't think it's possible or desirable to direct human activity towards ends other than those of the market, production for production's sake, and endless accumulation. It's getting harder and harder to make a 'liberal' argument for capitalism, in an age of unprecedented concentration of wealth and the technical means of communication. Capital is remodeling the human subject for its own purposes

>dialectical materialism is an oxymoron

>not being aware that economics is a subset of politics, that politics is first and foremost the art of constructing incentive systems which either directly or indirectly coerce people into filling certain social roles,]

You are rejecting thousands of years of political thought to replace them with the banal utilitarian logic of microeconomics, in blatant case of economics imperialism, de facto treating politics as a subset of economics. Check out this interview with Greek communist Castoriadis on the continued relevance of the greek Polis.

youtube.com/watch?v=5HL22xsVK4c

fair point

value nihilism = things don't have objective value
their labor isn't "worth" anything
therefore, they can't be underpaid

it's a simple argument tbdesu

i'll read what you linked later, but the holes in the theory of value have nothing to do with price formation; its a model that self-contradicts even before goods are taken to market. it also lacks the robustness to deal with uncertainty. even if all the holes get plugged, i can still reject it by saying "lol value isn't real," which i do.

>You are . . . treating politics as a subset of economics.
i said the converse. economics is politics performed by non-state actors using finance as the incentive system of choice.

is this a false flag

Brainlet