When did you realize Varg is right?

>stabbed a guy 20 times in muh self-defense

Why is this sociopath not locked up?

How do you respond to the refutation of the labor theory of value by Böhm Bawerk and the economic calculation problem as formulated by Mises?

Hard mode: they are bourgeois ideologues is not an acceptable answer.

Except he didn't say that and was as far against identity politics as you can get. The only nationalist who combined race into his politics Engels literally cucked into academic oblivion. Engels fucked his wife behind his back, for years I think. And he was the backbone of what later became the ideology of national socialism which you like so much because le Hitler xddd

So it's obvious it's fake. Anybody who knows history would know this.

This is shallow influencing.

>/pol/ was created in 2011
>8th graders are 12
>The oldest you can possibly be is 17

MODS!

>That much damage control.
Except that quote is from a well-known essay by Marx (On the Jewish Question), you dip.

It would take paragraphs to argue every detail why the labor theory of value is correct, and why capital/market theory usually is not.

The most it all can sum up to is, no other animal on earth, social as we are, impliments a market like system to coordinate. Which isn't to say that animals are smart, it's just that social animals that behave as market theory is, usually end up collapsing.

If we look at where we are, we are indeed just as well edging closer to a collapse.

I'm 22, back in 2011 there was similar shit. Back then they actually blamed the jews instead of sucking Israel's cock for supporting Trump as a candidate

But I realized it was shallow a long time ago.

Shiiiet

He believed that most religions, organized at the time, at the time associated with finnancial interest in their belief instead of actual belief for their followers, should be criticized.

I didn't know "On The Jewish Question", existed, but reading it is hardly as damning as anything he said about Christianity. Indeed, the Catholic Church drew far more of his ire.

this

>let's burn down churches!
>leave mosques alone though, that would be racist

Why are Nordic Pagan LARPers so embarrassing?

For a second there I almost thought you were been serious.

Nice refutation bro. I mean, look at animals, right? They don't have like, money and capitalism and egoism and shit.

Nice. Many a one will take the bait.

That collage really should have Marx and Bakunin on there.

>Nice refutation bro. I mean, look at animals, right?

Are you suggesting we weren't animals? I gave a basic idea of Mutualism. I think Mutualism is a good argument to make when criticizing humanity organized by market and value rather than dividing up according to need and ability.

Though not Marx himself, others have expanded on his work.

As animals ourselves, social animals, we look to behavior of others to see in the short term how it works out. When one ape hordes all the resources and acts as a demagogue, civil war among the pride ensues.

History has shown us we are no different.

>Nice. Many a one will take the bait.

I find arguments in favor of the magical wonder of the market far less convincing as time goes on, and as politics of the kind currently continue. As time goes by, Marx and much of the thought he inspired, is continuously proven right again and again.

Do you really think a 16 year old edge lord knows who Bakunin is? Let alone, would rather have their opinions fed to them by youtube drama whores and celebrities like TJ and Sargon? No.

You should know this as a 16 year old edge lord.

>muh nature
Your ideas are personal and peculiar, and thus of limited to no interest.

The people I cited have given comprehensive refutation of the foundations of Marxism. Until you can answer them, bye.

Because he went to jail before mass immigration really reved up

He talked about it in one of his videos.

Yeah, probably more likely to know who is than Stirner. Bakunin is probably the most accessible of the anarchist thinkers.

Also

>Calling Zizek a pseudo-intellectual.

Yeah, he talks about a lot of inane shit, but he is actually a legitimate philosopher.

>Your ideas are personal and peculiar

How is mutualism personal to me, or peculiar. You can't just pull out a thesaurus to prove me wrong with vague insults.

>and thus of limited to no interest.

You're right, I'm afraid education is at such an all time low at this point, people would rather not read intricate detailing of how society organizes, or sociology of any kind.

But then again, that also applies to economics. Though people are more blindly supportive of what they know.

>The people I cited have given comprehensive refutation of the foundations of Marxism

Mises? Refutation? Hardly.

>Bakunin is probably the most accessible of the anarchist thinkers.

Buddy, 16 year olds don't care about anarchy outside of saying nigger a lot on facebook they're going to regret at a later age, and loving Milo. You need to understand this.

You seem to know a lot about them, for a guy who so vociferously despises them.

>You seem to know a lot about them,

I do because everyone was once 16. When I was that age I thought TJ was a genius and there were a lot of us who would share their opinions who wanted to be politically apt.

It's not like times have changed much, they've just gotten worse and become an all time low.

>I do because everyone was once 16.

You mean you still are, but were once too.

>thinks Marx is correct
>doesn't know basic economics
Y-you're uneducated, otherwise you would be a tumblr communist like me!

>You mean you still are

No, I actually don't. I've been on and off this dread website for years now starting I think around 08 or 07.

>but were once too.

I'm just telling you what everyone knows. But if our arguments are going to sum up to "YOU'RE 16!" "NUH UH, YOU'RE 16", I suggest we get better arguments.

nah

wtf i love marx now

I know economics. I just don't find it all together convincing as a way of organizing man. If you want to post straw men pictures of people, I have a lot so let's not irritate everyone in the thread with it.

Hey, you're the one that started it. I just pointed out that your stupid collage was missing a couple icons of teenage edginess.

>Hey, you're the one that started it.

Oh, so you didn't. Whatever you still acted like a butthurt kid over it.

Where do you think we are

This is the politics lite board

>I know economics
>Mises is so easy to refute I won't even bother
Sure thing kid.

>16 year olds don't care about anarchy outside of saying nigger a lot on facebook
At sixteen I was not only reading Bakunin but also Kropotkin.

Not everyone's shitty white trash with zero interest in the history of ideas or world affairs. You need to understand this.

Austrian school is more concerned with stereotypes of what Marxist thought implemented at the time is, it is hardly thorough.

While he makes good arguments, for example, "enemy of the people" is very subjective depending on area, nation, etc. He also does not totally destroy Marxism as you suggest he does.

He argues

>Economies must optimize.
>Arithmetic allows us to construct ordering relations over numbers, which can be used for optimization.
>If one is to order numbers they must be of the same sort.
>This requires conversion into a common unit of measure.
>Money is a method of converting into a common unit of measure.
>Hence all economies need money.
The problems with this argument lie in the steps 2 and 5. While propositions 2 and 5 are true, they do not support conclusion 6. To reach that conclusion we sould need stronger claims:

>Arithmetical orderings are the only way of achieving optimization.
>Money is the only practical metric.

Which again, can be debated upon endlessly, and why it still is.

He WAS locked up nigger

And what problem do you have with self defence?

>Not everyone's shitty white trash with zero interest in the history of ideas or world affairs

However, I was not "white trash", nor are many as politically apt as they think they are. At 16 you will not find many people who've read Kropotkin (good on you for doing so, really), but think Nietzsche is the best shit without having read anything of his work.

A lot people who play politics at that age aren't in it to think of applications to apply to the world, or political science or economics, they think very simply. For this, you will find many who post on /pol/ and buy up into it, especially antisocial teenagers at that age.

But this is besides the point and a non-argument

Are you retarded? He didn't kill him in self-defense

As far as i know it wasn't Varg who escalated it to a knife fight. But we weren't there so we'll never really know.

>pagan
>right
Also Varg is probably a jewish puppet, this is why he hates christianism like (((them)))

Money being the optimal measure of value and means of exchange is hardly a controversial theory, and even Marx agreed.

The idea that non-monetary currency is utopic and based on wishful thinking. Socialist economics have de facto failed on the historical-practical batteground, which Marxism claims is the only valuable measure of truth.

You can imagine n possible alternative means of exchange, say, unicorn horns. Your ideas are utopian and worthless. Marx would be ashamed.

(Me)
Moreover Marx's theory of exploitation is based on the outdated and arch-refuted labor value theory. Economists have since moved on from that theory beginning in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

>Money being the optimal measure of value and means of exchange is hardly a controversial theory, and even Marx agreed.

True. But the point was that Mises isn't a very good source to dispute Marxism with. The Austrian School in general isn't terribly effective or cogent.

If it was, we wouldn't still be having this debate so many years down the line high up in academia.

>The idea that non-monetary currency is utopic and based on wishful thinking

But Mises doesn't go into full enough detail why that is. It's easy to say, communism is a pipe dream, but it's also easy to say capitalism as a provider is a pipe dream.

"To each according to their ability, to each according to their need", is hardly a difficult approach to making a society. Would it need to be complex, absolutely. But much of economics in Wall Street today is convuluted to a point of working off of ways to defend itself on ways to defend itself, and the logic is just circular.

Capitalism today is just a giant pyramid scheme where nobody is happy, and it usually ends up this way.

>Socialist economics have de facto failed on the historical-practical batteground, which Marxism claims is the only valuable measure of truth.

I wouldn't say failed. Market Socialism of a sort, indeed, is thriving. But as Marx described, no. We are all bowing our heads to the market. If you want me to defend everything Marx said, I certainly will not and cannot, but much of what he said was simply true and effective at criticizing industrialized Capitalism.

>Your ideas are utopian and worthless

So are Capitalism's. It's idealistic to suggest this one way of organizing that's authority and dominant is the only way of organizing.

>every somewhat popular person with an opinion on something is a pseudo-intellectual rhetorician

A lot of the people on there deserve to be on there, but it's definitely been overdone.

>Do you really think a 16 year old edge lord knows who Bakunin is

They're more likely to know Marx and Bakunin than fucking Stirner.

Point to which parts of LTV are faulty that they can't ever be argued for

>burning 12th century shit cuz edginess and kvlt

i'm not even a christian, but

>neopaganism
not even once

About 4 weeks ago when I decided to look at Abrahamic religions from an anthropological perspective.

>The Austrian School in general isn't terribly effective or cogent.
Their main problem is that they try to pass a lot of ideological points (praxology, libertarianism) mixed with economics. They offered the first and standard refutation of Marxism and other false economic theories based on the labor theory of value, and this is their merit.

>"To each according to their ability, to each according to their need", is hardly a difficult approach to making a society.
Only extremly simple societies like tribal societies and families. Anywhere society passes the threshold of trade economy and division of labor this is no longer viable.

>Market Socialism is thriving
Come on son.

>So are Capitalism's
Capitalism is hardly utopian. It's the harsh reality that every failed socialist economy necessarily falls back to, whether we like it or not. Don't get the idea that I'm love with capitalism, but this whole exchange is because you claimed that Marx was right. He clearly wasn't.

>They offered the first and standard refutation of Marxism and other false economic theories based on the labor theory of value, and this is their merit.

Except, they really didn't do a good job of it.

>Come on son.

Europe and Canada are doing a lot better than America, but that's hardly saying much and we're just stripping away the facade at this point.

>Capitalism is hardly utopian.

Being cynical and materialist doesn't prevent you from being utopian. The idea that there is one true way to organize and that's under the guiding hand of the market is obviously a ludicrous one. I don't find it convincing at all.

Most of all because it happens to be the most dominant, whatever is dominant in any time should be looked upon with skepticism, to do otherwise would be irresponsible.

>It's the harsh reality that every failed socialist economy necessarily falls back to, whether we like it or not

The Cold War never happened.

The market will solve everything, we don't need governments, etc. are clearly utopian. Capitalism in practice is an ad hoc and mixed system, but this is what is so real about it. It doesn't strive for ideological purity, only what works in practice. "What works" here meaning what brings about most net profit for the individual enterpreneur, not necessarily the best possible social, ethical or even esthetical value. But economists are pretty straight forward about this. This is what I meant with "capitalism is hardly utopian".

>The market will solve everything

You don't find this utopian at all?

In times of deep economic crisis, the whole official facade begins to crack and crumble. The arguments of the apologists of capitalism become increasingly discredited. Convoluted at the point economics is shown to be bankrupt of logic or reason for why it should do what it does to a large population. These theorist's ideas are out of step with today’s reality headed into the future, as living standards collapse in an age of on-going austerity, the ecology begins to decompose, and the climate is sure to bring further issue.

It is utopian, it works in a world of the time it was written, on the other hand, Marx in a general sense has survived far longer.

Do not suggest it isn't in Capitalism's nature to collude with the Government. It always has and always does.

>not necessarily the best possible social, ethical or even esthetical value

Here lies the problem. You cannot focus on the success of few, forever, and while the many watch politicians and spokesmen whine when the system they live under is criticized. Or outright shut them up in the case of Noam Chomsky, forbidding them from ever being in US media because someone at the top looks at it, and says, this guy isn't in it. It's obvious that Capitalism is not the perfect system you claim it to be. To say "it's not perfect, but it's all we got", is also, obviously not true. Capitalism today survives only today on propaganda, threatening "without us, you would be nothing", and claiming it's the only thing to ever exist, and shutting up dissent so it remains dominant and skepticism of the market isn't heard.

However since 2008 I find myself more and more skeptical, many people have. You can't blame us for being so.

>However since 2008 I find myself more and more skeptical, many people have. You can't blame us for being so.
Fair enough. Let's end on that note. But if you want to criticize or think about alternatives to capitalism you should start by acknowledging that Marx got it wrong, otherwise you'll end up making the same mistakes and presenting nothing new or relevant to the debate.

you've come to the wrong place, lefty.

Probably :v)

>joji
What the fuck has joji to do with this shit?