When did you realize that Marxism was the end point of philosophy?

I hope they try. I sure can't wait to shoot some commies.

>go back to /pol/
The mantra of the moron.

If humanity ever attempts a utopian project again the one theory they most certainly will not employ will be Marxism.

...

I hope the world would stop trying that Leninist Marxism

>When did you realize that Marxism was the end point of philosophy?

George Yancy: When I was an undergraduate philosophy student at the University of Pittsburgh, where I was trained in the analytic tradition, it wasn’t clear to me what philosophy meant beyond the clarification of concepts. Yet I have held onto the Marxian position that philosophy can change the world. Any thoughts on the capacity of philosophy to change the world?

Noam Chomsky: I am not sure just what Marx had in mind when he wrote that “philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Did he mean that philosophy could change the world, or that philosophers should turn to the higher priority of changing the world? If the former, then he presumably meant philosophy in a broad sense of the term, including analysis of the social order and ideas about why it should be changed, and how. In that broad sense, philosophy can play a role, indeed an essential role, in changing the world, and philosophers, including in the analytic tradition, have undertaken that effort, in their philosophical work as well as in their activist lives — Bertrand Russell, to mention a prominent example.

Bertrand Russel is the very definition of a champagne socialist. If you don't have any program to achieve socialism, no concept of a revolutionary transition, you're just blowing hot air. I guess the bourgeoisie will capitulate if you give them enough moral arguments, lol.

What does this have to do with the discussion here? Are you trying to prove the assertion that you're a moron?

>8ch filename
Why make shitty off topic Marx threads on Veeky Forums when you come from a board that is practically dedicated to Marx's silly ideas? Stop trying to convert people and fuck off back to /leftypol/.

>>predicted a century of revolutions with the working class attempting to seize state power
It doesn't take a genius to predict obvious things. Pic related.

Marx was wrong about the evolution of western economies. He thought wealth would increasingly concentrate in the hands of a few rich elite, and that workers would increasingly do repetitive tasks. He was wrong on both counts: the rich actually became much poorer and the rich much richer, instead of society devolving into two classes there was the creation of the middle class, and work became increasingly more complex instead of simpler.

Why is Marx retarded?

1. You can't ground progress into material things because of Hedonic Treadmill ( we still have whiny college students in America crying how opressed they are even if they are the most privileged generation that ever lived in the history of the world)

2. Owning "the means of production" is retarded when managing an entire nation. "The invisible hand" of supply and demand regulates what resources goes where and how much of the resource and the level of priority people give that resource. All this shit needs to be done in a commie state by a bunch of knuckleheads (since we killed the class enemy elites). Good luck with that, inb4 millions dead.

3. Marx's theory was preceded by his unhealthy resentment about people who have shit. He can't understand that labour itself is a commodity since human beings can get kind of depressed if they don't work towards a certain goal. Which is why a hierarchical system is needed always. Marx never worked, he retreated himself into his shell of hatred of the world and designed a loony theory that killed millions.

>the rich actually became much poorer and the rich much richer
meant "and the poor much richer"

Who gives a fuck? You people are discussing politics as though you had power of any kind.

>He can't understand that labour itself is a commodity
?????????????

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm

>human beings can get kind of depressed if they don't work towards a certain goal. Which is why a hierarchical system is needed always

????????????????????????????????

The labor theory of value is demonstrably false.

>The practice of philosophy reaches its climax in the conscious realization that it is basically class struggle in theory.
lmao

Working is a product that people want. The value of work is determined by the possibility of social advancement, either in a certain field or through the aquisition of capital. People want hierarchies in which social advancement is possible through a controllable measure(work).

If there is no work and no hierarchy you can't be happy. You have nothing to live for. kys user.

Won't be any class struggle left when we execute all of you low IQ Marxists.

You don't need to read much more than chapter 1 of Capital to realize that Marx didn't know what the fuck he was talking about when it came to the labour theory of value (LTV).

His entire economic system is based on quicksand and no one takes him seriously in modern economic academia except the TISS interpretation people en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_single-system_interpretation

Yet other people would incline more towards analytic marxism and agree that there is a shit ton of shit jammed into Capital (such as the LTV) that needs to be shoveled out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism

There are more of the first kind of people than the second, that is out of all the people who would identify as Marxist. Most people just lean socialist instead.

>no one takes him seriously in modern economic academia

This is for no other reason other than the fact that the description of his economic system contradicts itself (google: transformation problem). Only TISS folks still cling on to the entirety of his ideas.

LTV is the main issue with Marxism in modern economic academia, it's nothing much else, all the criticisms put out here and in general discussions (such as "oh it's never worked before") isn't something professional economists bring up that much in their papers, mainly because of the theoretical and logical rigor that economics demands, Marxism doesn't pass this first "stress test" so there's not much else that it is criticized for.

Here's Prabhat Patnaik on the problems on the LTV (watch till 3:00, it's vital to understand what he's talking about to understand Marxism in an economic context):

youtube.com/watch?v=4IsLv7DIT2Y

TL;DR: If you go by Marx's economic model, it is not possible that the sum of prices = sum of values and that the sum of surplus value = profits simultaneously. Both of these equalities are thing she asserted would hold true, as such, Marxism as a whole is self-contradictory and Marxian theories would be seen as flawed/in need of salvaging if not entirely useless by economists.

>>implying said revolutions didn't happen because Marx was actually dictating to his fellow jews what they should do to destroy the European aristocracy so jews could take over European nations via manipulating the lower classes into believing they were working in their own interests.

You're describing nationalism.

>Yet other people would incline more towards analytic marxism and agree that there is a shit ton of shit jammed into Capital (such as the LTV) that needs to be shoveled out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism

Oh I've also seen some people play the "don't use volume II and III of Capital" card, because Marx didn't finish writing those himself and it is because of things stated in those two volumes that his system contradicts itself.

Without Volume II and III the Marxian LTV isn't so much self-contradictory as it is "absurd".

Doesn't sound like you came to this conclusion yourself.

Personally I think what most Marxist economists are doing isn't really what Marx was doing, they're doing economics influenced by Marxism, rather than critique of political economy. For the latter, see Heinrich, Postone, Backhaus, etc.

No, I was describing judeo-bolshevism, and the anti-national jewish movements that led to the creation of the proto-internationalist sociopolitical entity known as the Soviet Union.

Nope you're describing nationalism unless you think the French revolution was in favour of the aristocracy.

We're talking about jewish political movements here. Jews don't lead nationalist movements, they oppose and fear them. I think your wires are crossed.

Nationalism literally originated in the French revolution you idiot

What do you mean??

Well there isn't much "doing" going on anymore really, Marxist Economics is already very heterodox.

I suppose I get what you're saying in so far as the non-Marxist economists approach to criticizing Marxism would involve the use of many "tools" Marx himself never used, but point is that if you, as a Marxist, claim to study an economic system and run into a MAINSTREAM economist (provided he's actually studied Marx, most of them don't give a shit) who quotes Marx and says "here he says XYZ are true together and X, Y and Z, cannot be true together because of ABC, your system contradicts itself", you're going to look like a bit of a foot if you have no response to that.

You don't need to make yourself aware of these angles of criticism if you're discussing things with less rigorously trained Marxists but you're going to be caught with your pants down when you run into someone who is aware of these age-old angles of attack.

Also, don't draw a line between "Marxist economists" and other "Marxists" so confidently, people like Prabhat Patnaik would very much not see any difference between himself and other Marxists, ditto for most other academic Marxists.

>when you run into someone who is aware of these age-old angles of attack.

I suggest reading Ronald Meeks "Studies in the Labour Theory of Value".

It's a brilliant book that has been used as source material for an even more famous History of Economic Thought textbook, it's regarded very highly by most academics but it's otherwise a simple read and made for students.

So fucking what? The only person talking about the French Revolution here is you.

AYYY WHERE IS MY COMRADES AT!!

Are you aware of what happened to the aristocracy in the revolution?

>We're talking about jewish political movements here.

We're talking about how you don't have any true sense of history and you're making shit up because it sounds good to you. Nationalist revolutions put the aristocracies of Europe on the back-foot, not Marxism. The aristocrats didn't control the means of production.

I would definitely say the object, methodologies, and organization of knowledge of Marxist economics is very distinct from the object of both Marx himself in his works and from Marxism as a movement (cultural, political, etc). It's an attempt to assimilate Marxism to the discipline of economics, rather than to be a Marxist (or militant, if you will) in economics. For instance, the work of someone like Heinrich or Backhaus has nothing to do with the work of Wolff, Resnick, etc.

That's not what is being discussed in this thread and your bizarro-world comment about judeo-bolshevism/communism being a nationalist movement is retarded. The exact opposite is true.

>History of Economic Thought textbook
I mean the one by Prof. EK Hunt, guy speaks very highly of Meek's book.

You're the one who brought up taking control from European aristocracy in the context of Marxism when it more accurately describes nationalist movements.

Except LTV has strong empirical support that "subjective" theories of value fail to provide. It's also laughable to use the prevailing economic orthodoxy as a knockdown argument, neoclassical assumptions are so fucking bad they can only prevail by expelling dissenters from the field.
Neoclassicals as a whole have failed to engage with contemporary advances in Marxist economics, like the research done by Cockshott and Cottrell.

bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_bichler_testing_the_ltv_exchange_web.htm
academia.edu/32232262/The_Scientific_Status_of_the_Labour_Theory_of_Value

Also google "testing the ltv in Sweden"

Tbh in the case of Russia that comment was accurate. Your focus on bringing up again and again the FR borders on autism.

You're delusional if you think jewish/communist movements were nationalist. Nationalism, particularly in the form of fascism, arose to oppose them. It's you who doesn't understand history.

Marxist economics is an oxymoron, since marxism is not a scientific discipline like classical economics, but rather a metaphysics (or, if you're mean, the inane ramblings of a crazy Jew).

Russia is barely European.

>For instance, the work of someone like Heinrich or Backhaus has nothing to do with the work of Wolff, Resnick, etc.

I got you now.

I agree that the bodies of works would be "different", but I don't want to agree with any kind of sentiment that it is best to ignore the economic analysis of Marxism given that such an analysis generally digs up bits of his theories that contradict themselves; that is, if you're trying to encourage this kind of sentiment in the first place.

You're just shifting the goalposts. I could also cite Germany. Was Rosa Luxembourg a nationalist?

Nationalism precedes Socialism historically, and German/Italian nationalism precedes German/Italian fascism.

Communism was a jewish movement that used the lower classes to diminish the power of the European aristocracy. The aristocracy was the nations bulwark against those jewish movements, and fell after they succeeded.

You're shifting the goalposts by suggesting the case of Russia is the same for all Europe. France was the model European culture to Austria, Prussia and Russia up until the revolution. Do you not know basic European history?

Fascism was the last gasp of nationalism, which obviously existed prior. Much of the aristocracy had already been eroded by that point.

The power of the European aristocracy was diminished before Marx was even born. The aristocracy isn't even nationalist; they were mostly foreign-born hence the call for nationalist revolutions.

>You're shifting the goalposts by suggesting the case of Russia is the same for all Europe
What? No I'm not. I'm just explaining what should be painfully obvious to anyone with two neurons and a synapse connecting them (more than what the average commie possesses, I agree), that when that other user was talking about jewish revolutionary communism overthrowing the aristocracy he quite obviously wasn't talking about the French Revolution, which if you didn't know, predates the birth of Marx.

But the very notion of a nation in political discourse was founded in the movement against aristocracy? I agree that the bourgeoisie later mobilized aristocracy in certain places but I'm not really even sure what you're arguing?

>The practice of philosophy reaches its climax in the conscious realization that it is basically class struggle in theory.

I don't understand. Does this suggest that literally all philosophy is about class struggle? Even stuff dealing with perception, knowledge, etc? That sounds like an extreme claim to me.

>he quite obviously wasn't talking about the French Revolution

He was describing it closely, hence the initial comment in the first place.

First off, you're totally right, LTV empirically holds up pretty well, I am aware of this. That doesn't really prove Marx's theory is correct though. Discussing this further would require getting in to too many details so we'll have to agree to disagree here.

>neoclassical assumptions are so fucking bad they can only prevail by expelling dissenters from the field.

First of, you're homogenizing economists way too much. this is one of the reasons some of us like to scoff at people outside of the field who criticize the field as if it is this one big chunk of "neoliberal" capitalists or whatever.

There is a bit in the aforementioned text by Meek which speaks of how one of the reasons Marxists stick to their guns with LTV so much is that many of its criticisms have historically come less with the intention of reforming it and re-inserting it into the labour movement as they have come with the intention of saying "fuck it all, the whole system is rotten to the core, dump it and forget about it and the labour movement". So I see where you're coming from...

But I cannot emphasize enough that it is not only the economic orthodoxy that has a problem with the LTV from a theoretical (note, not empirical) sense. Hell, most critics of Marx right now who engage in much theory-crafting are probably socialists or something along those lines, most really orthodox economists would not have even read Marx let alone written a paper about him.

And I brought up the fact that most economists shit on Marx not because I think that objectively proves he's worthless but more to draw light on the fact that "hey, most people don't look up to him". The guy gets glorified way more on Veeky Forums than in any academic circles I've come across.

Yeah, as Althusser says "World outlooks are represented in the domain of theory (science + the ‘theoretical’ ideologies which surround science and scientists) by philosophy. Philosophy represents the class struggle in theory. That is why philosophy is a struggle (Kampf said Kant), and basically a political struggle: a class struggle. Everyone is not a philosopher spontaneously, but everyone may become one."

Of course it's a bit reductive to say that philosophy emanates from class struggle as he does here, however I think it's quite accurate to say that philosophy is, in the last instance, determined by class struggle (insofar as class struggle renders bourgeois society possible), a claim even Deleuze and Foucault took as their points of departure. Extreme? Of course. But what's wrong with that?

"Hegelian nonsense" is how I've heard one economist of note put it.

>The power of the European aristocracy was diminished before Marx was even born
This isn't true.

>The aristocracy isn't even nationalist; they were mostly foreign-born hence the call for nationalist revolutions.
Are you still the guy who thinks communism was a form of nationalism?

>He was describing it closely,
No he wasn't, in fact he was responding to a post which mentioned the revolutions which were "predicted" by Marx, which couldn't have been the FR unless Marx was a time traveler.

At this point I have to ask you, are you clinically retarded?

Marx is really important in social sciences and humanities other than economics and this is where the most productive Marxist works are produced desu

That was a particular case but there is linearity here in the sense that the French Revolution was what liberated the jews and allowed them to begin their anti-nationalist agitation.

It doesn't mean literally everything, of course you can go into highly specialized fields that don't have much of anything to do with socioeconomic issues. But the fundamental assumptions, academic authorities and historical divisions in philosophy have a class character.

>I don't want to agree with any kind of sentiment that it is best to ignore the economic analysis of Marxism given that such an analysis generally digs up bits of his theories that contradict themselves.

That seems coherent, considering that the modern social sciences and humanities are occupied by ideological cranks and pseudo intellectual frauds of all kinds.

So are you saying nationalism laid the grounds for its own dissolution? That it's its own gravedigger, so to speak?

>Are you still the guy who thinks communism was a form of nationalism?

No that was you misreading my argument.

I'm and I'm back on Veeky Forums after a while.

Is the guy above me an outlier or has the atmosphere of this place changed while I was gone? Not many people would look down at the humanities here before.

The idea of people displacing the European aristocracy more accurately describes nationalist revolutions than it does communist revolutions.

No I just mean that I don't see how economic thought can, at this point, be in any way productive or militant. The most significant Marxists have historically been also the sharpest critics of Marx and I'm not at all against it, I just don't see how it can be done from the discipline of economics.

I'm just a /pol/ack who browses from time to time. Also I'm not shitting on the concept of humanities, I'm shitting on modern humanities (infested with PoMo nonsense).

Sorry if I triggered you.

Why do Socialist countries in South America nationalise their industries in response to American global capitalism?

Which academics do you have in mind specifically?

>I just don't see how it can be done from the discipline of economics.

Huh, weird.

What do you think it is about the discipline of economics that prevents economists from putting out valid criticisms of Marx?

>it sounds better if I use words like 'infested' and 'nonsense'

Be honest, you've never attended a humanities lecture even once, have you?

Not really. What we're talking about here is a duality, two opposing forces: at the national level is the European who lives in a nation with his people; on the other side is the international jew who uses the lower classes (and now minorities if you want to fast forward to today) to the attack the national entity. When the jew does this successfully he erects internationalist, not nationalist, institutions to take power away from the nation (soviet union, eu, imf, world bank, etc.). That's how this works.

Not necessarily, because Fascism is an example of a nationalistic system which was in bed with the aristocracy. In fact the only example I can think of a nationalist revolution which was very anti-aristocratic is actually the French Revolution.

Anyways I don't even know why I'm bothering responding to you, you're either a troll or a moron, in both cases a waste of time.

Or you making a poor one.

>Sorry if I triggered you.

Nah, idc, people I know shit on humanities all the time, it's a very well established opinion on other places I lurk like EJMR too (a forum known as the "Veeky Forums for economists" if you haven't heard of it).

I was just surprised to see someone doing that here.

But weren't, as you say, the nationalist movements the ones who "liberated the Jew" and allowed for supposed anti-nationalist activity?

Europeans didn't have 'nations' until comparatively recently. Ironically, not until people wanted to displace the foreign aristocracy.

You need to stop thinking in terms of systems and start thinking in terms of people. People determine the nature of those systems. And people are different so how can you be surprised when the results turn our differently?

I don't have any in mind.

English is not my native language, so I don't know what the proper style is. Or maybe you're just a brainlet?

And yes, I study Electrical Engineering, so I've never been to a humanities lecture.

Out of the three main 'fascisms' of Europe, only Spain was aligned with the aristocracy in any meaningful way. Italian fascism didn't have opinions on the Jews.

I think you're confusing ruling dynasties and aristocracy in general. It's true that the ruling dynasties of various european countries intermarried, creating a sort of international aristocracy, but other than them the aristocracy was usually "native" (since they were tied to land).

So if you've never been to a humanities lecture and don't have any specific academics in mind, where did you get the impression of what contemporary humanities is like?

I will concede that neoclassicals aren't a homogenous bunch. However, from my experience with taking econ courses, I maintain that the field as commonly thought holds a strong ideological consensus based on general equilibrium theories. When you take an econ course, you're not going to study the different schools of economics, learn why neoclassicals rejected Ricardo and Marx etc., in fact there is very little "comparative economics" unless you are literally an econ graduate. I find this to be starkly different in other social sciences like sociology, where it's immediately clear that there are differing methodologies with their own traditions, and multiple ones have a strong presence in the field. Major disagreements in Econ seem to take place entirely in the academic sphere, with the public perception of common-sense econonics remaining neoliberalism. Why aren't criticisms of free-market economics even by major figures such as Stiglitz represented?

I'm not the one saying the French Revolution was a nationalist movement. It in many ways was an internationalist movement that jews favored and benefited from, and it sparked and spread a non-nationalist ideology.

Why did you avoid the question?

Why are you bringing up Jews? Why are your posts so incoherent? Kill yourself my man.

I don't want to get too /pol/-tier, but I don't understand why human biodiversity is something completely off the table, in these types of discussions. It seems like an absolutely huge variable to leave out. If you assume that all groups of humans on earth are basically interchangeable, seems like your economic/political theories will inevitably be wrong, or incomplete.