What parts of marx are outdated?

What parts of marx are outdated?

None of its really outdated as there are still relevant debates on all the things he talked about. You can only say he was wrong about this or that.

The anthropology he draws on (I.e. Lewis Henry Morgan's unilineal evolution) has been thoroughly and empirically debunked. Primitive Communism never existed, and non-class hierarchies existed before class emerged and contributed to its emergence

The manifesto

Most of the core stuff is fine, but capitalism itself has developed into new conditions, for example now most of the world is industrialised, whereas when he was writing it wasn't, he was always wrong about the lumpenproles.

There is a reason the word primitive is added to the communism part, the mode of production was still mostly communal in that goods and services were freely given and received, even if shamans and elders held a lot of cultural power

The problem is that it's a mode of production that was based on fallacious anthropology. As a universal mode of production, it never existed.

The purely material developments on the ideology of capital and the conditions which reproduce it

The whole thing about the socialist State withering away after it had been grown big enough to reshape society was naive to say the least. The only way I can see it happening is to make those State positions have extremely short terms and have a selection process dynamic enough to deal with that while still being democratic, and the only such selection process I can think of is allotment.

Read debt the first 5000 years

he couldn't have predicted the radio, television and internet, which kind of dates his work


ye, he did

t. brainlet

wow nice argument


Just because you say it doesn't make it true, famalam

The marxist tradition is dialectical, it acknowledges ideas are historical and fluid by nature. The critique of present conditions draws its force from all previous critiques of past conditions. Marx wrote about 19th century capitalism and the industrial revolution, of course some details are 'outdated', but the invariant nature of capitalism remains the same, as it developed from the conditions Marx described. Marxism is not an unyielding dogma, but an essentially practical philosophy, a means that cannot be separated from its aims, that is, the overthrow of the current state of things.

Why did I get banned for this response?

Literally none.

labour theory of value

This. Marx's historiography is reductive and unsupported by evidence.

Graeber's ideas don't contradict the notion that non-class hierarchies existed before class.

Because you're engaging in "rationalist" and Holla Forums-tier reductive autism level absolutism and eugenics crap.

There's kernel of truth in your post. Certain personality traits and specific skills that are, in part, the result of inherited genes can, and do, contribute to the achievement and maintenance of power and wealth.

None of it is "outdated" (aside from the commiefesto's demands), however, the way things run is more complicated than it was. Still runs on the same principles though.

The existence of genetic capital is now undeniable from a scientific standpoint. For Marxism to be relevant in the 21st century, the redistribution of genetic capital must be discussed as a means of alleviating intractable social inequality.

"Genetic capital" as you envision it is hardly a thing and distributing it doesn't change anything about capitalism.

And your idea of "genetic capital" is informed by pop-science and layman bloggers rather than the actual scientific community's take on it.

but they do contradict the idea that there was never primitive communism

The fact it places focus on Euro-centric concepts that need to somehow be forced on impoverished people of color. He was also a misogynist, and made racist remarks.

You can kill yourself any time

genetics is information, information is free, what will happen is that every black, middleastern, latino and white baby will have a dozen proteins in their brain replaced by chinese ones.
There needn't be a any revolution for that to happen either. only a UN resolution.

Oh shit shots fired

According to every modern study that I have seen, intelligence is almost entirely hereditary.
Unequal distribution of the means of production is capitalism. Intelligence is now known to be the primary limiting factor in productive capacity. In order to truly redistribute the means of production, the underlying biological framework of intelligence must be redistributed.

As of right now, this is science-fiction. I am looking at the situation from a principled Marxist standpoint. I see inbred elites who operate within an educational/credentialing system which sorts applicants through I.Q., once elites enter this system they selectively breed within their class, further concentrating their genetic capital. All the while, these hereditary elites insist that genetic capital doesn't exist, and that the underclasses are struggling due to oppression from the middle classes. The hereditary elites are malevolent and disingenuous, they propose false solutions to inequality while hoarding the most valuable capital in existence. These people must have their genetic capital redistributed to the underclasses, this is the most efficient way redistribute the means of production and to achieve a more egalitarian society.



Go use your nitpicking powers for good against Holla Forums

How so? Does stagflation relate to this?

Gypsies were granted material incentives by the eastern block governments to adapt and civilize themselves but not even the staunchest heavy handed communist could reform these niggers.

Gulf Arabs (and not just the bourgeoisie, but the common citizen in the UAE and Qatar) were granted material wealth beyond the dreams of any western and yet they still cling to their medieval reactionary beliefs.

Culture >>> Material conditions.

His fucking writing

God damn, reading that shit is like wading through shit-coated molasses


You are psychotic and autism level is not almost entirely hereditary, but only mostly (estimates are around 55-70% hereditary) so.

And again the reductiveness and absolutism is not scientific.

It’s that anything in particular is outdated so much as it is he would have to add a lot of new analysis to account for the many new developments in modern capitalism.


Almost all of it.

That's why the modern left has abandoned the working class and has now reinvented itself as the side that panders to minorities. It's out of pure necessity. "Worker control over the means of production" is an outdated concept that doesn't mesh with the modern nation state at all. The degree of outsourcing of labor to the third world as well as specialized global trade and a shift to service economies for first world nations means that the means of production for most first world nations are either already beyond or are moving beyond the reach of the common laborer.

The "means of production" for the USA for instance, is no longer exclusively in America. An American worker obviously cannot seize a major factory stationed in China. Likewise, a small nation that specializes in one or two exports is totally dependent on global trade and would essentially be committing mass suicide if it embraced a social revolution of any kind.

Marxism is basically a dead idea. You can indulge yourself in it all you want, but the fundamental reason it was so alluring to millions in the past was that it addressed the struggles of the common people. Now, people's struggles have fundamentally changed, and there is a natural lack of interest in orthodox Marxist ideas as a consequence.

Your post clearly presumes that Communism was envisioned in a nationalist framework, but Communism has always been an internationalist movement, not a nationalist one. Just because outsourcing of labor exists and there's been an increase of service workers doesn't mean that the means of production are gone, that's retarded. The people working the machines in Bangladesh and China are proles just the same as those working 3 shitty service jobs in America. Communism must necessarily be an international movement, and has been striving for that ever since they started the First Internationale



Damn dude Kramer really needs to cool it down with the racism

You are just a bourgeoisie parasite who LARP's as a Marxist in order to misdirect the lower classes into fighting amongst themselves while your class continues to hoard genetic capital through selective breeding. Genetic redistributionism is the future of Marxist political thought, we are well past the stage where we can pretend that redistributing tractors can significantly effect social inequality.

Care to elaborate?
You probably misunderstand the data. There is no known social intervention which can significantly effect adult intelligence. The non-hereditary aspect of intelligence is comprised largely of post-recombination non-germ cell mutations which are not passed down through sexual reproduction. In so far as our discussion is concerned, intelligence is almost entirely hereditary, as heredity is the only mode of transmission for intelligence which is known to science. The hereditary transmission of intelligence through selective breeding among genetic elites is without a doubt the primary driver of social inequality and the unequal distribution of the means of production.

Marxism is utterly meaningless unless the capital which is being redistributed has actual long-term value. No redistribution of material capital will resolve social inequality, as material capital will eventually decay. It is genetic capital which allows an individual to design and organize the production of valuable material capital. Genetic capital is the basis of all capital, and its redistribution is the only means of significantly ameliorating intergenerational class inequality.