Why are the humanities so obsessed with Marx?

idk. his analysis of capitalism's underpinnings is mostly spot on but it's wrong to treat him as infallible. he himself distanced himself from certain parts of das kapital later on in his life, particularly his theory that rate of profit always tends to fall.

OP, I encourage you to check out, "Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education" by Based Roger Kimball.

Because they never suffer consequences of the ideas the spout.

Because they have never taken economics 101 or really know anything about resource allocation, value, wealth and so on

Because they're fucking pussies who reduce every human inequity as oppression or literal raping, constantly trying to escape personal responsibility and self esteem

I hate dealing with humanities departments. They were never working class they've never had to work period. Fucking pansy faggots

>particularly his theory that rate of profit always tends to fall
Not his theory. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall was first, a tendency not an eventuality, and second it was an observed phenomenon noted by prior economists. Theories on it were explanations why it tended to happen. It's not even really relevant.

Econ 101 is about supply and demand and mostly micro, they purposefully obfuscate the effects of capital in a market economy in 101. It's pretty clear you've never taken Econ 101 or read Kapital.

[CITATION NEEDED]

> It's not even really relevant.
K.

>falls during the golden age
I don't get it.

>It's not even really relevant.
How is it not relevant if it's a core idea that supports his position that capitalism will ultimately eat itself?

The profit rate tend to fall when the organic composition(constant value/variable value) o capital gets bigger.
t.Marx

>How is it not relevant if it's a core idea that supports his position that capitalism will ultimately eat itself?
>a
Because its >a, not >the

Aspects of his work, along with aspects of the work of Weber and Durkheim, formed the basis for the Humanities—as a quick search online would have shown you: >Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful.

skepdic.com/scientism

Other economic theories = plausible theories based in reality

Marxism = science fiction retards took seriously

Kapital is at least better than CM

Marx fails to outline anything on efficient allocation of resources which at least in entry level macro econ, you'll learn basic price theory. He also fails to mention anything on wealth creation, rather just distribution.

Kapital was long as fuck to me so sorry if I don't remember all of Marxs shit. Just after reading about his life I had to figure out how he thought he could pontificate on things which he clearly knew nothing about

I find this language interesting since it's my understanding that Marx continued to write Capital (vols 2 & 3) until the moment of his death. If instead you refer only to vol 1, then it would be helpful to clarify same.

My point being that it is hard to distance oneself later in life from a work that you have spent the entire end of your life working on. Another topic for discussion: in the published versions of vols 2 & 3, are there retractions or qualifications of certain ideas that had been published in vol 1, directly to your point?

>ultimately eat itself
Not like this, but capitalism can't exists without crises and when the crises destroy excess capital(or the capital is sell for a lower price) the profit rate climbs again, and as the time passes the crises get bigger and bigger due to globalization and the volume of capital itself.
That's why we didn't come out of this crises yet, not enough capital was destroyed because of the government help, but they can't hold it for to long, the interest rates are negative already.

>Marx fails to outline anything on efficient allocation of resources which at least in entry level macro econ, you'll learn basic price theory. He also fails to mention anything on wealth creation, rather just distribution

Input output tables
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input–output_model

Humanities aren't that obsessed with Marx. I would say only sociologists are obsessed with Marx, and even then not all sociologists are hardcore Marxists.

People tend to conflate sociology with the humanities at large.

I don't see how that's relevant, could you elaborate

>value
Modern economics has given up on trying to define what value is and now treats it as synonymous with price.

>Marx fails to outline anything on efficient allocation of resources which at least in entry level macro econ, you'll learn basic price theory. He also fails to mention anything on wealth creation, rather just distribution.

Because he wrote a critique of capitalism, not a plan on how to fix it. He didn't even want to attempt to fix it because he thought it was fundamentally flawed. Just because you look at how to fix capitalism doesn't mean he did. He though to have efficient allocation of resources, the allocation of resources needed to be controlled by the people first.

You do realize Kapital was written a century and a half ago, and most of those theories you learn in classes now were developed after Marx died, right? He was very well read on the classical economists that came before. Are you really going to fault him for not having a time machine and predicting what future economists wrote?

And yes he did write on wealth creation. He attempted to correct some flaws in LTV to make more sense, because LTV was still the mainstream interpretation of value back when was alive.

Contrary to popular belief he was not writing a blueprint for communism nor was he writing comprehensive textbook to explain everything about economics, ever.

>Just after reading about his life I had to figure out how he thought he could pontificate on things which he clearly knew nothing about
What you're really saying is all you know about Marx came from an infographic.

>We falsified his unfalsifiable ideas and unfalsified the falsifiable ones.

Best post

>Really he should be up there with Darwin, Newton, or Plato as an ideological founder that is just accepted as a baseline for further development
You can see something of it in History, where liberal and even conservative scholars will make grudging concessions to the materialist conception of history.

>plato
>muh forms
>muh celestial spheres
Debunked hundreds of years ago. Platonists
BTFO
T
F
O

Because he was the first major cultural critic to apply a rigorous analysis to our society

You don't need markets to set prices, because the law of value isn't present in a socialist system(as it does in capitalism), you just need to divide the economy in sectors and do the material balance and chose where invest the surplus for a certain goal i.e grow the means of production or consuption.
That was the USSR economic system with Stalin(they used money just as a mean of acounting, it did not circulated), after his death, Khruschev introuduced vairous economic forms that in the end revived the law of value(profit motive in enterprises, co-ops owning the means of production, decentrilized the economic plan), and it culminated with the return to capitalism, as the law of value needs markets to be efficient(thats why people call him revisionist).

Dunno about the other humanities, but most of my good history professors were Marxists, the reason being that things like Historical Materialism are easily proven in world history and give meaning to what happened in history.

It's much more logical to say "history is about the progress of mankind" than it is to say "history is about stuff that happened."

Without Marx and Hegel the entire field of history is meaningless. On top of that he made so many contributions to other disciplines and was the first philosopher to actually delve into how capitalism works and where we as a society are headed due to industrial capitalism.

Or you could just use markets.

I mean if you know exactly where you want to head, like making a giant ass interstellar generation ship, and you have the computational power to calculate inputs and outputs, and effective means of checking these inputs and outputs, sure you could plan it.

>Really he should be up there with Darwin, Newton, or Plato as an ideological founder that is just accepted as a baseline for further development,

But he is

>1723400
[COLAPSE]

See this graph , capitalism will keep going in crises, we reach a point in the development of the productive forces in with actual markets and the relations of production are and impedment for progress.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

Good lecture if you wan't a Marxist perspective in the economy, and and critique of neoclassicals and keynesians.

>Not his theory.
Neither was the labour theory of value, which you find in Smith and Ricardo, but people who've only read the abridged Wealth of Nations and no Ricardo whatsoever don't know that.

user, where did the bad Humanities professor touch you?

His analysis of infra- and superstructures is the basis of all viable anthropological macro-theory today.

As a political idealist he might've been wrong, but as a social scientist I'm with this
he laid the foundation for scientific anthropology and sociology and should be up there with Darwin and Newton.as the leading figure of social science.

But there's no problem of capital accumulation in market socialism. There's a reason why the book is called Kapital and not Markets.

>Kapital is at least better than CM
Socialists contemporary with Marx regarded the Communist Manifesto as outmoded by Capital and writings like The Civil War in France.

The USSR was state-capitalist from its inception:

libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben

Humanities can not produce a profit. There for the state should steal other people's profit and support them.

In market socialism the law of value still vigent.
Anarkidie pls,, tell this to Marx:

>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
>Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
>Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

State as in the Dictartorship of the Proletariat
t.Lenin

Also people think that somehow they will get free shit, or at least bring you down to their level because they'll never amount to shit. So it's "fair".

>In market socialism the law of value still vigent.
There's nothing wrong with that if your alternative solution isn't any better in delivering utility/use-value

See
It's like you want to make the same mistakes as Khruschev/Tito and kill socialism again.

This.

In the case of his life, he raped his maid, continued to borrow money from friends and family, even of his wife until they all hated them. And never was one of the workers which he endlessly wrote about.

Lmao classcucks getting blown the motherfuck out in this thread.

Worldwide revolution when?

You're going to be the first to be lined up and shot by Comrade Jamal and comrade BillyBob faggot

>implying I'm not Comrade BillyBob

>It's like you want to make the same mistakes as Khruschev/Tito and kill socialism again.
No, your centralized economy socialism was retarded and didn't work in the first place and there's no chance a modernized market capitalism will ever go there. China is doing very well economically, it just happens to be shit on human rights, democracy, and not starting poor 100 years ago. A very pro-labor democracy however might trend towards market socialism. Your alternative is shit, and might be okay for building an evil empire, but not for the welfare of the people.

Markets are fucking shit for distributing resources because the competitive process creates huge amounts of waste

>Marx's idea of the form of this transition period did not remain static throughout his life. In the 1840's, he saw it as a Jacobin-style political dictatorship in the manner of Robespierre and St. Just. He later came to envisage a system of elected delegates to local committees, as in the Paris Commune. Towards the end of his life he saw it as a democratic republic based on a majority of delegates from a socialist party elected democratically to parliament.
Via socialismoryourmoneyback

>The dictatorship of the party cannot be consonant with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Either the proletariat rules or is ruled.
marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1938/revolution-failure.htm

The scientific method and falsificationism is literally a philosophical concept devised by karl popper.

Kill yourself.

>kill socialism again.
The Bolsheviks did a perfectly good job of that on his own:

>In the case of his life, he raped his maid
Falsifiable propaganda.

>And never was one of the workers which he endlessly wrote about.
He wrote about capitalists user.

>continued to borrow money from friends and family
Which is how he had lots of experience with capitalists, because Engels gave him money he didn't work for because Engel's daddy was a capitalist and they realized capitalists didn't have to work because they didn't get money from working, which made Marx pretty salty.

>mathematical models is science
That's why mathlets should be gassed

No, you're an edgy retarded hipster.

>Markets are fucking shit for distributing resources because the competitive process creates huge amounts of waste
You could just regulate your markets.

He and Engels studied the english working class via the workers of Engels family factory. See "The condition of the working class in England".

>No, your centralized economy socialism was retarded and didn't work in the first place
What was USSR when the planned economy was still vigent(until 1957).
> No chance a modernized market capitalism will ever go there.
Damn we have an idealist here.
>China is doing very well economically, it just happens to be shit on human rights, democracy, and not starting poor 100 years ago.
China is on the shitter if you watch the news closelly, there are already neo-maoist there m8.
>Your alternative is shit, and might be okay for building an evil empire, but not for the welfare of the people.
You can't reform capitalism, the profit rates will still fall even after a breathing room, when you attack the third worlds workers wage.
I wan't Marx's own books passage not some third party anrchotrot shit eater.

Ahh the sweet smell of anarkidies, you can't mistake it.

The SPGB and Paul Mattick aren't anarchists or Trots, and both draw on Marx. You should at least know Mattick for his study Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy. But that would mean reading outside the scriptures of St. Vlad, wouldn't it?

So many words to say nothing.

>What was USSR when the planned economy was still vigent(until 1957).
Shit
>Damn we have an idealist here.
Irony
>China is on the shitter if you watch the news closelly, there are already neo-maoist there m8.
There's otherkin in America, not sure what your point is m8. Does China's economy need to be reigned in to be in line with socialist and communist thought? Definitely. Is the Chinese economy failing and facing imminent economic collapse? No.
>You can't reform capitalism
Socialism != capitalism. Markets != capitalism. Socialism means the means of product are controlled by the proletariat. Capital means private ownership the means of production. In other words you're a retard.
>the profit rates will still fall even after a breathing room
If you actually believed Marx's explanations for the tendency, then they're mostly about capital accumulation. You're just one of those rabid anticaps. And guess what, you can always switch your market economy to planned later if it does continue to fall. You just do it at the point where it falls enough that it becomes the worse alternative.
>when you attack the third worlds workers wage.
We got a socialist in one country here.

Why are flies so obsessed with shit?

Why do people eat food that was grown in shit?

>The only communists on Veeky Forums are Stalinists
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.

Sounds like Bernie Sanders.

>Shit
From a feudal shithole to become the secong great power withou colonization or slavery.
>Irony
>We will never go from feudalism to capitalism guys i swear.
If you think the human history stops with capitalism you're an idealist that dont know history.

>If you actually believed Marx's explanations for the tendency, then they're mostly about capital accumulation. You're just one of those rabid anticaps. And guess what, you can always switch your market economy to planned later if it does continue to fall. You just do it at the point where it falls enough that it becomes the worse alternative.
Profit falls even without production for profits, truly amazing.
>We got a socialist in one country here.
?

>without colonization or slavery.

...

>From a feudal shithole to become the secong great power withou colonization or slavery.
Without colonization, right.
>If you think the human history stops with capitalism you're an idealist that dont know history.
Apparently you can't read because I keep saying socialism, and Marx's stages of history say socialism before communism.
>Profit falls even without production for profits, truly amazing.
I'm not even sure what you're smoking at this point.
>?
Well you certainly sing praises for it.

The anti-war movement of '68 was made of underground commies and they are all over universities right now

Do the math

>From a feudal shithole to become the secong great power withou colonization or slavery.

Are you fucking kidding me? You're talking about a country that was heavily dependent on slave labour for its economy that spent a good chunk of its existence milking satellite states.

>end of famines

Yeah but at least he has a tank

NOP

Yeah dude state control is tooootally the way to go

>state-managed farms run by technocrats
>collectivisation

>Holodomor
>an end to famines

etc, etc, etc

O shit

There's nothing wrong with state control in a functioning democratic state.

Damn them slaves had free helthcare, education, sports facilites, worked form 7 to 5 hour in the most taxating jobs, everybody could fly to anypart of the country almost for free. I wish i was a slave there.

[COLLAPSE]

t. someone working in a gulag forced to say this by threat of more gulag

Not that user, but he's clearly referring to the Gulag system, which certainly furnished the economy of the misnamed Soviet Union with slave labour.

I was talking about the people in the forced labour camps, you fucking tankie.

>muhh huldumurr, stalin killeddd trillions
t.Goebles

>>state-managed farms run by technocrats
>collectivisation
It's this even an argumment?

Are you retarded? He wasn't claiming Holodomor was an engineered famine, but it was a fucking famine under Stalin.

Have you read Nietzsche? He wasn't a darwinist but all of his critiques of evolution at that time were latter shown to be valid.

He also has words on socialism and platonism.

>It's this even an argumment?
Yes. Do you even know what collectivisation is? Hint: it has nothing to do with being managed by the state.

Ho-hum:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stalin_apologetics#Holodomor