How was he so right about literally everything? Is this the power of dialectics?

>general exhaustion and the establishment of the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working class.
He was going so strong until this point, but the rest was pretty impressive.

But was he really the only person to see it coming?

>Marxism isn't ideology

Now THIS is ideology.

>He was going so strong until this point

He was not wrong there, it did result in the rise of the USSR.
It was just after that point that things started to go to shit.

My ideology isn't ideology, the ideology says so itself!

*shniff*

I'd hardly call the establishment of the USSR to be the "ultimate victory of the working class."

>It was just after that point that things started to go to shit
Doesn't that kind of make it not ultimate?

>Marxism isn't ideology

>Marxism isn't ideology

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The "conditions" for the ultimate victory he said. Your point is correct though, the prediction is at the same time prophetic and tragic

>Marxism isn't ideology

He lived the dream.

Marxism is literally Red dit

Man Marx is great but don't beleieve anything he says bruh

>Marxism isn't ideology
where do you people come from?

Well then read Mises. Or any austrian for that matter. But I guess that's too much reading, isn't it?

>Marxism isn't ideology
Game over man.

>COMMUNISM WILL NEVER WORK MARX IS STUPID

Said everyone who has no clue what communism is outside of American propaganda and never read anything by Marx.

you forgot
>be hated by millions of stupid and uneducated americans who have never read your work or nothing related to the subject for that matter

If he was so right about everything, how couldn't he predict the logical conclusion of putting his theory into practice?

What was Bakunins alternative? Just sit around and wait for the White Army to rape everyone

The USSR wasn't real communism.

The final word on communism:

526. The argument between socialism and capitalism comes down to this: to those who, when left to their own devices, naturally rise above the mean, and to those who fall below. The former will be proponents of capitalism, the latter of socialism. The former are talented and hard-working, the latter talentless and lazy. And all this is proved by the failure of socialism, and in particular that of communism: its ultimate manifestation — as if a group of habitual losers at the individual level would be able to create, by pooling together all their weaknesses and failures, a winning combination!
But it is plain that, as they lose on the individual level — as individuals — they will ultimately lose on the group level too. The only reason they temporarily succeeded at a few points in history is because they were facing even greater losers: a complacent and degenerate aristocracy.

Unless you're talking about some hypothetical post-scarcity society where social engineering has completely altered human nature then the evidence that it doesn't work is pretty much irrefutable at this point.

A N I M E
N
I
M
E

That's pretty much what I was saying.

Why can't you just admit that it's an ideology? I have no problem admitting that I support certain ideologies. Being partisan, biased or unprincipled is obviously a bad thing but you don't need to pretend that Marxism is above ideology because it's a "materialist analysis of productive forces and relations and blah blah blah"

marx was actually left about literally everything desu

>muh human nature

Honestly, you should off yourself.

not an argument

The proposition that you should commit suicide is actually an argument

*grabs dick*

seize this means of production you fucking pinkos

>tfw you won't ever be Marx, writing the book that will save the world, Das Kapital, with your best friend, Engels, who also is fine with paying for your rent and food and sharing every single one of your passions

Marx-Engels has probably been the best bromance that has ever been

>human nature doesn't exist
looks like baby boy read Marx but not Darwin, the actual heavyweight of the XIX century

Darwin didn't produce a theory of "human nature" but a theory of natural selection. Humans are self-conscious enough to control and manipulate those more base forces if they so desire to.

Read Lenin, homeslice. Read Poulantzas. Read any 20th century Marxist outside of Althusser. They all repudiate the phrase "science" and speak very deliberately of Marxism as "socialist" or "communist ideology," or even "proletariat ideology." Now, granted, they will go as far as to say that proletariat ideology is the objective ideology of the mode of production insofar as they are the subject of its development—but dont think that this makes spreading it any less politically motivated, because then you're just a sympathetic liberal who wants to believe that your ideology is solemn fact.

unimaginative interpretation of the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat"

if the proletariat as a whole is really in command of the state and the means of the production, then the only people left out of power would be the remnants of the bourgeoisie, so vast a minority that they would hardly be missed when we ship them to the gulag.

looks like someone read neither but things scanning wikipedia for points that reinforce his ideology makes him an expert

i wish you knew how disgustingly backwards you are :'(

He wasn't. His denial of the existence of human nature makes his systems seemingly impossible to implement. Marxian economics is also not taken seriously by the mainstream of the profession.

Only uneducated dislike Marx? Why do the opinions of uneducated people matter?

What about the millions of uneducated people who died at the hands of policies attempting to implement his vision?

When did Marx deny the existence of human nature? Can you quote any passage?

marx was a fucking genius
volume one of capital is everything
i wish it were not so taboo to be a marxist in capitalist society
i fucking hate petite bourgoise cucks and the managerial class
false consciousness

>commieshitters get BTFO of /pol/
>have to hide in Veeky Forums
Fucking kek

>Marxian economics is also not taken seriously by the mainstream of the profession.

Duh no shit, no one is paying economists to talk about class antagonisms

>Marxism isn't ideology

>a discipline that thinks (quite unscientifically) that only market exchange exists, that cant justify any of its assertions about """rational""" human nature, that believes (again, unscientifically) not in tendency to crisis but in tendency to equilibrium in the unfettered market, and which is not dedicated to wholistic analysis of the economy but to maximizing profit for the capitalist firms

>doesnt take marx seriously

shocking, truly

>ever voluntarily spending time on racist /v/

Who the fuck still takes Economists seriously anymore

I'm on my phone so I can't quote a passage. He did believe that traits and behaviors are completely malleable from what I've read. I understand that's a matter of debate in the Marxist community though.

>calling the people climbing out of a cesspool btfo of the cesspool

>Marxian economics is also not taken seriously by the mainstream of the profession.
Yeah, because they're neoclassical hacks

>from what I've read

what the fuck have you read

That's not what mainstream economists believe. Writing off an entire field you don't have a background in doesn't make you smarter than those in it, it makes you anti-intellectual.

LTV was not incorporated in classical models hast been incorporated into neoclassical or Keynesian models for a reason. It's considered a dead end.

marxism doesnt stand or fall on ltv, but it is still more useful for explaining long term behavior of the mode of production than pure supply and demand models

I've read Singer's introduction to Marx and some of the Penguins classics das kapital series.

> Writing off an entire field you don't have a background in doesn't make you smarter than those in it, it makes you anti-intellectual.
>He says while apologizing for the writing off of an entire school of thought

Every school of economics claims every other school is a dead end. Its why its a meme field and can be barely even be considered a subject

>His denial of the existence of human nature makes his systems seemingly impossible to implement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_and_Human_Nature:_Refutation_of_a_Legend

>Marxian economics is also not taken seriously by the mainstream of the profession.

You mean Marxism isn't taken seriously by a field ideologically orientated toward capitalist political perspectives and frameworks? Gee, big surprise. Next you'll say atheists don't take seriously the Catholic Church's view on transubstantiation or classical theists and physicalism and that this somehow is a substantive critique on its soundness.

and what in that made you think humanity doesnt have an essential nature in marx?

let me phrase it another way: why do think marx believes production is a must? in other words, no matter what economic formation emerges, it is nevertheless centered on production of material goods to satisfy the needs of its people. for where else could the notion of social necessity, the cornerstone of the marxist theory of value, come from if not from a human nature, which is to produce?

what you will not find in marx, though, is an association of the natural tendency produce with a natural tendency toward violent competition. what you find in marx, then, is less a denial of human nature than a paring back of the concept to its essentials, a critique of its limits, and a rigorous examination of those claims that are hand-waived away by bourgeois economists with their homo oeconomicus under its sign.

Marxian economics relies heavily on the ltv. Aside from that, the field is not taken serious because of the economic calculation problem, the fact that TRPF is highly inconsistent and perverse incentives are widely established to exist. That just names a few.

>TRPF is highly inconsistent

lol what

>he actually believes humans are in control

The greatest joke of all.

Mainstream economists don't generally consider anything in neoclassical or Keynesian models to be dead ends. Considering that is the vast majority of economists who work in English speaking institutions that would seem to disprove your point.

Marxism is very important and Marx has made important contributions to many fields but that doesn't change the fact that Marxian economics is a dead end.

1. LTV only matters insofar as it is understood as what it is, a theory of value, not of price. all objections raised on this ground by the neoclassicists are made subsequent to their identification of price and value, something which fiat currency plainly disproves. don't think marxism cant account for fiat currency either: it's nothing but the final realization of the money form of value, in which currency detaches from material production entirely and functions only as a means of exchange.

2. marx himself was abundantly aware of the deviation of price from value, and so the transformation problem is more a consequence of his death than anything else. in any case it is hotly debated by marxian economists today, but again, marxism as a whole does not stand or fall on this sticking point.

3. rate of profit has empirically fallen dramatically (thanks ). dont confuse rate of profit with mass of profit. investing billions in constant capital still will make you rich even at 5%. but all the evidence suggests that this will intolerably bottom out in the future, as it had throughout the 20th century.

You're spouting nothing but pure contrived ideology. Suddenly everyone within your specifically framed schools are all in complete harmony while Marxism is being called "dead end" a provocation which is so grossly ambiguous that you can prempt your own skirting into different goal posts when pushed on your criticism

You're full of shit and are just hiding from having stand behind any real arguments

I'm the one spouting ideology? Truly ask yourself for a moment if I could possibly convince you that Marx was wrong.

>Marxian economics relies heavily on the ltv.
Ya, a theory of value is necessary for long run analysis
>the economic calculation problem
I don't think you know what this is, don't confuse a normative post-capitalist project and just attempting to understand the dynamics of what actually exists today
>TRPF is highly inconsistent
I don't see any inconsistency, you can argue if it's as relevant or violent of a tendency in a modern corporate economy i.e. one based on incorporation of credit, capitalized on the basis of the funds invested and to the amount of its prospective earnings capacity as it was in a earlier era of small partnerships

If something is correct then its not logically possible to prove it incorrect without the nature of reality itself altering. Your question is nonsensical

If they had kept it abstract and not felt the need to beg immanentization, their whole body of work would appear far stronger.

Are you seriously suggesting that Marx was correct even though his teachings fail every time when put into practice?

Define "put into practice", Marxism is concerned with analyzing Capitalism not prescribing statebuilding policies
We're not discussing specific attempts towards Communist societies here

So you're saying he's wrong about some things. That's fine, I suppose.

In so much as it started as a good faith effort to head the calls Marx and Engles were making, it is.

What it evolved into, and evolved into elsewhere, while not what Marx envisioned happening, can be seen as the effective result of praxis-ing what was preached.

Yes absolutely he was, especially in regards to the problems in revolutionary change and state power.
When it comes to his analysis of Capitalism itself though its had a near pristine account as far as I see, the only major oversights being the implications of permanent war and the rise of marketing

are you seriously postulating that marxism is a body of "teachings" which one can simply "implement" as a method of statecraft while just a few posts ago claiming that i am the one with no "background" in the field im criticizing? are you seriously relying on a neoclassical economists' stereotype of marxism in order to attack it?

as far as war goes, check out Mandel on the permanent arms economy in Late Capitalism. just goes to show that marxism is a method of analysis coupled with a theory of history, not a dogma. as for marketing, there is some suggestion, especially in the Grundrisse, that a massive middle class will rise and essentially function as a valorization farm for the big monopolies, the so-called "surplus class." this presumably involves book-keepers, salespeople, etc, but it wouldnt be difficult to adapt this to a theory of marketing, a whole industry that pops up to service and manage a class of people that popped up solely to service and manage capital.

>marx
>right

Pick one and only one.

Dude im directly responsible for tens of millions of deaths lmao

>directly

Did he go around strangling them or something?

He created a mind virus that would spread rapidly and cause others to murder people for equality.

>Is this the power of dialectics
Yes

Marxist dialectics suck.
The best dialectics is Mário Ferreira dos Santos' Dekadialectics.

He was wrong about his most important claim. That capitalism would fail and replacing it was not just necessary but inevitable. Everything Marx says is just trying to prove this.

Give it time

this is why economists don't take you marxists seriously

>But was he really the only person to see it coming?
No, Nietzsche did.

We already have. The claim that it is impossible for capitalism to be successful has already been proven wrong.

Give it more time

>mfw I lack the approval of economists

says the increasingly nervous marxist for the 50th time

>be marxist
>talk about economics, and things related to the economy, constantly
>have no understanding of economic theory
>look down on the entire field of economics
>feel smug about my lack of knowledge

When did marxism become so closely tied to anti-intellectualism? Must have started around the late 60s and early 70s with the rejection of scientific objectivity and shit but the problem has surely continued to grow since then. And now we get to today where the 21st century modern marxists are literally "if you debate your enemies they win" tier.