Why is academia still so full of Marxists?

Why is academia still so full of Marxists?

We have an entire century of proof that his ideas don't work, and are even harmful in the large sense.

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/4losrq/in_my_very_limited_scope_it_seems_like_marx_is/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I have no idea.

It all comes from bullshit disciplines like X studies, political "science," literature, or the lower dregs of philosophy. There evidence doesn't really matter, only feels.

Marxism is an aesthetic movement of bourgeoisie values against aristocratic one, economic results don't matter

Because academia is full of people who withdrew from the real world to focus on beautiful theories.

Marxism is basically the philosophy for the self-wanking intellectual who has no experience with the people they think they're fighting for. Same as SJWs supporting minorities or Christians claiming they're praying for you.

>the lower dregs of philosophy
>implying there is anything less than philosophy

Marxism worked pretty damn well in Russia. Even though communism was never achieved, the Soviet Union was better than what it replaced and what came after, by essentially every possible metric.

>Soviet Russia is better than Tsarists Russia
>Therefore Marxism worked
I dont think so m8

Russia as of right now may not be a beacon of social and economic success, but I'm not seeing people starving and disappearing by the millions.

Yeah I love commieblocks and rationing. Also having the government control my economic life.

>the Soviet Union was always Stalinist

Economists don't respect marx at all.

Sociologists only respect his sociological theories and critiques (though I guess some may wrongly trust his economic theories)

The rest of his academic supporters are probably just wishful thinking on areas they don't know much about, like a lot of us do.

Thinking less than a century of experimentation of a social structure done in a generalized specific autocratic way is "proof" that it doesn't work, you have a very narrow view of reality. The same could be said for any political structure that existed once and no longer exists by your logic, and some nations survived hundreds of years and beyond before dying out. We're in our infancy when it comes to social development, and trying things out that may or may not work is what we have been and will be doing for millennia.

You're right, Marxist goals had nothing to do with Stalin and his actions. Silly me.

most marxists are very understanding of the working class in my experience. they understand that there's certainly no rush to the adoption of marxist ideas, in that capitalism needs to fail first before the working people will be open to alternatives.

capitalism tends to fail fairly often, so the best time for marxists to disseminate their ideology is during economic crises.

>We have an entire century of proof his ideas don't work

We don't.

Collectivization of property was only one of his ideas, the only one the proved wrong. All other ideas, like dialectic materialism, alienation of labor, and his analysis on economic crises have proved as accurate as ever.

Without Marx there wouldn't have been the European social democracies in their nowadays shape or form. Capital: Critique of Political Economy is a masterwork, a must read for every educated person. Marx was a brilliant thinker without doubt.

Stark financial inequality will have an impact on our democracies. We must beware of that. Studying Marx now is very important.

>Economists don't respect marx at all.

Economists have loads of respect for Marx, they just dislike him because he didn't contribute to free market thought - which is what economists usually are about.

Well think about the academic landscape. The ratio of retard positions to real positions are about 3:1 and usually that 3 side are hyper leftists who never ventured outside their field of study and stayed in academia the whole time. But that's mainly from the side of the leadership like professors.

For students it's because of the ever growing polarization between political parties. Marxism sounds good on paper and due to the 2007/2008 financial crisis people went with a version of the no true scottsman philosophy. I've also noticed it's common among my fellow students to, as said before, never study outside their major and when forced to take an economics or sociology class take the 100 flat level which is basically a high school course that they can literally not pay attention to and get an A.

Yeah fuckboy had some points but that shit ain't gonna happen and even if it did I bet these people still would bitch or become like Bryan Griffon from family guy and become a right winger because it's the new cool.

most historian consider his ideas on history deeply flawed.

Because people who take the time to read and think tend to recognize he's right, ignorant people get swayed by right wing propaganda.

Sorry but it's true.

Also, read reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/4losrq/in_my_very_limited_scope_it_seems_like_marx_is/ for less bullshitty answers.

I bet you think Communism the the sole legacy of Marx.

Historians spend so much time looking backwards they also start thinking backwards

So when are people going to finally realize that both socialism and capitalism are wrong and that State Capitalism is objectively and without refutation the best economic system?

fucking what dude

Capitalism is bretty good once you have enough liquor factories.

...

The third position is the future

>most marxists are very understanding of the working class
>working class people are overrepresented in voting for "far right" parties.

Nigga are you retarted?

This is Nietzsche right?

Examples of state capitalism:
Post-Deng China
Japan between the Meji restoration and American occupation
Prussia for almost its entire history
Singapore
Most European countries in WW1, Germany (and arguably America) in WW2
Norway, modern day
Switzerland, depending on how specific you want to define a few things

State capitalism has shown to have a truly amazing track record and the only reason people think otherwise is because of literal memes (muh free market, muh class consciousness)

The working class despise Marxists

We should be a capitalist technocracy.

Marx is seen as a positive mostly for the problems he exposes, not the solutions he presents. Alienation of labor, class struggle, and exploitation are problems within the free market. Does that mean Capitalism is bad? Of course not. I'd rather have some complaints about the free market rather than the endless masturbation of Ancaps/Libertarians over how Capitalism will make anime real.

does the fact that the working class does not widely support marxism necessarily mean that marxists don't understand why the working class thinks the way they do (ie not supporting marxism but instead right wing parties)? no. it doesn't.

most marxists are members of the working class who have put in the time to understand what marxism is and why it is beneficial to them. a majority of working class members do not have the time to study philosophy or discover what marxism is about compared to their preconceptions of it provided by the government and media of capitalist nations.

Not just the media and government, corporate propaganda invades schools, churches, city halls, they stop at nothing to control what lower classes think. Read historical work on it.

You're actually right but not for the reasons you think.

There is no pure communism and pure capitalism as spoken about by adherents. Every successful nation has been a kind of state capitalism, you just have to implement it correctly.

That refers to Britain, Soviet Russia, United States etc.

Based Reddit

Literally the worst of both worlds.

Orthodox economists work

Marxist economists teach

...

It's cool kid, don't let it happen again.

>replying

>posting a meme bait image

Did you just begin your thesis with a made up ratio?

Why do you come to this board if you don't even do the bare minimum amount of research on topics

what did you seriously expect from an anime forum you sperg

This world ends in some type of socialism might as well pick one

And here comes the obnoxious "intellectual" determined to look down on everyone for being obviously dumber than His Glory

>Marxism is an aesthetic movement of bourgeoisie values against aristocratic one, economic results don't matter
Isn't it the other way around? Communism and utopian socialism was mainly developed by the old arostocracy that lost its status to the bourgouis.

this tendency for people to shout down anyone who asks for some modicum of research as an 'intellectual' who should be ignored is seriously damaging to the education of people in general. so long as you see people who are educated in opposition to you, you'll never be able to actually learn about the shit you're opposed to. you'll be forever ignorant.

i'm sure you'll look at this post with the same disdain as you did for the other one, but at least consider the fact you're doing yourself no favors here. you benefit no one with anti-intellectualism. we should celebrate knowledge, not shun it.

Go and say that in a baltic republic or Poland . The soviet union was an empire that basically monopolized commie manufacturing. When China and the other countries stopped buying the USSR products,the USSR economy went to shit. It is not a tale of commie succes,when you are given basically the monopoly of manufacturing of over 2 billion people

>capitalism tends to fail fairly often
Like when? For the moment only places like Venezuela are going to shit,and they are not capitalistic

>All other ideas, like dialectic materialism, alienation of labor, and his analysis on economic crises have proved as accurate as ever.
No. His theories are obsolete,they were alredy rebutted in his life time.

2008 comes to mind as the most recent economic crash. people losing their jobs, their homes, their wealth.

>His theories are obsolete,they were alredy rebutted in his life time.

[citation needed]

>Because people who take the time to read and think tend to recognize he's right
Only pseudointellectuals takes Marx meme theories seriously.

There's a person with knowledge and then there's an intellectual. Knowledge is fine, but intellectuals like you usually wank over how much wiser you are than the common man and will instantly attack anyone you disagree with as doing no research without any context.

>Switzerland
I am curious about this. Switzerland is very Cantonal and with very few regulations,and as far as I know,none state owned companies.
Feel free to correct me

...

Good point
Do you take some kind of pride in being misinformed?

Anything to avoid being seen as 'obnoxious' right?

Recessions happen in every economic system from feudalism to socialism. Recessions prove nothing. The system didnt crash in 2008,unlikes Venezuela's

>Minor post ricardian

Muh economists are free market shills. Economists say markets are generally good with a disclaimer ( not always good), politicians take the rhetoric but don't actually listen to the disclaimer, and forget about the regulations that really need to be scrapped.

Aside from the oil industry Norway isn't state run.

Central planning is only good for a war effort, dreadful at meeting consumer demands.

Marx went wrong when he turned what should have been a purely deconstructive form of critique into a costructive ideology (I.e. communism)

By writing the Manifesto Marx created yet another form of the thing he was trying to defeat

kys fgt

How do I start with Marx?

You mean mixed economy?
Capitalism does not mean only pure anarchocapitalism.

>Marxism
>Good for the working class

I've seen that graph posted a lot recently.

He is making it up

Marxism is a method of analysis.

>soviet dictatorship and puppet states are gommunism

Soviet Russia and satellite states were as communist as the HRE was
>
>
>

german ideology

>Not
>Real
>Socialism

Central planning is decent at trying to play catch-up when you have a roadmap and a clear destination ahead of you.

When I stop playing Vicky 2 and deal with reality.

...Which one is real, however?

One of the few not stupid posts itt

>over how Capitalism will make anime real.
Better than state-enforced collectivization of waifu.

Any actual socialism where the means of social ownership is enforced by state ownership by definition necessitates an effective democratic government in which society at large controls the state which owns the capital.

Which the Supreme Soviet was obviously not. The Supreme Soviet eventually became a rubber stamp that provided legitimacy by formally declaring the consent of the governed.

The Soviet system just created an oligarchy/dictatorship run by the Party, where control over capital was restricted to a small elite class of Party members. Similar to the "state capitalism" people refer to China as today.

...

>free market
Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

What exactly is wrong with his analysis of capitalism?
Go ahead, since you're an expert, enlighten us.
Keep in mind, ANALYSIS, not ideas on how to proceed.

>inb4 misconstruing ltv

>Another thread on Marxism.
>Over half the thread as usual is nothing but kids who don't even know what Marxism is.
>The other half are "Marxists" trying to school the kids on how little they understand about Marxism for that sweet user Karma.
>At the end of the thread, the kids will still be retards who think the USSR was the epitome of Communism and will come back tomorrow and make the same shit posts they did before again and again.
>This cycle will never end.

>my perfect definition of "free market" has never been realized

It hasn't though.

That's how arguments on the Internet in general work like

>one idiot argues with another idiot
>one idiot gains the upper hand
>other idiot stops arguing, later googles something to reaffirm his original belief
>repeat

At best, attempts at socialism turn into social democracy with more labor camps and mass executions.

At worst they implode and everyone starves while infrastructure collapses and then some opportunists swoop in, buy everything up dirt cheap, and we're back to square one.

Can we say the same thing about socialism then?

How would one "buy" "capital" when "capital" can not be "private"??

I'm telling you that you don't even know what a free market is.

Those are ideas on what to do.
Marx however was primarily an analyst. And his analysis is very often correct. Please read at least basics and you'll understand.
I'm not a communist. I simply acknowledge that Marx can teach you about capitalism. It's not a religion (even though it was treated as such, sadly), it's a theory.
90% of critiques of Marx actually criticize socialist states that appeared, not the theory of Marx.

I mean after the socialist government collapses, like what happened in the former USSR and the Yugoslav republics.

Or they attack LTV when they misunderstand what Marx was trying to say about LTV, or even worse they make up a definition of LTV Marx never used.

Do you know how socialism collapsed here?
Neoliberal "shock therapy". That's the direct cause of chaos, not socialist system.
I'm not arguing socialism worked great, on the contrary, but using collapse which was caused by neoliberal ideas as a way to criticize socialism is simply awful.

You think the USSR collapsing was natural? It didn't implode by itself. It was the result of a cold war.

If you want to argue that capitalism gave the west the upper hand, you can try. But one can try to claim capitalism gave America the upper hand against fascist Germany, when the realty is different.

By the way, I hate Soviet Russia and I'm not a Soviet apologist. There's other reasons for the collapse of the USSR besides gommunismlel

The USSR had almost a monopoly in manufacturing in the commie block. It was strong because of this,not because its socialistic policies worked wonders. When China started to trade with the US,the USSR started to tremble.