Anonymous 2021-12-14 (Tue) 22:36:39 No. 645934
>>645927 >marx would be a chinless subhuman, fit only to be a living target
Anonymous 2021-12-14 (Tue) 22:40:40 No. 645941
He truly was, and scientific socialism in general was ahead of its time. To a certain extent I think it still is, people are genuinely so retarded that they won't be able to comprehend it and understand why it's the only way to save humanity from capitalism. The fact that so many people to this day use "arguments" against it that were debunked by Marx and Engels when they were around surprises me as to how these two mad lads could've even come up with this shit in the fucking mid 1800s.
Anonymous 2021-12-14 (Tue) 22:47:40 No. 645957
>>645941 Science has been catching up to 1800s philosophy for a while now. I find it kind of depressing tbh.
Multidisciplinary science?? Wow, Hegel would be shocked!
Depression is not simply an unbalanced chemistry but the result of shit contemporary living conditions? Color me shocked!
People aren't rational actors? Who could've guessed!
There's more tbh and I keep seeing science that is as good as trash get repeated as if it's the next big thing.
Anonymous 2021-12-14 (Tue) 22:58:24 No. 645981
>>644233 i wonder what he would have said about china
Anonymous 2021-12-14 (Tue) 23:15:15 No. 646015
>>645981 I could see him say it is a faux dynasty, disguised in a communist suit.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 00:46:00 No. 646139
>>645957 damn bro you know so much about science, way more than those stupid scientists lol. you should become a scientistand dunk on those stupid eggheads by doing their job better than them
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 02:21:12 No. 646249
>>646139 >some guy working in a lab on new batteries is the same as an economist thinking up ways to fleece a bartender for the benefit of a billionaire genius
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 03:18:41 No. 646297
>>646257 cant we just tolerate the existance of small and lower medium private enterprises, while nationalizing the larger and upper mid tier enterprises
while at the same time making laws against large private corporations
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 03:35:31 No. 646312
>>646297 >small and lower medium private enterprises they're all money laundering fronts for the larger and upper mid tier entertprises
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 04:02:14 No. 646332
>>646297 It’s not that simple
If you’ve ever run a buissness or know someone that does you’ll realize there’s not really a way to define SMEs and all capitalist institutions exist to make revenue while cutting costs wherever they can. Enforcing security regulations on them is a matter of if you can enforce them not if you should
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 04:53:26 No. 646375
>>646312 im not including sub contractors
im talking about your little mom and pop stores or just family resturants
>>646332 I mean your average family resturant can be classified as small. Same thing with other small family owned buisness
>>646339 mate a lot of socialist expirements had black markets to the point it became secondary economies
instead of making it a blackmarket i rather make it legal so we can regulate and guide it more instead of having this weird ass black market that the state cant really ignore
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 04:55:48 No. 646378
>>646375 yes i said "all" you think what you mentioned is an exception?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 04:55:55 No. 646379
>>646375 >We shouldn’t crack down on black markets but encourage them to engulf the whole economy Cope harder
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 04:59:18 No. 646383
>>646378 >yes i said "all" you think what you mentioned is an exception? how is a small family owned resturant a money laundering scheme for a big medium enterprise, especially if those enterprises are nationalized or banned
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 05:00:20 No. 646386
>>646297 Only if there are cooperatives.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 05:02:00 No. 646389
>>646375 >muh small family owned buisness Burgoid detected.
KYS boojie scum.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 07:30:56 No. 646465
>>646447 Mao literally hunted the petty booj down like dogs, especially since they were imperialist collaborators
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 07:35:26 No. 646469
>>646139 If you can't distinguish good science from bad science, you're not scientifically literate.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 07:35:29 No. 646470
>>646465 why did he give them a star on the flag tho
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 07:58:27 No. 646480
>>644233 >>645941 No wonder Marx insisted on not being a "marxist", seeing what icon-worshipping twats his supposed followers were and still are
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 08:20:20 No. 646491
>>646480 Marx was right about everything, of course he’d hate idolizing him.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 08:43:02 No. 646501
>>646491 >Marx was right about everything Clearly not
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 09:33:38 No. 646514
>>646480 You took that quote out of context like many other retards; the full quote in question is:
What Engels is referencing here is a dispute between himself and Marx on the one hand, and Paul Lafargue (Marx’s son-in-law, husband of Laura Marx, his second daughter) and Jules Guesde, two of the main figures in the French Parti Ouvrier and therefore French socialism more generally, on the other, over the significance of the PO’s Programme. Marx dictated the Preamble to the Programme, and he and Guesde, with help from Engels and Lafargue, drafted the political and economic demands of the Programme, which was adopted, with amendments, in 1880. Shortly thereafter, however, a dispute arose between Marx and Lafargue and Guesde over the significance of those demands.
Lafargue and Guesde believed that the demands were unreasonable, and were useful only as talking points to lure workers into radicalism; this was, to them, the point of the Programme, which they regarded as essentially rhetorical. Marx, on the other hand, believed that they were reasonable demands that should be taken seriously and that reform struggles were useful to the movement. He accused Lafargue and Guesde of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of discounting the value of reform struggles.
What is missing from this quote, then, is a clarifying clause that precedes it, to wit, “If that is Marxism.” Marx was not a Marxist only insofar as he disclaimed association with things that were done in his name that he disapproved of and were inconsistent with his work.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:09:00 No. 646529
>>646514 How did I take that quote out of context?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:12:15 No. 646532
>>646465 No he didn't. The petite bourgeoisie is even represented on the flag as one of the stars, each representing a class.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:14:51 No. 646533
>>646529 Because his insistence on not wanting to be called a Marxist had nothing to do with fending off potential personality cults. He said it, as the other user stated, to argue against the notions that reforms would lead workers away from the revolution, which he disagreed with. The party document Marx co-wrote combined both revolutionary goals and reformistic goals, which was his intended strategy.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:21:15 No. 646537
>>646532 idc about the flag, 49 was in many ways a liquidation of the PB who were seen as a counter force to national construction, and they were routinely smashed during the great leap forward and cultural revolution
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:31:55 No. 646543
There's a theory that says that when Marx developed a theory for scientific socialism he actually delayed it's implementation by some hundreds of years because of the massive reaction that it caused, without Marx socialism would have been a relatively painless transition of the workers taking direct control of the means of production.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:33:13 No. 646545
>>646543 … so you're saying if Marx didn't write about socialism, porky would just give up their means of production?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:41:37 No. 646553
>>646533 But if we look at the thousand of marxist sects now, that are so far away from leading the "proletariat" to victory and are instead treating Marx as a good and searching for some remark by him on some subject to validate their position, don'tcha think that Marx would say "If these are marxists, I am not a marxist"?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:50:33 No. 646561
>>646545 NTA but the argument falls apart, if you look at the timeline and see that porky was already implementing the marginal (counter)revolution before capital was released by Marx
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 10:57:02 No. 646564
>>644233 >I wonder how long he would predict the workers would take over knowing the future I guess he'd probably predict socialism by 2054 based on the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.
For his theories Marx assumed a universal commodity against which all other commodities are measured.
He also uses labour-time as "substance" of economic value.
I don't see how Marx's theories would have a dependence on gold.
Marx also has an economic concept of fictional capital, because none of the things that capital is doing now are entirely new.
Marx also predicted that industrial capital would win over fictional capital, and that's sort of coming true now with China out competing the imperial finance bourgeoisie for power on the global stage, based on their industrial strength. Marx told everybody to go seize the means of production, he didn't say seize the means of accounting.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 11:02:19 No. 646568
>>646564 This graph is dated. From 2012, if I had to guess, which is like citing an economics study from 1992 to explain 2001 economics.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 11:26:33 No. 646576
>>646565 >EXPLAIN THESE GRAPHS My bad
The thick wiggly line is the actual measured rate of profit.
And the straight dotted lines are extrapolated data for the mean profit rate in the future (prediction lines that have their bumps flattened out, that's what you do in statistics to highlight a tendency )
>>646566 Hudson is a Marxist economist as well, so i guess that's reassuring that he confirms that. It means i don't have to search for the quotes.
>>646568 It's a lot of effort to make these graphs, you have to go through all those differently formatted economic data sets that are published.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 11:28:04 No. 646577
>>646576 Can you give a source? There's a lot of significant ambiguity (such as which countries are selected)
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 11:41:27 No. 646584
>>644233 If Marx came back he would either become an unironic Dengoid or an anarchist Ultra. No inbetween.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 11:45:07 No. 646586
I need an Engles in my life
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 11:46:25 No. 646588
>>646577 Can you give a source?
here
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 11:47:54 No. 646589
>>646588 Thank you very much.
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 13:43:47 No. 671964
>>645981 China is doing pretty much what Marx and Engels laid out in the Communist Manifesto and Principles of Communism. A state seized by the vanguard in form of the Communist Party, creating large public trusts that slowly outphase private capital.
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 13:47:06 No. 671970
>>645957 Scientists used to be philosophers as well, because to be truly scientific you must also be schooled in logic (real, dialectical logic) and epistemology. With the rise of Anglo positivism and empicism the philosophical kernel has been stripped from science which is why we get people like Neill DeGrasse Tyson.
Like theoretical physicists telling you "it doesn't matter if the Kopenhagen interpretation or the DeBroigle Theorem in Quantum science is correct, because they have the same mathematical results" is actually fucking offense if you think about it.
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 14:32:20 No. 672017
>>671977 The kid isn't wrong
Engels at one point even suggested buying out porkie's ownership of industry with bonds for the nationalisation stage
Unique IPs: 33