Technology has progressed far beyond Marx's wildest dreams...

Technology has progressed far beyond Marx's wildest dreams, and there has been no international proletariat overthrow of the burgissi.

What are your exc- rationalizations, Marxfans?

Other urls found in this thread:

pieria.co.uk/articles/the_many_straw_men_surrounding_marx
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Social democratic administrations implemented policies designed to smooth over the contradictions in capital and lower class antagonisms. These policies were very successful. For an example, look at the New Deal. Where social democracy did not prevail, fascism did, either supported by an offshore power (as was frequent in the second half of the 20th century) or grew organically out of the discontented petite-bourgeoisie and the diminishing aristocracy.

I'm not a Marxist, but Marx rejected teleological views of history.

No.

The capitalist media-arm is very subversive and more powerful than anyone gives them credit for.

Any feelings of anger at Capitalism is redirected back at the self and people in even worse situations. The oppressed oppressing the oppressed.

The technology that evolved most significantly was military. When Marx was alive, an army was a bunch of farmers with rifles and boots. He never saw an airplane or a radio or a missile. By the mid-twentieth century, war was something that he would not have even recognized, so revolutions such as the many that sprung up in the economic periphery in the twentieth century were never able to take hold the way that the bourgeois revolutions before Marx's time had.

Nope. In fact we didn't even reach full industrialisation yet. And then we have to go to the technological levels Communism.

No wonder you lot keep killing eachother.

this is why you gotta read frankfurt school stuff

the superstructure is more powerful than it seems

You a dumb dumb.

You didn't reply to anything I said and made assumptions about me that are not possible to make from my post.

What would be some recommended readings?
t. barely read anything, mostly just third party articles

Surely you find it interesting that the "vanguard" mobilized itself in defense of Marx, yet they all disagree with eachother.

dumbass

Yeah I get what your point was, my question is did you get what my point was?

You asked a question, I gave an answer, why'd you ask the question?

Seems like you have a preset agenda and no interest in discussion.

Thanks for the input, Mr. Marxist scholar.

np dumbass

But actually that does back up my point more. The forces of Capitalism infiltrate and subvert and redirect well placed anger at the oppressor back on to the oppressed.

To give you a quote from a Narco-Capitalist:

I thought my problem would be obvious but:
Given that all answers are contraditory to eachother, it would be impossible to take any of the explanations at face value. If your answer is the first, then I gotta say it's the one that makes the most sense as well as the most developed, but I still find it at odds with any of the other answers, leading to confusion.

i know this is confusing to people with autism

Don't let your class identity politics grow out of control. A leftist pulling things to an objectable view is as opposable as a liberal doing the same.

I am no more related to anyone posting in this thread than you are so I can only speak for myself.

I'll simplify it: Capitalists see thread ->Capitalist buy out thread-> if they're really 'bout it bout it' and won't sell out-> They kill them.

*Threat

Please leave my thread, you'll find your like better suited to Holla Forums.

mutualism.webm

On the frankfurt school that is.
Sorry if my thread hurt your feelings, I'll put up some Rated PG Parental Guidances next time.

The bourgeoisie state has trained people to be afraid of losing it. It really is a religion of sorts.

I don't have any sympathy for rich people. If rich man decided he wanted to become a poor man he could do it in a moment, but the reverse is not true.

If that were the case then the socdems would have accomplished socialism by now. No, fighting the superstructure is just batting at a pendulum.

Give him a break. He just came to terms with the contradictions built into his former ancap philosophy and is still trying to learn the whole "reading and thinking" thing that we do here.

Go ahead, OP. No bully.

depends what you're into, they all kinda draw from the same pool but some lean more in one direction than others

if you like freud/psychoanalysis, read eros and civilization or escape from freedom
if you like culture or art, read dialectic of enlightenment (esp the culture industry chapter) or work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction
if you like hegel, read reason and revolution

imo

they may be fighting the superstructure, but who says they're fighting it the right way? even regardless of any frankfurt school analysis it's pretty clear they haven't had any clue what they're doing in almost half a century

pieria.co.uk/articles/the_many_straw_men_surrounding_marx
No excuses, you're just misinterpreting Marx.

can you suggest me some mutalist literature?

Quality thread

You're right, technology advances are amazing. The human thought on the other way continues to be as retarded as it was on Marx age.

Im actually more of a distributist, other than works of Proudhon, Mutualism and Federalism especially, I'd say give Studies in Mutualist Political Economy -Kevin Carson a try.

hi every1 im new!!!!!!! kills rosa luxemburg my name is katy but u can call me t3h s0CDeM oF Ref0RM1zM!!!!!!!! lol…as u can see im very liberal!!!! thats why i came here, 2 meet liberal ppl like me _… im 13 years old (im mature 4 my age tho!!) i like 2 watch steven's universe w/ my girlfreind (im bi if u dont like it deal w/it) its our favorite tv show!!! bcuz its SOOOO liberal!!!! shes liberal 2 of course but i want 2 meet more liberal ppl =) like they say the more the merrier!!!! lol…neways i hope 2 make alot of freinds here so give me lots of commentses!!!!
REFORMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ←- me bein liberal again _^ hehe…toodles!!!!!>>1101410

Proudhon was a bitch

A little pussy bitch

At least he wasn't a big fat bourgy hypocrite like marx :^)

Kill yourself lad.

Proudhon was literally bourgeois though. Marx, at best, was friends with a bourgeois (Engels) but otherwise lived an incredibly ascetic lifestyle while getting exiled from multiple countries by their rulers.

Sage for good thread question but cancerous OP.

Whether or not technology is beyond what Marx could have conceived is irrelevant to the theory. Claiming that it hasn't happened yet is setting an arbitrary cutoff date by which everything he predicted must come true otherwise it's all wrong.

I don't recall Marx ever actually saying it actually will come to pass but rather that history will constantly, inexorably push towards it.

WW1 and WW2 happened which resulted in a massive destruction of wealth which allowed RoP to recover in the post-war period.

Now RoP is collapsing at freefall and automation is becoming more and more prevalent, Marx's predictions are back 100% on track.

Not really.

Man, if only we could change the superstructure then…

Yes really

How is Rate of Profit calculated?

Oh Marxist economics.
I wonder if I should even bother typing a couple of paragraphs on the changes of European production caused by the wars.

maybe I should be asking you.

There is no actual way to calculate the world's rate of profit, I don't know how this particular estimation was done, but I assume it would have been made through looking at economical growth of industries, corporations and nations (or possibly just ideological wishful thinking, but better off giving the benefit of doubt). But then again, only marxist economists actually take such a concept seriously, which would raise some questions as to its impartiality.
Additionally, the way it's placed on wars is complete bullshit, the profitability of wars only appears in the green once one takes away the scarcity of capital and the inherent risk. Naturally during a large humanitarian crisis, capital goes a longer way due to its scarcity and lack of investment. It actually reminded me of an actual peer reviewed published article from my alma mater that actually said that technology was the safest and most profitable investment of the modern era and the major error was governments not capitalizing on it. Luckily after a mild shitstorm it got pulled down.

There is.

Michael Roberts uses statistics from the Federal Reserve, IMF and World Bank. Which you'd know if you were even a tiny bit familiar with Marxist economics and didn't just choose to be a mutuautist because it's sharp and fringe because the only reason you're using that flag right now and are trying to come off as a mutualist is because you've internalized a hipster attitude as the neurotic you are.

How was it calculated though, that was the whole question.
Retard pls

thenextrecession.wordpress.com/

Yes, kill yourself.

Instead of trying to clarify your point…
Did you just link a wordpress?

Roberts' blog. In which calculations are relayed and explained.

How about pointing me to the article itself?
Ideally I would want you to explain it yourself, but given you've been dragging an explanation as long as you can… I dont think you're that sure, are you?

The blog is filled with articles detailing rate of profit of either a particular sector, globally or in the case of the next first article on the blog: the Italian national economy.

The rate of profit is the average relative profitability on investment. Detailed on the blog, once again.

I'm just not here to spoonfeed you on things, snowflake.