Seriously though, I've yet to hear any actual and valid criticism for why Marxism is wrong. I'm not talking about the feasibility of X or Y socialist society/model, I'm talking about the critiques that Marx formulated.The only main non-retarded arguments for why Marx's analysis of capitalism was wrong hinges on 2 things, which are both mistaken : >le heckin LTV!!!The SNLT (mistaken for the LTV) is not a price theory, it just posits where value comes from. The SNLT isn't necessary or central to Marx's claim. It isn't even required for his theory of exploitation (the idea that capitalism relies on the worker producing goods worth more than his wage) which is most associated with it.>the ECPThis is just a theory that asserts that you need price signals to properly produce commodities. It's also been largely refuted by the Lange model and cybernetics (like Cockshott).So, does anyone actually have any critique on the material dialectic, on alienation, and on marxist economic theories (other than the SNLT) ?
>>18285624>Seriously though, I've yet to hear any actual and valid criticism for why Marxism is wrong.Marxist philosophy is critically underdeveloped and doesn't say much. It's broad enough so that its supporters can always go back and claim "well ackshually thats not what marx said">material dialecticThe material dialectic is only the idea that the material structure produces conflict expressed through class. Not only is it wrong in thinking that material conflict is expressed through class (sociology has more or less proven that it is expressed through social groups rather), it also lacks the actual metaphysics required for it to be really a "dialectic".The Hegelian dialectic for instance actually had a metaphysical component, which drove history and human society. Dialectical materialism on the other hand doesn't have that, which is why it can only devolve into a glorified conflict theory rather than an actual framework.Now don't get me wrong, you can have a materialist theory of conflict, it's just that basing your entire movement around it seems a bit odd.>alienationPop psychology & anthropology theory on why work = bad. It also very awkwardly fits in the rest of Marx's theory (to the point most marxists reject it iirc).Ironically, it's also his most relevant theory, but it can't fit within his broader theory lol. Alienation in and of itself rests on an idea of a human "essence", from which man is "alienated" under capitalism. However, you need ethics to actually introduce it as a prescriptive notion. Otherwise, you're just saying that capitalism isn't adapted to man's natural predispositions.>marxist economic theoriesOther schools provide better framework to understand it. Most of Marx's predictions are only "true" in that he has loosely extrapolated economic phenomenons present in his era for all of capitalism's existence. Also, his theory of immiseration was wrong, which is awkward given that it was his main one as to why capitalism would fail
>>18285624The problem with Marxism is that nearly all Marxists are liberals. They all care about shit like feminism, antiracism, LGBT more than they do about economics. It would be interesting to see a chud version of Marxism
>>18285651>Marxist philosophy is critically underdeveloped and doesn't say muchProbably because Marx always thought the revolution was going to happen literally next year. His ideology makes no sense outside of his time, the man was exclusively concerned with the affairs of industrial workmen but now his followers have expanded his definition of the "working class" to include just about everyone.
>>18285681Socialism was terrible even when it was racist.
>>18285681>what is the USSR>>18285685Yeah but then at which point does his ideology become irrelevant then ?
>>18285651>Marxist philosophy is critically underdeveloped and doesn't say muchNot true. Engels wrote the anti-duhring and Marx the philosophic and economic manuscripts.>Not only is it wrong in thinking that material conflict is expressed through classIt is expressed thru classes tho. Objectively speaking, the contradictions are between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie economically. You can have other social contradictions observed through other groups, but economic contradictions are within proles and bourgeois.>Now don't get me wrong, you can have a materialist theory of conflict, it's just that basing your entire movement around it seems a bit odd.I wouldn't say that the movement itself is based on the dialectic really. Furthermore, yes, unironically Marx wrote about that. Philosophy is simply the way we understand things through human concepts and logic. Once you realize that there is no ultimate and final laws of the universe, and once you adopt materialism as the True(tm) vision of the world, philosophy becomes constrained to theories describing social interactions. His idea that philosophy could be alienating by taking the ideal over the material kinda adresses your point. Also, just because you call it a "conflict theory" doesn't mean it's simplified. >However, you need ethics to actually introduce it as a prescriptive notion. Otherwise, you're just saying that capitalism isn't adapted to man's natural predispositions.You don't. Saying that capitalism is conflicting with human essence is indeed enough to say that alienation fits within the broader dialectic.>his theory of immiseration was wrongIn absolute terms yes, in relative terms no. Also the rest is wrong too.>>18285681it's always been about owning the libs, huh ?
>>18285708>it's always been about owning the libs, huh ?In the 21st century absolutely. In the Russian Civil War and WW2 the average chud joe's motivation for anti-leftism was different though.
>>18285624>the idea that capitalism relies on the worker producing goods worth more than his wage.... but this idea totally depends upon how the worth of goods is determinedthere is no escaping the retardation of Marx's imbecilic definition of value because it is the literal basis for this claim
>>18285681You need to realize that in social strata where the material conditions are met, socialism thrives. You live in the west and are a part of the global bourgeoisie vanguard. The strata you belong to will never be convinced by economic arguments seeing as they would lose their privilege to exploit the workers of the "developing" world. Because of this, the socialist movements seeks to mobilize culturally oppressed groups in order to make them sympathetic to the cause. Women and LGBTQ are the most obvious of these oppressed groups, and their liberation also happen to align perfectly with overall socialist egalitarian principles. Note that these groups naturally have no real economic incentive to be socialists, on the contrary, they benefit from the very same economic privilege as the rest of their strata.Let me be blunt: The material condition for a socialist revolution in the west does not exist and will not exist unless the ruling elite cocks up everything massively. Not until there's real pressure on the western working class will we see socialist thought gain real traction, and even then it's a long way between calling for reform and revolution.
>>18285624Because people place their own interests above those of random strangers. Prices and trade solves this. I will sell you wheat even if I think you're a douchbag because we both get something out of it. If everything just goes into a common stock then I'm going to contribute a little as possible and take as much as possible, and that's why socialism ends in bread lines.
>>18285721No. You can have the exploitation theory with the marginalist theory. Capitalism relies on the bourgeois creating more value (subjectively determined by his consumers) than he pays his workers. Therefore, the workers, whose role is to produce the goods, are systematically paid less than they produce.This is why you get some authors saying that wage-labor is actually a time-preference, and totally not the result of requiring a lot of capital and a self-managing profession to start up your own business. >there is no escaping the retardation of Marx's imbecilic definition of value because it is the literal basis for this claimIt's not topkek. Marx doesn't use the SNLT for his crisis theory, for his immiseration theory, for his alienation theory etc. It's not axiomatic to his work.More over, you have to realize that the whole marginalist vs ltv argument is a bit flawed. In reality, albeit consumers do set the price, it's also true that you won't have a product without production cost. Therefore, it's neither only the consumers or the producers who set the price. The producers expect a minimum price to sell their goods, and whether or not the business survives depends on the consumer's willingness to pay that minimum price (or more, in which case profits are generated).
>>18285624>valid criticism for why Marxism is wrongEvery attempt at implementing it hasn't achieved its results.There must be something wrong with the base idea.
>>18286467The idea of the state working to abolish itself is absurd. Why would the elite relinquish its power when there's no clear incentive for it to do so
>>18285624Why didn't marxists just absorb Burnham's Managerial Revolution into their frameworks? The book was translated into some commie block languages in the 1950's without triggering censorship and it would have "fixed" some issues observed by critics as well as gotten rid of having predict when will communism happen. You just present socialist as managerialism par excellence and cut off the silly things that held the system back like right to work.
>>18285624Anyone that took the time to read Marx, communist or not, would agree his analysis of capitalism's flaws is absolutely accurate.The issue is that the alternatives he proposed were wrong or worse than capitalism.>butJust check history. The communist system failed against capitalism at every try.>but it will eventually...Yeah, yeah, just like the second coming of Christ. It will eventually but never happens.
>>18286485The difference is that when capitalism falls(and it will the numbers dont lie) its fall will be like the fall of mountains. Itter. Irrevocable. Eternal. The consequences will be so dire that no one will ever repeat the mistake.
>>18286490This is where you are wrong kiddo. Regimes rise, archive prosperity, stagnate and devolve into corruption/worse conditions until they fall and get replaced by a new one.Just like death, this has been the eternal rule for every dysnasty, regime or empire in history. If the West falls (USA mostly) it will simply be replaced by a new one.>n-no communism will last forever!How did it that turned out for the URSS? Oh yeah, they rose, archived prosperity, then stagnated, fell and got replaced by a new regime. The usual.
>>18285624Where he was right was trivial (19th century workers had a hard time - kek no shit sherlock) - where he was wrong was everything else.LTV is wrong, theory of exploitation is both trivial and fraudulent (no fucking shit that the business owner must have profits from a worker to hire him - this doesn't make it exploitative), price signals are necessary for efficient allocation of resources _between various industries_ (the whole fucking point of macroeconomics in the first place), Oskar Lange had failed.The crook didn't even understand capitalist competition. It leads to improving the conditions of workers, not degrading it.The final proof is that the condition of the working class have improved tremendously under capitalism,. he "predicted" that it will get worse kek.
>>18286513cont btw, the idiot believed that the USA was efficiently developing _because_ of slavery.This is basically all you have to know to have an opinion about his understanding of economy.
>>18285708>it's always been about owning the libs, huh ?many people have made that their entire identity
>>18286513didnt read the book
>>18286533Those who see everything as "left or right wing" are not people
>>18286513Holy shit chuds are utterly brain dead lok
>>18286477The Maoists did do basically that in the Cultural Revolution. Only they made things more retarded, not less. Soviets never would have because it might involve admitting you were wrong
>*still not proven wrong*
Meet Marxist Revolutionary Man. Always about to overthrow capitalism, always right, always inevitable, but never is.
>>18286501>>18286485>>18286467This thread has made me realize that the failure of the Soviet Union has irredeemably shaped the identity of Marxism and broke it beyond repair.>>18286477Because it was disproven. His theory was incorrect lol.>>18286513>LTV is wrongArguable but sure let's presume that>theory of exploitation is both trivial and fraudulentExploitation means using. Exploiting others' labor to get a profit is not a normative statement about capitalism, it's a positive claim that is true (as you have yourself pointed out).>price signals are necessary for efficient allocation of resources _between various industries_didnt read the book award>Oskar Lange had failed.He's never even been tested lmfao. The closest we had was Socialist Hungary and it performed better than the rest.>It leads to improving the conditions of workers, not degrading itdidn't read the book award, part 2.His claim was that competition would lead to instability, cutting cost, introducing machinery to replace workers etc. This tied in with his broader immiseration theory that asserted that the workers would get poorer RELATIVE to the capitalist.These are all true.>he "predicted" that it will get worse kek.didn't read the book award, part 3He didn't. It's always relative to the bourgeoisie. And yes, he's been vindicated by neoliberalism.
>>18285624Marx predicted an imminent collapse of Capitalism at a time where the vast majority of the population in developed countries still did not have access to electricity. Since then Capitalism has only boomed.
>>18286769>imminentno, he didn't
