Is Marxism dead?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Marxism dead?

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Arri posted:

You guys are getting the poo poo trolled out of you and it's hilarious.

I think the people insisting they should be able to discuss a topic they don't actually know anything about are probably not trolling, sadly.

# ? Nov 3, 2014 23:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 22:12

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Bob le Moche posted:

USEFUL GLOSSARY of Marxist terms to help people CRITICIZE MARX better while sounding SMART and KNOWLEDGEABLE about the subject:

- Exploitation:
Let's say there's a firm that produces a product, it sells this product on the market for money. It then uses the money to pay the employees who made the product. If there is still money left for the owners of the company after paying the employees then "exploitation" is happening: simple! You can think of it as a different way of saying "profit".

- Alienation
Why and how do you work? If you work because the outcome of your work is something that you desire to create, and if you are in full control of how you work, then congratulations you are not alienated!
If you work creating something that you only care about because you get money for it that you need to survive, and if someone else tells you how to work, then sorry you seem to be alienated my friend :/

- Class/Proletariat/Bourgeoisie:
How do you pay for your livelihood? Is it by owning shares in a business? Rent from landed property? Ownership of private assets in general? If this is the gist of it then congratulations you win at capitalism and you are part of the bourgeoisie!
Is it by entering a contract with an employer where you sell your labor to them in exchange for a wage? Then sorry you are a proletarian You do things like produce things for the bourgeoisie at your job, pay rent to them so you have a place to live, and pay interest to them on your debts.

- Ideology
Careful: it does not mean "political opinions" in Marxism. Ideology is the set of assumption that we as a culture have about society that we're often not even aware of because we think of them as being "natural" or "universal" or "common sense" or "how things work". For example "hard work will be rewarded by success" is an example of an ideological belief. "women need to be protected" is another. "my country deserves respect" is another. The sphere of ideology is usually contrasted to the "material", which means: what is actually happening in the real world in practice.

- Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie / Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Today, in practice, the state represents the interests of the bourgeoisie and essentially works for them. The "dictatorship of the proletariat is an hypothetical situation where the state would instead represent the interests of the workers and work for them. If you use the term to mean "Stalinist totalitarianism" Marxists will be able to tell you don't know what you're talking about.

- Class Struggle/Antagonism
"Exploitation" as defined above, meaning "profit" is what the bourgeoisie, who own everything, relies on to keep existing as a class. The money a company makes that goes to the owners is money that doesn't go to the employees. This means that the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are in opposition with each other. In times of crisis this manifests itself in harsh ways and often leads to state violence being used against the proletariat.

Hope this helps! Feel free to quote this at people who use those terms without understanding them in the future!

Here are massive problems:

Marx makes distinctions based on how you make your money - this distinction doesn't matter. You can be a filthy rich laborer.

Marx makes distinctions between whether you're exploited (his definition) or not - it's irrelevant. You can be a dirt poor owner.

Marx claimed capitalism was doomed to failure. It isn't. It's the dominant mode of production.

The hilarious thing to me is that Marx was a smart guy. His main problem was that he was writing 150+ years ago when these distinctions seemed to make sense. But since his death we've had Marxist states rise and fall, seen capitalist states invent the middle class as we know it and we've seen capital ownership become as accessible as a Big Mac.

If you think for a second that Marx would have witnessed these things and not significantly re-evaluated his positions then you think less of Marx than I do.

# ? Nov 3, 2014 23:32

1994 Toyota Celica: Sep 11, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

That is not dead which
may forever lie
And with strange aeons
even death may die
-Friedrich Engels

# ? Nov 3, 2014 23:47

Bob le Moche: Jul 10, 2011; I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !

(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

asdf32 posted:

Here are massive problems:

Marx makes distinctions based on how you make your money - this distinction doesn't matter. You can be a filthy rich laborer.

Marx makes distinctions between whether you're exploited (his definition) or not - it's irrelevant. You can be a dirt poor owner.

This is true! Both of these things happen sometimes. However they are very rare exceptions which really don't matter when you take a step back and study the economy in the grand scheme of things. You'll find that the two examples you use are so rare in practice as to be non-significant if you look into it.
A dirt poor owner is not very likely to stay an owner for very long. A filthy rich laborer is very likely to retire early by acquiring capital.

asdf32 posted:

Marx claimed capitalism was doomed to failure. It isn't. It's the dominant mode of production.

Not just Marx claimed that, even Ricardo and most other liberal capitalist theorists made the exact same claim. It's pretty incredible to me that anyone would be so assured that any economic system is bound to last forever. What makes capitalism so special as to be the one final mode of production for human civilization when every other system has been replaced? Believing this sounds like quite the act of faith! During its entire existence capitalism has also been a lot more unstable and faced more frequent crises than any other mode of production. Today we're facing ecological collapse, unprecendented inequality, and instability all over the globe so it's undertandable that many people see in these things a reflection of the unsustainability of capitalism.

asdf32 posted:

The hilarious thing to me is that Marx was a smart guy. His main problem was that he was writing 150+ years ago when these distinctions seemed to make sense. But since his death we've had Marxist states rise and fall, seen capitalist states invent the middle class as we know it and we've seen capital ownership become as accessible as a Big Mac.

If you think for a second that Marx would have witnessed these things and not significantly re-evaluated his positions then you think less of Marx than I do.

The cool thing about Marxism is that it didn't end with Marx, and Marxists economists who witnessed all these things have been having debates and coming up with new theories to attempt to explain those things and understand them better the whole time. In contrast the theoreticians of liberal economics are holding onto to the very same tenets without empirical basis as they were decades ago despite the historical record proving their theories wrong over and over again. Any political economist worth its salt will tell you that while Marxism may not be the perfect economic theory to describe how capitalism works, it's certainly a better fit than anything out there - the more "mainstream" economic theories are typically primarily interested in coming up with justifying narratives for why the current system is good, while marxist economics focus on critique and deconstruction.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 00:00

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Bob le Moche posted:

This is true! Both of these things happen sometimes. However they are very rare exceptions which really don't matter when you take a step back and study the economy in the grand scheme of things. You'll find that the two examples you use are so rare in practice as to be non-significant if you look into it.
A dirt poor owner is not very likely to stay an owner for very long. A filthy rich laborer is very likely to retire early by acquiring capital.

They're not rare.

The middle class also retires on acquired capital.

Defend the utility of this distinction:
Corporate Lawyer: Exploited
Half starving subsistence farmer: Not Exploited

quote:

Not just Marx claimed that, even Ricardo and most other liberal capitalist theorists made the exact same claim. It's pretty incredible to me that anyone would be so assured that any economic system is bound to last forever. What makes capitalism so special as to be the one final mode of production for human civilization when every other system has been replaced? Believing this sounds like quite the act of faith! During its entire existence capitalism has also been a lot more unstable and faced more frequent crises than any other mode of production. Today we're facing ecological collapse, unprecendented inequality, and instability all over the globe so it's undertandable that many people see in these things a reflection of the unsustainability of capitalism.

Less stable than socialism or feudalism? Nope.

The world is more stable and less violent today than ever. Get your facts straight.

quote:

The cool thing about Marxism is that it didn't end with Marx, and Marxists economists who witnessed all these things have been having debates and coming up with new theories to attempt to explain those things and understand them better the whole time. In contrast the theoreticians of liberal economics are holding onto to the very same tenets without empirical basis as they were decades ago despite the historical record proving their theories wrong over and over again. Any political economist worth its salt will tell you that while Marxism may not be the perfect economic theory to describe how capitalism works, it's certainly a better fit than anything out there - the more "mainstream" economic theories are typically primarily interested in coming up with justifying narratives for why the current system is good, while marxist economics focus on critique and deconstruction.

The left exists independently of marx. But marxist are marxists for a reason.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 00:46

TheNakedFantastic: Sep 22, 2006; LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACIST

asdf32 posted:

The hilarious thing to me is that Marx was a smart guy. His main problem was that he was writing 150+ years ago when these distinctions seemed to make sense. But since his death we've had Marxist states rise and fall, seen capitalist states invent the middle class as we know it and we've seen capital ownership become as accessible as a Big Mac.

If you think for a second that Marx would have witnessed these things and not significantly re-evaluated his positions then you think less of Marx than I do.

Uh they still make sense? The vast majority of world workers still fit into the categories of worker and owner, even in the first world. The expansion of the petite bourgeoisie and increased income of the first world working class doesn't invalidate this analysis.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 01:17

TheNakedFantastic: Sep 22, 2006; LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACIST

The entire capitalist industry of marketing that underlies modern consumerism is based on categorizing people by class and is pretty effective at analyzing and profiting from this practice.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 01:19

Bob le Moche: Jul 10, 2011; I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !

(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

asdf32 posted:

They're not rare.

The middle class also retires on acquired capital.

The middle class is disappearing. Retirement funds are being gutted left and right and fewer and fewer people have access to them. How do you define the middle class and what proportion of the world's population belongs to it? How much of a factor is the middle class when the richest 1% own 65 times the value of what the bottom 50% do?
The people who produce everything that your lifestyle depends on, who make your clothes, grow your food, built your home, assemble your ipod: do you think they will retire comfortably on a 401k?
If there is a middle class today things certainly don't look as if more people will belong to it in the future, quite the contrary since ownership is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the few.

asdf32 posted:

Defend the utility of this distinction:
Corporate Lawyer: Exploited
Half starving subsistence farmer: Not Exploited

The half-starving subsistence farmer, by definition, exists outside of the capitalist mode of production. They are almost certainly negatively affected by the effects of capitalism in today's world, though.
The corporate lawyer is exploited by the firm they work at, according to the simple definition of exploitation used by Marx. This is a technical term and I don't think much should be read in it about whether they "deserve" the money they get on a moral level or whatever. It's an useful distinction within the broader context of a general analysis of how capitalism works: being an employee vs being a capitalist are fundamentally different ways of functioning within the economy.

asdf32 posted:

The world is more stable and less violent today than ever. Get your facts straight.

Are you referring to the recent Steven Pinker or Jared Diamond books? Other authors have pointed out some serious problems with their analysis but I don't think anything really hinges on this point: the claim that any economic system is going to last forever is a pretty outlandish one, and economists on both the left and the right state that there's good reasons to believe capitalism will have an end.

In Marx's case the explanation for why that is more than "everything else has had an end", though. It's based on an analysis of how capitalism develops over time which necessarily leads to this conclusion. Capitalism is always evolving and things like the ever-greater concentration of capital ownership, the development of production techniques and of automation, and the opportunities for expansion offered at any given time all contribute to its eventual collapse.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 01:25

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Bob le Moche posted:

Not just Marx claimed that, even Ricardo and most other liberal capitalist theorists made the exact same claim.

Ricardo is even more outdated than Marx.

19th century economists were bad with their predictions.

quote:

the claim that any economic system is going to last forever is a pretty outlandish one, and economists on both the left and the right state that there's good reasons to believe capitalism will have an end.

Similarly, on the very long run, the sun will expand and swallow up the earth, the universe will eventually entropy until no energy is left.

"Capitalism is going to be over one day" is simply not that great or insightful of a claim, all things have a beginning and an end.

Marxists tend to think the end of Capitalism is imminent because (insert economic crisis world is currently going through, was wrong every time but hey maybe they'll get it right this time)

quote:

The cool thing about Marxism is that it didn't end with Marx, and Marxists economists who witnessed all these things have been having debates and coming up with new theories to attempt to explain those things and understand them better the whole time. In contrast the theoreticians of liberal economics are holding onto to the very same tenets without empirical basis as they were decades ago despite the historical record proving their theories wrong over and over again.

^^^^^ oh lol the irony is just amazing

Typo fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 4, 2014

# ? Nov 4, 2014 01:46

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

TheNakedFantastic posted:

The entire capitalist industry of marketing that underlies modern consumerism is based on categorizing people by class and is pretty effective at analyzing and profiting from this practice.

The thing is that when classifying people they consider more than annual income + # shares they hold in companies they don't work at.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 01:50

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Typo posted:

Ricardo is even more outdated than Marx.

19th century economists were bad with their predictions.

Predictions aren't a very good way of judging 19th century economists. Still, Marx actually does very well with his central prediction, which is that the divide between labor and capital will tend to increase because of the interaction of capital and surplus value.

Do you get, yet, why saying to someone who is saying something wrong about what Marx said to go read Marx is different from telling someone who is disagreeing with libertarian philosophy to go read Von Mises?

You kind of dropped out of that conversation.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 01:55

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Obdicut posted:

Predictions aren't a very good way of judging 19th century economists. Still, Marx actually does very well with his central prediction, which is that the divide between labor and capital will

But the passage I'm quoting is specifically about the predictions of 19th century economists.

quote:

Do you get, yet, why saying to someone who is saying something wrong about what Marx said to go read Marx is different from telling someone who is disagreeing with libertarian philosophy to go read Von Mises?

You kind of dropped out of that conversation.

The conversation got dropped because it's not particularly interesting.

Are you just trying to find an opportunity to be condescending?

Do you like enjoy this?

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:02

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Typo posted:

But the passage I'm quoting is specifically about the predictions of 19th century economists.

Nobody put a time frame on the death of capitalism through class revolution, so it's not even a failed prediction. Seriously, the predictive failures of Marx are huge, but "capitalism will fail" is obviously not disproven. He didn't just predict that, though, he predicted something much more complex, which I think we can take a lot more issue with.

My point was that judging people on the success of their predictions isn't that great. Was Marx wrong about what he predicted, in many cases? Yes. Answering 'why' to that, however, is a really interesting exercise because Marx clearly and honestly laid out what he thought would happen, he set himself up for falsifiability. His predictions were a logical outflow from his works, and by seeing where they fail and succeed and why and how we can see the strengths and the weaknesses of his theory and gain insight into economics and political theory as a whole.

quote:

Are you just trying to find an opportunity to be condescending?

Do you like enjoy this?

No, I find it really irritating that you just stopped responding. You're dodging answering, so I assume you're going to keep doing so, so gently caress it, never mind. You were wrong, and continue to be wrong, that telling someone who hasn't read Marx who is saying incorrect poo poo about what Marx said to go read Marx is like telling someone who disagrees with libertarianism to go read Von Mises. You're wrong in the most fundamental way, which is that I wasn't telling anyone to go read him because he's right.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:08

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Obdicut posted:

Nobody put a time frame on the death of capitalism through class revolution, so it's not even a failed prediction. Seriously, the predictive failures of Marx are huge, but "capitalism will fail" is obviously not disproven. He didn't just predict that, though, he predicted something much more complex, which I think we can take a lot more issue with.

As time goes to infinity any number of events can occur. A class based revolution may occur, so might a technological utopia which eliminates the need for capitalism, or any number of things really. "Well he hasn't being proven wrong because possibility of successful socialist revolution in 2500 AD" is...techniquely true I guess, it just doesn't say very much.

quote:

My point was that judging people on the success of their predictions isn't that great. Was Marx wrong about what he predicted, in many cases? Yes. Answering 'why' to that, however, is a really interesting exercise because Marx clearly and honestly laid out what he thought would happen, he set himself up for falsifiability. His predictions were a logical outflow from his works, and by seeing where they fail and succeed and why and how we can see the strengths and the weaknesses of his theory and gain insight into economics and political theory as a whole.

I think pretty much everyone acknowledges this, I myself in fact, specifically made a post to this effect, being wrong doesn't stop making you a great man in many cases.

quote:

No, I find it really irritating that you just stopped responding. You're dodging answering, so I assume you're going to keep doing so, so gently caress it, never mind. You were wrong, and continue to be wrong, that telling someone who hasn't read Marx who is saying incorrect poo poo about what Marx said to go read Marx is like telling someone who disagrees with libertarianism to go read Von Mises. You're wrong in the most fundamental way, which is that I wasn't telling anyone to go read him because he's right.

Dude stop being a massive sperg and gently caress off, I know you want some sort D&D winpoint or something. I dropped the conversation because debating how many pages of Marx you need to read before qualified to debate marxism in the D&D is stupid and nobody is going to start reading it because of you being bellicose in an internet discussion.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:14

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Typo posted:

Dude stop being a massive sperg and gently caress off, I know you want some sort D&D winpoint or something. I dropped the conversation because debating how many pages of Marx you need to read before qualified to debate marxism in the D&D is stupid and nobody is going to start reading it because of you being bellicose in an internet discussion.

Eh that is about winpoints, it is a fair point. If you want to criticize a person's personal ideology, you should probably read up on that.

This just makes you come off as a sore loser if anything, just admit you are wrong and move on, its okay it happens.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:18

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Typo posted:

I think pretty much everyone acknowledges this, I myself in fact, specifically made a post to this effect, being wrong doesn't stop making you a great man in many cases.

Okay, cool. Glad you're on the same page there, or same page-ish anyway.

quote:

Dude stop being a massive sperg and gently caress off, I know you want some sort D&D winpoint or something. I dropped the conversation because debating how many pages of Marx you need to read before qualified to debate marxism in the D&D is stupid and nobody is going to start reading it because of you being bellicose in an internet discussion.

I don't give a poo poo if you read it or not, but telling someone who is saying things that are factually wrong about Marx to go read Marx is a completely reasonable response, especially when they admit they haven't actually read him. It's nothing like libertarians telling people to go read Von Mises, especially since I wasn't telling anyone to go read him because he was correct. We were never debating how many pages of Marx you need to read. Calm the hell down.

Obdicut fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Nov 4, 2014

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:30

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

CharlestheHammer posted:

Eh that is about winpoints, it is a fair point. If you want to criticize a person's personal ideology, you should probably read up on that.

This just makes you come off as a sore loser if anything, just admit you are wrong and move on, its okay it happens.

I've literally never seen you contribute actual material to any thread you've being in.

You just come into threads other people actually have discussion in to be aggressive/insulting because well....I guess it's your thing.

Have fun I guess

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:35

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Obdicut posted:

Okay, cool. Glad you're on the same page there, or same page-ish anyway.

I don't give a poo poo if you read it or not, but telling someone who is saying things that are factually wrong about Marx to go read Marx is a completely reasonable response, especially when they admit they haven't actually read him. It's nothing like libertarians telling people to go read Von Mises, especially since I wasn't telling anyone to go read him because he was correct. We were never debating how many pages of Marx you need to read. Calm the hell down.

Look, I apologize for being rude, but what I'm saying is that even if you make a low effort explanation of why the other person is factually, objective wrong, helps to move the discussion forward.

By all means, we can get hung up on this point forever, or we can go back and have actual discussion w.r.t ITT's topic.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:40

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Bob le Moche posted:

The cool thing about Marxism is that it didn't end with Marx, and Marxists economists who witnessed all these things have been having debates and coming up with new theories to attempt to explain those things and understand them better the whole time. In contrast the theoreticians of liberal economics are holding onto to the very same tenets without empirical basis as they were decades ago despite the historical record proving their theories wrong over and over again. Any political economist worth its salt will tell you that while Marxism may not be the perfect economic theory to describe how capitalism works, it's certainly a better fit than anything out there - the more "mainstream" economic theories are typically primarily interested in coming up with justifying narratives for why the current system is good, while marxist economics focus on critique and deconstruction.

Please tell me more about the incredible predictions Marxist economics has given the world and please compare them to "liberal" (real) peer reviewed economics.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:51

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Typo posted:

Look, I apologize for being rude, but what I'm saying is that even if you make a low effort explanation of why the other person is factually, objective wrong, helps to move the discussion forward.

Yeah, when you say something very different than what you first said, it does make sense.

quote:

By all means, we can get hung up on this point forever, or we can go back and have actual discussion w.r.t ITT's topic.

We can do both. There's nothing about talking about this that prevents us from talking about whether Marxism is dead or not.

For example, more on alienation:

One of the reasons I think Marxism is problematic is that there are people who are exploited but don't source their worth in that labor. I know a couple of guys in Arkansas who pick up roadkill all day long, but they are happy as hell with the job because they work together and they're best friends and they crack each other up. They really couldn't give much of a poo poo what they do as long as they do it together. Marx totally got it that there are mechanisms we use to counter alienation, like religion, getting really drunk, or loving a lot, but I feel he missed out on, or didn't believe, that there were people who actually rise above alienation, see and understand the world, and find a way to be fulfilled anyway. I have a huge problem with the 'false consciousness' idea of people like Adorno for this reason, it seems like just snobbishness to say that enjoying one kind of music is real and enjoying another is false.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 02:55

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Best Friends posted:

Please tell me more about the incredible predictions Marxist economics has given the world and please compare them to "liberal" (real) peer reviewed economics.

The interesting thing is I can give you examples of systems constructed by "liberal" economists as a result of development of economic ideas (i.e Keynesianism and Bretton Woods monetary systm)

But really, what sort of economic theories have any marxist came up with since the 1930s and what sort of policies have they successfully implemented?

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:09

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Bob le Moche posted:

The cool thing about Marxism is that it didn't end with Marx, and Marxists economists who witnessed all these things have been having debates and coming up with new theories to attempt to explain those things and understand them better the whole time. In contrast the theoreticians of liberal economics are holding onto to the very same tenets without empirical basis as they were decades ago despite the historical record proving their theories wrong over and over again. Any political economist worth its salt will tell you that while Marxism may not be the perfect economic theory to describe how capitalism works, it's certainly a better fit than anything out there - the more "mainstream" economic theories are typically primarily interested in coming up with justifying narratives for why the current system is good, while marxist economics focus on critique and deconstruction.

Literally everything in this paragraph is ~~wrong~~ informed by your ideology and not materialism. Marxist economists are still trying to shoe-horn Marx's flawed labor theory of value into something that isn't provably false, orthodox economists are the only ones who actually care about empirical evidence and microfoundations for their theories, empirical support for Marxism is impossible because there are no natural experiments, nearly every academic economist would describe Marxism as either substantially flawed or useless, and there is significant debate within mainstream economics about the value of laissez faire capitalism, see: John Keynes, Paul Krugman, and Thomas Piketty.

JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Nov 4, 2014

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:09

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Obdicut posted:

Yeah, when you say something very different than what you first said, it does make sense.

Again, if i came across as rude or miscommunicated, I do apologize.

quote:

We can do both. There's nothing about talking about this that prevents us from talking about whether Marxism is dead or not.

For example, more on alienation:

One of the reasons I think Marxism is problematic is that there are people who are exploited but don't source their worth in that labor. I know a couple of guys in Arkansas who pick up roadkill all day long, but they are happy as hell with the job because they work together and they're best friends and they crack each other up. They really couldn't give much of a poo poo what they do as long as they do it together. Marx totally got it that there are mechanisms we use to counter alienation, like religion, getting really drunk, or loving a lot, but I feel he missed out on, or didn't believe, that there were people who actually rise above alienation, see and understand the world, and find a way to be fulfilled anyway. I have a huge problem with the 'false consciousness' idea of people like Adorno for this reason, it seems like just snobbishness to say that enjoying one kind of music is real and enjoying another is false.

And I completely agree with this.

Typo fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Nov 4, 2014

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:10

HorseLord: Aug 26, 2014

asdf32 posted:

Less stable than socialism or feudalism? Nope.

The world is more stable and less violent today than ever. Get your facts straight.

Capitalism has gone through massive unsustainable growth spurts followed by periods of crisis and titanic deck chair rearrangement for centuries, with it's "golden age" merely being a twenty year huge growth spurt following the economic reset button that is killing millions of people and demolishing all of europe. And even then the golden parts came from scared social-democrats making concessions to a militant working class who were very, very sick of all this poo poo. Concessions which have been progressively eroded since 1979.

The only stable, predictable thing about capitalism is that it's unstable. Meanwhile Cuba tracks left of the post-Stalin USSR and thrives despite everything.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:12

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

quote:

Capitalism has gone through massive unsustainable growth spurts followed by periods of crisis and titanic deck chair rearrangement for centuries, with it's "golden age" merely being a twenty year huge growth spurt following the economic reset button that is killing millions of people and demolishing all of europe. And even then the golden parts came from scared social-democrats making concessions to a militant working class who were very, very sick of all this poo poo. Concessions which have been progressively eroded since 1979.

And yet still delivers a structurally higher standard of living than Socialist countries.

HorseLord posted:

The only stable, predictable thing about capitalism is that it's unstable. Meanwhile Cuba tracks left of the post-Stalin USSR and thrives despite everything.

No it's not:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-cuban-model-doesnt-even-work-for-us-anymore/62602/

quote:

Fidel: 'Cuban Model Doesn't Even Work for Us Anymore'

quote:

I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said.

This struck me as the mother of all Emily Litella moments. Did the leader of the Revolution just say, in essence, "Never mind"?

I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, "He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:16

Bob le Moche: Jul 10, 2011; I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !

(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

Best Friends posted:

Please tell me more about the incredible predictions Marxist economics has given the world and please compare them to "liberal" (real) peer reviewed economics.

Do you think Marxist economists aren't published in peer-reviewed journals or something?
Whenever a major economic crisis hits the great economist figureheads of the capitalist world all go "Wow we certainly didn't see this coming nobody could have predicted this!?" when Marxist authors had been laying out what would happen all along. No but really by all means do tell me how the amazing neoliberal economic policies that are being implemented by governments around the world as we speak are totally going to make everything better this time and not end up causing an even deeper crisis than in 2008. Please do I'm sure history will prove you right.

JeffersonClay posted:

Literally everything in this paragraph is ~~wrong~~ informed by your ideology and not materialism. Marxist economists are still trying to shoe-horn Marx's flawed labor theory of value into something that isn't provably false, orthodox economists are the only ones who actually care about empirical evidence and microfoundations for their theories, empirical support for Marxism is impossible because there are no natural experiments, nearly every academic economist would describe Marxism as either substantially flawed or useless, and there is significant debate within mainstream economics about the value of laissez faire capitalism, see: John Keynes, Paul Krugman, and Thomas Piketty.

Oh man the labour theory of value thing, classic! Yeah great let's have an argument about how different economic theories attribute a different meaning to the subjective term "value" awesome I can't wait.
How can you say there is no empirical evidence for marxist theory but there is for orthodox economics when they are literally both studying the same thing: capitalism, and using the same data. Do you think "marxist economics" means people writing policies for imaginary state-planned economies or something?

Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Nov 4, 2014

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:39

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Bob le Moche posted:

Do you think Marxist economists aren't published in peer-reviewed journals or something?
Whenever a major economic crisis hits the great economist figureheads of the capitalist world all go "Wow we certainly didn't see this coming nobody could have predicted this!?" when Marxist authors had been laying out what would happen all along. No but really by all means do tell me how the amazing neoliberal economic policies that are being implemented by governments around the world as we speak are totally going to make everything better this time and not end up causing an even deeper crisis than in 2008. Please do I'm sure history will prove you right.

If the Marxist economists can predict crisis "all along" what prevents them from get rich by shorting the stock market?

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:43

HorseLord: Aug 26, 2014

"structurally higher" as in, "higher, if you qualify. If you don't, it might equal it, or be way worse."

Your two quotes from a threadbare article don't actually disprove anything, by the way. Cuba is demonstrably thriving. It, unlike capitalist countries, actually supplies the base requirements for human life. If capitalism is so great, you wouldn't have such a poor record with infant mortality, literacy, and public health.

The "higher" standard of living you espouse is one where the government won't even give you any food, or any healthcare, or more than a marginal education, or a guarantee of a job, or any other basic human necessity. But you can buy expensive plastic crap. Sorry son but it's peace, land, bread. Not war, xboxes, and 80 hour work weeks.

HorseLord fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 4, 2014

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:46

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Typo posted:

I've literally never seen you contribute actual material to any thread you've being in.

You just come into threads other people actually have discussion in to be aggressive/insulting because well....I guess it's your thing.

Have fun I guess

I did not insult you in that post. I contribute plenty, not in this thread mind you, though my post was meant to help you see a simple mistake you are making.

Though you kind of dodged the point again, I think I am seeing a pattern, maybe you are doing this intentionally.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:49

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

HorseLord posted:

"structurally higher" as in, "higher, if you qualify. If you don't, it might equal it, or be way worse."

Your two quotes from a threadbare article don't actually disprove anything, by the way. Cuba is demonstrably thriving. It, unlike capitalist countries, actually supplies the base requirements for human life. If capitalism is so great, you wouldn't have such a poor record with infant mortality, literacy, and public health.

The "higher" standard of living you espouse is one where the government won't even give you any food, or any healthcare, or more than a marginal education, or a guarantee of a job, or any other basic human necessity. But you can buy expensive plastic crap. Sorry son but it's peace, land, bread. Not war, xboxes, and 80 hour work weeks.

So how is Cuba doing compare to Canada?

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:52

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Okay we can at least all agree that welfare capitalist social democracy is the official Best System, no? I think Mr Marx himself would be proud. Not enough rich people hanging from light poles, perhaps, but I'm sure he'll understand

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:54

Bob le Moche: Jul 10, 2011; I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !

(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

Look at any capitalist country which enjoys a "high standard of living", look at what the citizens in that country consume, look at where the stuff they consumed is actually produced, look at whether the people who do this production enjoy a "high standard of living".
I should have added "Imperialism" to the glossary I think.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:55

Sheng-Ji Yang: Mar 5, 2014

Typo posted:

So how is Cuba doing compare to Canada?

Cuba would be better compared to other nations with similar historical development, other Latin American countries, and not Canada which it shares little history with. Cuba has the second highest HDI in all of Latin America, behind Chile.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:55

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Bob le Moche posted:

Look at any capitalist country which enjoys a "high standard of living", look at what the citizens in that country consume, look at where the stuff they consumed is actually produced, look at whether the people who do this production enjoy a "high standard of living".
I should have added "Imperialism" to the glossary I think.

You're right, most of the USA's goods in the period 1945 - 1970 were produced in countries like India, China, Africa, and South America

oh wait

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:55

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Typo posted:

So how is Cuba doing compare to Canada?

Comparing two countries with completely different histories is kind of dumb.

Some countries started in a hole, even glorious capitalism can't save them.

Looking at you South America.

edit: I mean if you can point to specifics then it isn't dumb but that rarely happens in these conversations.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:57

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Sheng-ji Yang posted:

Cuba would be better compared to other nations with similar historical development, other Latin American countries, and not Canada which it shares little history with. Cuba has the highest HDI in all of Latin America except for Chile.

code:

Cuba
GDP (nominal) 	2011 estimate
 -  	Total 	$68.233 billion[9] (68th)
 -  	Per capita 	$6,051[10] (90th)

Mexico
GDP (nominal) 	2014 estimate
 -  	Total 	$1.296 trillion[6] (15th)
 -  	Per capita 	$10,837[6] (64th)

Argentina
GDP (nominal) 	2014 estimate
 -  	Total 	$536.155 billion[6] (24th)
 -  	Per capita 	$12,778[6] (60th)

Brazil
GDP (nominal) 	2014 estimate
 -  	Total 	$2.244 trillion[4] (7th)
 -  	Per capita 	$11,067[4] (62th)

uhhhhhhhh. see if you can spot the problem here

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:57

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

CharlestheHammer posted:

I did not insult you in that post. I contribute plenty, not in this thread mind you, though my post was meant to help you see a simple mistake you are making.

Though you kind of dodged the point again, I think I am seeing a pattern, maybe you are doing this intentionally.

Look, I don't know where you are coming from, but right now all you are really doing is continue to be bellicose over a point that I think has being resolved btwn me and Obdicut.

I'm politely asking you to stop this because it's really not contributing to the thread.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:57

Arri: Jun 11, 2005; NpNp

It's almost as if the wealth hierarchy inherent in capitalism exists on a societal down to an individual level and claiming that countries in Europe show how capitalism works is the same as saying that capitalism works for the wealthy 1% of the world.

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:57

Sheng-Ji Yang: Mar 5, 2014

icantfindaname posted:

code:

Cuba
GDP (nominal) 	2011 estimate
 -  	Total 	$68.233 billion[9] (68th)
 -  	Per capita 	$6,051[10] (90th)

Argentina
GDP (nominal) 	2014 estimate
 -  	Total 	$536.155 billion[6] (24th)
 -  	Per capita 	$12,778[6] (60th)

Brazil
GDP (nominal) 	2014 estimate
 -  	Total 	$2.244 trillion[4] (7th)
 -  	Per capita 	$11,067[4] (62th)

uhhhhhhhh

Americas
10 highest HDIs

Very high human development
1 United States 0.914
2 Canada 0.902
3 Chile 0.822
4 Cuba 0.815
5 Argentina 0.808

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 22:12

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Arri posted:

It's almost as if the wealthy hierarchy inherent in capitalism exists on a societal down to an individual level and claiming that countries in Europe show how capitalism works is the same as saying that capitalism works for the wealthy 1% of the world.

You realize that the US, Japan, and European economies literally operated in a bubble prevented from touching foreign markets in the postwar era, right?

# ? Nov 4, 2014 03:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Marxism dead?

«‹›66 »