>>23328972
FILTERED
As usually happens with rightoids

Yes, Marx had extremely strong autism and thought that he was literally, objectively, historically correct that capitalism contains contradictions that inevitably cause it to lapse into crises and basically destroy itself, and that existing political economists had only written the theory of "ideal" (abstract) capitalism rather than modelling concrete capitalism, and that if he modelled concrete fascism it would basically "show itself" to be self-negating. The spirit of Hegelian philosophy lingers over all this, combined with the spirit of French 18th century materialism and British empiricism/common sense physicalist reductionist realism.

Simply put, he was very confident that if you just showed people what actually happens rather than antiquated idealizing abstractions of what should happen, it would reveal itself as a machine that inevitably breaks itself. He was dying to write the book for 20+ years and made multiple attempts at it and did decades of research.

In its heyday, nobody actually read it except bourgeois economists who had ambivalent feelings about it. The working class didn't read it, they read Engels' Anti-Duhring and Kautsky's summaries of it, both of which mutilate it into being even more reductionist than was probably Marx's intention. Contemporaries also thought that Marx was something like "our top guy, but too smart for his own good," therefore he needed Engels to supply the metaphysical and anthropological foundations (in Anti-Duhring) for Capital's abstruse theory (which nobody read directly).

That said, it is incredibly brilliant and interesting and there's a reason why it's highly influential on subsequent intellectuals, especially Marx-sympathetic political economists a hundred years after Marx's death. But it's absolutely correct to question how the fuck this was supposed to help 1880s workers.

Weak bait.

>>23328972
>Wait, marxists expect the working class to read this boring snorefest
no marxist has ever said this and if they did, they also haven't read it
if you want retard-friendly pinkolit, pirate some verso books

File: The-Path-of-Argument-of-C(...).png (276 KB, 2200x1700)

276 KB PNG

>>23328990
Did you read it? OP's pic is not communist manifesto. It has so many made up terms and concepts that no one uses anymore

>>23328995
>no marxist has ever said this
Marxists say people should read marx's theory to develop class consciousness lol

>>23328989
This

>>23328989
>and that if he modelled concrete fascism it would basically "show itself" to be self-negating.
I meant to say capitalism, I was just thinking of how much I love fascism while writing this sorry.

>>23328989
Except that he doesn't talk about concrete capitalism in it and makes very abstract arguments. He's building abstract capitalism from first principles and then slowly reveals each abstract contradiction. There are many concrete case studies of how capitalism actually works in the book.

>>23329021
There aren't* many concrete case studies of how capitalism actually works in the book.

>>23328982
Not a left or right issue, either be succinct or fuck off

>>23328999
where? I'd love to see a marxist who still claims that all 3 volumes of capital are necessary to understand class consciousness. nowadays marxists probably tell people to watch some video since 9-5 workers have no time to read capital.
at the very most, people would say to watch the david harvey lectures if you really wanna understand capital.
the only thing capital is necessary for, is understanding marx himself.
leftists now have pamphlets and tiktoks or whatever to appeal to the illiterate youth.

>>23329021
What I mean by abstract is purely formal, as in, not actually showing how its' principles come into contact with reality but purely describing how a notional, ideal capitalism works. One of Marx's views is that 18th century political economists had every right to be optimistic and idealizing about bourgeois political economy because they were its originators and it was still plausible in their time. Hegel is in several senses the culmination of this bourgeois consciousness, which takes the ideal optimistic schemata of the 18th century bourgeois sociologists etc. to be reality itself. Marx's intervention then is to say "here's what happens when theory doesn't follow reality, but tries to dictate to it." While also trying to show how bourgeois social science is "stuck" on the bourgeoisie as the protagonist of society and economics, when in fact it is the proletariat that is the (emerging) protagonist, and the system will only be formally (ideally, theoretically) AND concretely functional when the proletariat remakes society in its image, just as the bourgeoisie remade society in its image in the Enlightenment.

The crucial difference being that the bourgeoisie can only THINK the complete society (the highest form of this thinking being Hegel), while the proletariat actually makes this society. And it makes this society as a determinate function of its concrete oppression and disenfranchisement by the very bourgeoisie, which justifies this by theoretically denying the oppression and disenfranchisement as it happens.

So he has to build up the bourgeois ideal framework in order to show how its own logic ultimately dooms it. I think there are plenty of concrete examples, maybe we disagree on what constitutes concrete, but it's very different from, say, a late 20th neoclassical economics text. Marx called that sort of economics, already by the 1830s, "vulgar" economics, because it no longer has the right to be naive like its 18th century founders were, it should know better now, because the promised/claimed harmonization of the system does not actually occur. Things like marginal utility were introduced as ad hoc stopgaps to address the failures of classical political economy, and now modern neoclassical economics is basically a religion of falsifying abstractions just to maintain the illusion that it has a) some continuity with original political economy and b) any scientificity or predictive power whatsoever.

The best economic thinkers inevitably become historical economists, like Weber or Schumpeter. And they usually see the value in Marx and despise neoclassical crap.

>>23329037
what political theory books do you prefer? this is an honest question.

>>23329042
>where?
Leftypol, xitter and reddit these days

>nowadays marxists probably tell people to watch some video since 9-5 workers have no time to read capital.
Yeah sure but they still consider marx's capital to be the most important work against capitalism that people should read if they can. They don't take you seriously if you haven't read it. It's akin to holy bible for them and they pretend it contains answers to every problem plaguing the capitalist society.

>>23329049
Schmitt - On Dictatorship/Concept Of The Political, Aristotle - Politics, Gasset - Revolt Of The Masses, Thomas Paine - Agrarian Justice, Filmer - Patriarcha, Locke - Two Treatises Of Government, Weber - Economy And Society

File: 1712423387415293.jpg (56 KB, 828x618)

56 KB JPG

>>23329079
>Filmer - Patriarcha

>>23328972
OP did you make this thread because I made a Das Kapital thread a few weeks ago here:

>>23271490
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23271490

>>23328972
>marxists expect the working class to read this boring snorefest

no, its basedboy powertrip fan fiction where they hope the working class gives them some power

>>23329084
redpill me on Televisor and Filmer

File: 1696823297382544.gif (2.23 MB, 498x301)

2.23 MB GIF

>>23329100
>OP did you make this thread

>>23329106
>fell asleep not even halfway through a single sentence post.
>can't even bitch about muh walltexts.
Zoomers truly aren't going to make it.

>>23329104
>no, its basedboy powertrip fan fiction where they hope the working class gives them some power
No that's the Communist Manifesto.

>>23329062
i understand what you mean by marxists being overzealous about it but it's mostly a meme lol.
it's certainly fundamental to understanding marxist theories of anticapitalism but it's also not a fundamental text for socialism since capital doesn't really advance a theory of socialism.
you can't understand marxism without it but marxism is really only a body of critiques of capitalism. you'll need other shit for class consciousness, various communisms and socialisms, unionizing, etc.

>>23328972
It's got some decent critiques of capitalism mixed in with some bullshit.
But parts of it do a good job of highlighting the inherent contradictions and absurdities baked into capitalism.

>>23328989
>thought that he was literally, objectively, historically correct that capitalism contains contradictions that inevitably cause it to lapse into crises and basically destroy itself, and that existing political economists had only written the theory of "ideal" (abstract) capitalism rather than modelling concrete capitalism, and that if he modelled concrete fascism it would basically "show itself" to be self-negating.
This the thing he was actually right about though
His formulation of alternatives is where he gets all whacky. But this part is right. How dense do you have to be to be a child of 2008 and not understand what you're living through

File: pppff.jpg (30 KB, 547x677)

30 KB JPG

>>23328972

>>23329218
>His formulation of alternatives
i always hear this but where exactly does marx formulate alternatives? I've only seen engels bother putting out a theory of socialism.

>>23328972
Do they expect them to? The manifesto and similar books are explicitly polemical works, I don't think Marx ever expected anyone besides a few theorists/economists to read kapital

>>23329227
The Communist Manifesto is directly a formulation of an alternative....

>>23329045
the value they find is not his takes on capitalism. because he never critiques capitalism.

>>23329241
The entire book is a critique of capitalism. Or at least. It's an analysis of its self defeating nature in terms of process

>>23329232
the manifesto is hardly an articulate formulation of communism, it's a manifesto for a reason

>>23329250
It's not a comprehensive theory but it's clearly trying to postulate an alternative

>>23329245
no, its a critique of this weird thing he calls capitalism. anyine whose ever read capitalist works knows marx had no fucking idea what capitalism was. he just took everything bad he saw, bundled it together, and called it capitalism.

>>23329232
Are you talking about the second section? He basically just says "do xyz to destroy capitalism, and then the state will dissolve itself and we'll get a classless utopia". Maybe you're talking about something I don't remember though

>>23329258
marx was such a retard its terrifying how many people ageee with him

>>23329232
He doesn't mention any alternative. He just asks for the proles to seize the means of production and doesn't even describe what that entails. It's just "trust the plan" type of retardation, and no one knows what the end goal even looks like.

>>23329230
The manifesto was released in 1840s
He changed his opinion on a lot of things by the time he got around to writing the capital. As he grew older he stopped writing stuff aimed at normal people. It makes sense cause he considered the intellectual middle class to lead the revolution instead of workers or peasants.

>>23329257
No that's not true at all, he has a very effective analysis of how capitalist logic is self defeating. Have you read it? I know the answer btw
>>23329258
I'm talking about the whole thing really. "Clasless utopia" by itself is already a postulate for an alternative. A flimsy and vague one, but one nonetheless. The flimsiness and vagueness of it is why I said that part of Marx is loopy.
But I suspect he just realized that capitalist logic is necessarily self defeating and had no fucking clue what would come after it but since it's exhaustion was inevitable he just focused on that and purposely didn't emphasize the next steps because he didn't know what they would or could be
Nobody does. He was still right about capitalisms inevitable failure though
I'm more cynical. What I suspect is that as the absurdities and contradictions in the system become less sustainable, tyranny will ensue.
It's not even a suspicion actually. It's just the tale of our lives and of the present moment. You guys like police states?

>>23329275
Communism is the alternative. "Classless utopia" is the alternative. How is this not obvious wtf I feel like I'm on acid in this thread rn.
>>23329264
How could you not agree with the idea that a system that relies on extraction and exploitation for profit will inevitably consolidate itself to the point that no one has the ability to engage with it anymore beyond the entrenched plutocracy
It's just logical

If you eat every slice of a pie you get an empty tin

>>23329278
yeah, thats the problem. "capitalist logic" isnt a thing. he misattributes greed to capitalism, rather than just human nature. he's a typical misanthrope who thinks "if only humanity wasnt what it is, and was more like how i want it to be"

>>23329285
>"Classless utopia" is the alternative. How is this not obvious wtf I feel like I'm on acid in this thread rn.
Because he doesn't go into any detail on how a communist society would actually function. There are plenty of anarchists/communists who have, but marx himself mostly just handwaved it away

>>23329293
I slightly agree with that but I do think capitalist logic is itself absurd. Greed and human nature has something to do with that, but by that same token, capitalism has its own set of logic that also doesn't account for greed or human nature and that's why it will fail and become plutocracy. Already has btw lol you dumb serf
You checked out the data on wealth distribution globally at any point in your life? Guessing not
They're openly telling you you're a serf

>>23329294
That's because he had no fuckin clue, but "Classless utopia" is still a postulate

>>23329285
>How could you not agree with the idea that a system that relies on extraction and exploitation for profit will inevitably consolidate itself to the point that no one has the ability to engage with it anymore beyond the entrenched plutocracy
how could you call that capitalism? its almost like you dont know what the fuck capitalism is...

>>23329278
>But I suspect he just realized that capitalist logic is necessarily self defeating and had no fucking clue what would come after it but since it's exhaustion was inevitable he just focused on that and purposely didn't emphasize the next steps because he didn't know what they would or could be
No, that was deliberate. Look up his distinction between scientific and utopian socialism. In scientific socialism you don't speculate about what happens or what needs to be done after seizing the means of production(actually you aren't even supported to debate on what "seizing" entails here until the time is ripe). You shouldn't even be like "post capitalist society should be based on x and y principles". Marx deliberately distinguished himself from utopian socialists who have a plan of how the society ought to be and try to implement it via revolution.

>>23329297
>capitalism has its own set of logic that also doesn't account for greed or human nature
this is... fucking... are you high?

This is what almost all of philosophy is

>>23329304
I'm smarter than you are so let's get that out of the way real fast. Relax.
That is definitionally capitalism. Capitalism relies on extraction of value and exploitation of assets, capital.

>>23329297
>You checked out the data on wealth distribution globally at any point in your life?
the fact that you define serfdom as "having less than someone who has more" tells me everything i need to know about you

>>23329316
that is literally not the definition of capitalism

>>23329310
Every pro capitalist argument says its the best system for managing greed and human nature because it accounts for it and then says that the market regulates it
But greed will always lead to consolidation, cronyism, and inevitably plutocracy...
So just as much as pro capitalists argue that communists are naive childish idealists, they are too. The market will always be commandeered by those with the means, because of greed. It's fucking silly

>>23329321
Yeah it is. Capitalism is the accrual and use of capital. Capital is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets. And assets are gained either through work or through theft, legal or otherwise
>>23329319
That's not how I define it. I define it as being a pawn in a rigged game with selectively applied rules where a power bloc has an outsized grip on the systems at play. That's what you live in
The fact that you interpreted what I was saying as some resentful screed about how people have more than I do tells me all I need to about you. I don't want what they have, crazily enough

>>23329304
what do you define capitalism as? "any system with markets that follow supply and demand while allowing free trade"? because that could also be applied to many historically 'communist' countries.
it gets to a point where capitalism vs. communism is just an arbitrary level of market regulation.

>>23329324
and market forces will always lead to toppled enterprise, so hey maybe dont constrain market forces and then blame capitalism lmao

>>23329349
a system of free association of private property. capital being the value of said property, determined by the exchange of property

>>23329356
>"stupid commies saying that real communism has never been tried"
>"anyways, real capitalism has never been tried. anarcho-capitalism is the truest form of capitalism."

>>23329356
based and "not real capitalism" pilled

>>23329332
>>23329359
"capitalism is when bad thing" unironic commie gobbledygook

>>23329360
except i didnt say that, so...

>>23329356
I'm not "blaming" capitalism you sentimental fool. I'm explaining it's limitations
Market forces aren't some force of nature or act of God. They're the comprehensive effects of men in action
Same thing goes for the constraining of them. You can never create a checks and balances system that outpaces human nature. That's why it defeats itself. You're treating an idea as a dogmatic certainty. Whats that common critique of communism? Someone said it earlier in this very thread, "communism would work if humans weren't how they are."
Same goes for your capitalism, and your "market forces"

>>23329360
They are so smart that they're fucking retarded its wild to watch it play out right before our eyes

>>23329332
> Capital is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets
Abstruse and vague as usual, not even a mention of private businesses?

>>23329362
>"pfft stupid commies saying that everything bad is capitalism"
>"clearly capitalism is when good thing"

>>23329366
what yoy explained was an example of when capitalism isnt even being used, so how is it a limitation of capitalism

>>23329372
actual nonsense retort

i don't get the "greed is human nature" argument. are compassion and cooperation not also human nature? isn't that the basis of the family structure? people aren't monoliths that can survive without cooperation. it took many people to get your house built and your food prepared for stores.

>>23329382
almost like its a complex system that would resist being rigidly ordered by force

>>23329362
>>23329379
I really like how you immediately interpret
>a system of free association of private property
as a bad thing. Really, you're quite right to do so, assuming you intuit why it is ultimately bad, which implies you recognize that the Marxists have a point.

>>23329389
nta but private property is good and it’s better when you have it

>>23329379
the retort is that you are doing the same commie linguistic game of making the definition for something you like as flattering as possible, then complaining when people use a different argument. it's the no true scotsman of definitions.
commies definition of capitalism:
>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
commie definition of communism:
>Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production, such as mines and factories, are owned and controlled by the public.
capitalist definition of capitalism:
>Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.
capitalist definition of communism:
>A theory of classless society with common ownership of property and wealth and centrally planned production and distribution

>>23329389
where do i interpret it as a bad thing?
>And assets are gained [ ] through theft, legal or otherwise
was the bad thing
you people love to do this, slip bullshit into a fine dish and then claim victory when someone doesnt like the "taste of such a well prepared meal"

>>23329384
i don't see how that disproves that cooperation is equally as human nature as greed.

>>23329401
It isn’t. Kroptokin and Darwin (via Spencer) were completely wrong, albeit for opposite reasons, on human motivation, it’s in between both.

>>23329398
this is brain dead fence fucking

>>23329401
i wasnt trying to disprove that. i was disproving the marxist assumption that greed is a result of the capitalist system.

>>23329371
A private business is the extraction of value from others (making a profit) through the exploitation of assets (property, the capital used to purchase or lease the property, the work performed, the workers themselves)

>>23329401
neither override the other. if you were to with the instatement of a Utopia (unimaginable suffering in all classes) with which you kill human greed, and in the crossfire kill self determination than you kill the essence of a human person which is only results in an aberration, a slave to the state. basically a human cockroach.

>>23329395
It’s good unless you’re sitting on it with no intention of turning profits, then it’s a burden on the rest of society. Gobbling up land for the sole reason of just owning it without paying restitution to the rest of the community for hoarding resources is just lazy and vain.

File: towards_a_new_socialism.gif (3 KB, 286x212)

3 KB GIF

>has yet to be debunked
are you computer-pilled yet, anon?
https://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

>>23329414
I wrote a disparaging remark about him somewhere in my writings

>>23329411
Lame. Look I can do it too: I participate in the extraction of value (consuming sustenance) through the exploitation of assets (apple I picked off a tree which i grow which itself exploits nutrients from the soil). You’re playing retarded language games. You could slip the state for the private business into your “””definition””” of capitalism and it would be utterly identical.

File: lol.jpg (494 KB, 1200x922)

494 KB JPG

>>23329413
Wow that sounds awfully familiar

>>23329399
You directly responded to >>23329359 which implied little besides that there was a market where private property is exchanged. How else am I supposed to interpret you there?

File: 1200x0.jpg (105 KB, 1200x817)

105 KB JPG

>>23329428
you're niggerbrained if you think nature is best left to corporations.
>"who needs all these birds and trees, we need more parking lots!"

>>23329428
>>23329413
subtle reminder that the government is the biggest monopoly.
the solution, a socialist government! for the people! thatll fix it!

>>23329435
did you misquote? im the one who wrote that post anon.

>>23329436
i think it’s better left to the individuals

>>23329441
nta, but what if the individuals decide to pave it over?
i personally think its okay.

>>23329441
if that land were left to individuals for the sole purpose of building their own homes and personal farming, then i'd agree.
however, you and i both know that corporations would just buy it up and use it with wild abandon.
personally i'd prefer beautiful natural landscapes over CEOs getting more money to corrupt politics with.

>>23329423
No it's just a factual and plain definition of what it is. You're just married to your ideology like a fucking religious idiot.
And yeah you could swap it out for the state which is the exact fucking point I already made to you

>>23329465
>personally, i'd prefee to decide what other people do with what they own

>>23329471
>labor theory of value
>a factual and plain definition of capitalism
jesus christ....

>>23329423
Also "language game" is a retarded concept. Words are language games by definition. "Oh you're using words to communicate an idea, that's a language game" no fuckin shit dude

>>23329478
I didn't mention the labor theory at all. A capitalist theorist would agree with the definition of capital I just gave. Because that's what the fuck capital is. Assets.

>>23329480
thats not what he meant by language games and you know it. youre using marxist theory to define capitalism. its like saying the definition of christianity is the denial of the prophet muhamed. its the dictionary definition of bad faith and language games.

>>23329472
>personally, i'd prefer CEOs have the ability to turn the country into a third world waste dump. otherwise its a heckin infrigement on their heckin human rights

>>23329488
I'm using basic terms dude. How do you think capitalists define the word capital. Holy mother of fuck

>>23329487
>I didn't mention the labor theory at all.
you wrote
>extration of value from others (making a profit) through the exploitation of assets
this is the labor theory of value

the capitalist theory is as follows
>trading of assets to create value

the difference is simple. commie retards think value is a fixed value, capitalist ubermench realize value is subjective.

>>23329492
youre literally using marxist words to define capitalist concepts. youre fucking retarded.

>>23329490
>personally, i'd prefer individuals have the ability to decide what they do with what they own. otherwise its an infringement on the right to private property.
...yes?

>>23329496
nta but
>wtf stop using commie terms to define capitalism
>wtf stop using capitalist terms to define communism
you guys are both retarded

>>23329499
>stop using the superior systems words to define the inferior system
no.

>>23329373
Because it's a necessary consequence of your ideal of "pure capitalism" because humans are humans

>>23329382
Marx's argument was that yes, cooperation is a facet of human nature and the structure of bourgeoisie centered capitalism suppresses it and makes it harder. Cooperative efforts are an impediment to profit and efficiency in that scheme. Unless they're cooperative efforts manned by the owners of the systems

>>23329508
we come to the defining distinction between communism and capitalism. you are an authoritarian.

>>23329498
>individuals should have the ability to make the country worse for everyone
??? idk man i'd prefer the US to not have the air quality of fucking egypt.
at what point does polluting and causing air pollution infringe on everyone's bodily autonomy.

>>23329496
You're not even replying to me at this point you're just
>communism is bad
Retard shit
>>23329499
I'm not doing that though
The way I defined capital could be ripped str8 out of Von Mises

>>23329514
>Cooperative efforts are an impediment to profit and efficiency in that scheme
the problem ofcourse being thats just not true.

>>23329517
I haven't even stated a fucking position in the thread. You have no idea what I believe or advocate for. I'm just laying out terms and arguments of other people

>>23329519
>The way I defined capital could be ripped str8 out of Von Mises
no it couldnt have, and youre a retard for thinking so.

>>23329524
you are arguing against free association and private property. your position has been heard loud and clear.

>>23329523
Yeah that's why Amazon fucks anyone up the ass who even breathes the word "union" but will readily pair up with other multinationals to enhance profit generation

>>23329528
Show me where I did that

>>23329529
you do realize that the amazon market place only works because it cooperates with hundreds of smaller retailers, right?

>>23329530
sure, bend over.

>>23329494
That's not the fuckin the labor theory of value. The labor theory is that labor itself produces surplus value. I didn't say that. I said that capitalism is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets. Which isn't even controversial, its a truism.
It's how capitalism works. Again, an Austrian would agree. You use your capital to try to make a profit. What the fuck are you on fuckin drugs

>>23329533
you did in fact say that. your use of the word exploitation was blatant and clear.

>>23329532
Yeah exactly. You got nothin
>>23329531
Consolidation. That's not "cooperation" it's extraction under a consolidated umbrella

>>23329539
>people need to cooperate
>noooo not like that!!!!
unironically kill yourself

>>23329536
Exploitation isn't a communist term or Marxist term. It's in Von Mises...it just means "make use of" what the fuck

>>23329471
>>23329480
So what is my ideology, exactly? Thanks for the ad hominem concession.
>just a factual and plain definition of what it is
> words are language games by definition
I’m getting the feeling you aren’t so good at these definition things. You created a vague definition, and retroactively using parenthesis ascribed meaning to that definition in order to suit your purposes, which is a language game. You could put nearly anything in those parenthesis and it would be valid, which is why it’s a poor, obfuscating definition.
> "Oh you're using words to communicate an idea, that's a language game" no fuckin shit dude.
So here’s a consensus definition of capitalism:
> Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
If you can’t see the difference between the specific and the vague, the practical and the abstract, then I can’t help you.
Your definition was so abstract and vague, you had to retroactively make it mean something for it to even be material to your own agenda.
Adding onto that you don’t take into consideration that wealth can be created as opposed to taken from somebody else.

>>23329545
nice try, not gonna work. i see you.

>>23329549
>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Here's what I said
>capitalism is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets aka capital
Just go fuck off you pedantic
>what is my ideology
Given how you cry in every other post about the evil commies and how I'm one of them for giving basic definitions and argument summaries I bet I can guess

>>23329549
>Adding onto that you don’t take into consideration that wealth can be created as opposed to taken from somebody else.
Me earlier:
>through work or theft, legal or otherwise
>through work
>work
You're annoying as fuck

>>23329561
nta but thats not the definition of capitalism. a stagnant economy in which no captial is created would still be a capitalist economy.

>>23329563
you put theft in the definition of an economic system. you have only yourself to blame when nobody takes you seriously.

how many more posts are we gonna get of:
>system i like is when cool good thing
>system i don't like is when bad and evil thing
are we gonna get, my bet is at least 20.

>>23329561
>>capitalism is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets aka capital
>the food chain is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets aka nutrients
>photosynthesis is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets aka sunlight
>religion is the extraction of value through the exploitation of assets aka faith
Looks like a language game to me, doc. I don’t think it’s pedantic to point out what now seems to be deliberate dishonesty.
> Given how you cry—blah blah blah
>>23329371
>>23329395
>>23329428
>>23329441
>>23329423
All (and only) me, btw.

>>23329563
>>through work
>>work
>You're annoying as fuck
By your own definition (extraction of value through the exploitation of assets) you can only generate value when you are taking or exploiting something. Your definition of capitalism does not leave room for the creation of assets.

>>23329567
If someone takes something from you under threat of force instead of by mutually agreed upon terms then it's called theft
>>23329564
-_-
Fine. I concede to that. But the point of having capital is to make use of it, so that's not ever what capitalism practically manifests as
I can't think of a single time that's happened, ironically, other than in failing communist experiments where the stage is the de facto singular capitalist and then doesn't do anything productive beyond suppressing all worker rebellions

>>23329572
we have one
>even bad thing is system i like>If someone takes something from you under threat of force instead of by mutually agreed upon terms then it's called theft
its also called not capitalism. so why the fuck did you put it in the definition of capitalism????

>>23329579
You create assets through the exploitation of assets. That's how it works. You have a patch of soil, and you have your hands and your mind. You exploit your hands and your mind, to find some seed, you then exploit them further to plant a crop. You exploit the soil and your hands and body to grow a crop. You then exploit the crop by selling it or using it as an input. Again, exploit just means "make us of."
Assets are created through exploiting assets

>>23329580
>so that's not ever what capitalism practically manifests as
except ofcourse for the times when it does literally manifest as that.
>i cant think
clearly, its called a stable middle class. it has occured several times thruought the last two hundred years.

>>23329583
anon this post is incomprehensible, it might be time to go to bed.

>>23329584
no no NO! FUCK! NO!
value is created by trade, you can exploit an asset all you want but if nobody trades with you youre not creating any value.
value is created through trading assets.

>>23329589
lets try again, you disingenuous twat.
you put theft into the definition of capitalism.
does this mean you think that capitalism counts theft as a valid form of economic trade?
or are you just incapable of being fair?

>>23329593
dude im not whoever you were arguing with about theft that would be >>23329563

>>23328972
No, only retards believe that. This book was written for those who will manage the revolutionaries.

>>23329594
your inability to follow a thread is sad.

File: karl-marx-friedrich-engel(...).png (67 KB, 1080x1161)

67 KB PNG

Nobody reads theory

>>23329587
When has a stable middle class existed within a totally stagnant economy where no extraction of value and further accumulation of capital has occurred

>>23329604
see, look at yoy go. you cant help yourself. language games are so ingrained in you that it comes naturally.

>>23329591
You can't trade unless you have assets. Trade is the exploitation of an asset to extract value from it.

>>23329597
??? did you not make this post >>23329567
which was in reply to >>23329563
meaning the person you are arguing with about theft would be >>23329563

>>23329605
I'm repeating back to you exactly what you said before
If you're trolling, good job and shame on me
If not, then holy mother of fuck

Pretty telling how you didn’t respond to my language game post. But really I don’t consider myself an ideologue. I plan to read Das Kapital in order to better understand Marx’s criticisms of capitalism. One of my dreams is to one day formulate a system that poses as an solution minded alternative to the false capitalism/communism exclusive dichotomy.

>>23329606
>trade is exploitation
there we go, thanks for just coming right out and saying it. now up against the wall.

>>23329591
is turning raw material into desired processed material or desired consumables not creating (variable and subjective) value? i can see why trade is a necessary factor but the act of work itself is what generates the desired product.

>>23329612
hurr durr troll blah blah, shut the fuck up retard. you asked where it existed, i told you. you then came back and said "okay but where did it exist WITH X Y Z"

>>23329614
Exploitation means to make use of something you fucking brainless mongoloid
Imagine being panic stricken by words

>>23329617
I'm asking you for a real world example of any time in history that a stable middle class existed without any accumulation of capital going on. Because that's what you said. So give me an example. Because I'll be real, that's never happened. Prove me wrong

>>23329619
What say you to this?>>23329575

>>23329616
>is turning raw material into desired processed material or desired consumables not creating (variable and subjective) value?
No, it's not.
>but the act of work itself is what generates the desired product.
And? The fact of fusion is what generates the energy our ecosystem uses. That doesnt mean anything. It's the use of that energy that is the value of it.

>>23329619
to be fair, exploitation has a negative connotation that usually means to "make use of" by sinister means. exploitation is easily a confusable word.

>>23329619
We both know that you (him) are laboring under the marxist definition, and not the dictionary definition. Your motte and bailey will not pass.

>>23329621
I'd say those are all fairly accurate definitions of all those things

>>23329624
It's not confusion. Theyre using the communist meaning of the word, not the neutral meaning.

>>23329627
So then you agree that the definition of capitalism as “The extraction of value through the exploitation of assets” is vague enough to ascribe to most anything, and therefore is not sufficient?

>>23329626
I'm not a Marxist. I do think a some of his ideas make sense and are oft misunderstood. But I'm pretty agnostic toward ideology especially ones that seem utopian.
If you want my criticism of Marx for balance's sake, I think he applied a material analysis to a spiritual problem. It's probably true that the condition of the "proletariat," as it worsens, can create a common consciousness. As me and you get poorer and more displaced, the differences between me and you, and a fuckin Chinese slave become less and less relevant, we occupy similar castes. As things get worse. And this could create some form of solidarity or something. At least an understanding. But to then say, "so well just partner up and give all power to the State as an extension of our brotherhood and then build a perfect world" is stupid to me, because any man can choose to be selfish at any time, and it doesn't matter if we endure the same conditions. It's utopian and materialist, if humanity ever improves itself, I think it's got more to do with emotions and internal changes than it does with economic systems of material.
But I'm a cynic, idk if I even believe in improvement. We will probably keep being pieces of shit.

>>23329631
No. Just because it's got wide applicability doesn't mean it's meaningless or inaccurate.
I think economic language is a cloak for what's more real: power, and power relations among men. What I gave as a definition for capitalism is accurate, and is the definition people who create capitalist theories use, and the reason it seems too wide reaching and vague is because economic theory is largely bullshit. Power exists, and the mayerial consequences of power in action, we call "economics," and some people get so lost in the sauce they start thinking these systems are actually real.
Look at the guy talking about free association and pure capitalism as an example. That shit doesn't exist and never has, corruption exists, subjugation exists, will and power exist. But it's not nice and fluffy to think about, so men make up quasi scientific dogmas to describe it in more palatable terms.

>>23328989
Bit off topic but why hasn’t Duhring been translated? Nepotism?

>>23329624
It can have that but I don't think it does, I use it neutrally; I suspect anyone who infers a negative connotation has been brain blasted by anti communism or anti Marxist rhetoric, and that's why I was making fun of that tendency the entire thread. It's got a neutral connotation as far as I'm concerned, and that's how I've used it.
>>23329626
We both don't know that. You do though, because you have a lot of ideological parasites floating around in your skull that blind you from reality

>>23329637
>but im a cynic
i knew there was a good reason i hated you

>>23329648
theres being naive, and then theres taking a marxists words at face value

>>23329653
I'm not a Marxist
>>23329651
What are you, an optimist?

why should i read this book what good fruit has it yielded

>>23329664
an optometrist, actually

>>23329372
Not what he said. Your failure to provide a counterargument to that first point is telling, though.

>>23329664
humanist

>>23329675
I'm probably a humanist too, just not one with much hope left.
But I can at least commend you for that. Treating people well is something that can be systematized and is the only meaningful decision.

>>23329677
>humanist
Movement only specific to renaissance Italy

>>23329677
Yeah, thats capitalism. I know this is hard for a lot of people to understand. But forcing people to be nice to each other, isnt being nice to people.

The only way is to let it be. Set boundary conditions, and let humanity do what it will within those conditions.

>>23329682
your autism is showing

>>23329601
You don’t think? I read tons of it but I’m mostly concerned with anthropology and social history these days. Don’t have time for surface level politics much. I did read more of it a half a decade ago but I’m digging deeper now.

>>23329684
I dont think it's capitalism though man. Capitalism produces cronyism produces plutocracy; we had capitalism, remember? Now look at what we have. So. That's why I say these things are internal.
Spiritual ideas have more relevance to me in this regard. Buddhism specifically is good. I have kind of given up on that shit, material ideas. They don't seem to make much change due to human nature.
All I try to focus on now is being better to people. All you can do really. The economics will play out however they're meant to. If it's too unjust, equilibrium will reappear one way or another. Or we will all die.

>>23329702
>capitalism produces cronyism
government produces cronyism
im really tired of people looking at the blatantly not capitalist economies in the world and attributing it to capitalism
>inb4 no true scottsman
except no, what im saying is that economies that hold closer to the capitalist model are less susceptible to cronyism than are economies that stray further from the capitalist model. this is evident in every economic sphere thruought the world, its not even up for debate. when the market is more free, the people prosper.
>inb4 muh banana republic
not a free market. the government interfering with trade is not in line with the capitalist model.

>>23329685
I am autistic yes, but I wrote that on purpose, of course I know what they meant I just felt like being a jerk is all.

>>23329718
<3

>>23329715
That's never existed though man. Ever. There's never been a market without something resembling a state. And thats because it's inherent to how people, and power, work. So yes, I grant you that in some theoretical realm, sure, ancap would work as you're saying. But it's never worked because its never existed, so talking about it is nearly the same as talking about pure communism. It's a workable model, in fantasyland.
I know how I worded it, but what I meant is, capitalism can't negate cronyism and won't. And even with what you said, government doesn't produce cronyism; men produce cronyism.
It's just people, dude. It won't work because it's never worked because it can't work. We're talking about an ideal that's never existed. This is reality, men are selfish, kill each other and steal from one another. They're corrupt.

>>23329702
actually every problem under capitalism will be fixed by complete deregulation because real capitalism (anarcho capitalism) hasn't been tried
captcha: G0DS

>>23329731
>There's never been a market without something resembling a state.
That's just straight up false. But ofcourse yoy say "something resembling" so no matter what example is presented will be to you, a type of state.

Man shoots the guy who scammed him? That's a rudimentary state!

That aside, I am in no way advocating for anything resembling ancrapistan. I agree that the capitalist model requires the state to be the "full model". I literally never said there should be no government.

No, seriously. Where the fuck did I say that?

Under the capitalist economic model, the government is idealy small and put to a specific range of tasks. If the government goes outside this range of operation, this is when it begins to clash with the capitalist model and gives way to cronyism.

It's no coincidence that the same type of autocratic whigism that creates cronyism under a capitalist model is the exact same type of autocratic whigism that the communist model requires as a matter of course.

>>23329734
nobody here is advocating for anarcho capitalism, knock it off

god forbid you suggest the government not be allowed to blatantly manipulate the market using the force of law

>>23329738
if regulation and government are bad, then why not eradicate them entirely? what is the acceptable level of minimal government and regulation?

>>23329737
>Man shoots the guy who scammed him? That's a rudimentary state!
No. That's just murder. Something like a state is an organized, centralized bloc of power that uses violence and soft coercion to exert itself. A tribal chief and his followers is a state. What you described is still power, but on an individuated basis.

As for minarchism, which is what you described: I live in a country founded upon it that is now the world's sole hegemon.
It doesn't work. Because of how men work. It has never worked. It never will.

>>23329752
>if regulation and government are bad
oh my god... dude, where did i say that?
i said autocracy is bad. BIG government is bad. a government the preempts the individual is bad.

a reactionary government, dedicated to justice (post event action) is good. even a degree of pre script is appropriate, but the point is that autocratic control is bad.

>>23329752
>if regulation and government are bad, then why not eradicate them entirely?
That's precisely the argument Marx uses in favor of communism.

>>23329766
>No. That's just murder. Something like a state is an organized, centralized bloc of murder.
That aside
>minarchism doesnt work
>i live in a countey founded on minarchism, it is now the most powerful country in the world
durrrrrrr...
We can argue that minarchism isnt the reason the country is the hegemon, or that it at the very least was not capable of preventing the countrt from becoming a hegemon.

But I would retort that the minarchisr government was simply defeated. Is that not a valid explanation in your empty skull? Does a government being defeated in war mean the government didnt work? Hello?

>>23329722
Luv u 2 bby

File: always.jpg (15 KB, 474x263)

15 KB JPG

>>23328972
>'free will' is intensively apportioned
>the materialist proxy for it is intelligence (or Party Cadre favor)
>'to each according to their need' is determined by the Thinking part of the body politic, not the hands and feet

Now revisit Lenin and Stalin in their entirety and find that the ends absolutely justify the means in this picture and understand all of it is compatible with a nominialist XYZ windowdressing idology as long as it moves the needle towards World Domination by International Socialist "conspiratorial party" (as Lenin called it). This includes denuding developing nations presenting Malthusian obstacles to technological pedal to the metal. Socialism is not and never was 'humanist', and the moral canards it's couched in belie its true form and function: there is only scientific certainty in deliberately making things worse. That is the generative engine of history and retrograde 'development' offers moments for inserting aberrant and paradoxical paths forward once the ratchet has been reset

>>23329737
what exactly stops a small government from getting larger? a private militia of retards armed with swords and mises?

>>23329789
Good point. Personally I think the solution is to give the government more power, so that it can stop itself from getting too big :)

There is no solution, silly goose. There is only the rise and fall. The desire for an eternal government is folley, and is ironically a tennant of autocracy that youve swallowes wholecloth.

>>23329789
The answer is nothing

>>23329781
Name one minarchist government in history where this didn't happen eventually.
My point to you is that there's no point in stanning for an ideological position that doesn't produce any meaningful result over the long term. You can argue til you're blue in the face that "capitalism with small government would be the best model," but since it has never lasted any time it's been tried, it means that that proposition is false. The proposition undermines itself when it's tried in reality and not just on paper. Just like communism.
You can do it, it just seems incredibly pointless to me. Like, why take that position then? So you can win arguments? It doesn't feel much different from like, religious zealotry to me.
It's not something much intellectual respect for. Doesn't mean I don't respect you. But the idea is dumb

>Capitalism is bad
>PROVE IT
>proves it
>WAAAAAHHHHH WHY IS IT SO LOOONNNGGGG??? WHY CANT IT JUST BE 15 SECONDS LIKE A YOUTUBE SHORT!

>>23329804
name one government period that didnt either collapse or grow too much and then collapse. its simply the nature of the thing.
>My point to you is that there's no point in stanning for an ideological position that doesn't produce any meaningful result over the long term.
>over the long term
I know that is your point. I am saying its asinine. Oh no it worked for three hundred years and then continued to work until a coup replaced it with an autocratic government! Welp guess those hundreds of years are irrelevant now...

It's so stupid. It is the most ethical, moral, and practical system. The fact that it might be more susceptible to being overthrown doesn't mean we should disregard it. You're LITERALLY throwing the baby out with the bath water. Very stupid.

>>23329804
The difference ofcourse being capitalism with small government fails because it doesn't defend itself well enough. Whereas communism fails because it commits suicide.

>>23329806
No I just think differently from you. I am concerned with some baseline level of improvement in the human condition, despite my cynicism, and suspect it's got to do with piecemeal revelations of conscience or consciousness more than systems. What you described is the cyclical nature of systems, rise & fall. They all do this and it's because of how men work. If you concede that all systems are born to fail, then you are now speaking my language.
Glad we agree. Weird it took this long for you to admit to it.
>>23329807
This is just ideologically whoring yourself out. I've no time for dummy shit like that

>>23329829
>Weird it took this long for you to admit to it.
considering we werent talking about that, no... its not weird at all. youre just a self centered cunt. not that theres anything wrong with that.

File: 1604070809520.png (280 KB, 498x496)

280 KB PNG

>>23329601
I do and still think Marx is still a retarded self-hating kike.

>>23329849
>tfw people only know you by the wake of seething you left in your path
He's like a god

>>23329845
>youre just a self centered cunt
Love you too man

>>23329902
chu chu <3

/// The cold weather began to set in /// And parents can not, and should not, be constant sources of unqualified praise /// The trustees have a dispositive power to transfer the money /// This is more than just clever marketing - formerly desolate stretches of the riverfront, city streets, and buildings have been resurrected for locals and visitors alike /// The professor held forth on the current state of politics until everyone was sick of the topic /// You won the first game and I won the second, so it's a wash /// The new runway is a billion-dollar boondoggle /// He took folk music and melded it with pop /// They are guided by the visible grid of the trellis /// He is duped by a debonair con man into opening a car and safe, and lands in jail for a year /// He spoke without notes but with a crib sheet of four points /// I slipped away from the guided tour /// He found himself pilloried by members of his own party /// Why did people get in a flap over nuclear energy? /// His agonised eyes, fear-stricken, glinted white in the moonlight, and there was foam on his jowl /// I suspect that they stay in the scullery only a few days and in the kitchen only a few weeks /// He killed 12 people before the authorities finally nabbed him /// I was a sassy kid who sometimes talked back to my mother /// She delivered her speech with tremendous wit and verve /// The chassis lurched forward and then back sharply, knocking the four passengers off balance /// The unrest has cast a pall over what is usually a day of national rejoicing ///Just put it in my in tray and I'll look at it later /// This odious walled vertical suburb is a civic embarrassment, the embodiment of a runaway plutocracy that places its own interests over the commonweal — and common decency /// They spent their honeymoon in a cruddy beachside hotel /// His Catholic upbringing informs all his writing /// Doug seems to have mellowed recently /// A cohort of hangers-on followed the singer down the corridor ///

>>23328972
the mistake almost everyone makes about texts like these is assuming it's supposed to be read by those whose lives it aims to impact as if it's some modern self-help booklet

>>23328972
No, they don't.

>>23329175
The Manifesto is actually a decent read though and very brief.

>>23328972
I assume that’s what the Communist Manifesto is for

>>23329356
And there it is. Having discussion of Marx on /lit/ is impossible because it will always get derailed by lolberts who think you can cleanly separate market forces from the influence of the state. The “libertarian to fascist pipeline” needs to make a comeback.

File: IMG_3868.jpg (80 KB, 640x685)

80 KB JPG

>>23329805
Their brains have been mutilated by capitalism, it’s hard to blame them

>>23329218
He wasn't. It's far beyond capitalism.

>>23329062
>Leftypol, xitter and reddit these days
The irony is that none of these people read it either. I know enough twitter leftists IRL to know most of them get their ideas from Youtubers and Twitch streamers, not from reading literature.

File: 0000000000.jpg (27 KB, 504x373)

27 KB JPG

Marx was an excellent social critic but a flawed economic theorist. I'm more partial to the Tory and Fabian Socialists of Marx's time than Marxism itself. Working Class people should probably stick to Tressell but anyone who genuinely wants to engage with Marx's ideology in good faith should read Das Kapital.

Is there any author that causes more seethe by people who haven't read him? Peterson's body of thought is mainly in his lectures and no one gives a shit about Rand's nonfiction. The only critique people have of the French is pedophilia. All the Rowling seethe is about her twitter posts.
Maybe the Bible/Qur'an? Are there no other tomes that cause as much seethe as Capital and religious texts?

>>23331625
The first thing that comes to mind is people hating Kant’s objective morality because they paint it as “don’t steal, don’t cheat,” but there’s really no comparison there. I think you’re right.

>>23331625
>seethe
Or death.