Have there ever been any good refutations of historical materialism written? Marxists will say that Popper doesn't count because the soviet union wasn't socialist because they are dogmatists who believe that historical materialism is reality or, when they are feeling humble, that it is merely a tool that still effectively explains reality better than all other tools.Of course, I already know that all marxists say this because they are motivated by a desire for nothing but self-indulgent pleasure and comfort, but I'd still like to find some good attempts at refuting historical materialism.
>>24112903the literal refutation from the austrians are sufficient(transformation problem)it was so devastating that they had to retreat in to esoteric "value-form" interpretations and were banished to literary criticism(frankkfurt school) or french structuralism(Althuser).
>>24112903The most compelling argument I have heard came from a Catholic text I was reading, and even then, the argument basically suggested that Historical Materialism is very effective at reading history, BUT can't explain EVERYTHING.Which isn't really a strong argument. But I imagine it was probably just a rebuttal to old school Marxists who become utterly dogmatic about these things.
>>24112903What a coincidence, I just came across this book, interested in checking it out. Written in the 1950s. Here's the description:>Written nearly fifty years ago, at a time when the world was still wrestling with the concepts of Marx and Lenin, The Illusion of the Epoch is the perfect resource for understanding the roots of Marxism-Leninism and its implications for philosophy, modern political thought, economics, and history. As Professor Tim Fuller has written, this “is not an intemperate book, but rather an effort at a sustained, scholarly argument against Marxian views.”>Far from demonizing his subject, Acton scrupulously notes where Marx’s account of historical and economic events and processes is essentially accurate. However, Acton also points out that Marx is generally right about things that were already widely known and accepted in his own time and indeed had been long understood in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, Acton shows that in many cases Marx either is simply wrong or has stated his views so as to render his theories immune to disproof. Acton also explains why the embodiment of Marxist-Leninist theory in an actual social order would require coercive support if it were not, sooner or later, to collapse of its own contradictions.
the idea that workers deserve 'fair wages' is ridiculous and idealistic, it presupposes some kind of supernatural arbitration and therefore crumbles on itself when used as the basis for refuting capitalism
marx has been irrelevant to the left for decades. Why american's still obsess over him as some kind of subversive force is baffling.
>>24113016The basis of his 'refuting' (lol? he's doing an analysis of capitalism, not 'refuting' it. Critique means analysis) is that surplus value, so value that is generated by certain sources but is then appropriated by other sources, is necessary for capitalism to exist, not that workers 'deserve' 'fair wages'. These are different things but obviously related, but the latter is just a value assessment that does not necessarily follow out of the former at all.
>>24112903>you can’t personally observe history because it’s in the past >you can’t subject something to scientific analysis without directly observing it >therefore historical materialism is a misnomer >”so you’re saying historians are unscientific?” No because historians use their intuition rather than direct observation which is an equally valid way to interpret reality >marxists pretend to use science but are really using intuition
>>24113016Marx doesn't think that workers deserve any wages at all, for that matter. He doesn't care about wages. He thinks that private property will inevitably be eradicated in a violent orgy which he calls a "revolution". He works under the assumption that all humans are base and selfish animals who only care about satisfying their increasingly larger desires. Wage is, in this sense, bound to disappear because it is fundamentally "limiting" for the prole.
>>24113027left overs from the redscare, i assume. Also a shitty education that ensures people use terms like marxism, socialism, and communism to disparage anyone that isn't on the right.We have it in Canada too, with people calling Justin Trudeau a Marxist.
>>24113027many leftists I have had the pleasure of meeting like to claim that you cannot be a real "leftist" unless you buy into Marx's theories at least somewhat.>>24113053To be fair. Marx was writing in german and used the somehwat nebulous term "wissenschaft" which can mean more than simply "science".
>>24113058so if he doesn't think humans deserve fair wages, why does he think private property needs to be abolished, doesn't that also presuppose fair arbitration of capital given his earlier assumption about us being selfish, in fact any other ought statement that arises out of his analysis presupposes fairness which contradicts us being selfish
>>24113059Yes, although, to be fair, progressives in general have a similar delusion when it comes to the right, one that is even stronger because they never actually face any serious objection and criticism in their lives (sorry, Mill. Your theory didn't work out). Like how they call everything that tickles them the wrong way "fascism" or even just make up lies about what certain political opponents said in order to paint them as some manifestation of the Devil whom they do not believe in (this is VERY common). It's so common that I can think of an example that I saw just this day where some random redditor, in a thread about Curtis Yarvin, straight up lied by saying that Yarvin has apperantly advocated for "putting gps collars on the ankles of people because they are poor". This is weird because he is clearly referring to something that Yarvin has talked about. Yarvin has talked about using gps trackers to keep track of certain guilty convicts and allowing them to work their sentence as an alternative to stuffing them all into massive (yet oddly compact) prison complexes. And this wasn't even a crazed marxist but a self-described liberal. It's really weird how progressives often fall into these same deranged mentalities they ubiquitously accuse their opponents of falling into.
>>24113027>marx has been irrelevant to the left for decadesThat's just wrong, it is the dominant faction in the left by far. >Why american's still obsess over him as some kind of subversive force is bafflingEven left wingers aknowledge marxists are trying to "subvert", they just think is a rival "bourgeoisie" marxist school rather than themselves
>>24113078Marx believes that there will be no need for wages in communism because everyone will always get exactly what they need and what they want no matter what because all goods are publicly owned.>doesn't that also presuppose fair arbitration of capitalGood question. Marx strayed away from making any and all ethical claims in favor of pure divination in his later years. His position was then, simply, a brute fact about the world itself. He did this because, naturally, talking about things like ethics and virtue presupposes free will, which means that private property does not automatically turn people into automatons that behave in a highly specific way.
>>24113027>>24113088and Marxism is not even an united group, they are always fghting themselves(most anti marxist arguments used by liberals were developed by marxists themselves)
>>24113092They are still united in some respects. Most of them, in my experience, see the glorification of the self as the ultimate purpose in life. They want more cake, more freedom, more pleasure, more comfort. No obligations, no bonds, no privation. They typically compound this with retarded western notions of "authenticity", claiming that only if all goods are owned in common and that there is nothing that tells us what or how to do (i.e. no social system), only then can we live "authentically" and I can finally fuck my neighbour's wife and she will finally love me.
>>24113027>american'sObsessed
>>24113088>That's just wrong, it is the dominant faction in the left by far."cultural marxism" is a meemee that even pseudo-leftists have bought intosee>Even left wingers aknowledge marxists....kind of an example of a weird kind of blowback. American right wingers develop a conspiracy theory that what we would now call "idendity politics" is rooted in marxism ...... alphabet people etc buy into the idea that they are marxists. Bizarre.
>>24113090so communism is the ought division of marxism, who first interpreted marx along these lines
>>24113112No. There is no serious ought division to Marxism. Although, maybe you could interpret it as that, but I always see Marx as little more than another nihilist.
>>24112903>marx with the mason hand in coat
what are bluds ITT smoking fr fr
>>24112903No such thing.The only problem with it is that it tries to differentiate itself from hegelianism. But historical materialism is already contained within Hegel's thought.>>24113004>According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.(...)>Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent "Marxists" from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too....
>>24113027He actually becomes more and more relevant. If anything, the last 5 years have suggested the LVT might actually be better than ETV.
>>24113138Fuck me, I forgot the link: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htmThis is obviously Engels talking.
>>24112983>the literal refutation from the austrians are sufficient(transformation problem)Are you referring to a specific book or just Austrian economic works in general?
>>24113122then what's the difference btn communism and marxism
>>24112983Nothing the Austrians say is a problem for Marxism.
>>24113145to the country itself, it literally debunked him after winning the fight against prussia
>>24113138Nigga, what the fuck are you even talking about
>>24112983This is comical. I know menger never moved past the everything is subjective and Mises bragged about it. The only a priori agreement amongst them is that inflation happens but not in a uniform manner, oh wait, that's subjective too. Hold on, I know they agree to something a priori, of course, no country seems to care about their thought experiments.
>>24113145He's clearly mentioning the transformation problem which means he must be referencing Böhm-Bawerk who observed that Marx's solution to the problem was inconsistent. But this isn't really about historical materialism
>>24113146Marxism is Marx's thoughts about how reality itself operates at a historical and economic level (which turn out to be the only really relevant levels according to him). Communism is a social system where private property does not exist and all goods are "owned in common"
>>24113164Prices indeed are pretty subjective.
>>24112903It's retarded. There, refuted.
>>24113143My favorite Engels moment is when he says that slaves had it better than free workers because slaves were objects while the worker is more like a prostitute(?).
>>24113196Not in the aggregate.>>24113162You think historical materialism trying to explain everything is a problem because you're reducing it to a form of economic determinism.
>>24113204Pretty sure this never happened. Engels saw slavery as an objective historical progress which had to be sublated eventually by serfdom and wage labor.
>>24112903I wish that shit were real. I would love to manipulate the base to get the superstructure I want.
>>24113211https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htmseventh section.>>24113226I don't think you would be able to. There isn't really any room for free agency in this theory. Marx will also say that well actually the two play around with each other but he always will be very clear that the base is still "dominant" for some reason.
>>24113243>while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.It's amazing how all it takes for Engels to see the proletarian as belonging to a "higher level" than the slave is because of the mechanical loom and the steam engine.
>>24112903I'm producing one right now, I'm depositing it into my toilet. Wanna see anon? The reality is Marx has the same problem as just about every other philosopher. He starts asking what humans are like before he knows what homo sapiens are like.
>>24113249I don't know what you are talking about.
>>24113196They also agreed a priori that any countries embracing Keynesian economics were socialist. Yes all the Austrians can tell me a priori is that they struggle to maintain the image of an actual economic school of thought, but can always make subjective claims that only meet falsifiability standards when economies run into issues and countries go right back for more Keynes. You guys are almost as bad as the poppoffice boys.
>>24113243>There isn't really any room for free agency in this theoryI'm pretty sure Marx ins't a determinist, his only view where we are powerless to do anything is the economic view that capitalism will simply no longer make a profit at some point so everybody will naturally do something else to be able to feed themselves ironically very similar to black markets in marxist-leninist countries nowadays(which he predicted that would happen to the ones who tried to skip capitalism before socialism such as Lenin), what to do about it is the political part of his views.
>>24113438Sounds like determinism. Doesn't help that he reduces everything to economics (which he reduces to nebulous "material conditions).
>>24113207>You think historical materialism trying to explain everything is a problem because you're reducing it to a form of economic determinism.Historical materialism is a form of economic determinism.>>24113422You use the term "a priori" the way that one meme kid uses "perchance"I don't really care about the dismal science all that much to be honest. Also, are countries going back for more Keynes? What gracious news! Neoliberalism is no more!
>>24113455>are countries going back for more Keynes>Keynes>he's happyIf only you knew how bad things really are.t.master in economics which is a meme subject btw
>>24113243The seventh section basically proves my claim, you fucking retard. You're a liar. Also this work was rejected by Engels himself and he described it as a kind of "catechism". >>24113243>There isn't really any room for free agency in this theory.Oh yeah. So Engels and Marx literally asked the proletarians of the entire world to unite and wrote extensively about what the working class movement can do regarding their circumstances because "there isn't any room for free agency in this theory". You're a fucking buffoon. Leave this site and go to your local library. >There isn't really any room for free agency in this theory.
>>24113455>Historical materialism is a form of economic determinism.No it's not, retard. And I quoted Engels himself to prove it.
>>24113476>"t.master in biology which is a meme subject btw" - creationist
>>24113249This anon is wise.
>>24113525Kek
>>24113517>The seventh section basically proves my claimThe claim that this>>24113204 never happened? Clearly not. Also do you know what "catechism" means?>So Engels and Marx literally asked the proletarians of the entire world to unite and...You can do all of these things and still be a determinist. Marx thought that communism and no private property was simply inevitable. He falls into the camp of historicists who posit that the environment turns the old environment into a new environment, and not that humans themselves make history or that historical changes are the result of human choices and ideas.
>>24113537>Men make their own historybruh... it's on the first page
>>24113537Here's what I wrote, you pathetic retard:>Pretty sure this never happened. Engels saw slavery as an objective historical progress which had to be sublated eventually by serfdom and wage labor.My second sentence is paraphrasing what the seventh section. The only time Engels mentions prostitution in this text is in the following paragraph:And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the “community of women”. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. >But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.In other words, you lied, faggot. But here's more.>Marx thought that communism and no private property was simply inevitable.That's not economic determinism, retard. >He falls into the camp of historicists who posit that the environment turns the old environment into a new environment, and not that humans themselves make history or that historical changes are the result of human choices and ideas.Marx's ideas are more nuanced, retard. Here's a direct quote:>Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.In other words, he claims that men can influence their history but this influence can't escape some kind of determinacy. Now, since you're a retard, you'll say that the use of the word "determinacy" proves your point but that's only because you're an illiterate fuck who's never read Hegel. Freedom and agency are always determinate. Because a given object or being is itself determined (it is what is and it is not what it is not). I'll dumb it down for you: cavemen can't build a fucking spaceship and fly to the moon.
>>24113568>In other words, you lied,I did not. He clearly states that the slave is somehow more dignified and "assured" in his existence than the wage laborer precisely because he is a thing, an object to be bought and sold instead of a free agent who must live in a world of struggle. He must "sell" himself every day. But hey, at least he occupies a "higher social level" because of the steam engine.>That's not economic determinism, retard.Ok. But he did consider it to be inevitable and he was an economic determinist since he believed that economic modes primarily determine human society and behavior (except when he wanted the superstructure to do it).>Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.This is what we call pure rhetoric. Marx believes that the possibilities of human action are severely limited to the road that leads inevitably to communism. It's just soft determinism, which is a convoluted way fir a determinist to say that he is not actually a determinist.
This happens every time everywhere when somebody asks for critiques of Marxism. Always some random marxists popping up to the defense of Marx's theories as if they could smell threads like these.
>>24113254Marx talked about science but didn't really know shit about humans as a species of ape. Everyone ignores that though so I guess it's fine.
>>24113568I also liked the part where Engels says that the rule of Aristocracy was free of many of the "evils of burgeois society" without ever actually explaining what these evils are, only to say that it has "at least as many evils" of its own, which also go completely unspecified, probably for good reason since I believe not even Engels wanted to admit to himself that the only appeal of communism is its promise to satisfy any and all desires you have and the "evils" he is thinking about is just the aristocracy telling him "no, you cannot have more than one wife".
>>24113640He did talk about "species being" though. Not really sure what that means. I don't really care about supposed human nature though. I think he had his own idea of humans as inherently selfish animals who only seek more pleasure and comfort as opposed to spiritual pursuits of self-abnegation, which he might scoff at as simply being cuckoldry or something, and world renunciation. Other Marxists will say that, actually, these things are ONLY POSSIBLE under communism without ever actually explaining why.
>>24113568>>24113617neither of those anonsI believe Marx idea of a future is about the most efficient economic model. Look how many different nations and cultures we have, there are many paths on politics such as progressive vs conservative but the economic model always follows capitalism nowadays, even North Korea use modern economics to sell weapons and other products to outsiders, we just can't go back to the economy used 2000 years ago even if we really tried. Marx think we will have a new economic model in the future.That can be a bit confusing because Marx also thought revolution was extremely important and should happen as fast as possible, so it feels like 2 different Marx
>>24113659to be honest. Marx thought that the future economic model would be very similar to that of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies. So, not exactly "new" or original. I mean, in essence, communism just means no private property. And no "state".
>>24112903Annales school
>>24113568>you're an illiterate fuck who's never read Hegel.Imagine thinking that this is an insult. Why do all Hegelians overrate themselves so much? Is it megalomania?
>>24113651Ehh this is tiresome. Marx didn't know shit. He was a Kabbalist. Marxism is Kabbalism with secular words swapped in. Communist consciousness is just "ohr ein sof". LTV is just Genesis:3 17-18. Praxis is just Talmudic ritual. The proletariat are the "race peculiar". Etc. Etc. Marx proves his idea of being unconscious of your possession of a class consciousness, by being unconscious of his own possession by a Kabbalistic Consciousness. All of history's most prominent and influential Marxist theorists have been wealthy capitalists, and the continued relevance of the school is a function of that circumstance, not any genuine validity in the writing. What's more, this relationship between Marxism and Kabbalism is not novel, it's just been the object of extant wealthy Marxists to supress formerly made and proven out connections. Marxism is a much better opiate of the masses than religion ever was, and no small part of the reason fascism is a dirty word today is because the Gnostic philosophers that observed the relationship were also fascists.
>>24113683>All of history's most prominent and influential Marxist theorists have been wealthy capitalistsdamn...
>>24112903falls apart when you ask "where does value come from" and you get an arbitrary temporal answer (i.e. ditch digging theory of value).At this point if value is arbitrary labor, then materialist communist should push for human powered bitcoin as the fairest means of value-for-labor production (you just do arbitrary proof of work, like pushing a button x amount of times, to demonstrate proof of work much like a machine that computes arbitrary hashes to mine "value").
>>24113617>He clearly states that the slave is somehow more dignified and "assured" in his existence than the wage laborer precisely because he is a thing, an object to be bought and sold instead of a free agent who must live in a world of struggle. Here's what he wrote: "The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest." Engels doesn't deny the fact that a slave's existence can be miserable. He says that a slave's individual existence is assured because his master needs him. Here's another quote from the same section: >The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave CAN have a better existence than the proletarianHe CAN have a better existence on an individual level, you fucking retard. Some slaves were treated better than your average proletarian. That's what Engels is saying. He's not saying slaves necessarily have it better than a proletarian. I'll reiterate: you are a miserable liar.> But he did consider it to be inevitable and he was an economic determinist since he believed that economic modes primarily determine human society and behavior (except when he wanted the superstructure to do it).You don't understand necessity. Read Hegel's Science of Logic, retard. Necessity doesn't entail a kind of vulgar determinism. Especially not an economic determinism. Also read the quote I posted.>This is what we call pure rhetoric. Marx believes that the possibilities of human action are severely limited to the road that leads inevitably to communism. It's just soft determinism, which is a convoluted way fir a determinist to say that he is not actually a determinist.You're a retard. I'll reiterate: an object is a determinate thing. Something cannot exist without being determinate. Your understanding of freedom and agency is what Hegel named "abstract freedom" which is a retarded understanding of freedom as the ability to overcome any limit. As I told you, you fucking pigfuck, cavemen can't build spaceships.>>24113643So you've read a manuscript which remained unpublished during Engels' lifetime and decided it was somehow sufficient for a critique of his thought. You fucking faggot, Engels wrote dozens of texts critiquing bourgeois society. Hell even "Principles of Communism" contains critique of some aspects of bourgeois society. Even an introductory text like the Communist Manifesto has two or three paragraphs explaining some of the negative and positive changes brought by bourgeois society. Also Engels advocated for monogamy and said communism would bring a higher form of monogamy. You're a subhuman fuck who's never read him. >>24113659You don't understand Marx. Communism isn't an alternative model. Communism uses capitalism as its material basis. The productive forces developed by capitalism are necessary for communism. >>24113677You can't hide your insecurities.>>24113683Marx was raised in a Lutheran household.
>>24113683This is the most retarded image I've seen in a very long time. And trust me I waste a lot of time on 4chan. Let me correct a few things:>As I've said before, Marx was raised in a Lutheran household. He stopped being religious in his youth but never his wife and his children knew and read the Bible and went to Church. He wasn't a Kabbalist.>Dialectics has nothing to do with the whole thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad. Hegel never defined his dialectics with this erroneous and simplistic formula. Fichte used this triad but in a different context.>Marx's materialism has nothing to do with vulgar materialism and never claimed that the only existing thing is matter itself>Some Marxist theoreticians like Stalin grew up poor>Marx wasn't insulting religion when he said it was the opiate of the masses. In fact, he said it was "the heart of a heartless world".
>>24113438>to the ones who tried to skip capitalism before socialism such as LeninThere's two main problems with this belief. One is that it implies that Russia was a complete backwater which during the time shortly before the revolution is a gross exaggeration because, as if it was a backwater simply because the total square-kilometers of factory space compared to the overall landmass or Russia wasn't high enough.Second, at what point does capitalism even become "complete" enough to be able to actually transition into socialism? It's completely arbitrary.
>>24113738>Communism isn't an alternative modelStalin used to send people to work 15 years in Gulag just for saying that on his face.
>>24113738>Engels doesn't deny the fact that a slave's existence can be miserable.I did not deny that.>He CAN have a better existence on an individual level, you fucking retardYes! you are getting pretty good at this! Now read it again carefully. Se that word, "thus"? You know what that means. It means that BECAUSE the slave is little more than a thing, an object, a commodity, he can have a better existence than the proletarian.>That's what Engels is saying. He's not saying slaves necessarily have it better than a proletarianI did not ever use the word "necessarily">Read Hegel's Science of Logic, retard. Necessity doesn't entail a kind of vulgar determinism. I really hate to tell you this but Hegel did not discover the ultimate secrets of the universe. Also, we are talking about Marx here, not Hegel.>So you've read a manuscript which remained unpublished during Engels' lifetime and decided it was somehow sufficient for a critique of his thought.No? I thought it was simply funny and silly. Not sure what you mean by his "thought". He definitely did say that and just because he may or may not have realized just how dumb he sounds does not make it not funny.
>>24113738>Engels wrote dozens of texts critiquing bourgeois society.He wrote about brugeoise people being greedy and evil. Not that specific.>Also Engels advocated for monogamy and said communism would bring a higher form of monogamy. He does say that "forced" monogamy leads to sexual immorality and prostitution, for some reason that he does not really specify. He sees proletarians as inherently good and completely virtuous simply because they are proletarians and are therefore determined to be good no matter what. Again, marxism doesn't really have any room for agency or responsibility except as convenient tools to shame people and not as tools for personal development, which is pretty much just fascism. The only thing marxists care about is getting to engorge themselves freely on more and more slop and being unrestricted.
>>24113759You don't stop being a nigger fagot just because your environment changes anon. For example, you will always be a nigger fagot, no matter where you go. Pointing to Stalin betrays how disingenuous you are, and doesn't disprove Trotsky, petite bourgeoise Lenin, Pol Pot, or the entire mother fucking Frankfurt school, you dick licking fraud. Besides, Stalin wasn't a fucking theoretician. I choose my words carefully retard. You should too. What Stalin does example however is a common pattern among Marxists and deluded "liberals" that fail to understand their desire to centralize welfare is an artifact of Marxist consciousness. People that want the state to be their guarantor are weak, i.e., feminine. People that want to live in a 'state' free of competition or the ability to accrue 'more' through aggression and conquest are weak and frightened. Trotsky was weak and feminine. Stalin was a violent thug. In his hind brain the more masculine Stalin recognized that this club was becoming a presumed safe space of females, with a vanguard of weak and easily deposed pseudo-men. This will always happen for members of the hominid family, has been happening since orangutans and gorillas. Perhaps someday a species will develop, homo Marxist, but that would be redundant, because all Marxists are weak fagots definitionally. It's like saying "single bachelors". A contemporary example of this phenomenon is Stephen Bonnell (Destiny) and Hassan Piker. Bonnell is a weak fagot, Piker is a stupid thug. He entered the chat to have access to the females congregating around weak, easily physically defeated Bonnell. It's innate to his phenotype, it will always behave that way. You think Marxism is good because it provides a safe linguistic avenue for you to potentially access females without having to rape them or compete with stronger males, as has been the lot of all weak male members of family hominid for millions of years. I reject Marxism because I'm fucking your mama, your sister, your auntie, and all your lil’ ass nieces nightly. Hope this helps.Tl;dr stfu bitch.
>>24113845based
>>24113845Marxists do, however, enjoy living in a state of competition. Their entire ideology is a competition between proles and "burgeoise". A competition for the freedom to "express" themselves more. To have more. To engorge themselves on more and more sausages and in general please any and all desire that may come to them and treat all their thoughts and actions as if they were legal decisions borne of the time and place
>>24113845>fagot>fagot>fagot>fagotfour times, each time spelled incorrectly >I choose my words carefully retard. You should too.uh huh
>>24113204He had many odd moments, engels.The Völkerabfälle thing is my favourite though. It was early on and everything but still.>The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.
>>24113845>>24113882Also, not sure how you are rejecting marxism if you are just doing what they do. you clearly do not seem to value social bonds.
>>24113882I'm just looking for that "mArX wAs RaIsEd In A lUtHeRaN hOuSeHoLd" dimwit. He's too busy angry gooning now though.
>>24113888I'm a capitalist. I deleted the 'g' to raise efficency knowing you'd still understand I was calling you a flamboyant homosexual. I have to keep things moving, so I can blow more hot loads into your female relative's anterior fornices. Someone needs to introduce some vigor to your pathetic blood line. It certainly ain't your daddy.
>>24113890A very worldly disposition. Engels is truly the prototypical marxist. more marxist than Marx even.
there will never be a stateless, classless, possessionless community. therefore mark and angels are wrong.
>>24113943Well. In a sense we already live in a classless society and liberalism is how you govern them, if we go by the traditional meaning of classes as expressed throughout most of human history. Also, marxists believe in "personal possession".
>>24113943Primitive communism already exists and is older than anything else.
>>24113953uh huh, yeah. anyways class still very much exists everywhere civilization does, last time i checked. pretty egregiously too. also no, they clearly do not in the final position>>24113953hunter-gatherers are not “primitive communism”
>>24113974I mean to be fair you are talking about a dozen cavemen families living in the same cave and being all personal friends to each other, now compare it with 8 billion humans living all over the world.
>>24113943the archaeologist david wengrow wrote a book about this, the dawn of everything, how different tribes of humans came together through vast distances at certain points of the year to dabble in communism even without speaking a common language
Isaiah Berlin argued that Marx's philosophy rests upon unjustified metaphysical assumptions.
>>24113790>One is that it implies that Russia was a complete backwater which during the time shortly before the revolution is a gross exaggeration because, as if it was a backwater simply because the total square-kilometers of factory space compared to the overall landmass or Russia wasn't high enough.I like Trotsky's theory about that. Large parts of Russia were a complete backwater but modern industry also existed. The Putilov steel works where the revolution began was the largest in the world at the time (this pic is not it but illustrates a juxtaposition). The Russian Empire at that stage was like Arcanum where there were factories but it was also an absolute monarchy, democracy did not exist, people didn't know what that meant, and the role of certain institutions like the church were totally medieval. A huge percentage of the population were peasants. His point of view was also that historical development of nations is not linear but contradictory in many ways.I think of it kind of like "technological shock" or "future shock" as Alvin Toffler put it. Early 20th century tech might seem primitive by today's standards but this was highly disruptive to traditional societies. I think 20th century communism was mostly a disaster and it failed more or less totally, but the really powerful future-forward modernism of it back then is something I've detected but it's also hard to understand. It was like a millenarian movement. I came across a Russian communist channel (they do not like Putin, see the government as a band of criminals) that sort of capture this, but they might "get it" because they're Russian and it's part of their history, look at the last few minutes of this: https://youtu.be/LxIm9xHq_EU
>people still think Marx invented historical materialism and solely attribute it to himHow about... no.
>>24113677Hegelomenia
>>24113890feels like an edgy regurgiation of Hegel's spiel about non-historic people desu
>>24114567>but the really powerful future-forward modernism of it back then is something I've detected but it's also hard to understandHow is that hard to understand? Marx and Engels were tech bros just like the modern tech bros, tech bros always believe we are one generation away from singularity, post scarcity and full automatization of all labour, so it makes sense they wanted a revolution to seize that technology and replace the goverment before the goverment replace us all for machines.
>>24112903To refute Marx, all you need to do is look outside. He knew nothing of the world, his grave needs desecrating.
>>24112903>hey the institutions, class relations, and technologies that define a societies economic system is the best system of analysis for historical evolution >retards 200 years later misinterpret this as some mystical/metaphysical argument or neurotically need to debunk it cuz muh communism is satanicWhy are you like this
>>24114710The entire economy is ran by a cabal of plutocrats and everything is a slave to capital and money. Have you been outside lately?
Marx threads are so terrible. Its so obvious 90% of you havent read anything of him, and the last 180 years of cultural shit flinging over him has preconditioned your opinions about him to the point not only is nothing new ever said, but everything said is complete retardation. You are stupid and should feel stupid (and bad about yourself).
>>24114789yep, most marxists didn't even read Marx
>>24114789>/lit/ threads are so terrible. Its so obvious 90% of you havent readFixed
Post your favorite Marx quote
>>24112903The superiority of China over America right now is living proof of Marxism.
>>24114710Desecrating someone's grave is ultimately an act of impotence. It's like leftists who piss on Ronald Reagan's grave.
>>24115889The problem is that socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, and capitalism (etc) aren't as mutually exclusive as people think they are. China is some degree capitalist (They have millionaires and billionaires too), while America has entire corporations effectively owned by the government for basic services (Waste Management for example) and many European countries have socialist policies but, despite what Americans believe, are still very much capitalist. And thus, saying that "true communism have never been tried yet" also implies the inverse, "true capitalism has never been tried yet"
>>24113455You should read the epistemological pieces from the Austrians. It provides a frame of mind for why Austrians never provide calculations. They were able to reason that the only way they could offer calculations would be in the event any country chose to follow through with any of their thought experiments. Mises himself said Lenin's failure was remaining with statistics, and of course if it's good enough for Lenin then it's certainly good enough for the Austrians. Hayek even took it further and said if any country tried any of their ideas they still couldn't provide calculations. You should also read the road to serfdom, if none of you can provide calculations, you will be part of the cycle. Of course the Austrians also worked it out so they couldn't provide calculations so I guess they are just part of the cycle. They do claim other school's calculations like the refutations on quantity theory but there is nothing uniquely Austrian about any of that, you are repeating that capitalism failed and society moved on.
>>24116019>"true communism have never been tried yet" we've had an international revolution that abolished private property? maybe classes then? no? shut the fuck up.>"true capitalism has never been tried yet"we've never had "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned"? shut the fuck up
>>24116038what a bunch of random crap>you are repeating that capitalism failed and society moved onand you are now disagreeing with Marx on the main thing he was right about.
>>24116183How so?
>>24112903This is the problem with people who get sucked in by grifters (left and right), you all want to read 'da big book of owning da chuds/libtards'. Too scared to actually engage with the texts themselves.Here is a reading plan for 'refuting Marx', good luck brainlet: The classics of Marxism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong.The most important Marxist philosophers: Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Althusser.Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski.Some good history and sociology books about the revolutionary movement in general, such as Fire in the Minds of Men, by James H. Billington, The Pursuit of the Millenium, by Norman Cohn, The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.Good books on the history of communist regimes written from a non-apologetic point of view.Books by the most famous critics of Marxism, like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Raymond Aron, Roger Scruton, Nicolai Berdiaev and so many others.Books about the communist strategy and tactics on their rise to power, about the underground activities of the movement in the West and chiefly about the "active measures" (disinformation, agents of influence), like those by Anatolyi Golitsyn, Christopher Andrew, John Earl Haynes, Ladislaw Bittman, Diana West.The largest number possible of testimonies by former communist agents and militants who recall their experience in service of the movement or communist governments, such as Arthur Koestler, Ian Valtin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Whittaker Chambers, David Horowitz.High-value testimonies about human condition in socialist societies, like those by Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Vladimir Bukovski, Nadiejda Mandelstam, Alexander Soljenítsin, Richard Wurmbrand.
>>24114380Where did he write this?
>>24112903Then read it and formulate your own argument. You want us to wipe your ass too and text your gf? Maybe we can follow you to the bar and to work, and just tell you what to say all the time. Grow up.
>>24115889Because the elites allowed them that position due to "not being white"
>>24117321>Stalin, Mao Zedong.>The most important Marxist philosophers: Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Althusser.what the hell is chatgpt cooking bruh
what does elite mean, is that a word from pareto?
marxisim is partly the political economy of historical materialism and as such simply describes the real economic forms and dynamisms of the real economic forms of production in the current moment of our current situation?
>>24112983the transformation problem people are the funniest because they just repeat those two words but when you ask them to explain step by step how it refutes Marxism then the most they can do is explain how it makes communist society less optimal according to some abstract metric whose relevance they can't justify
>>24117473You're in over your head ebonics boy.
>>24117870>other people are retarded>I can be a retard because none of the retards I speak to have ever proven me wrong>retard
>>24112903>Have there ever been any good refutations of historical materialism writtenA lot, the vast majority was written by Marxistsas always marxists write a ton of research debating each other so capitalists end up taking it and using it against them
Historical Materialism is, essentially, Bible Codes; the arbitrary summing of arbitrary values to arrive at the desired result. It was based on Hegel’s ideas, but Hegel was a fraud (read Schopenhauer on him). It’s useful as a rhetorical trick to impress midwits.
>>24114774The economy is a slave to jews who are in power because white people were too altruistic.
>>24116039That's a bit convenient. So communism has to be international before it counts? And if just one economic system in the world is capitalist, then it counts?
>>24114789Nobody cares. Even triple-digit IQ white men with the intellectual capacity to understand Marx to begin with don’t care. The human pursuit is, ultimately, for wealth, The era of social media feedback loops are highly crystallized and concentrated the opposing power axis in society, and, in the prevailing power axis socialism is good but must be kept away from power; those who want Communism as their solution to wealth access are marginalized on the fringes of the power axis. In the left vs right power axis dichotomy no one involved cares about what is truthful and intellectually beneficial — including basically everyone in this thread. What they care about is re-enforcing their power group identity to receive social rewards and, indirectly, receive economic benefits (or belief thereof). Likewise, if a staunch anti-Communist was paid $100 a post promoting Communism he would not only proceed to post pro-Marxist propaganda all day he would also switch his intellectual stance in order to facilitate changing his social grouping into a new power axis (that includes the people paying him). That’s how humans operate.
>>24119315It's not convenient, it was outlined by M&E almost 200 years ago. Global systems require global solutions.>And if just one economic system in the world is capitalistTake your meds. Words have meanings.
