Why is everyone studying humanities so fond of Marxism?

True, most marxists are academic who never had a job. I was leftist until I started working.

>Anyone who ever had a job has to atleast have a little bit of sympathy for Marxism

Cringe.
It's obvious most of you who think like this are lazy and incompetent., and probably have very little experience as well.
And, no, people with real jobs and years of work would never be Marxist.

>and everyone hates their boss
my boss is a cool guy, so no, I don't.

Where do you work?

If you got a real job (hint: don't major in history) then maybe you would be less negative

Research in STEM, in Romania.
I know you probably think I'm shitposting but it's true. It's not perfect but I can manage.

So you have no experience of working yourself?

what are you talking about

Being an assistant researcher in a laboratory and a teacher IS working, it's not just reading books if that's what you're thinking.
Unless you mean being my own boss, then no.

The same could be said of Marxist professors. Are you really so naive of how the academy works that you think it is just professors reading books all day?

By "Marxist" you mean you believed in absolute equality and a welfare state in the US, or Sovietism in the EU, rather than Marx's critique on capital. I have no idea why working would make a person stop believing in the inherent contradictions of capitalism, unless they chose to shut it out because thinking about it is debilitating. There's non-Marxist articles on it all the time since the recession. Everyone just tiptoes around the elephant in the room because once people see the word Marx they tune out and project what they think Marxism is.

Not everyone, only the people studying at (((western universities)))

Are there any non-western universities at all?

I doubt he works with carcinogen compounds everyday, or works some expensive machinery or checks hundreds of calculations made by distracted students.
But, no I'm not assuming a "Marxist professor" only does some one dimensional activity, just like I don't assume this about my professors.
It's just that people here in general assume this about everyone working in some "intellectual" field.

Because academia held american values before the 60's and acted against those that expressed objectively shit ideas.
Then in the 60's and 70's soviet infiltrators hijacked the civil rights efforts and turned academia into what it is today.

To be fair, I'm studying Finance and Business and I figure we will need socialism or communism in 20 years due to automation.

In non-western countries.

>inherent contradictions of capitalism,
wwwwwwwwwwww

Only in every non-western country.

But they are all shit tbqh
>inb4 le grorious nippon just like in muh animus

You will need some form of welfare until the proles die out. That's different from socialism.

It's pretty fucking obvious.

A semi-related question:
Why do all STEM-fags buy into the whole "work hard and study and you will become rich"-meme? I've seen so many spoiled brats on this site who brags about how they will be rich engineers on this site. But you never see any rich engineers on this site either, do you?

We had a guest speaker in class who basically talked about ETFs who said that money managers and people who do analysis are being automated out of a job due to ETF.

Although I don't want to go into Wall Street I still fear for my job in 20 years.

Maybe this is a conversation for Veeky Forums though.

>critique
Implying

"Wah, I don't like efficiency."
"if everyone was forced to work and be inefficient, then we would all feel better and be super efficient!"
"Like I totally bet we could totally make labor 3 or 4 times more efficient if we just abandoned specialization"
"I like chairs, but I don't like people"
"Market failures only exist in capitalism"
"Central planning is definitely better. The will of a small group can definitely respond to the needs and desires of everyone better than the will of everyone can..."
"No growth is better than a growth cycle"
"What's a self regulating system???"
"I don't want to have to work, but have no money or skills... If only I could somehow be a global tom sawyer..."
"I'm sure people give a shit about the things they use when there is no reason/incentive to do so. Property is evil."
"Ofc the sub 65 IQ guy should do the same work as the savant, it's only fair"

Was it really necessary to put so many strawmen in one single post?

It's not like you end up with a bad life having $100k/yr. Most people who make that much think the system is fine. Ironically, that $100k is only meaningful because they employ the services of people who make much less than $100k/yr, who the system is not working as great for. Then they'll turn around and say they deserve it and be proud of accomplishing what they've accomplished, and say anyone could do it if they tried.

Basically, STEMfags have been given a lifestyle well above average, and they're very happy being above average. The system elevates them and recognizes their above averages so they're happy.

I study history and don't like marxism as political doctrine. I mean, is important and several historians follows Marx theories, but is not for me.

0/10

>By "Marxist" you mean you believed in absolute equality and a welfare state
Yep, one of those people.

>things have value
>some things can't be fractioned
>value can more efficiently be assessed in terms of a divisible intermediate thing of value
I see no contradiction... Capitalism is trade and property rights.

>things have no value (no one wants anything)
>Everyone is equal in every way (they aren't)
>My feelings on a chair are more important than the chair itself
>My feelings have more value than reality
>If we all work together, we can get some amount of the things we might want
I see contradictions here though...

Socialism will win due to automation tbqh

>things have value
>some things can't be fractioned
>value can more efficiently be assessed in terms of a divisible intermediate thing of value
What does this have to do with socialism or the accumulation of capital, profit distribution between capital and labor, and the inherent conflicts of interests arising between owners and workers?

>I see contradictions here though...
Because those things aren't Marxism.

The point of Marxism is entitling the laborer to the fruits of his labor, not equality. Of course you literally can not understand this because all you know about Marx is capitalist memes and the USSR, even when you can actually read Marx's book yourself.

technofuedalism*

The secret to making more money is incredibly simple.
Produce more value.

STEM is more profitable than manual labor because it makes more value.
Being a cashier pays poorly because anyone can use an automated calculator.

>Ironically, that $100k is only meaningful because they employ the services of people who make much less than $100k/yr,
>people who make much less than $100k/yr, who the system is not working as great for.
Thatcher.png
That_not_that_but_that.webm

>people who make much less than $100k/yr, who the system is not working as great for.
Ironically, they are much better off than their parents were (who likely produced and earned similar amounts of value), because of the stem fags...
They produce the same amount of value, yet live much better lives due to other people's efforts.

>Then they'll turn around and say they deserve it and be proud of accomplishing what they've accomplished, and say anyone could do it if they tried.
They do...
They can...

If your labor is more valuable, then you should support Marxism, as Marxism aims to entitle the laborer to the fruits of his own labor, and seeks to prevent others, (((capitalists))), from taking a cut of the value produced.

Marxism is equality is a meme.

>However, Marxism rejected egalitarianism in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the division between workers and owners of productive property. Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest (such as a universal notion of "equality"), but was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires. Thus, Marx's notion of communist society is radically individualistic.
> Although Marx's position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, in reality Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic

STEMfags being content because they end up in a privileged position is not contradictory with any of these.

In what country do you live holy shit

>What does this have to do with socialism or the accumulation of capital, profit distribution between capital and labor, and the inherent conflicts of interests arising between owners and workers?
an user said the inherent contradictions of capitalism were apparent if you looked.
I posted capitalism. (I left out property because I forgot desu)

>The point of Marxism is entitling the laborer to the fruits of his labor, not equality.
You're (not trying to imply you) completely free to establish a commune under a capitalist system.
Isn't it weird how marxists/commie faggots are never willing to risk their own money/labour unless they are able to force everyone else to as well.

>even when you can actually read Marx's book yourself.
I'm lazy and I don't need to because I understand the principals. There is a reason why communes fail, and it's not capitalism or even relative inefficiency. It's the people.
And the only way that you can get it to appear to work is with force.

>Marx is capitalist memes and the USSR
#notall[insert thing here]
#Imwithher
#sovietswrentmarxists
100% totally agree. I'm the memester here for sure...

Something tells me a stem commune would turn out poorly.
If you managed to produce anything new of any value you would immediately leave and try to cover up the fact that it happened.
You would then make your own company producing X and make more money.

I like capitalism precisely because it lets you have the full fruits of your labor and luck.
Risk is rewarded.
A fraction of the value you produce if the price you pay for notably less risk.

>(I left out property because I forgot desu)
Private ownership of capital is what makes capitalism capitalism versus any other form of market economy, like market socialism. Socialism being centrally planned economies and capitalism being markets is a meme.

>You're (not trying to imply you) completely free to establish a commune under a capitalist system.
I'm self employed and own my own means of production, but some of that comes by luck. People like you are so ridiculously bluepilled by (((capitalists))) that you refuse to look at economic realities. The (((capitalist))) strings you on, dangling a carrot in front of you, and you're content as long as you get the carrot, failing to understand the reason why the (((capitalist))) has the carrot in the first place is because you just ploughed his carrot field for him.

>Isn't it weird how marxists/commie faggots are never willing to risk their own money/labour unless they are able to force everyone else to as well.
Marxism meaning equality is such a meme that even people that self-identify as Marxists believe it, but it's not what Marxism is.

>I'm lazy and I don't need to because I understand the principals.
No, you're lazy, and you let your (((capitalist))) masters interpret Marxism for you, and misrepresent Marxism when those principles you listed are not Marxist.

>There is a reason why communes fail, and it's not capitalism or even relative inefficiency.
There are actually successful co-ops, and the biggest corporations are publicly owned, and not directly managed by the shareholders. The reasons why communes fail is because anyone that calls themselves a commune is a bunch of flower-power hippies that think Marxism is equality.

>And the only way that you can get it to appear to work is with force.
No, it's by entitling them to the fruits of their labor. Unless it's capitalism, then the (((capitalist))) will only give you part of that and keep the rest, because he owns the means of production

>meme strawman hashtags
>hillary is marxist
>I'm the memester here for sure...
Yes, you really are the memester. Read a fucking book. Marxism is equality is a meme pushed by (((capitalists))) because they want you to stay bluepilled and not know what Marxism actually is. It's much easier to attack the absolute equality strawman and people that believe in it, than have the proles actually understanding what Das Kapital says.

>The (((capitalist))) strings you on, dangling a carrot in front of you, and you're content as long as you get the carrot, failing to understand the reason why the (((capitalist))) has the carrot in the first place is because you just ploughed his carrot field for him.

Is actually what you think happens? Are you five years old?

>dude it's all the JEWS lmao

There is no proof of a Jewish conspiracy lad, only names.

>work is a fucking chore

All iterations of Communism relied on mass employment and usually a hefty amount of literal slave labor.

>If you managed to produce anything new of any value you would immediately leave and try to cover up the fact that it happened.
The (((capitalist))) instead makes you sign a contract that says while employed by the (((capitalist))) all your ideas are owned by him.

>You would then make your own company producing X and make more money.
With what capital? By seeking capitalist (((investors))) and getting loans from (((bankers)))?

>I like capitalism precisely because it lets you have the full fruits of your labor and luck.
No it doesn't unless you own the capital.

>Risk is rewarded.
That's entrepenuerism, something that can exist in a market socialism. You're still on the Marxism is equality meme.

>A fraction of the value you produce if the price you pay for notably less risk.
That's the price you pay for not having capital.

>this (((autism)))

>Socialism being centrally planned economies and capitalism being markets is a meme.
I disagree. while definitions (that have been changed for deception) can be memes, this isn't one of those times.

>>You're (not trying to imply you) completely free to establish a commune under a capitalist system.
>but some of that comes by luck
And that is the reason why you get the full fruits of your labor. Your risk, your reward.
>carrot analogy and (((capitalist))) lizardmen
I understand, but I choose to go along with it because the potential benefits are infinite compared to finite.
You can only produce so much value yourself, but if you are willing to accept risk and uncertainty you can earn absurdly more.

>but it's not what Marxism is
You're no true scotsmanning. I get that marxism has diverged from its founding documents, but you lost the name game a long time ago.
Call yourself something else.

>There are actually successful co-ops
>and the biggest corporations are publicly owned
By private individuals...
>and not directly managed by the shareholders.
Shareholders can vote you know. There is no reason why an individual can't acquire a majority of shares and elect themselves.

>Unless it's capitalism, then the (((capitalist))) will only give you part of that and keep the rest, because he owns the means of production
He also owns the risk. If everyone is entiteled to the full fruits of their labor, then they must also own the risk and uncertainty that comes along with it.
Most people aren't willing to do so which is why most people aren't self employed.

.

Lad, it's called bants.
You aren't allowed to give bants and then act like a cunt for getting bants back.

I'm doing fine arts, and theory course is all Marxist bullshit.

They often try to lecture us about post colonialism and how art as a result has changed.

Often it's the perspectives and attitudes of artists who have faced some sort of "injustice" or who are critiquing past crimes.

What pisses me off is that they don't really like classical or modernist art, which in my opinion should be taught more.

It's very left wing politically, even in the tutorial sessions.

I remember one class we were talking about Donald Trump and the question came up "Since when was America GREAT?"

To which I replied

>well if we're talking about the post WWII economic boom, then one could make the case that that was period of time that America was great-

They then went full Carl the Cuck on AIDS Skrillex as they cut me off to which I said

>unless we're talking about the treatment of women and minority groups which is an entirely different story all together.

They all had some sort of sigh of relief after that.

Also, it should be noted that most of these students (in arts) are women, and come from public schools. They've been exposed to radical feminist rhetoric

>I'm doing fine arts
>>well if we're talking about the post WWII economic boom, then one could make the case that that was period of time that America was great-
You may live.

>blue pilled
>Jewish conspiracy

Remind me why stormfags are allowed on Veeky Forums

>stormfag
>nazis in anyway other than name
>bluepill
>anti-capitalist
wew lad

I studied history and the Cold War, as well as communist and fascist countries.

I'm somewhat Libertarian because of that.

Oh so the (((((capitalists))))) you're referring to are Irish then?

And not Jewish?

I'm not sayings that jews don't give jews preferential treatment.
I'm saying that critique of that isn't the same as being a marxist and that defense of capitalism isn't defense of propoganda/bias.

>I disagree. while definitions (that have been changed for deception) can be memes, this isn't one of those times.
Yes, it literally is you bluepilled faggot. Socialism is not incompatible with market economies. What the fuck do you think "to each according to his contribution means" which is the distribution principle of socialism? It means if you contribute more you get more. The difference is Marxists don't consider ownership a contribution like capitalism does.

>You're no true scotsmanning.
If it's not Scottish by ancestry, does not live in Scotland, and not a man, then it's not a true Scottsman.

> I get that marxism has diverged from its founding documents, but you lost the name game a long time ago.
Because the current definition is literally a meme.

>Call yourself something else.
Should I call it true Marxism, or will that just trigger your true Scotsman fallacy?

>By private individuals...
Those private individuals are only needed because of their ownership, not because of any labor contribution to the company. Which is the point. They're not being rewarded for their work.

>Shareholders can vote you know.
It's very limited unless you're a majority shareholder.

>There is no reason why an individual can't acquire a majority of shares and elect themselves.
It's literally because it costs too much money.

>He also owns the risk.
Banks don't. What do you think debt and collateral are? If they're an investor, then they're claiming part of the risk. They're also claiming part of the reward, even though they're not personally putting in any work except providing capital.

>Most people aren't willing to do so which is why most people aren't self employed.
There's things like barriers to entry and economies of scale, if you took econ 101 you'd know this.

>I'm not saying Jews don't give Jews preferential treatment

>implying

>dude i love humanities
>pursues ideology that seeks to destroy many of the humanities for the sake of "perfect equality"

?????

am i missing something?

That's because capitalists want you to think private ownership of property is required for markets, and capitalism, including private ownership of capital, is the only for of market economy.

Most people who defend capitalism can't distinguish between capitalist and entrepreneur, or capitalism and markets.

>that thread
I want this "stem is right wing" meme to die but I know it never will

I'm a social anarchist but the study of Marxist theory is still important to draw from it alternatives to conservative policies.

Show me where Marx wrote "perfect equality"

Marx thought the concept of equality was bourgeois as fuck.

coming from someone thoroughly unfamiliar with marxism, can someone elaborate on this? Never heard of marxism "destroying humanities" (not that I'm denying it).

Daily reminder the notion of "equality" is foolish and unnatural

From Considérations sur la France (1797):

"I will simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution.

The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.

....This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva. But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits....

What is a constitution? Is it not the solution to the following problem: to find the laws that are fitting for a particular nation, given its population, its customs, its religion, its geographical situation, its political relations, its wealth, and its good and bad qualities?

Now, this problem is not addressed at all by the Constitution of 1795, which is concerned only with Man."

Or you could just kill the proles

"Why even have a constitution? Memes already exist. Why look at me, I'm memeing right now."
Fucking cucks.

Is this the ramblings of a schizo or do you have a point you are trying to emphasize?

Marxism means equality is a meme.
>Although Marx's position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, in reality Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.

Adam Smith, founder of modern market economics, on the other hand, literally thought free markets would bring about real equality.
>THE whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock must, in the same neighbourhood, be either perfectly equal or continually tending to equality.

"This is bad because I say so. Memes. Look a meme."

This desu.

And once you've killed the proles, you now have post-scarcity utopia, and since everyone owns enough capital to sustain themselves, you will end up with marketless stateless gommunist utopia.

>cucks

>lol lets make everyone follow the same laws b/c lol xd everyones the same trust me itll work guys xdddddd

>french
>not a cuck

>establishing a ruling class by law
Good idea...

>making inherently unequal people be considered equal by law
Good idea...

not slave labor at all look at the DDR, they had better work conditions than americans and europeans today

>Accepting equality under the law and rejecting literal equality isn't possible ;)
>Why even codify laws?

>lol i swear guys we totally dont want a gommunist equal soicety its just the law i swear haha xddd
>law: men can get drafted into the military in
wartime
>omg thats ntos equal u gotta aplly it to both sexes equally omg the sexes are exactly thes aeme

>Accepting equality of ownership of capital and rejecting literal equality isn't possible ;)
Modern capitalist economics was literally founded on the ideas of an egalitarian.

But that's not true. Singapore, China and South Korea all have internationally highly regarded universities.

>stem is right wing
The linked posts show the exact opposite, retard.

He said it's a meme and he wants it to die, dumbdumb.

>he

Those posts only show the college level individuals are leftists. It gives no mention of degree.
If you get rid of the fake fields/degrees polluting academia, you find it is right wing.
Good luck finding an engineer or economist that is leftist.

Proof?

Because Marxism is correct.

Because marxism is incorrect.

Baited

>Good luck finding an engineer or economist that is leftist.
I'm leftist and my economist uncle is leftist too. I doubt he'd have /that/ hard of a time.

I sorry I didn't learn your pronouns.

The opposite is true.

...