Dude I'm so critical and materialistic

>Everybody who is not a communist is an ancap.

>The first philosopher and economist to build a theory of value and of society based on realist concepts, grounded in empiric work
>still sound esoteric for a 17 year/old american

>The first philosopher and economist to build a theory of value and of society based on realist concepts, grounded in empiric work

This is objectively false

I think you're kind of ignoring the climate around which he lived. Capitalism was fucking evil in the UK (where Engles did his case study) at the time and he wasn't the only one to notice this socialist or not.

>milton friedman is an ancap

By creating communism

Oh and soviet union wasn't "real communism"?

>you have nothing to lose but your chains!
>millions are sent to against their will to work in Siberia in chains
What did communists mean by this?

>we want to help the workers
>kills more workers than any other ideology in history

In short, you're pulling things out your ass?

if you hate workers and peasants being treated unfairly, you should read about how the Tsar treated them.

he didn't mean for it to be taken so seriously he just wrote/thought about these things as an intellectual exercise. He was a NEET writer and thats all he intended to be

lmao why even post shit that is this demonstrably false. Marx was very close to socialist movements in the UK and wrote a critique of the German Socialist party's manifesto by their request

>Gives evidence and reasoning for his LTV.
>"it's all esoteric"
Lmao.

>implying communism isn't about crushing the dignity of man and stripping him of his core values

Communist :Let us in!
Common Man :for what?
Communist :To free you!
Common Man :From what?
Communist :your freedom.

the content of communism may have been pulled out of his ass, however the ideology itself indeed marx's creation

>scarecrow.jpg

>presupposes his conclusions in his premises
>evidence and reasoning
top kek
>muh dialectic
If Marx is correct and the progression of society is contingent upon class strife then Communism ending that would end society or at least the progress of society.
Marx even states he would it being a return to some fantasy stone age era where everyone shared (though he forgot tribes and families are much more easily made communes).

>we will kill you if you don't work

All socialist regimes have been worse than capitalism during the industrial revolution

>implying people work for fun in capitalism and not to stay alive

>work is for fun

Fucking commies. You get to choose your job with capitalism and the state doesn't murder you

>he does not know the difference between the liberal definition of freedom and the materialist one

Are you differentiating between young Marx and old Marx? Because he was initially an idealist.

>choose you job with capitalism
Usually not the case due to economic necesity having people do other things rather than what they want.
>state doesn't murder you.
No state in the world has ever NOT murder people they don't like. So also not fucking true.

>you aren't enslaving people if you redefine the definition of freedom
>blackguytappinghead.gif

>Usually not the case due to economic necesity having people do other things rather than what they want.
Even then you still have options. If not you have the option to move your way up to something else. Sure that isn't available to everybody but the option is there and there for a lot of people.

>No state in the world has ever NOT murder people they don't like. So also not fucking true.
But under communism the state will kill its citizens who don't obey and adhere to their commands

in capitalism you are allowed to break off from society and the economy, you can strike out on your own and be self sufficient, you could also start a business or choose to work for someone.
In Communism you are totally bound to the greater collective by force.

If I am to serve a tyrant, whether it be the people or a person, I should prefer to make the choice myself.
It is the simple act of robbing a man of is dignity that Communism and Communists can not or will not grasp.

isn't the point of liberal democracy to allow the opportunity of upward mobility to all of its citizens?
>But under communism the state will kill its citizens who don't obey and adhere to their commands
This happens all the time in capitalist countries, look up Latin America from 1960-1991, but even aside from that, you can be jailed in the U.S. for loads of stupid shit, and the state spies on you constantly. The intelligence apparatus in the US far outpaces any "communist" country that has ever existed
>If I am to serve a tyrant, whether it be the people or a person, I should prefer to make the choice myself
Literally nobody chooses to live under a state, or a tyrant for that matter. You can try to strike out on your own and live in the woods or some shit, but you'll never be free from the grip of the state, especially in capitalist societies.

He's not wrong though. Freedom is an inherently loaded term that doesn't have any useful meaning. It's not a synonym for autonomy, because most nations declare themselves to be "free nations" without offering perfect autonomy for their citizenry, and what's included within each culture's idea of freedom varies. To societies that considered slavery an acceptable institution, the freedom to own slaves was an important one, maintained as a right without even a hint of irony.

>isn't the point of liberal democracy to allow the opportunity of upward mobility to all of its citizens?
Which it does, but spoiler alert: life isn't fair. It can create an equal system as possible but there will always be some who are less fortunate. However they won't always stay that way in a capitalist economy upward mobility is always possible.

>This happens all the time in capitalist countries, look up Latin America from 1960-1991, but even aside from that, you can be jailed in the U.S. for loads of stupid shit, and the state spies on you constantly. The intelligence apparatus in the US far outpaces any "communist" country that has ever existed
This isn't even due to capitalism that's due to the state. The state and market are supposed to separate entities, I know that's hard for you to understand. Also no communist country was able to become the espionage juggernaut the US is because no communist country could survive long enough. In their short existence communist countries become totalitarian at a rapid rate compared to almost any other system

>The state and market are supposed to separate entities,

I'm not him, and I'm not a communist, but this is an absurd pipe-dream. Economics and politics are inseparable (for that matter, no major area of social life is able to be discretely separated from any other).

>Which it does, but spoiler alert: life isn't fair. It can create an equal system as possible but there will always be some who are less fortunate. However they won't always stay that way in a capitalist economy upward mobility is always possible.
This is artificial, capitalism needs an underclass in order to for it to operate. It's always going to need dishwashers who are only doing it because they need to pay for groceries and rent, and it's always going to need under-educated Vietnamese children to make T-shirts. That's how it works. And no, that life isn't always mobile. Most people can't afford to change jobs or move to somewhere where there are better opportunities.
>This isn't even due to capitalism that's due to the state.
Well, buddy, the presence of property necessitates a state, I hate to break it to you. Some organized group representing property owners is armed and laws are drafted to maintain private property laws. All you have to do to understand this is read some of the Federalist Papers, and you'll find that James Madison was in favor of only property owners having the vote because of the fear that the unwashed masses would vote it out of their hands.

>state repression,corruption and crimes are primal characteristics of capitalism

>using the word primal in this context

Freedom can only be understood trough social relations, society makes us human and only an egalitarian society ensure every individual can use fully his political agency
Meanwhile for liberals, (no it's not about US politics but philosophy, fucking burger) individuals are somehow born free in a pre-social "state of nature" then willingly forgo a part of their individual liberty by an implicit contract to form a socety together. This is a definition of freedom in negative terms, freedom is the absence of hindrance of one's agency.

What do you prefer? To use a void concept with no bearing on reality or one rooted in the rationale and empirical analysis of social relations?

>spend your childhood gearing up for a job you dont give a shit about that you spend minimum 40 hours a week where you are subject to market forces and financial anxiety
>die

Don't sully the term "work" with some job you do for money. This is why being a prostitute is so insulting for people in that it makes palpable the inherent ideology they buy into with their nigger jobs. Work is meant to be uplifting and enhancing, if not to society, then to you as a person you mong. Do you read? Do you go to the theatre? Want to learn an instrument? How many people have to nig it up doing data entry so they can choose to have one of those as a 'hobby'?

I don't think most people who support capitalism wake up to be evil or assholes to others. Go to a business school or a commerce centre and observe. Most of the time, they are just simply, extremely boring.

t-thanks for the redpill brother

"communism" is a utopian end goal that communist organizations claim to strive for
no, it has never been tried, because socialist vanguards always devolve into corrupt totalitarian states

it's like looking at pharmaceutical companies and saying "lol so the REAL cure for cancer has never been tried before huh?"

>marxism

Is there a more irrelevant ideology?

So basically you're just whining because you're not 'having fun' all the time.

Marxists are literal children.

>ideology is popular with upper class "intellectuals" that have never worked either
Why do people keep peddling this bullshit where the two most prominent communists that these people know are Lenin and Stalin that were working class as fuck?

>hurr

You fucking idiot. He's pointing out that most of the work in capitalism is pointless busywork that serves only to keep the current economic system going, rather than any real social need. Of the people you know, how many have jobs that they would consider socially necessary or something to take pride in?

Who says work is supposed to be uplifting? The Bible certainly doesn't say work should be uplifting and nowhere have I heard that before besides from Marxists. Work is a sacrifice so that the future may be better, but if you feel good while doing it too then good for you, you're lucky. There's no reason to believe that work should be uplifting.

>Who says work is supposed to be uplifting?

Anyone with a shred of moral fiber and empathy who understands that the point of society is to remove man as far as possible from the state of nature (in which life is nasty, brutish and short).

As opposed to the work in communism that is not pointless busywork that doesn't serve to keep the current economic system going?

You're not going to find me championing the cause of the socialist states. Their grand solution to capitalism was to turn the entire country into a capitalist firm, which is fundamentally idiotic. Nor will you find me championing Marx's work (I very highly doubt that a 19th century Hegelian philosopher had the end-point of history figured out).

And yet you're whining about capitalism and freedom, the two things that create the chance of you having a job that you actually enjoy.

>based on realist concepts, grounded in empiric work

Oh, so capitalism created the ability to sustain myself as a virtuous person with a socially necessary role in a community? What a wondrous system!

Freedom is a meaningless non-word. It means something different to every society and every ideology. It's not the same as autonomy, which no society offers. Nor is it the same as self-ownership, which even a slave possesses.

>wäh I can't work exactly what I want to work with
>wäh I can't fulfill my needs and wants of having a socially necessary role in a community

Go out and get that job you so badly want, stop whining on Veeky Forums faggot.

spend your childhood gearing up for a job you dont give a shit about that you spend minimum 40 hours a week where you are subject to market forces and financial anxiety
>die
OR
>dear leader decrees good to be capitalist decadance
>die
I wonder which one is better for the working man? Tough choice.

You think those vietnamese kids are complaining because we gave them jobs where they learn a skill and get paid? If we didn't make t-shirts and other crap in poorer countries than those people wouldn't have any jobs at all. They work for hardly what we earn in rich countries, but it's better than the nothing they were earning. And as they earn money they can save up, and the smarter ones will become managers, then eventually factory owners. Pretty soon they'll get where South Korea is. Unless their government interferes.

>not answering the point made
Those things are not fundamental elements of capitalism

Who's to say certain jobs are pointless? You? Certainly people think them important enough to pay someone to do them and you shouldn't have anything to do with the business between two people.

>Who's to say certain jobs are pointless?

>do for money
>am proud you of are adult now

>do for principles
>you immature shit

>nature is nasty, brutish and short
Sure, but it's also beautiful and the source of countless resources we need.
Society's function isn't to remove man as far away as possible from nature, it's to form a cooperative group that makes surviving and thriving easier/better. That's not the same thing btw. The furthest away from nature a society ever got is probably nazi Germany, and look how that turned out? It was a tyranny. There needs to be a balance between culture and nature. And none of what you said even argues that work should be uplifting. Work is a sacrifice in the present for the future. That's why we farm, build shelter, etc. It's hard but it makes things better in the future.

>you shouldn't have anything to do with the business between two people

Ave capitalism.

So why are you posting? Do you have anything to actually say that would further discussion?

>unironically defending a man whose ideology killed 200 million people

Doesn't address my point. Someone finds the work important enough to pay someone to do it. You can call the job pointless, but you're not part of the transaction so who cares what you think about the job

Who even thinks like this besides materialists? Most christians certainly don't.

>Pajeet and Bob make minimum to make $400 bottled water
>jew boss rakes it in
>Bob gets sick and is subsequently fired for wrecking
>Pajeet covers his shifts no overtime
>jew boss rakes it in

No one is going to take your Playstation.

>ideologies kill people

>ideologies can't be faulty, leading to the death of many people

I remember Marx talking about social labour or some shit. You do community work like make frappuchinos, clean street vomit or do build wind farms or whatever shit job robots cant do yet. You get paid a labour voucher or something to buy luxuries.

In any case, capitalism doesn't give a shit about ecological issues since it is pathologically about the bottom line. How many conservatives do you see chaining themselves to bulldozers before a national park?

To clairfy, never meant uplifting = me me me. Some shit work has to be done and that will be either through robots or people who want more than living in a Soviet bloc apartment eating kale and tofu rations. Socialism provides basics, if you want more 'luxuries' then you work for labour vouchers in a co-op or something.

>nature is bad
>actually nature is good too
>well conservatives dont care for the environment
Kind of funny. But to address your point. Yes, lack of regulation can lead to pollution and environmental damage. I think there should be some regulation for it, not an overwhelming amount, but it's also the job of consumers and journalists to investigate whether a company they are purchasing from is doing something they don't like. Then the company can be boycotted until they change their business practices.

But who decides what a "need" is and what isn't? You can survive off very little food and water for a while. Who makes luxury items if no one "needs" them? The line between "need" and "luxury" is not well defined and is different for everyone. A job is "uplifting" (beneficial) for society if someone in that society is willing to pay someone to do it. Both are part of society and are benefitting from their transaction.

stop

>who decides what a "need" is and what isn't
Worker's councils

>Who makes luxury items
nerds.

Worker's councils or some central planning board which commodities should be produced. I'd say contemporary needs will be food, water, shelter, healthcare, insurance from crime and internet. I dont use a car but I'd probably be able to pick a council approved one for free since most people do. Public transport would probably be pushed instead in socialism.

The blurry line between luxury/need will always be a problem. From what I know, socialism will have a reasonable rationing of typical stuffs, laptops, bikes, diving suits for generic use at soccer mom-tier. Obviously this will increase in quality as time and tech goes on, but its still generic. If you're an enthusiast and want a hardcore gaming laptop or endurance bike or a Valentino suit, you contact Valentino and other nerds like you who will have jerry-rigged special, custom commodities somewhere. Unless a case can be made for them being essential or that there are enough resources that they might as well be made for everyone, you might have to spend some voucher bux.

>Worker councils
So not individuals? How much food is "necessary"? To actually "determine" hoe much the people need the council would need an incredible amount of time or would have to be incredibly large, which means it would either take too long or be inefficient.
>nerds
This makes no sense. So smart people will be making luxury goods instead of something else? Why?
>Obviously this will increase in quality as time and tech goes on
Except it's not obvious. All innovation happens outside of regulation and control. That's kind of the definition of innovative. So to say technology will advance when nearly everything is controlled is just not true.Just look at the cars in Cuba, Soviet Union, etc. They hardly innovated and just used the same things for decades. And just because you stated that the problem of need vs. luxury exists doesn't mean that your idea for a workers council is just as good as the current system.

>he thinks large corporations can be boycotted
>not knowing this only works with small businesses like that pizzeria in Indiana that got publicized negatively over a queer couple
>meanwhile coca-cola gets off scot-free with their depletion of African water resources

Why are /pol/tards so obsessed with Marx ?

Not an argument

Why do they get off scott-free? Because most people don't know about their business practices/product information or simply don't care. Large corporations aren't invincible juggernauts unless government props them up or bails them out, and even then it can't last forever. If people were truly informed and aware, and if they weren't filled with Godless nihilism, then maybe boycotts would work. To say they don't now says as much about corporations as it does the people.

>Worker's councils

They think he's the only critique of capitalism to exist.

Why is /leftypol/ so obsessed with /pol/?

This

The reason why those factories in developing nations are booming is because a weeks wage working in those factories is often more than a months wage working in any other profession.

t. capitalists who don't know how historically, both in the west and outside of it, urbanization wasn't clean or somehow vastly improved the lives of country peeps and that it wasn't a violent upheaval of people so as to keep labor cheap.

is this before or after capitalism kills ~100mil (most are kids btw) people every five years due to POVERTY related reasons? even if you're a cuck and think that the negro is subhuman everywhere but in bed and hold them to be 3/5s of a person, the kill count by capitalism is bigger.

above

>t. capitalists who don't know how historically, both in the west and outside of it, urbanization wasn't clean or somehow vastly improved the lives of country peeps and that it wasn't a violent upheaval of people so as to keep labor cheap.

So what you're saying is that people are better off living in poverty instead of being given the opportunity to increase their standard of living. Do you have any idea how insane you sound? You're completely ignorant of history, Industrialization was NEVER of a smooth or clean system but it was something that many nations had to go through to improve their standards of living and transition to a service based economy.

>is this before or after capitalism kills ~100mil (most are kids btw) people every five years due to POVERTY related reasons?

You're pro-poverty and yet you accuse a system of killing people through poverty. The level of delusion you exhibit is off the charts.

Doesn't work like that. An economy has to be lean and competitive just so it can support decent sanitation, healthcare and shelter.

bump

...

>Lenin
>working class as fuck
Literally came from a minor noble family, owned land and threatened neighbors for messing with his private property that he hardly ever saw because he was always out of the country. He was bourgeois. Intellectuals are always bourgeois.

Stalin was just a criminal.

>Literally came from a minor noble family
>mfw serfs are minor nobles now

>to pollution and environmental damage.
only modern liberals care about this

>Says work alienates people
>Call him damn for not working
The thing you hear in this fully retarded board