I'm having coffee with an old professor and some of his Marxist colleagues...

They are older (50's-60's). One of them was captured and tortured by the Pinochet regime while studying abroad. I always thought this might have started his contempt for the US, especially the imperialistic aspect. His main argument is, on a moral and philosophical basis, he doesn't believe in any sort of stratification of humans. He only gave us one grad the whole semester because he was required to submit something to the college. He's also a huge proponent of Nietzsche and "God is Dead" and argues almost everyone isn't truly a Christian, even if they claim to be.

Labor theory of value. Chris Chan is not a good artist because he tries hard.

They might outright reject that element of Marxism, it's not uncommon to do.

Ask them how they plan on making communism popular among the working class, especially since they themselves are merely intellectuals, and thus disconnected from the culture and desires of the working class.

What nationality is him?

That’s another thing, the not truly Christian might not really work in a thirld world nation where you have very religious people and it’s the thirld world the more actually “Marxist” nations
And how does he define Christianity?

He's American. He essentially argues that, because of technology, society is devoid of any true morality based on religion. He believes religion is pre-Lutherian and that a priest is necessary.

Be prepared for them using very scummy tactics of wordplay and rhetoric as well as just throwing the debate down if they find themselves 'cornered'. The quality of the debate will take a noticeable nosedive if they realize they can't win with rhetoric.

Then that’s mostly an American assumption
Latin America, the Philippines and Africa have very religious populations that still go to church a lot and interact with their priest, who have lots of influence
My great grandmother had a picture of John Paul II next to one of the Virgin and one of Jesus, they have one of Francis there now
My grandmother and her siblings have been going to the same church for years and know the father, one of her sisters I believe goes every afternoon with her friends

OP isn't trying to debate.

Why did the communist revolution happen in the least capitalistic countries? Doesn't this go against Marxist though?

Why would you willing associate with Marxists? Would you have tea with Nazis? Cancel your date. Have some principles.

i don't get it

I would have tea with a Nazi. I can still find an idea completely misguided or reprehensible. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to understand their thought process better in order to form new arguments against it or connections with other ideas.

I’d rather than throw them out of a fucking helicopter.

>Marx
>rich
Lol wat

t. 15 year old ‘libertarian’ whose entire experience debating ‘communists’ is when the rebellious Stalin fanboy in his high school history class goes full Hoxha

>blaming liberals for neo-marxism
um, try again sweetie

ask them how they became marxists

>They are more well read than me and very smart but I know that their philosophy is flawed
Wew

>Blaming """""neo-marxists""""" for liberalism
>Thinking """""neo-marxists""""" exist

was jus guna com this

obviously socialism is proven to work like in the nordic countries. A strong middle-class, makes a strong currency that comes from the true "raw commodity" of our day- technology.
Which the more people getting educated, the greater the capital of.

Simply pressing the button that physically makes the cup, isn't the only thing required to make the cup.

Compare how Marx lived to how the average factory worker in Manchester lived.

>The contempt for the working class is one my biggest issues with modern day Marxists

Marxists have always had contempt and disdain for the working class. Their plea for the poor and the working class is nothing more than affirmation for their envy and hatred of those they perceived to be better than them (aka the rich). Marxists hate the rich but have no love for the working class, never have and never will.

>let me tell you about your entire community based on my own biases

I am a Marxist. My Mother worked 2 fucking jobs. I rarely if ever saw my Dad, and I couldn’t even fucking afford school textbooks. I grew up in one of the poorest boroughs in London.

Fuck off with your deluded ‘I understand those flag waving, aggressive, brute workers!’ bullshit you middle class closet fascist prick.

>They're obviously much more well read than me, and I'm curious to see which draws such smart people to (in my opinion) an extremely flawed philosophy.
How did you form your opinion about the philosophy of Marx without reading him? He was more than muh revolution.

>n-neo-marxist dont exist! It was all da libarul boogeyman!
nice try leftypol

FPBP
Marxists are subhuman

>he thinks marxism is going to solve poverty
looooool

Unironically proving his point

Don't bother op. Marxists are dinosaurs deeply set in their ways. The whole baby and bathwater may as while be tossed, given how conclusively their ideas have been debunked

Majority of Marx's childrens still died due to poor living conditions.

I grew up in a third world country surrounded by poverty but my parents worked hard and we managed to emigrate to America. My parents were able to provide me and my siblings a comfortable middle class lifestyle. I don't miss having to boil water every time I wanted to drink because the water is infested with bacteria and parasites; I don't miss having to be on guard when walking the streets for roving street gangs or shake downs from bent cops; and I certainly don't miss the atmosphere of greed that comes with poverty.

For every sob story like yours its always followed by an excuse. You lucked into economic safety by being born in the West; unless your parents had medical issues or disabilities they are entirely at fault for you being born and raised in relative poverty. What the fuck were they thinking having a family without being economically stable? Why didn't your mother or father further their education or learn a trade to earn higher income? These are questions you have to ask yourself before you go on blaming a system for your problems.

>Fuck off with your deluded ‘I understand those flag waving, aggressive, brute workers!’ bullshit you middle class closet fascist prick.

You're wrong I don't sympathize with the working class, I despise them. Unless you're an immigrant and/or have medical disabilities there's no excuse for not being able to provide for yourself and your family.

>bilions of people working 12 hours a day 6 days a week on field are jsut lazy

And you just took a White Americans job you fucking spic or nigger benefiting from my government taking pity on you, you disgusting cretin. We should unironically of kept you in sweatshops since they benefit your disgusting shithole countries and shitty genes.

You talk about all this shit about improving crap and blaming parents for having children and yet your fucking nigger brain fails to realize you lucked out by getting into my Country. If my government wasn't some liberal shithole and actually looked at iq graphs you'll be bubbling away your water still like some stupid ape instead of creating some actual water purifiers and investing in them and making a successful business. I'll like to see you get anywhere in your country without ironically like you said lucking out by getting to America. Thank god Whites are waking up to your bullshit.

>left: Before liberalism
>right: After liberalism

All I hear from you is bitching and moaning, and "unironically" type like a dumb faggot.

The world doesn't care about you and it certainly doesn't need you, so the fact that you think that you can demand anything of it and you're entitled to shit just for breathing is fucking hilarious. There's a reason why immigrants like me are taking jobs, it's because lazy shitbags like yourself are refusing to actively participate in the workforce.

You live in a free country overflowing with economic opportunities, at the end of they day you alone are responsible for your fall or rise in the world; anything else other than that is a fucking excuse and I'm waiting to here yours but I assure you it's nothing I haven't heard before.

>Thank god Whites are waking up to your bullshit.

What whites are you talking about? You who lives in the trailer or ghetto? White like you don't have any money, so gives a shit what you think.

Your words, not mine.

>unironically believing in the "taking our jobs meme"
The economy is not a zero-sum game

Don't embarrass yourself

every NEET sperg out always manages to mention IQ, it's pretty funny

How can Marxism simultaneousyl claim to be a totally materialistic theory/set of theories, while at the same time being entirely broken up by social conventions? Class is the ultimate divider in Marxism, and class is entirely a social phenomenon. You can easily posit members of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in similar or even identical levels of wealth and comfort, doctors do better than most small business owners. What differentiates them, under Marx's theories, is whether or not they're laborers bweing paid a wage by someone else, or independent owners of a business, which is a social distinction. And by the way, what makes THAT social distinction the key one and not other social distinctions? Why is the fundamental class conflict between labor and business and not say, rural vs urban?

social democracy is not socialism you illiterate ape

See if they're actually Marxist, anti-equality (Crititue of the Goth Programme), pro-gun(Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League), pro-free-trade(On the Question of Free Trade) etc.

Why would they want to live a shit life? Being a bourgeoisie commie means "I wouldn't mind being a worker if capitalism didn't treat workers so shitty" not "I want to suffer under capitalism like you and be a cuck that defends capitalism anyways"

Leninism and Maoism are heterodox. Marx always had contempt for the lumpen proles.

Communism is not anti-stratification. Contrary to popular meme, communism doesn't mean absolute equality. Absolute equality is an enlightenment meme. Communism is against arbitrary and property base hierarchy. Marxist communism is fairly individualistic and acknowledges the differences between people, but in the context of a functional society where people benefit from association, not a hermit like mountain man.

To each the same, from each the same, because everyone is the same is a meme. The socialist distribution principle is to each according to his (individual) contribution (to society). The communist distribution principle is to each according to his (individual) needs, from each according to his (individual) ability. In some ways these distribution principles are more radically individualist than capitalism.

It's neither that central, not is it that wrong. Marx's ("socially necessary labor") LTV is not Ricardo's, who does not get shit on by capitalists because he's not a commie, but Marx is constantly strawmanned with Ricardo's LTV. STV doesn't solve the diamond-water paradox. STV focuses on the demand curve. LTV focuses on an equilibrium defined by a labor based supply curve. STV is applicable in more places than LTV because capitalism creates many situations where supply may be artificially constrained, but in well developed competitive industries it trends towards LTV.

>socialism not coming after liberalism

You just want to force feed the g*rm your anglo tea and be smug about it you perfidious anglo

Leninism isn't real communism. See Lenin's NEP and Deng's socialism with Chinese characteristics which acknowledge that those nations needed to go through accelerated capitalism. Also see Rosa Luxemburg on a contemporary view why vanguard party Bolshevism is not real communism.

That's not real socialism, that's third-way corporatism.

He's saying society is historically determined by materialism, and there's a long term trend for the underclasses to eventually revolt when things got bad and institute a new system that was better for them if the material realities could facilitate it.

>Marx's ("socially necessary labor") LTV is not Ricardo's, who does not get shit on by capitalists because he's not a commie, but Marx is constantly strawmanned with Ricardo's LTV.

That's because Ricardo acknowledge that LTV was flawed and failed to account for many things. Whereas Marx took it as gospel.

>but in well developed competitive industries it trends towards LTV.

In no way is this true. Labor is a minor factor in determining price in competitive industries.

>That's because Ricardo acknowledge that LTV was flawed and failed to account for many things. Whereas Marx took it as gospel.
No he didn't. Marx modified LTV to make more sense.

>In no way is this true. Labor is a minor factor in determining price in competitive industries.
It is though. It's industries that have either legal rights of exclusion or prohibitively high barriers to entry or are new and not settled markets that prices do not trend towards LTV.

Higher competition among workers leads to lower wages. Are you seriously going to pretend that hiring some illegal and paying him dirt nothing doesn't screw over an actual citizen who may have done the job, but for a decent wage?

Mobility of capital hurts just as much as mobility of laborers. If you don't let laborers in, they'll just ship jobs out, and then you can't even compete for the job.

Rather than just say "x isnt y" you need to say why it is different. It's like you are not even aware of the "real communism" meme and how both sides of the argument use it. Although I'm sure you are not, it seems you are throwing labels haphazardly.

Highlight the practical impossibility of a planned economy due to its problem of economic calculus. To support your argument, point out the state capitalism that existed inside the old socialist bloc in Eastern Europe, along with the large informal sector of its economies (some estimate this sector representated up to 40% of the Hungarian economy).

Kek

Book them a helicopter tour around the city.

Ask them if they are jewish

A helicopter tour through the 10,000 feet of the city skyline, more like.

The LTV as Ricardo, and thus Mill, saw it was flawed because of an error stated in Leon Walras' 'Elements of Pure Economics'.

It tries to determine the interest and price at the same time. This is called 'begging the question' i.e. the price is this value because the interest is this value, or the interest is this value because the price is this value.

Economics is much more complicated than that, taking a grounds based approach and understanding that economies fluctuate with value of their goods based on the constantly changing psychological marginal utilities of the individual, is a more rational approach. Pic related, Irving Fisher's price machine. Ask them what they think of this, OP.

Attached: Price-Machine.jpg (332x400, 27K)

>Americans talking about Marxism

Americans. Not even once.

> It's like you are not even aware of the "real communism" meme and how both sides of the argument use it.
I am aware. That's why I used that specific phrasing. Veeky Forums is a place for being sardonic.

>Rather than just say "x isnt y" you need to say why it is different.
I did. NEP, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Luxemburg. NEP and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics admitted it wasn't real communism as said they needed state capitalism (not the stalinism is state capitalism meme) to transition their economies into late stage capitalism for the transition to socialism. Do I really have to spoonfeed everything to you? NEP is ignored because it ended shortly after Lenin died and Stalinism was the defining system for the USSR. Deng is ignored because westerners thought he was making China capitalist and only communist in name. Luxemburg is a whole bunch of bolshevism isn't real communism before the USSR was even established.

>Non-Americans
Not even once.

Mental.

Seething

Maybe try looking at Capital, Volume IV, aka Theories of Surplus-Value. There, he criticizes Ricardo at length.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/index.htm

This was part of the same project that created Capital. It's been published in a few different forms. You can thank Kautsky for separating it from Capital.

I just find it hard to talk to Americans about anything beyond their own stupidity.

>It's industries that have either legal rights of exclusion or prohibitively high barriers to entry or are new and not settled markets that prices do not trend towards LTV.

So by your own admittance you acknowledge that price trend towards LTV exists only during the growth phase of an industry but doesn't exist during the introductory and maturity phase.

No, I'm saying it exists in the maturity phase in industries without extremely prohibitive barriers to entry. Not all mature industries have extremely high barriers to entry. That's what I was saying from the start when I said well developed competitive industries.

>No, I'm saying it exists in the maturity phase in industries without extremely prohibitive barriers to entry. Not all mature industries have extremely high barriers to entry. That's what I was saying from the start when I said well developed competitive industries.

While new firms do lean towards LTV they are a small segment of the market within mature industries, think small businesses and mom & pop shops as opposed to corporations and large store chains. So what you're saying about LTV pricing within mature industries is not necessarily true. In fact amongst the established firms due to economies of scale, labor as a factor affecting price is small.

You're ignoring the fact that efficient firms still have to compete (which is why I used the word competitive) with efficient firms, and prices tend to trend towards the cost of production, with the cost of production (including opportunity costs) being the price floor, and therefore labor and other inputs, such as raw materials and means of production, of which a significant portion is still determined by labor, just labor by the firms producing those commodities. Deviation from LTV generally has to do with being able to enact barriers to entry of some sort, or the market for the fungible commodity not being stable and well developed somewhere in the chain of production.

LTV is invisible hand stuff assuming that the production side can suitably adapt to demand. The one time Smith mentions the invisible hand, he is actually talking about the supply side. STV avoids the complexity of calculation and conditions of LTV by focusing on the demand side, and is a useful tool for analyzing non competitive or volatile markets.

LTV has a limited scope because it operates on an idealized market. STV has a limited scope because is focuses mostly on demand. They really aren't mutually exclusive. Under an idealized LTV model, STV still exists. The reason why STV is more useful is because STV applies where LTV does not, and LTV does not apply to a lot of things because the conditional assumptions underlying LTV are rarely met. It's simply better to understand LTV has limited scope, not hurr durr it's wronggggg.

>training
whew
I think one of the biggest problems that socialists have with modern capitalism is big, astronomically wealthy, near untouchable mega corps. The perfect example of capitalism in the real world is a mom-and-pop shop, the worst in the real world is a board of directors deciding to fire 7,000 people because they want to save an extra 2% this quarter.

/thread

He doesn't understand what liberalism is

>you will never work for a company where the board of directors is the workers and the CEO is in the weird position of managing workers but also be accountable to them

But rosa luxembourg died in 1919, 3 years before the NEP was even started.

But even with the raw material and machinery factor, the reason you need to buy those is because laborers extracted the RM and built the machinery. Labor supersedes supply in nearly every circumstance.

How does this make any sense to you? I never said Luxemburg said anything about NEP. I said Luxemburg wrote on Bolshevism. I even said this was before the USSR was even established, and obviously NEP as well.

NEP and socialism with Chinese characteristics is an admittance than the system run by the "communist" parties of the time was not actually communism. It was an admission by "communist" parties that they had to go through a pseudo-capitalist phase, and therefore, not yet real communism.

Lenin didn't think the USSR was real communism, even if he was a "communist" and Luxemburg didn't think Bolshevism was "real communism" for other reasons.

Either I'm misunderstanding what you just said, or I'm pretty sure that's similar to what I posted.

Where's the pic from?

Well meme'd friend!!!

Oh ok I was mistaken. I thought for a second you were making a left comm argument.

>I know they understand the subject better than me but they must me wrong because I was told marxism is bad
Embarrassing

Ask them why they think humans should be evenly represented in the statistics when they’re not equal

"smart people"
haha

Marxism is an economic theory. You won't find much social tenets in it's doctrine. Whatever socials doctrines are used depends on the politicians or societies that implement them. Socialism/Communsim usually took root in conservative countries (Russia, China) so in it's implementation it was conservative.
But when Marxism takes root in the west and gets in contact with Liberalism it adopts it's social doctrines for example :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminism
libertarianism.org/columns/condition-transgender-women-libertarian-perspectives
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_liberalism_era
(Libertarianism is Liberalism but rejects the elements of Leftism in the Liberal movement from the 1955s onward, namely the calls for government action, but as you can see their social policies remain the same)
Meanwhile in Marxists countries:
>The origin of H[omosexualism] is linked to everyday social conditions; for the overwhelming majority of people indulging in H[omosexualism], these perversions stop as soon as the person finds himself in a favorable social environment.... In Soviet society with its healthy mores, H[omosexualism] as a sexual perversion is considered shameful and criminal. Soviet criminal legislation regards H[omosexualism] as punishable with the exception of those instances where H[omosexualism] is a manifestation of marked psychic disorder.

It's all a matter of culture and social policies. Just like Capitalism can be Conservative or Liberal.
But it is Liberals that sponsored all kinds of Identity or progressive movements from even before Socialism was theorized

Attached: 6.jpg (830x573, 256K)