Im a final year econ major at uni and take capitalism as the given system...

The real problem with marx is that he couldn't know then that capitalism is completely unstoppable, or what it really is.

youtube.com/watch?v=dwqC8-1LIps

>not reading some of the most influential texts in recent history
as FPBP said, Marx has some really valid criticism of the capitalist system, however his alternative has turned out to be worse

If you're gonna read Marx, then don't just jump on the meme works.
Read:
>Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
>The German Ideology, Chapter 1
>Wage Labour and Capital
>A Contribution to the critique of political economy
>Engels' Origin of the family, private property and the state

If you read these (shorter) works, you'll have a good background in the materialist method utilised by Marx, which will help you understand Kapital later on. Also, Lenin's State and Revolution is a classic of later Marxism.

No

>brainlets in this thread

Marx never really wrote about alternatives to capitalism. In total, he may have written about 5 pages total on what a socialist society should look like throughout his life. People like Kropotkin and Lenin are the ones who set out alternatives

>huhuh I got indoctrinated by capitalists at university
>huhuh I got smug memes
>huhuh north korea is socialist. Juche is totally socialist ideology u guys and not an authoritarian reaction to being destroyed by an imperial power akin to nazism
>huhuh lemme ask Veeky Forums if I, a highly credentialed person indoctrinated into contemporary economics, can get anything out of reading a historical criticism of capitalism
>huhuh

The communist manifesto is just a brief booklet meant to lay out the platform of a particular party in a particular moment, not be some sort of eternal guide to politics. Speaking as a Marxist I never recommend it to people, it’s more of a historical interest piece than anything.

If you are well versed in economics already I think you might find reading Capital interesting. Have you read anything by either Smith or Ricardo before? If you were serious about reading Capital I’d recommend you at least glance through something like Ricardo’s Principles or Political Economy and Taxation, just to get a feel for the tone of 19th century economics writing.

I think there is something to be gained by reading Capital. The concept of Commodity Fetishism is something that I don’t think mainstream economics has a parallel.

The other thing I like about Marxist economics is that is all very objective, there is not the looming subjectiveness like in the econ classes I took. The idea that firms don’t necessarily fill wants, but actually manufacture desire first, then provide the material fix for that want is something I never saw articulated in econ.

If you want to check out some cutting edge Marxian economics, to see how it’s developed, see Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, and Crisis by Anwar Shaikh, it’s a graduate level textbook that synthesizes his life’s work in economics.

Damn I desperately need to remake one of these.

This. Marx was a critic of capitalism and even said in his lifetime "I am not a Marxist."

Yet ancap brainlets wanna time machine murder him to ostensibly save gorillions from inevitable 21st century conflicts.

>take econ class
>have to buy the book that the proff wrote to take the class
>only some of the books chapters used
>have to remember all these theories and charts that have no real world applications
>realize its all a scam and the main goal is just ideological indoctrination
>summary is that (((we))) need to keep expanding markets

Killing the boss and running things ourselves looks better everyday...

>Marx was a critic of capitalism

No. He wasn't.

Marx was a feudalism. A capitalist. A socialist. A communist. All are necessary. He would explain why each would "fail" but each would be necessary.

>The idea that firms don’t necessarily fill wants, but actually manufacture desire first, then provide the material fix for that want is something I never saw articulated in econ.
what is publicity?, what is propaganda? (even politic propaganda)

...

>econ major

Might as well have just done finance

So much butthurt, this board has ressentiment
Thanks for decent answers

can you explain why? curious

Marx is alt-right now kiddo, deal with it

Attached: quote-if-anything-is-certain-it-is-that-i-myself-am-not-a-marxist-karl-marx-250991.jpg (850x400, 52K)

i think we can all put aside our differences and agree that social democracy is the true cancer

Attached: medesu.jpg (500x500, 130K)

But the nordic countries have a strong strand of social democracy and are very successful.

You would have to be a complete moron to believe they are successful because of succdem

Read "The Foundation for Exploration"

>final year econ major
>hasn't read any Marx
dude what? have you not taken any History of Economic Thought type units?

This is absolute drivel, surface level analysis of the most incorrect and intellectually dishonest variety. You know what you’re doing and should be rightfully ashamed. You massive, massive pseudo. You mean-spirited fraud. You conniving trickster. Get off this board and never return

Econ is more enjoyable

Marx ist protoacceleration. That being said just read Braudel.

well, um, yea they are

Attached: 1517528139676.png (645x773, 87K)

No it works quite well. See Germany.

>haven't read Mein Kampf
>but you KNOW you disagree

Just try reading him. He's good at identifying issues, but awful at suggesting solutions

Econ rots the mind, anyone who studies this should be shot.

nigga i actually have read mein kampf and i can tell you its almost all rambling nonsense

> I am familiar with Marx through a…
That's the problem.

Got another explanation for the correlation then?

Does the Marxist form of materialism necessarily deny the existence of the metaphysical?

You disagree because you're a STEMsperg.

Probably because they're a historically oppressed group of people with an above average intelligence.

>anarchy
>all commies/syndies
fuck off

You clearly don't understand Marx, since you studied him only in high school, and only through a perversion.

Marx's body of work is largely a description of capitalism and its historical situation and development. His conclusion is that like previous systems, capitalism is not sustainable and will fall. That is it. Very few can give a valid criticism of his description. The fact that you haven't read one of the most influential CAPITALIST economic theorists to ever live is a really fucking sweet reflection on American education. I have read Marx several times and have absolutely no concern with abstracted economics.

They aren't successful, at all. You just have a perverted idea of what success is.
Socdems are disgusting liberals.

>and take capitalism as the given system
I bet you didn't know Marx called capitalism the most efficient and fruitful mode of production we have ever created. Skip the manifesto, go for Das Kapital if you have a background in econ. The Manifesto was written for workers, it was basically pleb propaganda.

a house of cards built on exploiting natural resources and americans

Regarding your question, (I'll try to be helpful):
1)The Communist Manifesto isn't actually that important. If you want to learn about Scientific-Socialism, (as opposed to Utopian, and Anarchist Socialism), then read either Socialism: Utopian & Scientific, or the Verso Books compilation of Marx's political works in three volumes.
2)Marx's Political thought, his economic thought, and his philosophical thought all overlap to some extent, but it's entirely possible to be a Dialectical-Materialist without being a Socialist, or to be a Marxian Economically without accepting Diamat. So, even if you have already decided that you don't like Marx's Socialism, you should still read Kapital.

Regarding your shitty image:
1)Venezuela was never socialist. A socialist party is currently leading their parliament, but they still have a society where almost everyone needs to participate in a market to survive, and the vast majority of capital-goods are privately owned. Socialism, (or more accurately, lower-stage socialism, as outlined in Critique of the Gotha Programme), requires you to have abolished private property, and handed control of all enterprise to either workers co-ops, or the state).
2)Ukraine was part of the USSR, why is it listed seperately? (Unless you're talking about the two 'Soviet' Republics set up in Novrossiya early into the civil war, in which case, no shit they're not doing well, they're in an active war zone.
3)North Korea only went to shit after the Soviet Union collapsed, because prior to that point they imported 90% of their food, and over half of their oil from the USSR. When communism fell, that trade stopped overnight, and the resulting scarcity began a series of a events that ended with the military dictatorship it is today. Pre-91, it was a significantly nicer place to live than South Korea.
4)The fuck's Cuba on a list of failed states for? Cuba's awesome.
5)Cambodia was never socialist either, Pol Pot just payed lip service to Communism in an attempt to get backup from China & Vietnam, (which didn't work, never forget that it was Ho Chi Minh who finally brought the fucker down)

The USSR, and East Germany I'll give you, those both were socialist by the traditional Marxist definition, and they both fell primarily due to their own internal contradictions. I would argue that we should learn from these mistakes, and do a better job next time, rather than just say "THOSE COUNTRIES COLLAPSED THEREFORE COMMUNISM BAD"

So this is the power of the revolutionary vanguard. Nice try my burecratic friendo, but accepting a transition state is a really, really bad idea.

>Reading about Marx through a social liberal
>The crimes of Hitler are somehow related to the ideas of Marx
Lmao capitalist apologists will literally stop at nothing.

Mainstream economics has actually vindicated many of Marx’s claims. For example:
1. Gary Becker has shown how the mode of production - technology and people’s perceived costs and benefits - affects social life, such as crime, family structure or obesity. In Marxist terms, “base” does influence “superstructure.”
2. Daniel Kahneman’s work on cognitive biases can be read as corroboration of Marx’s theory that capitalism generates an ideology which prevents people seeing its injustices. For example, the fundamental attribution error leads us over-estimate the extent to which the poor are to blame for their poverty, and to under-rate the importance of environmental or societal forces. The availability heuristic leads workers to blame immigrants for unemployment rather than less obvious forces. The just world phenomenon and system justification cause us to believe that capitalism must be fair. The status quo bias causes us to accept existing evils rather than risk new ones. And adaptive preferences cause the poor to resign themselves to their fates and want less.
3. A lot of work in public choice theory is quite consistent with the Marxian view that “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” James M. Buchanan has demostrated how often capitalists can capture the state and use it to advance their interests.
4. Empirical research suggests that the labour theory of value does a decent job of explaining relative prices (see, for example, ehu.eus/Jarriola/Docencia/EcoMarx/EcoMarx frances/labthvalue.pdf or reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf)
5. The efficient market hypothesis of Eugene Fama implies that housands of high-paid financiers are actually overpaid charlatans, since according to the EMH stock-pickers can't beat the market in risk-adjusted terms.
6. James Meade and Jaroslav Vanek have shown that an economic system in which firms are owned and managed not by capitalists, but by workers would be Pareto efficient (see “The Theory of Labour-Managed Firms and of Profit Sharing” by James Meade and “The General Theory of Labour-Managed Market Economies“ by Jaroslav Vanek)

I could go on, there are fewer differences between orthodox and Marxist economics than you might think.

Watch this (or just the bit where he talks about undergrad) and ask if Wolff's experience resonates with your experience: youtube.com/watch?v=ynbgMKclWWc

The truth is most economics programs are highly ideological, examining particular areas with very particular assumptions and fixed conclusions. Good on you for seeking out socialism - the ever-present shadow of capitalism and coalescence of it's critiques. Read what people suggest, and start questioning the policy levers that are declared OFF LIMITS.

Marx was out for his own personal gain

Yeah, you can get a lot. You're going to have a bloody open mind though because if you're going into it thinking its some wishy washy pseudo-economics that's easy to understand, you're wrong. Its really boring and technical and takes a long time to finish.

>Just try reading him. He's good at identifying issues, but awful at suggesting solutions
He's actually great at generating solutions desu

That's really only true for Norway, and they'll probably fine if the government takes an active role in building up strategic industries that Norway can depend on once oil runs out, which they'll probably do just like all the other Nordic countries. And natural resources are hardly a guarantee of economic success or a high quality of life, just look up the paradox of plenty.

t. bootlicking faggot

One cannot gain perspective on a man, nor his ideology through second hand critiques.

Why does China have a mixed market economy and why are they much more powerful and wealthy with a mixed market state managed economy than under a self-sufficient socialist planned economy?
would you mind explaining Fama's efficient market hypothesis a little more if you have the time user?

I don't understand this line of criticism. Isn't the point is to find the solution dialectically?

>but awful at suggesting solutions
How so?

>Marx was in favour of a centrally planned economy.
What a meme, Marx didn't write out how a socialist nation would or should work, he just predicted capitalism would cause it's existence.

Attached: 1518385143433.gif (487x560, 898K)

"Critique" in the sense Marx uses it doesn't mean "burn it with fire"

Marx supposedly abhorred any of that, cue famous quote about "the point is to change the world" but nothing in Das Kapital is really anti-metaphysics or whatever, he just puts out a weak hint that he thought metaphysics was just a result of alienation or some shit

Orthodox marxism is STEM as fuck though

>Marx supposedly abhorred any of that, cue famous quote about "the point is to change the world" but nothing in Das Kapital is really anti-metaphysics or whatever, he just puts out a weak hint that he thought metaphysics was just a result of alienation or some shit

That's even more retarded, then. It's almost offensive, really.

socdems forever BTFO

Shaikh posting is starting to grow on this board. I'm glad I'm not the only one making the time to hammer through 800 pages of theory and research.

Attached: Shaikh.jpg (228x346, 23K)

>The fuck's Cuba on a list of failed states for? Cuba's awesome.
are you fucking stupid?

Lol. They rank among the top of every international metric. Life expectancy, education, wealth, quality of life, civil rights, democracy, corruption, etc.

Social democracy is objectively the best system.

>Orthodox marxism is STEM as fuck though
Not relevant
Nope, all wrong.
None of those factors are valuable
>international metric
Designed by liberals. Who cares? Statist shits love to lie.
>objectively
No just thing exists. Try again, Bernout.
Democracy is fascism. Any state is corrupt. Wealth is disease. Education is propaganda.

The dialectic has to be the most cancerous fucking idea ever put forward in philosophy.
>something doesn't work and millions die
>just keep doing it! We're dialectically moving towards the absolute idea of history!
>doesn't work again and millions die
>it's okay! All just part of the dialectic!
>but comrade! The whole country is starving because we don't have food!
>the dialectic will solve it!

Attached: 1506523222393.jpg (645x773, 56K)

It’s ironic that Hayek’s argument against a centrally planned economy can be used against centrally planned firms and in favour of socialist worker cooperatives.

>a firm can fail and can't be violently coercive in order to maintain it's position
>a government can

Attached: 1520266343970.jpg (645x773, 36K)

>The dialectic is a Marxist concept
>The dialectic is an abstract concept that solves your problems
Brainlet detected. At the very least read the Wikipedia article before you embarrass yourself

Hayek argued that centralized forms of management are inefficient because they impede the use of dispersed information and tacit knowledge. This means that command economies are inferior to market economies, but it also means that centralized and hierarchical capitalist firms are inferior to cooperatives managed by workers.

But what if the firm holds a great deal of power in the government. As is the case in the first world today. Or the firm is so large its failure would cause mass economic catastrophy.
You can call it cronyism, but people are social creatures who like politicking. As long as money has power it can buy you influence. And last I checked the police will come and get you if the firm says you owe them money and aren't paying

I've read Hegel you shithead.
Marxists use the dialectic as an excuse for their endless failing in the real world, because muh dialectic is moving towards the historical scientific ideology which is communism.

I mean, yeah I'm not particularly defending the idea of corporatism either.
But there's a clearly demarcated difference between a firm and a worker's collective.

>I've read Hegel
Ok, but if you're talking about dialects as Marxists have applied the concept then you ought to know that it's a little different, since they're materialists rather than idealists. So that seems more than a little dishonest
So don't split hairs to excuse your strawmen. Literally fuck off to Wikipedia and search up dialectical materialism, it's the least you could do before making these shitty posts

Sure, but im arguing that they will both (and we have seen both) resort to trickery and harness governmental force to prop themselves up. So I think it's kind of a bad framing of the problem

I'm aware of what dialectical materialism is.
You're just buttmad because it's probably what you use to justify attempting over and over again your shitty system.

I should clarify, I do mean we've seen both in the sense of; we have seen groups which nominally belong to either class do this

Fair enough then. I won't really dispute that.

>I know what dialectical materialism is
>It's that thing commies make burnt offerings to in exchange for a bountiful harvest
Just stop posting

>we have seen both
You have seen a worker's collective harness government before?

Why didn't Marx understand the "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" part of Hegel?

>so
>so
>so
>SoSo
Stalin pls go i understand marx was ur heros hero but its time to stop ok

>Probably because they're a historically oppressed group of people
Kek
>being in charge of banking, publishing, entertainment, media, and pornography
>being oppressed
Pick one.

>Can I get anything out of reading Das capital or the communist manifesto?
Some pretty legit criticisms of capitalism.

wtf he had the Final Solution

Any future socialism is going to be completely computerized and run by blockchains.

As a student studying both econ and finance, I can say that the two are very similar with the key feature being that finance is more applied. It relies heavily on accounting which makes it a more marketable degree, specifically in a banking or corporate finance setting. Econ has a much more academic feel to it which is nice and all but in my experience employers tend to prefer finance, all else being equal.

Somebody doesn't understand Hegel.
>doesn't work
spook
>millions die
Thanks to cappycucks hoarding resources

>reeeel world
I've doubt you've even read a hack like Peterson. Stop lying.

>Read Mein kampf
>It actually isnt incoherent rambling
>Read Das Capital
>It's isn't spooky leftist pinko faggot mumbo jumbo
A lot of radical literature is coherent , people just feel threatened by it and therefore want to dehumanize it.

Attached: 1518642725907.jpg (415x640, 71K)

>A level sociology
>familiar

what a dumb fuck you are

You forgot freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength, friendo.

I like OPs pic, it has a dual sense. One that criticizes communism for ignoring the real problems that communist countries have faced in favour of their ideal. And another that exalts communism because we better turn our back on those countries and imagine new strategies to create the society we want.

Originally it may be just the criticism, but I see both. And the solution to both is the same, not ignore them to move on, but to recognize those countries and their issues and thus have a better view on how to move on from that.