I just read Das Kapital and find out that that guy is an absolute genius...

...

Please remember to cut up vertically, not across horizontally.

Marx is someone that read Adam Smith and got everything wrong.

Is this image true?

But le communist nigger 60 IQ r/K selection Mises.org 100 billion trillion No Troo Sgotsman XDDDD!!!!!

The last point definitely is.

Not OP, but this guy seems interesting. I will pick him up.

I think you need to go back on your pills, pablo, you aren't making any sense.

>bro let's all just share it's not like there are massive discrepancies in human intelligence

the workers can't operate the means of production because the workers are not intelligent enough to do it, thus they are workers

was karl marx an autism?

No. It's commie propaganda.

Prove them wrong with Adam Smith quotes or GTFO

>You're moms a slut and I nutted in her.
>Adam Smith
I just did the same thing commies did with adam smith, where's your god now?

So elect people who can and vote them out if they make things worse. Workers' self-management doesn't mean literally no oversight, it's just democratizing the workplace and ensuring the fruits of their labor go to the workers and not the shareholders or management. (Or at least not management as a separate class; it's a full-time role and they can get the same pay as everyone else.)

Leninism was shit but that's on Lenin, not Marx. Marx was unironically right about everything.

Yeah he puts a lot of thought into how the system would work but not how to attain it.

The burden of proof is on the retard who made that image.

>"And the DPRK is Democratic"

it's a bureaucracy.

anyway Das Kapital is pretty good

>clearly /pol/ post has been up for 8 hours
This is why we can never talk about history in this godforsaken place

Marx didn't come up with an alternative system, so the USSR had to think about it themselves. You should have known it.

> Das Kapital is pretty good
It was terrible. You can visually see the teenage angst every time Marx talks about anyone who's wealthier than him. I'm also convinced that be blatantly made shit up without any evidence.

If I read "The Wealth of Nations" and "Das Kapital" together, will I have a pretty solid understanding of modern economic philosophies?

Its an exaggeration. He certainly supported certain limits on the rich and on merchants but at the same time generally favored a hands off approach to governing the economy, and one point he even essentially argues that wealth trickles down, albeit over a long period of time

It's absolutely false... adam smith talks about laws over & over & over again which inhibit economic growth.

2 examples that I can remember,

First he talks about how there would be like trade guilds, and they would say "if u want to build a tire u must study as an app for 7 years or u can legally not sell tires"

He talks about how this pushed away the natural abilities of many who could learn the trade in 3 years and how this crippled hte economy.

He compares this to egypt and how the ancient egyptians became woefully poor because u literally had to do the job that ur father did, and sometimes that job didnt even exist.

He uses this as examples of governments trying to control labor, and doing so poorly.

He used another example of how in england u culdnt just move if u didnt want to, similiar to communism.

for example in england i lived here and there was no job but I applied elsewhere like in anothe district and got a job I couldnt just move there ud have to go through all these hoops & what not writing letters and so on.

He talks about how this inhibits the labor market.

This is why he is called like the invetor of capitalism and lachez faire capitalism or w/e.

Sorry for my mispellings and im not sourcinng any of that shit, the wealth of nations is a massive massive book and theres literally like a shitload of pages just dedicated to gold mines and silver mines and the prices of them its actually a really good book but still...

if ur an american read the wealth of nations, but just keep in mind that "The Wealth of nations" is NOT an american book.

In fact I dont think adam smith ever went to America... he was scottish im pretty sure.

Read that and read The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

by john maynard keynes.

Its always important to know why we people write the books they write, so many people make remarks about certian books and people but they never read them or even took a second to understand there motives. so ill give u an introduction.

Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, because just like today so many people believe the rich we're "Holding them down," and made excuses about why other weres richer theen them. (Basically.)

But the more important reason was this, he was laying the foundation for the ever timeless question. WHY IS 1 NATION RICH YET ANOTHER NATION IS POOR?

Why was england so rich, why was Ireland poor, and why was scotland very poor? Yet all these countries are similiar of people.

He talks about "the facts," if you will, not the whims of people and their emotions. This is why he is hailed to be so great.
Okay.

John Maynard Keynes wrote his novel to understand the great depression. People didn't really understand why the depression happened and at that time even americans were very anti-capitalistic.
Again he was not an American but a brit but still.

Some say that "he saved capitalism"

So basically what he did, he knew about Adam smith and in his book he basically says like: In these ways smith is right, but in these ways hes not entirely right. A stepping stone.

But the reason that Keynes is so important is because he wrote the strategy on how to make a depression less bad, basically "Spend money u dont have" or debt spending. This is what Obama did in 2007-2008 and if u asked OBamas economic adivsors they would say "we are Keynesian economists."

itt antifags

Nobody could seriously consider Marx's writings to be anywhere near decent. In Kapital:
>he starts off the first page talking about utility value
>says things have intrinsic value instead of subjective market value with people balancing their wants / needs
>goes on to talk about physical proportions of mass. So according to his example, a 2x2 pad of compressed chicken feathers should have a comparable value to a 2x2 panel of 24k gold
>but then he blows himself the fuck out immediately after by saying that instead value is derived from the intended use and wear of the object, completely nullifying his first point to begin with
>but then he never expands this idea because he just says it's objective. He never gives a firm objective way to derive value from an objects action

And this was just the very first chapter. The second one gets worse.

>angst
It was surprisingly angsty for what it was trying to be

>generally favored a hands off approach to governing the economy
Not even close. He talks about it in the Manifesto. He was very pro-big government from a financial involvement standpoint. Banning religion was very much in his spirit as well.

Marx says two contradictory things:
>Capitalism was useful for "rounding the coasts", but it's evolutionary advantage is at it's end
>and later that the workers of the world must unite and use hard power to secure a communist society

>Not even close. He talks about it in the Manifesto.

I was talking about Smith

What happened to that cat? Was everything okay?

Oh my bad mate

Fuck off leftypol

>Workers' self-management doesn't mean literally no oversight, it's just democratizing the workplace and ensuring the fruits of their labor go to the workers and not the shareholders or management.

Then what prevents the workers from selling shares to raise capital?

awesome, thanks for the effort my man. weirdly sapient post despite the poor grammar!

>john maynard keynes
no,

Weber >>> Marx

Keynes was right about everything.
But don't bother reading the General theory, it's dry dry dry. If you want Keynes, sit down with a biography of the man. If you want economics without maths, just get an A-Level Econ textbook.

>if u asked OBamas economic adivsors they would say "we are Keynesian economists."
tbf they're New Keynesian cowards rather than BASED Post-Keynesians or moderately tolerable Bastard Keynesians / Neo-Keynesian grandpas.

"Das Kapital" is great critique of capitalism and exploitation of the working class.
But Marx never provided better alternative except those of "Communist Manifesto" and wet dream of violent class revolution which in real life inspired hundred of totalitarian regimes which ruined lives of millions of people and the working class they supposedly wanted to "save".

Also go back to /leftypol/ or /pol/, stop shitting the board with your autistic political bias.

Weber is a decent scientist.

But if you invoke a relation of comparison, you need to present a quantifiable and concrete parameter, by which you compare.

And really, Marx is on the top by any if not all objective scores that can be attributed to philosopher/sociologist/political scientist.

Marx was a genius, and Capital is a magnificent critique of capitalism.

I don't follow the rest of your post though. The logical conclusion to Marx' analysis, the communist manifesto, was a shitty pamphlet with terrible consequences. Yeah capitalism is shit but at this point the alternatives are worse.

ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf
>Be smart
>pull up pdf of Wealth of Nations (it's free)
>Use ctrl + f to search for relevant words (free market, invisable hand, ect)
>confirms this easy thing for yourself
This trick will come in handy when you're in college and need to write papers.

Genius? He was a useless mad man who only survived on the grace of his wife's family paying for everything for him.

Socialism was a good idea but Marx was a mistake.
As others have pointed out, many of his economic ideas were flat out wrong.
Dialectical materialism is also deeply flawed at a metaphysical level: seriously, economic collapses are 'contradictions'? They deterministically result in new eras? Very silly.

For me the worst part is that he took Kant's very good idea of not treating people as only a "mere means to an end" and somehow used this same idea in an amoral and perverted way. Under Marx, dialectical materialism makes us objects being pushed by the clockwork of history. And at the same time, we are "alienated" (treated as mere means) by our labor relations. I think these two opposing thoughts ultimately lead to a kind of amoral behavior where historical necessity justifies the worst kinds of human objectification in the name of deobjectifing humanity.

The only kind of world that could achieve communism would be a world where, ironically, no one believed in communist ideology. That is, a world that treated people as persons and not as mere cogs in history.

>0 results
Why are commies so retarded?

invisible hand only appears one time.

Read the original post we were replying to.

AYY LMFAO

You read those 18000 pages?

>The only kind of world that could achieve communism would be a world where, ironically, no one believed in communist ideology.
Actually, the only world where communism would work would be the world where:¨
a) People are so brainwashed they don't know anything better and they work because they can't imagine anything else. Doesn't matter whether they are or they are not communists.
b) People seriously 100% believe in communism

>That is, a world that treated people as persons and not as mere cogs in history.
It's actually the other way around. As long as people behave as people the communism cannot work. You'd need people to behave as machines/cogs for communism to work and even if you achieved that state you'd no longer need communism.

what a great argument user, have you considered becoming a book critic?
>he's angsty
>im convinced he made up shit (cant back this up whatsoever)

>single handedly refutes socialism

what did he mean by this?

Communism is supposed to free people to pursue things like music and other artistic interests, I don't know where the fuck you're getting that communism is people not acting like people.

It'd be illegal in a socialist society, or perhaps "irrelevant" is a better word, because non-worker or unequal ownership of shares isn't something the government would recognize. Property rights depend on state enforcement, after all.

If your real question is "what stops the workers from voting out socialism", the answer is nothing - well, nothing other than the fact that it'll provide most people a better standard of living and they therefore won't want to go back.

You're right and checked. Barracks communism is true communism.

But you can't buy things with shares because no other business would accept them. I mean, thats why most people in publicly-traded companies take a wage, instead of using that wage to buy shares in their company.

As for the voting thing, your also assuming that people vote in their own interest or even make good decisions within a democracy. That is complete horseshit. For example, free trade is within societies interest yet the voting public is quite protectionist. In spite of this, any individual within the voting public doesn't really have an incentive to actually figure out what would be good for 'society' as the likelihood of their vote changing the outcome is mathematically insignificant.

>wealth of nations

too outdated, too hard for brainlets to appreciate

Is socialism a remnant of slavery? In that you don't believe in self ownership and property rights? You're therefore a slave, advocating for slavery, or are an unenlightened and unwashed brainlet who doesn't know any better?

Carl Menger
Ludwig Von Mises
Murray Newton Rothbard
Friedrich Hayek

>well, nothing other than the fact that it'll provide most people a better standard of living and they therefore won't want to go back.
One hell of a statement seeing as all it has never been the case throughout history.

Real socialism has never been tried :^)

That said even the tankie version has majorities, pluralities, or large minorities wanting to go back everywhere they tried it. And real socialism would vest actual power in the people at large, not a vanguard party acting on their "behalf".

Because if people behave as people tend to behave then communism can't effectively work.
Let me demonstrate.
>Communism is supposed to free people
as you said
>Therefore state can't force people to work otherwise it would be stalinism and "muh not real gommunism"
>Therefore why would I work if I don't have to?
>Or if I work, why would I work as hard as the other guy if we get the same shit? Why would i work 12 hours a day like he does when I can easily work for 7 and get the same stuff, since we are not getting paid anyway.
>So I don't work
>He realises that and starts doing the same
The thing is right, if two people do the same job they'll always get same amount of "reward" under communism. Doesn't matter how hard each of them work and since there's no money in communist utopia, the only thing you can get is what? Luxuries? Better food?

Also, people generally really like private property, just so you know.

>Karl Marx was never a wagecuck that makes him a lazy-

>Real socialism has never been tried :^)

Yes it was. Pic related.

free
baby
market

Dumb example. You have never been to a job where one person is a better worker than the other but they get the same pay?

10 000 pages of shit is still shit

That whole post is fake, he never used the word capitalism. Smith was anti-mercantilism/anti-monopoly and supported progressive income taxation and poor relief efforsts and public education spending.
Otherwise he was for free trade and against other kinds of regulations.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

>he would be a socialist by todays standards

why are you posting rationalwiki articles?

It's rhetorical for modern burger politics fampai.

*Kolakowski my bad
He was a former Marxist academic in communist Poland who came to be critical of Marxism from a left-humanist perspective (and was forced out of Poland for it in 1968, spending the rest of his life in Britain). If you want a short introduction to his politics and interpretation of political ideologies, this short essay (on why he simultaneously considered himself a socialist, a liberal, and a conservative) is a good place to start.

people.virginia.edu/~smd5r/Kolak01.htm

But I wasn't talking about one of them being a better worker. I was talking about how hard each of said people work.

Alright. You have never been paid the same as someone else who has been phoning it in?

>implying you have to be a wagecuck to realize that capitalism will eventually be obsolesced
I honestly can't wait til your shitty cashier job at Dollar Tree is replaced by a robot and Marx is proven objectively right.

how are you supposed to back up an argument against an argument he made without evidence?
>gift societies
>what people were like tens of thousands of years ago

How is that a logical contradiction rather than just being a relatively onorthodox and radical thought?

Das Kapital does not oppose or seek out to debunk wealth of nations. It largely builds on it, albeit by also seeing faults at it. The idea somehow that Marxism is an intellectual enemy of Smith, or that Smith is somehow the good one of the two is bizarre, as both largely subscribed to similar ideas. They are both archaic, due to their insistence of labour theory of value.

Kolakowski is pretty controversional writer, especially among sociologists (he's somewhat more well regarded among intellectual historians and political scienctists). Starting off the history of Marxism with him might be a contentious choice - albeit, by far the most orthodox of the big ones.

You must not have read either. See this post:
Marx calls Smith's doctrine useful for it's time period but outdated. Then he proposes a variety of contradictory claims to spite Smith. There is no congruent theme or idea espoused by the two. If you can find a single major idea shared by the two I'd appreciate it.
>They are both archaic, due to their insistence of labour theory of value.

Oh, it's retarded.

People would work under communism for most of the same reasons they work today. Why do you think everyone doesn't just decide to work at McDonalds since you get paid enough to not starve? They work harder, better paying jobs so that they can get better stuff. The same would be true in Communism, people would work harder for better luxuries. The main difference would be that workplaces would be controlled by the workers, and not the higher ups.

Then why didn't that happen in any of the communist states we've had throughout history? 100% of them have ended in the exact same way, slavery, death and misery.

I believe every single precept on these lists. I must know more of this man.

So, would the secretaries and janitors have equal say on how the hospital was run as the doctors and nurses?

Because nothing can go wrong with mob rule, surely the majority won't oppress the minority.

>To mechanise the profession of the cashier proves Marx right
How?

Marx couldn't even envision the emergence of service economy where most people are cashiers, waitresses and mechanics. He unironically thought le industrial society is the end of capitalism.

...

This is exactly the topic I want to read about. In what work does he argue this, considering he has written a lot? In other words, which of his works are worth most reading?

He's building capitalism, just doesn't know it.

>capitalism is when people do stuff

Communists are niggers.
Proof?

Pic related, communist niggers.

das kapital mane

I should read him at some point but economics is such a shit subject.

What about that one guy in ur pic whose kinda asian looking or possibly latino