/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 12195
19 kB, 583 × 293
So,now that the dust has settled, which ideas of Marx have stood the test of time proving him right?

Is it even possible to have a conversation about marx without political shitflinging?

I'm too dumb to give articulate thoughts to this but I'd be interested in hearing what you super smart dudes on ernst think

Regards,
Avi
>>
No. 12197
>which ideas of Marx have stood the test of time proving him right?

I think it's the wrong question and wrong treatment of social science/humanities in general. You use Marx as a stock for the analysis of capitalism.

Everybody knows the necessary evolution into communism failed, but then again did Marx really said that word by word or is it just a meme by people who misread it or that does not really as a solid base? There have been written a billion books on Marx, why not read some of them instead of asking Ernst who probably never read Marx himself but only secondary literature or hearsay from other sources.
>>
No. 12208
I've only watched the first lecture so far, but this seems like a really good series on his ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35cr_whPC88

This first episode starts with a bit of Marx's biography and the lecturer also prompts to read at least the Gommunisd Manifesdo, which is actually really short and definitely worth the read

"Wage Labour and Capital" is another short essay which focuses more on the idea of capital
>>
No. 12210
Some points:

  1. The chaotic, instable nature of capitalism, periods of growth are folllowed by stagnation, bursting bubbles, overproduction and recessions
(basically the drive for profits forces captitalists to innnovate and mechanize the production, producing more and more goods while squeezing workers’ wages until they can no longer purchase the products they created)

2.Capitalism’s tendency to focus on arbitrary and unneeded products leads to “a subservience to unnatural and imaginary appetites.” (useless consumer products and fetishes for certain brands dominate the world and our lifes, products are artificially deprecated all the time only to force demand for the new generation of the essentially same product, planned obsolescence)
>Private property does not know how to change crude need into human need. Its idealism is fantasy...

3. The Globalization of Capital(ism)

Overproduction forces the spread of capitalism across the planet in search of new markets to exploit. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe...It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” The relentless search for new markets, cheap labor and natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding.

4. Monopoly
The classical theory of economics states that competition is natural and therefore self-sustaining. Marx argued that market power would actually be centralized in large monopoly firms as businesses increasingly preyed upon each other.

5. Low wages vs. High profits from capital ownership

After a recession, high unemployment is keeping wages stagnant but capitalists profits grow very fast, because workers are too scared of unemployment to quit their terrible, exploitative jobs.

6. Capitalization of all aspects of human life

>Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness
>Even the need for fresh air ceases to be a need for the worker. Man returns to a cave dwelling, which is now, however, ... only precariously, it being for him an alien habitation which can be withdrawn from him any day – a place from which, if he does not pay, he can be thrown out any day. For this mortuary he has to pay. A dwelling in the light, ceases to exist for the worker. The savage and the animal have at least the need to hunt, to roam, etc. – the need of companionship. The simplification of the machine, of labour is used to make a worker out of the human being still in the making, the completely immature human being, the child – whilst the worker has become a neglected child. The machine accommodates itself to the weakness of the human being in order to make the weak human being into a machine...
>The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment.
>>
No. 12239
>which ideas of Marx have stood the test of time proving him right?

Define 'ideas'.
Pretty much everything in the first volume of "Capital" has turned out to be correct, and in fact already was so when it was published. I doubt there are many people who have read Capital and would deny that Marx' description of what he called Capitalism were inaccurate. And had we heeded the warnings rather than embracing this new idea (eg. Adam Smith etc) we might have avoided the perversions of capitalism that have formed in the last third of the 20th century.

>Is it even possible to have a conversation about marx without political shitflinging?

Of course, why wouldn't it be? Many of his ideas are simply accepted without dispute today anyway. I guess many people think of Marx only as a core figure of communism and then associate that with what they think they know about communism today.
When Marx himself was rather cool headed and perceiving rather than judging. His description of why he favoured communism was directly tied to the conditions under which it could work or when it would fail. He predicted the failing of a communist revolution in russia and did not encourage it, for example. (Based on his theory that a communist society could not be sustained had there not been a socialist society esatblished beforehand and that in turn would require an industrialised society with literate workers and somewhat stable conditions of living and not a conflict ridden society on the verge of collapse).
By the way, this is often the core of what well read people mean when they say that Russia and China didn't have a real communist revolution.
>>
No. 12240
A lot of his fundamental economics are fine, and as others have said, he's pretty important in a lot of fields for good reason. He's no different from any other of the 'great thinkers' though. There is lively debate into the present about basically any conclusion that any big name ever made about their subject. And tbh, Marxism is close to unrecognisable to original Marx in a lot of ways since just like any field that lasts as long as it has, there have been enough new minds looking at his work and expanding on it that it's arguable that there are more important works in Marxist study than Marx himself. It's certainly true in Liberal theory. We read the classics because it's our equivalent of fire and brimstone where the tyrant is banished at musketpoint, but to understand modern economics and issues there are infinitely better sources.
>>
No. 12241
>So,now that the dust has settled, which ideas of Marx have stood the test of time proving him right?
None. There is no such thing as class, only indivuals fighting each others for dominance. Those at the bottom will never rise up, they are at the bottom because they are of low value. The purpose of life is hig-value individuals abusing, exploiting, mistreating low-value individuals for gain and for enjoiment. If you aren't top 10% Turbochad, you might as well KYS, because you are a worthless piece of shit that will never amount to anything. You miscarriage.
>>
No. 12242
>>12239
>perversions of capitalism
Unregulated capitalism is the natural state of affairs, and it can only be "changed" by totalitarianism. Read the gulag archipelago. This will be the result of "equal" anything.

Every single leftist communist I ever met was weak in body and mind, feeble, passive. They yell for a father-figure to step in and give them some of the spoils of the war they are losers in, the war for existance.
>>
No. 12243 Kontra
>>12241
>>12242

kohlcancer is down again?
>>
No. 12244 Kontra
>>12242
>>12242
Uh-hu, the edgey darwin anarcho capitalist entered the thread and answered OPs question at least: Marx will always lead to shitflinging on the internet
>>
No. 12246
>>12243
>>12244
You know everything I say is true. Chad gets women, Chad gets money, Chad gets everything. Bernd gets life long marginalization and slavery, with a few kicks in the gabber to go with it. The reasons for this are simple: Chad is high-value, Bernd is worthless. It is supposed to be that way.

(User was banned for this post)

>>
No. 12247
>>
No. 12249
>>12247
>>12247
by posting this I more or less agree, not %100.

as for OP

>So,now that the dust has settled, which ideas of Marx have stood the test of time proving him right?
almost none. the 'true' things he says either complete bullshit or totologies. his historical determinism is complete garbage, I actually find it quite funny considering he never get education about economy, history yet he thought he had right to speak about it and even today there are simple minded folks following his ways. Only thing he proved was humans are irrational and it gets unbearable when we follow the ways of such ignorant, uneducated people.
>>
No. 12253 Kontra
>>12246
Vierkanal cancer is worthless. It is supposed to be that way.
>>
No. 12254 Kontra
>>12253
Better close this thread honestely. We already had political talks, even about marx and communism in dedicated "news thread".
And this thread looks like something out of pol.
>>
No. 12255
Unions and the fact that a lot of companies are sharing their stock holdings as a bonus for their workers, which makes them a little bit partially owners of 'the means of production'.

Works councils are a big thing all over the world. I think it's stunning how much power and privilege they can have depending on the circumstances.

Btw. young Marx had very interesting ideas on democracy.
The book La Démocratie contre l’État : Marx et le moment machiavélien can be hard to read but it is a very cool perspective on a Marx which I never knew. It's pretty much 'before he invented' gommunism.
>>
No. 12258
I guess this is more of a question about communism than Marxism, but it seems relevant and I will ask it on EC because here the conversation is less likely to devolve into political shitflinging:

When Marxists say talk of human nature by their political opponents is idealism, what do they mean? Aren't there aspects of human behavior that are not determined by social conditioning? For instance, there are many psychiatric and developmental disorders that are either fully or partially related to genetic causes. We can also quantify in various ways the heritability of traits like IQ or schizophrenia.

I guess what bothers me about the position of some communists on human behavior is that it appears they dismiss any attempt to deduce laws explaining human behavior other than Marxism, which seems anti-scientific. Perhaps I am just misunderstanding their position and arguing with a strawman.
>>
No. 12259
>>12258
>When Marxists say talk of human nature by their political opponents is idealism, what do they mean?

Idealism and means that the mind can have/cause an effect on the materialized being, whereas materialists marxists think that the mind is shaped by what is material being, relations of productions more closely, that is why you have to change the material situation before you can tackle the mind of an subject.

t. never read marx but heard and read bits and pieces, correct me pls folks
>>
No. 12268
>>12258
>I guess what bothers me about the position of some communists on human behavior is that it appears they dismiss any attempt to deduce laws explaining human behavior other than Marxism, which seems anti-scientific.
Marxism is a religion with it's own unquestionable dogmas. Marx is a prophet, just as Lenin and they gave these dogmas to the flock, the communists. Communists worship the prophets via these dogmas. There's nothing scientific in the whole thing, they refuse everything that isn't fit to the dogmas without any criticism.
>>
No. 12272
>>12268
science is always dogmatic too, you could argue that it has its own critique inscribed tho. Yet it is not a necessity.

There exists a group, formerly known as Marxistisch Gruppe (MG), which deduces from Marx only. Everybody that does not deduce in that way is stupid and there is no point in discussion anymore. Some claim it's a sect of young male circle jerks most members are male, it is said on the internet, bet they lure them with they smug attitude like every Bernst has them, I listened to a talk online and the Q&A is a horrible smug shitfest, like talking to a wall or robot that has a limited array of communication possibilities
>>
No. 12274
>>12272
People has the tendency to create dogmas, sure. But science is also about discovering contradicting facts and change things we believe in. Sometimes the change might be slow but Marxism on the other hand is unchangeable perfect creation just as it's tenets.
>>
No. 12276 Kontra
>>12272
>science is always dogmatic too
please learn what dogma is.
>>
No. 12277
>>12276
Maybe he is referring to certain assumptions one must make about knowledge and reality in order to begin conducting scientific inquiry? For instance one must assume they are not bewitched by an demon's :-DDDD
>>
No. 12278
I can't recall what his book was about, only some glimpses.
Most ideas didn't stood the time. Price can't be measured in work hours, so it can't be measured in anything mechanistic or real. Today price is a virtual value determined only by peoples opinion. Industrial mess in soviet union was the clear result of this mistake. People buy things that they need or lack of, or because of ads, or anything else.
And modern civilisation shows where the idea is wrong. We passed the times when we had lack of anything and choose only things that we like. And i don't see promised utopia now too, in the true communistic society we are still in rat race, people are not happy and there is still oppression.
Yet i don't think that marx was wrong all along, his theory was a fitting solution for his time. His time is long gone and troubles we face today are completely different. His books are a real monument to his era, cause they represent it's sins and desires.
>>
No. 12280
>>12277
There are assumptions involved in inductive reasoning that can be justifiably criticised. Whether you think that undermines the empirical method in some way like Hume did is up to you, but there are assumptions made and adhered to for the sake of functionality. It's kind of a strawman to say that an assumption in the empirical method is something bizarre.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
>>
No. 12281
meh meh I predict another contribution by Eesti going unnoticed and severely underappreciated. You are intelligent, Ernst, but are you thorough? Are you a dedicated scholar, or merely a petty intellectual at the core? You know you don't know exactly how human society is run and operated and what forces are driving it's seemingly chaotic course. Given the opportunity to connect with the higher (almost gnostic) Truth, will you even be able to appreciate it, or will it just vanish for you forever once exiting your brief attention span, and the sacred nature of /b/ will thus cease to operate on your nature and destiny?

Marxism was always merely the strategic tool of financial capital. Marx was employed in 1848 by the League of the Just, an organization that was the legitimate successor of the Bavarian Illuminati. The concept of Communism itself was based on the money-free environments created and operated in the Jesuit Paraguay reductions.

There is a primary source of immense importance that sheds clear light on Marxism. However, through the years I've failed to observe a single /b/tard actually appreciate the paramount significance of this almost religiously enlightening text. Thus, this particular comment of mine is rather about that specific text than about Marx. Here is one of the two or three relevant quotes from the source:

"G. - This is a faulty view.... Finances, as defined by Marx, and more especially Engels, are determined by the system of Capitalistic production.
R. - Exactly, but just the reverse: the Capitalistic system of production is determined by finance. The fact that Engels states the opposite and even tries to prove this, is the most obvious proof that finances rule bourgeois production. So it is and so it was even before Marx and Engels, that finances were the most powerful instrument of revolution and the Comintern was nothing but a toy in their hands. But neither Marx nor Engels will disclose or explain this. On the contrary, making use of their talent as scientists, they had to camouflage truth for a second time in the interests of the revolution. And that both of them did."

That is, of course, the Red Symphony (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/red_symphony.htm), obviously, a Jesuit forgery, but impactful as hell still, as intended. Especially if you understand clearly how high finance works and what's going on with international financial capital.

Tell me, Ernst. Do you pursue longreads honestly and earnestly, or will you bail miserably when directly confronted with Gnosis?
>>
No. 12283
>>12281
This is actually one of the few lucid and completely truthful enlightened posts I've ever seen on an image board. This man knows exactly what's going on, even if he were a knee one eyed king.
>>
No. 12287
>>12276
Science can be dogmatic as well sometimes. Eventually will change ofc but scientists can cling to ideas of authorities and dismiss others because of similar reasons or enforce their own views as such (if in the position) because they are just humans with human faults. And probably depends on their Zeitgeist, for example they didn't question Galenus for a long time but at that era this was natural.

>>12278
I didn't read much from Das Kapital as I didn't turn out interesting for me, but I remember that part of price of products and he doesn't speak about work hours, just work. And he also mentions the price's subjective nature, and I guess for this reason he goes and try to find a common thing in products that can be translated as value or true value.
I also read some of it because Schizo Argie (I believe) wrote short erotic stories for hentai images and I wanted to spice them up with a little umpf. So I pulled out Das Kapital. It was fun.

Also Endchan is ddos'd again.
>>
No. 12289
>>12281
>Tell me, Ernst. Do you pursue longreads honestly and earnestly

Only if I think it's worth and does not interfere with my other list of long reads...

>Especially if you understand clearly how high finance works and what's going on with international financial capital.

...which sadly I don't. You might enlighten us further.
>>
No. 12292
>>12289
idk I wanted to share a short story regarding how I found out about all these things while using /b/ but it's so out of place. anyways, the most reliable way to learn these things quick is this documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2i6uftJhB8
>>
No. 12296 Kontra
The only socialist writer who I've actually read was Lenin.
While his writing style is engaging, I can't really agree with some of his ideals and ideas.
Kontra for not being wholly on topic.
>>
No. 12310
>>12296
Lenin is still on topic though
>>
No. 12312 Kontra
Nobody in this thread not readed marks or has no economical/political degree education. Most arguments and counter argements are based on different famous and infamous elements of original theory and theories of followers, some of which not real but fake statements or interpretation of common people is quite wrong.
In realy original Marx theiry is same as Darvin theory - something that used for bases and something that has giant amount of absoluetly right ideas but in pure form it is largery outdated, even thought in basis it still remain truth and should be learned by anoune who learning economy.
Will not aswer disscution because every time such thing start is just dumb insults and fake statements that repeated over and over.
>>
No. 12313
>>12312
>Most arguments and counter argements are based on different famous and infamous elements of original theory and theories of followers

Regarding Marx or theory in general? You cannot argue or base your arguments out of nothing. But I agree, we are far away from academical level discussions here, Marx social theory and theory on capitalism is treated equal with is historical materialism and gets mixed up.

Marx is probably one of the first to do methodological sociology I think.

>>12292
I just hope it's not a spouting TRUTH documentary. Don't have the time to watch it now anyway. I know there is something faulty with the financial system but I guess a 3h documentary won't enlighten me much more than a few books on that topic. Might give it a shot in the near future.
>>
No. 12319 Kontra
>>12312
>Will not aswer disscution because every time such thing start is just dumb insults and fake statements that repeated over and over.
It's very hard not do like that if you start your reply with:
>Nobody in this thread not readed marks
As it's clear from the thread that few actually did. Maybe not the whole Das Kapital but some. And how much Marx is enough anyway? Here's a bibliography (not entirely complete) of the works of Marx and Engels and of those who wrote about them:
http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sefd0/bib/marx.htm
Or here's:
https://www.marxists.org/
Which one might find it still interesting to browse despite they had to delete most works by the request of the right holder. At least one can measure the amount by it.
A lifetime could be spent with research and studies but only those have the right for opinion who did that? I don't think so because the other way would mean that everyone should really just stop discussing everything because 99.9% of the people are just isn't competent enough in any topic imaginable.
You could have wrote something meaningful, but you didn't, you also could have read the thread but by the first few words of yours it's clear you didn't. And the only impression your post gives away is arrogance. At least I gave to good links for those who are interested in the topic.
>>
No. 12328
>>12310
I highly appreciate his opinion on many topics, like military tactics and history. How he was trying to find rules in history, i think he was nice at serious discussion. His problem was that he was obsessed and that's why he made a lot of dumb statements. His point was to oppose, not to create something organic.
>>12287
>I didn't read much from Das Kapital as I didn't turn out interesting for me, but I remember that part of price of products and he doesn't speak about work hours, just work. And he also mentions the price's subjective nature, and I guess for this reason he goes and try to find a common thing in products that can be translated as value or true value
Yes, my bad. But this doesn't change my point, simple materialistic approach to prices isn't working.
>>
No. 12337
>>12328
Well, reality is complicated.
I consider "true value" paragraphs as a buildup for the point which is about how capital is created.

Thanks to this thread now I kinda feel like to pick up the book again, maybe will do it sometimes.

Endchan is up again. The joy.
>>
No. 12346
>>12337
Ernstchan was down???
>>
No. 12348 Kontra
>>12346
End. Endchan. Not Ernst. Few letter difference there.
>>
No. 12349
>>12348
Ah sorry mistake
>>
No. 12354
>>12312
Pls participate in serious discussion
>>
No. 12356
>>12354
I would but I've got nothing to say because I haven't read Das Kapital. Only some of Bakunin but I forgot it. Why don't you guys actually extrapolate on what their arguments were?
>>
No. 12365
542 kB, 640 × 360, 0:11
>>
No. 13016
>>12365
Lol
>>
No. 13017
>>12292
That channel tho
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfkOZfKFTbaPCAc9kAVBxMw
I am convinced this is all part of an elaborate psyop to make me think the Masons and the Illuminati or whoever else should get my undying support against the teeming masses of retarded fucking bydlo
>>
No. 13797
Bump
>>
No. 18346
>>12365
The only cure for the West is democratic Socialism

Russia is incurable
>>
No. 18363 Kontra
>>18346
Your short-lived opinion does not qualify for an ernste Diskussion. Please be more elaborate in your daily life on image boards.