Would Marx be more widely respected now if he had just stuck to critiquing Capitalism instead of inventing his own shit...

It did, though.

>Inb4 "It wasn't real Communism"

Yes, because "real Communism" is a utopia that will never be reached as long as scarcity exists. It was an attempt at establishing it, and they ALL failed and resulted in millions dead, without exception every time.

^redditors

>Communism" is a utopia
Marx and Engels were against utopian socialism.

That is mostly what he did. Actually-existing communism is 90% on Lenin.

Even though I'm not a Marxist I can respect a lot of Marx's writings. Read 18th Brumaire.

>guys what if we like, nationalized everything and created a totalitarian proletariat dictatorship
>then like what if like the state just magically disappeared and there was no money and stuff but everyone owned everything
>dude wouldn't that be rad

thats not true tho, most of his analysis turned out to be correct, his predictions were wrong, but the theory itself was a accurate description of shit as is

also the concepts and notions he came up with are still highly influential beyond radical left circles

But that's what he did. He only gave vague descriptions of communism and left it to others to implement it.

Yeah, Marx was an alcoholic so I'd imagine his thinking wasn't the sharpest.

>"Yeah, dude, like, if we had a totalitarian dictatorship then after a short while the totalitarian will just suddenly relinquish power and we'll have a Stateless, classless society with no currency, dude LMAO!"

Except you never get past the "totalitarian" part because someone with that much power won't just give it up willingly. No one would. How would you distribute goods without currency? Who would work without financial incentive?

If the Marxist solution is to go back to barter and trade and resource allocation based on need, why the fuck would anyone want to do that when we have all the luxuries in the world now at our fingertips? Laptops aren't a need. TVs aren't a need.Beer isn't a need. Tobacco isn't a need. Video games and movies aren't needs. So really all you're left with are clothes, shelter and food. No thank you!

Marx isnt "mocked" by any serious student of economics. At least not his critique of capitalism.

He missed out on certain things but he was right on the dot with rent seekers and the growing power of finance in capitalist societies.

This.
Socialism is an implementable (although shit) form of authoritarianism.
Communism is a fantasy that can never exist because socialist will never yield power and if they did the communists would be highly susceptible to any external force that would crush the unorganized rabble militia.
Both are complete shit

He is mocked in the field of economics because his theories are complete shit. The Labour Theory of Value (I know it's not his theory, but he accepted and expanded upon it) is objectively wrong. His desired system of Communism is unworkable for this reason:

>Marx isnt "mocked" by any serious student of economics. At least not his critique of capitalism

Almost all economists are either Neo-classical or some type of muted Keyensian. There is definitely not wide spread acceptance of Marxism among economists.

Not that user but you obviously haven't read anything by marx. He didn't ask for a totalitarian dictatorship, he didn't say anything of what you imply about needs, and he didn't write to go back to barter. And no, he isn't mocked in economics, if the ltov was enough to be mocked the entirety of classical economics would be mocked.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think marxist economics is wrong, but you are talking out of your ass.

thats not what the term need is understood to mean in marxist writing, its automaticaly assumed a comodity satisfies a need otherwise human labor wouldnt be expended on producing it

theres obvious discrepancies betveen marxism and reality because marx basicaly abstracted most of reality into a basic set of practical categories and their relations

its highly improbable he would have ever imagined someone going trough the motions of applying any of it literaly, and by force, in one geneation no less, the idea was probably more along the lines of a succesfull rerun of 48, then gradual 'scientific application' or social engeneering

the real point he was realy about at his time was the reorganisation and redistribution of capital and control over it, organisation of labor and decisionmaking and so on, because people were poor and powerles as fuck and starving in designated shitting streets still around 1914, so that kind of bugged people

the original pre-marxist left movements werent even particularly communist, mostly they were anarchists, their idea was literaly just to kill the bosses so they could do the thing they know how to do best and live in relative freedom

thing is capitalism was still a relatively new thing by todays standards, youd still have grandmas and grandpas remembering the before times, so a lot of people still hoped they coud just blow it up fightclub style and get on with their lives

>he isn't mocked in economics
yes, he is
t. econ student

And I'm an econ major, so what?

Would you be aware too if you wrote some books shedding light on societal flaws, that millions would die as a result of it?

The LTV is correct. Even the capitalist's beloved Adam Smith knew it.
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

socialism has a way of developing industry, infrastructure and education in realy short timespans tho, and free helthcare is actualy a good thing

its just rather hamfisted in some regards, technocratic central planning leaves less room for micromanagement, fucking around with market forces inhibits some development, and party control pushes things into buerocratic feudalism tipe of thing where incompetence and powergames trump actual effectivenes or result, except in the military sphere

thing is a socialist or communist system can collapse, a capitalists system is effectively undead, with every crisis it just defaults back to some more sustainable state and carries on, but capitalism apologetics usualy ignore the fact a lot of people get seriously fucked each time that happens, and make up excuses for the few that end up systematicaly enriched on a scale that is hard to grasp

See, that's where I feel some sympathy for Marx. I mean, obviously the guy never intended it to turn out how it did. But it is how it is. His theories did lead to millions of deaths.

Orthodox economists don't take him seriously, there are a few Heterodox economists that do most notably in Latin America but they are a fringe

>Would Marx be more widely respected now if he had just stuck to critiquing Capitalism instead of inventing his own shit system that lead to the death of millions?

>objectively wrong

>a capitalists system is effectively undead
thats a strange way of saying alive and adaptive

why aren't you?

I'm not saying he's part of orthodox economics. He isn't, which doesn't imply that he is mocked, the same way ricardo or smith aren't. You do have people like samuelson that claim he's just a minor postricardian, which I think is fair. I think his most relevant impact in heterodox economics is among postkeynesians, not fringe latin american schools.

>inventing his own shit system that lead to the death of millions?
what system exactly? socialism and communism both existed before marx, just wikipedia it mate.

>muh deaths

This is why the west is so cucked, they place value on the lives of their enemies

his major impact isnt in economics at all

The Proletariat were supposed to be the rulers in the revolution. Instead, they got massacred by the millions.

I am

I agree that he isn't "mocked" but when I said mocked I suppose I misspoke and mean wasn't taken seriously by most economists. His works seems to have the largest following among sociologists

Nobody would know who he was
Name another famous writer who critiqued capitalism, and think if they have anywhere near the same degree of fame as Marx.

Would it have been better if he had ignored his own critiques of capitalism and not actually done anything but stuck to the status quo? Then you would be mad at him for complaining without looking for a solution.

That's why communism is an automated post scarcity society in Marx's theory and socialism the stepping stone to get there. At least read what you'really criticizing.

That's because he didn't argue for Central planning but worker control of the means of production, Stalin fucked everything, beurocratic feudalism is a result of the absence of democracy in the implementations of his ideas, for proof see how the factories in Catalonia were managed

Marx didn't have any policy prescriptions at all. He identified that the order of capitalism could be replaced by a socialized system.

my ningen

glad all that shilling i did on this board paid off