Why does Veeky Forums hate him so much? Why are you all a bunch of classcucks?

No

this dude had a heavy hand in guiding the events of ww1 and 2 along with communism and the jews.

thats why Veeky Forums hated him

marxism is easily manipulated into singular power.
its also why its heavily taught in schools again.

because the reptilian motherfuckers who pushed it back then are trying to woo us down that road again

No what?

>his blanket assertion that "use value" and "exchange value" are completely independent of each other.

marx doesn't say this though. the two are both important details of a commodity. they're not independent because the exchange value (read: not necessarily its price) of a product can reflect how much demand there is for the use value of the commodity. marx doesn't deny supply and demand.

>marx doesn't say this though

No, he just says, and I quote.

>We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed.

And then a couple of paragraphs later (Sorry, ran over the post limit, continued later.)

>The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labor time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labor. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of practical application, the social organization of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labor in favorable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavorable, only in four. The same labor extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth's surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labor time. Certainly much labor is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian dimaond mines for eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realized the price of one and a half years' average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labor, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labor would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall.

I don't see anything about the demand side in there, do you?

Can there be a SINGLE day where this motherfuckers face and "muh communism" isn't posted here?

the day the gestapo gets formed again
(hopefully soon)

Well, at least it's slightly better than alt-right shitposting. Not by much though

you mispelt cossack and
>fuck
>off
>krout

In what conceivable way is the same stale ass Marxism that's been peddled for over a hundred years better than even the lamest frog-poster on Veeky Forums?

Literally voodoo magic determinism(all materialism is) that doesn't allow for contradictions(dialectics don't count) that actually do exists.

haha nice 1 my dude

Alt-right is a legitimate political threat moving forward

Nah negro, Marxism is immortal

Why do you even bother? Most people that hate him never read anything he wrote and thinks cultural marxism is linked with Marx.

Me personally have a problem with Marx because he failed to recongnize that humans get corrupted with power. If we observe all the countries that implemented Marxist ideals never passed the "proletariat dictatorship" stage, because they end up wasting a lot of resources in the army and other futile things.
Afterwards as the years go by, the new leaders just become more and more complacent. This lead to the collapse of the USSR. China and Vietnam simply switched to state sponsered capitalism.
It's ridiculous how any of those countries never tried to simply erased the central bank.

But i still think Marx was brilliant in his analysis of the capitalism model and debunk it.
Impressive how he could predict so many things and he couldn't even imagine the type of bullshit that exists nowdays with credit cards, derivative market and shit like that.

t. Anarchist

>believe capitalism should be supplanted by socialism

That's just realism, not communism.

Which is why it's a thousand times more entertaining than old and busted marxism!

Off to the gulag with ye

youtube.com/watch?v=kOnIp69r6vg

this

Realism is saying "capitalism >will be< replaced by socialism" (objectively true unless the world ends soon). Communism is saying "capitalism >should< replace socialism" (subjectively true).

>I think it's the bizarre levels of butthurt defensiveness around him that cause the notion that he's "hated".
this

I don't understand how people can still be communists or socialists. It's the current year. Are you all still in high school?

Veeky Forums made all the lefties come out of the woodwork and semi-troglodyte /pol/acks showed up to yell at "Muh commeys".

>dude if we create a proletariat dictatorship then the ruling elite will just willingly give up power and dissolve the state bro
Marx was a fucking idiot who didn't understand human nature

>literally has less credibility than Austrian Economics
>Classcucks

Please do keep this trash of Veeky Forums (mainly speaking about the usage of cuck) because Veeky Forums is better than such dribble.

dweeb

classcuck

>"It's a retard agrees with someone empirically btfo" comment
I will never take an anarchist's opinion seriously.

>Doesn't understand or rejects marginalism

Are you serious right now? Maybe go look up the rise of marginalism in economic thought and compare the dates to when Marx wrote his work.

Not to mention that a Marxian approach would categorically reject the circular set of idealist assumptions that underpins marginal utility theory, in particular the assumption of a set of non-derrivable relative preferences that can only be observed based upon the market price structure those same preferences are meant to explain.

Furthermore, the independence of use value and exchange value in the Marxian approach is self evident based on the independence of their sources. Use value is inherent in the good, while exchange value is necessarily a social construct. Air has an extremely high use value to humans, but zero exchange value except where it has been touched by human labour (compressed air for tanks of all kinds). Meanwhile gold has a high exchange value while having limited use value except as a store of echange value itself.

>Determinism

Marx was not a determinist. Anyone who thinks he was is mistaking Marx's often very poor summaries of his work for the long-form.

>look mommy I'm being a tough guy on the Internet

You're as bad as the SJWs dozing people on tumblr

The amount of autism is fucking hilarious

Because he was spooked AF, naieve and didn't believe in acting in his own self interest

>Human nature

Marx strenuously argued against there being such a thing as a fixed and unchanging "human nature." When you consider the incredible variety of totally contradictory social forms humans have lived within and adapted themselves too, he had a bit of a point.

Please actually read Marx, esp German Ideology before commenting

I like Stirner alot, but Stirnerfags who don't know what they're talking about are the fucking worst.

Marx and Stirner are far more compatible than you realize.

Off to leftypol you go

>max
>Marx
>compatible

If you actually read Stirner he opposed socialism and communism.

Fuck off, tankie

Lmao this autism

marx and stirner are compatible, and liking marx doesn't make somebody a tankie you retard.

LTV is wrong, materialistic history is wrong, blank-slatism is wrong, every single thing he's ever said is wrong.

Because commies are obnoxious faggots who shit up the board with terrible threads.

*tips fedora*

>/pol/-influenced territory,
Mate, you're delusional. /pol/ is an /int/ autism and /b/ trapgfag colony.

>X is just as bad as anti-X
Kys

>jewish supremacism

Why is this bad? Jews have proven time and time again that they are the superior race, we should just succumb to our servile instincts and bend the knee.

Demand is implied in any explanation of a market, hence the idiom, supply and demand. Use-value implies demand as well, it's the utility the buyer gets, and hence, demands. If you actually read the rest of his reasoning, he doesn't actually mean that they're totally unrelated, an item must have some use-value to drive demand. Just that use-value is not the prime determinant of exchange-value is, the average required costs of production are, at least in a competitive market, that's including ownership of capital and resources. Marginalism doesn't even contradict this.

Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. [...] His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other.
Cambridge 1995, p. 108

I honestly don't think egoism and socialism are completely incompatible, if one thinks of socialism as a higher form of of a union of egoists than capitalism.

In fact, I would argue socialism is more compatible with a union of egoists if one thinks that collectively participating in a union, and offering one's hand in collective force to enforce certain conceptions of property. The union of egoists, if it is "socialist", employs force collectively, to protect the collective property of the union.

On the other hand, a "capitalist" union will collectively lend their might, even when a single individual uses it against the interest of the other members of the union. That's about the spookiest thing you can do.

You would probably end up somewhere in between, but collective force to ensure certain standards would not be employed to elevate one member to exploit or disadvantage the other members of the union. If they did, those individuals would simply leave the union.

Working for a rich man instead of yourself is a spook. Working for a collective instead of yourself is also a spook. Stiner's staunch individualism is why he is not compatible with socialism/communism.

>classcucks
pic related

Most co-ops exist not because people want to work for the collective, but because the co-op provides better opportunities than independent self-employment, or employment under another individual. Since the workers are worker-owners, they collectively work for their own collective selves. Co-ops are closer to a union of egoists than other business structures.

An egoist does not wish to be exploited, and if he finds an advantage in being part of some sort of systematic union that does not exploit them. And such a union would not stand for being exploited, as that would require the individuals to elevate a spook above their own interests.

"Socialism" works are long as you consider it for the good of every individual, rather than the collective greater good which may require sacrifices from individuals. Although even then, you could just use your collective might to force your property to do it. He simply would not be sacrificing anything because it wasn't his to begin with, because he had no might which too claim authority with.

One would simply be removing the spook of duty and greater good, while at the same time eliminating the spook that you have any entitlement to property that you could give up. It is dome because the collective has the might to defend their property from you as an individual and use their might to force you to do things.

Yes, I know Stirnerites are going to say I'm misusing the term.

>cucks
off to /pol/ with you.

t. classcucks

>communism = jewish supremacism
>communism is against organized religion
You are such a doofus