How did you feel when you realized Marxism is still a relevant framework for socioeconomic analysis...

>How did you feel when you realized Marxism is still a relevant framework for socioeconomic analysis, and literally everyone spouting shit about Marx hasn't read anything?
I felt like you're a dumb leftist who needs to be forcibly removed from society.

Tbh everyone who hasn't read at least an overview of Das Kapital should stop talking about politics period.

>special snowflakeisms like queer """"""theory""""".

this. all Marxism does is feed into the SJW narrative that contains no logic. marx's writings are a direct cause of all the stuff we are seeing now adays

got basically banned from a bar last night for speaking about marxism to some shit talking guy who hadn't even read marx

Feelsrevolutionaryman.jpeg

Most people that speak against Marx only regurgitate the retarded shit they have been misinformed about so the cycle keeps repeating.

Engels makes way more sense, but really the only interesting thing is marxist crit in relation to literature, unless you're one of those dystopia post apocalyptic fantasy lovers. Actually, you should try to recruit some Gene Wolfe fans to read Das Kapital. That could really work.

>Before the recession
>""""recession""""
You mean buyer beware digital paper play casino?
You mean the world is full of predators and prey and the government is the beast and the belly?
a couple million suckers """recession""" is a couple thousands suckees anti-recession
there is no free lunch

>special snowflakeisms
kys

See and Marx's conception of how to start revolutions by taking advantage of every marginal idiot with an agenda directly led to the dilution and cheapening of his actual ideas. He was a short-sighted failure.

this

>short-sighted
Capitalism is a limiter of Positive Human Potential. There doesnt need to be anything low quality. The entire world can be made anyway, pristine cities, or whatever style. There exists individuals. There exists resources. There exists knowledge (of how do to things with resources). Every horrific problem in the world, is capitalism's fault.

Did I say anything about capitalism being any better? I swear, you Marxists are all such defensive little twats.

Whats better than both then? You called Marx short-sighted, but he was speaking about potential far future likelihood's, marx died 1883, 134 years ago... drop in the water

wow

>sjw
>logic
>marxism
if atleast two of these words are in the same sentence you cant be sure that ur bout to hear some mothafuckin bullshit

>a couple million suckers """recession""" is a couple thousands suckees anti-recession
You realise that's not actually a good thing.

>You realise that's not actually a good thing.
Did you miss the part where I said: Buyer beware? Do you hate the free market, commie?

ITT

>accelerationist
>doesn't realize that if Marx is wrong there's nothing to accelerate

>accelerationist
>doesn't realize that if Marx is wrong there's nothing to accelerate
>doesnt realize the user he is replying to is a 17 year old that doesn't know what accelerationism refers to, but likely think it refers to acceleration towards the alt right traditionalistic trump pol future

Marxism is relevant as an intellectual and political phenomenom that highlights the obsession of the intelligentsia as a caste in its search for absolute power.

If you want decent political theory, read Pareto, Mosca and Michels instead.

Quote anything from marx that could be interpreted as a "direct cause" of your sjw spook.

Man, I don't even know either way.

Is there some handy Veeky Forums approved chart that shows what political science books a total noob can start reading?

>You realise that's not actually a good thing.
looks like this is a great example of how good and bad are relative

I was surprised, but it is true. Both statements are.

G U L A G A R C H I P E L A G O

It makes me sad that everyone itt has or will ignore this post

Good

Good

>Putting politics of power before content and a talk of virtues

I sometimes think today's extremists don't deserve half the rights they enjoy in the western world.

///////reddit

Your response held no value, study sum mo n com back when you're read, pleb.

>Your response held no value
>he thinks my response held no value

study sum mo n com back when you're read, pleb.

How do you not comprehend why the 'lefts' 'enemies' call them marxists? Because the left generally wants to 'help people', and the main motivation of marxism was 'helping people', and marxism generally in the baby boomer and beyond zeitgeist has bad connotations, so to have a bunch of people call a bunch of people marxists, has those multiple relations of meaning.

>mfw realizing the Frankfurt School members were right
>I used to fall for the 'cultural marxism causes cultural erosion' meme when it's actually the opposite

Automation is actually a great argument in favor of abolishment of private property.

marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm

You niggers need to read Adorno.

>marxism
>relevant
Yea dude, after the raging success that was the USSR, or the land of joy and prosperity as many of its citizens liked to call it, it's only understandable that people would want a sequel.

You have never read Marx and have no idea what you are talking about. What a surprise.

Illustrating OP's point. You haven't read Marx and you are out of your depth.

Lol that was a good chuckle

Wow. Are you twelve? Or simply mentally challenged? Is this the shit neo/pol/ is breeding on this site now? Do stormfronters really believe this? Just wow.

>read a Cultural Marxist Jewish shill who wants to destroy everything good in society
No thanks.

*brain explodes under the pressure of your truthbomb*

Adorno complains about degradation and commodification of culture, consumerism etc.

Go read him already, fucking retard

I'm not strictly Anti-Marxist as a philosophy, but you don't really need to read Marx if you're analyzing Communism as a viable model of society.

Dude literally called the cops on feminists

No.

>YOU MUST READ X BOOK AND X THEORY TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME FUCKING PLEEEBBS

This is the reason why your movement is dying. Summarize or fuck off.

>he posts on a literature board
>"why do I have to read something to talk about it?"

>coherent and sensible
Your post is not a good example of this, user.

If your mind is an advertisement for the "redpill" then I don't want it.

I literally cannot understand why Marx is even still relevant. He is basically the Hitler of whatever the equivalent of /pol/ is on the left.

Honestly, if the Soviet Union was never established, would Marxism be anything more than a historical relic that you spend about a paragraph on in your 101 course? As an economist, he really has absolutely no value, and as a philosopher he really gets outclassed by any of his peers.

Honestly, I have read Marx. I have tried to understand the hype. I really have tried, but it just isn't there. What is so great about him other than the fact that the identity of being a "marxist" appeals to the outcasts of our society, much like being a "national socialist" I might add? I'm just so tired of discussing him, he can't pull his weight on his own.

>He tries to proseylizte his leftist drivel
>"Why are all these people telling me to fuck off when I tell them to read my propaganda-driven authors with an agenda to sell me instead of reading what they want?"

Nobody's created a better excuse to kill masses of rich people solely for being rich yet.

I'm not even any of the posters here, I just hopped on to jab at your hypocrisy.

I completely agree with everything you said and I think that's why we should all be reading Marx, the doctrine of Marx omniscient because it is true, not only that but it corrupts the young, and that's what philosophy is for ever since Socrates.

fucking excellent

I agree. I am currently on the side of those that spout shit about Marx however (the non-"left"). It angers me that they are spouting about what idiots that have abused Marx since the 60's are presenting.

"cultural marxism" and its relationship to the frankfurt school for example. What they are actulaly talking about is the Marcusian protest movement. The split in the 60's between Marcuse and Adorno. Adorno believed that the emotional way that Marcuse was getting his students to act would lead to a "left-fascism" like the borgious celebrities we see today influncing the population to provide excuses for the rich to get richer from imported slave labour.

Marx was not a statist!

Read Adorno, look at Hollywood
Read Marx again
Read The una-bomber (don't blow anyone up) to get an impression of the problem from a different angle. (what are you going to do now the "techno-industrial society" is upon us and a cult of personality is around people like Zuckerberg/Jobs from the leftists?)

I think your idiotic friends have fucked everything up to be honest m8. oh well. WHITE PAWR! YEEEHAH!

I can't remember. I was a communist already at age 16 or so, a really stupid communist, but still. I read the Manifesto and then I tried to read Capital but didn't really get through it so I instead read some other people talking about it, then I read Lenin, Stalin and Mao, I kinda believed half of what they wrote.

I had not heard anything particularly bad about Marxism before that phase so, I didn't really ever believe the anti-Marxist guys.

>no job
>no income
>no property

I wonder what will happen when the properties your town doesn't own ends up being in the place of those who have the power to afford things (read: the class who will not be impacted by a "class uprising) buy an army and tanks to kick you all out so they can build a golf course.

woah it's so edgy and rebellious to support bigger government, PC culture, more taxes and side with radical islam against enlightenment values!

>/pol/ told me what Marx said, why would they lie?

lol, you've read marx. the communist manifesto doesn't count buddy. you sound like you know very little

Honestly, you marxists are so thin-skinned. Even if you like him, admit that he has his faults and just does not cut it in the ranks that his name is thrust into.

I mean your boy got BTFO by a cartoon character.

>Even if you like him, admit that he has his faults
pretty much every marxist nowadays does this, you know. some of them really don't take much of marx's own opinions as true, rather just borrowing certain methods and viewpoints from him. marxism has been alive and developing for over a century

> just does not cut it in the ranks that his name is thrust into.
and now you're being ignorant: marx has had an enormous effect in many fields of study. just go to wikipedia if you don't know this much. he was revolutionary at his time, even if most of his exact theories don't really cut it today.

it has nothing to do with the soviet union alone, but sure, the communist movement in general has helped his influence

Bump

See Marxism is really about the intelligentsia's quest for power and nothing else.

Or, as Raymond Aron put it:

>"Probably the intellectual has more difficulty than the common man in freeing himself from this ideology which, like the State which derives from it, is his especial handiwork. The Soviet government rules in the name of a doctrine elaborated by an intellectual whose life was spent in libraries and interpreted for the past century by countless other intellectuals. Under a Communist régime the intellectuals, sophists rather than philosophers, rule the roost. The examining magistrates who unmask deviations, the writers coerced into socialist realism, the engineers and managers who are supposed to execute the plans and to interpret the ambiguous orders of the central authority — all must be dialecticians. The Secretary-General of the Party, master and arbiter over the lives of millions of men, is also an intellectual: at the end of a triumphal career he offers to the faithful a theory of capitalism and socialism — as though a book represented the highest accomplishment. The emperors of old were often poets or thinkers; for the first time the emperor actually reigns qua dialectician, interpreter of the doctrine and of history."

I guess I see what you're saying, I just still can't understand, from my own studies, why his name endeared over the years. I don't disagree that he has been influential, I just don't believe he earned it.

I hate every Marx thread. You know why?
We get a Bible thread, sensible discussion and reccomendations. A Greek laguage thread, the same.

What is it about Marx that makes all of the economically and politically illeterate come out of the woodwork and post nonsense and ignorance on this subject?

Because commies and nazis are retarded?

>Yea dude, after the raging success that was the USSR
>doesnt know its the current year

>kill masses of rich people solely for being rich yet.
Or, ask them nicely to stop stealing the working classes labor?

Being this somewhat a general consensus about Marx on this board, does that mean that Veeky Forums dismisses Hegel entirely for the same reasons?

You're kidding, right? Many people here are of the far-left/Marxist variety, and take the 'Not true communism' approach to the USSR.

this may be or not be true in a world who cites harrypotter

>The USSR wasn't TRUE communism! If we listen to the pseudo-scientific theories of a 19th century economist surely we'll solve the world's problems and usher in an era of global peace and happiness!

would you be interested to know that only two pages in all of Capital even allude to what communist life would be like? would you be interested to know that Russia, at the time of the revolution, was largely populated by isolated groups of peasants, divorced for the most part from contemporary advances in production, and therefore from class struggle? would you believe, further, that Marx, before even coming to terms with the consequences of his critique of Hegelian teleology (which would not happen until the Grundrisse of 1857-58), had already in The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, a 1852 historiography of the 1851 coup lead by the latter, critiqued the revolutionaries of France for failing to take into account that country's large peasant population, its failure to consolidate itself as a class, and its isolation from advances in production and from class struggle? has it at all occurred to you, in other words, that it is not only stupid, as you rightly assert, to forecast a communist utopia as the inevitable and immanent result of all revolutionary action, but that marx is famous for something other than that stupidity?

I don't think Marx was stupid, I think the people who still cling to his analyses 150 years later while ignoring all other major thinkers are stupid. If the only historians/economists/philosophers you read are marxists, then you're a cultist. Marxism has all the trappings of a religion:

Revered founder - check
Sacred texts - check
Charismatic leaders - check
Iconography and relics - check
Proselytizing missionaries - check
Meetings and societies - check
Hymns - check

Face it, in another life you would have been a Jehovah's Witness or something like that.

while i am tempted to say that the sheer magnitude of empirical analysis backing up Capital is nothing short of a miracle, i must say that i disagree with you on all counts. the things you are interpreting as religious about marxism say more about the political functions of religion, and the outward manifestations of those functions in ideological apparatuses in capitalist society, than they do about marxism.

...

lamo

Have you read anything? Like, actual peer-reviewed contemporary Marxist political economy?

This is not what modern Marxism is.

>I must say

You're a pompous idiot. When you try to make your posts sound "scholarly" or "intellectual" I hope you know you're not fooling anyone.

>Marxism is really about the intelligentsia's quest for power and nothing else.
No, its about having everyone in the world have a higher base level intelligence

>No, its about having everyone in the world have a higher base level intelligence
and therefore, everyone having more power

I'm not too familiar with this board, though I'm glad to hear that if you're not trolling (although I'm skeptical of your "many people" being this an american board with their hegemonic point of view).

neck y o u r s e l f

>Marx = USSR i.e. a country that had a revolution in a semi-industralised country and that due to the failure of the revolution in Germany was left politically isolated and forced to fall back on state capitalism to defend its continued existence which of course led to its gradual degeneration and eventual transition to "regular" capitalism

To think this is the be all and end of of social development and to actually oppose a fully automated post-labor society. Pretty depressing man.

One can always even make the "state socialism wasn't even THAT bad" case.

I mean, industrialization wasn't pretty in capitalist countries, either. You had child labor, horrible working conditions, horribly long workdays, poverty for the workers etc - the same shit you had in the USSR. The USSR however did industrialize itself rather quickly, so that part of their history wasn't a total failure - big cost for development, but the same applied to capitalist countries.

What followed was shitty due to them not being able to run the planned economy properly (among other things), which they then tried to hide with repression. But still, most of the time the USSR did manage to provide a somewhat reasonable standard of living to its citizens.

tl;dr USSR was bad but it wasn't as total a failure as one might think

Hang around by factory outlet pipes fucking in the mud waiting for the protein rich nutrient slurry to gush forth?

That guy might be retarded or trolling, but he is essentially correct. The only result of marxist governments gaining control are bullets in the back of the head and state control of business that morphs into capitalism with a huge black market, or scandinavian socialism, which has plenty of capitalist elements.

The whole point of Utopias are that they cannot be reached.

>Luddites were less wrong than Marx.

This is the real discussion to have. Does there reach a point where tech innovation and efficiency makes such a dent in human earning power that it actually decreases consumption, growth, and avg. wage? Are we already there?