If you haven't read this book you don't understand the relationship between labor and capital...

>anons posting anarcho-capitalist memes as if it's a coherent ideology
>some word babble about don't tread on me

See, this is why you need to read Marx. Don't be scared of new ideas user.

based and truly redpilled

everyone should read capital

lmao your entire ideology is obsolete, go seize and redistribute satoshis wallet you shit eating nigger

Did I tell you to read the Communist Manifesto?

No.

close enough, get aids and go recruit for your cult somewhere else

Sage and hide leftypol raid commie faggot threads

You can't separate his politics from his writings on capitalism because they informed his worldview. He didn't understand it and anyone that think he did almost certainly falls into the communist camp. He failed to have a basic grasp of how people function and kept clinging to his ideal version of society in which everything works the way he thinks.

He is literally the person that coined the term "capitalism." By even calling it that, you acknowledge that he understood what he was talking about.

Attached: 1523064051541.gif (350x272, 1.41M)

>Capitalism vs Communism
A tale as old as time. The opposition of the two major forces in nature. Individualism vs Collectivism.

Neither "system" is the "answer". Only the ignorant fall for the lesser of two Evils. But sadly, this is the way of the world. Men are herded into camps and told to fight each other based on ideologies and "facts"

After 15 years of studying this shit its amazing how people really don't get it yet. It's not about the system... its about the people in power.

I'm glad I'm not the only user on Jow Forums who gets it. I was getting worried that this place really was Jow Forums 2.0

>Read a book written by someone who has never worked a day in his life (let alone in any manual labor job) and lived off of his rich wife and friends.

Yeah, Karl Marx was totally not a beta man who was angry and bitter over being ostracized from the upper class social circles and created works that antagonized people solely based their class.

My pro tip to anyone reading books: Read the bio of authors if possible. Their works would make more sense in the context of their lives. Notice how Karl Marx's life details are hard to find. The Leftists intentionally kept this information out of the limelight because it would expose him as a fucking hypocrite.

Attached: fef8e1_db3e480b2c094123ac7e17ee049a55e5-mv2.jpg (1500x1000, 310K)

Marx didn't coin the term faggot.

Try looking up Benjamin Disraeli who Marx stole the term from.

>never worked a day in his life
>author of at least 17 books, many of which greatly influenced human history and philosophy

Attached: 1515668239919.jpg (1280x720, 80K)

You can write books without making money off of them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
>His main source of income was Engels, whose own source was his wealthy industrialist father.

Working doesn't entail making money. Lookup its meaning, you are confusing it with wageslavery. Marx worked, and he worked a lot harder than most of his contemporaries or ours.

Fuck off marxist

This is the true redpill

Attached: 51nuPGc0naL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 36K)

>Writing about something you've personally never experienced or have prior knowledge about.

This is why nobody likes commies.

you can write about the observations you make of your surroundings and the experiences of others

Attached: 66edc2bebb22eac0081160c6cb1ded254ea8966dd0e05d730ef7fb03c1101b4b.jpg (940x788, 53K)

Reading a book by (((they)))

Yeah no.

>Working for the state is better than working for a private business

at least with the business you have a choice of leaving

It's the people in power.
>t. NPC
It's the people.
>t. actual person

i got in trouble for reading a pdf of this at work lol

>"don't be scared of new ideas user"
>thinks that marx is "new ideas" that haven't been forced a billion times
>thinks that marx' ideas are good or relevant to the lives of productive individuals within society
>literally "you deserve more pay if the work is harder" instead of "you deserve more pay if you produce more of the same thing"
>thinks that an entire country could possibly all live by the same collectivist ideology, and that it would necessarily be to that society's benefit if they did, or that there would be a society left to benefit from it in two generations
how does it feel knowing that your line of thought is what puts people who destroy civilizations and the lives of everyone in those civilizations in power

Attached: 1497206640202.png (327x137, 57K)

funny thing is Marx was pretty much like a regular poster here
>frequently engaged in speculation based on insider tips from his stock whale buddy Engels, then publicly boasted about his unearned income
>took great joy in the misfortunate investments of others, describing his less successful peers as "Jewish niggers" despite being a Jew himself

Attached: 0CD79D50-5897-4741-A663-4077849FC281.jpg (1600x547, 145K)

Literally nobody even knew this existed if it hasn't been for the communist manifesto

Yeah, he worked so hard that he didn't give a fuck about his own family's suffering. He had a personal agenda, an axe to grind.

The irony of Marx's philosophy is that he dehumanizes people by viewing them through simplified models. In his view, proletariat will forever remain proletariat and bourgeoisie will forever remain bourgeoisie. He never considers human agency as an individual factor. He thinks everyone is an NPC and thinks the world's problems can be solved by putting a different program (communism) into the NPCs.

Attached: nunpc.png (1000x1000, 70K)

Are you high? I don't think you have as much of a point as you may think.

You have alot of arguing to do if you say his theories of why capitalism dehumanizes people is actually what dehumanises them

>his theories of why capitalism dehumanizes people is actually what dehumanises them

Do have problems with reading comprehension? How did you interpret my post to mean that his theories is the reason why people are dehumanized? That's a lot of mental gymnastics.

Just because you're offering a solution to a problem doesn't automatically mean your solution doesn't have the same problems as the system you're trying fix.

First, how do we talk about humans and their societies in a empirical way without classifying things? It's not dehumanizing to say one group has something and another does not, that's an observation. Also the end game of marxist thought is a classless society, so no, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would presumably both evolve by his argument.

Second, not saying you're a capitalist, you might not be. But, the capitalist reduces human beings to the lowly state of being nothing more than a commodity by replacing the worship of god with the worship of profit. They also enslave themselves to this aim destroying their own liberty and individuality. Rich people might think they're free, but they still base all their actions around appeasing profit or wealth, in turn reducing themselves to less than human.

We killed god and now we have no idea what to do with ourselves. That's not an argument for reviving his centuries old festering corpse either, just that we should find something better and less degrading to do with ourselves besides worshiping this pitiful circle jerk of nihilism that our culture has turned into.

To pursue commodity production in the form of the moneid commodity for no other purpose than to produce this commodity at all costs and for its own sake, is to speak to only to the commodity. To speak only to oneself is to speak to nothing, to be nothing. We are not nothing!

Value doesn’t come from labor. If it did you could just spend hours making mud pies and they would be valuable.

Marx is the most influential economist of the modern era. Even IF hes wrong, everyone an interest in economics should still read capital.
But marx was right about pretty much everything

Bourgeoisie get out! REEEEEEEE!
for hundreds of pages.

Attached: CTyM4a7UEAExpDP.jpg_large.jpg (1024x760, 283K)

>strawman: ltv version

Ah yes, the age-old myth of the "Labor Theory of Value." Well, the rest of the world left that fairy-tale behind. Obviously only retards still cling to it. Sorry, OP. I don't want to be mean to you. I feel like you get enough shit from people in real life. Hope all is well with you.

This lmao. But still better than Mein Kampf, or as I like to call it, "Autistic Rant: The Book"

>thats not real ltv, real ltv has never been tried

>First, how do we talk about humans and their societies in a empirical way without classifying things?
>Second, not saying you're a capitalist, you might not be.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself here. You say you don't want to classify people but, even though you haven't done it yet, you're considering applying a label to me.

>But, the capitalist reduces human beings to the lowly state of being nothing more than a commodity by replacing the worship of god with the worship of profit. They also enslave themselves to this aim destroying their own liberty and individuality. Rich people might think they're free, but they still base all their actions around appeasing profit or wealth, in turn reducing themselves to less than human.

You're viewing the problem on a macroscopic level and seeing people with a simplified model. That's how labels are created, from models of things being described. If an person or thing meets the criteria for the model, you can apply the appropriate label. But, how can you solve a problem when your data models are inaccurate? What's a bourgeosie? What's a proletariat? What's a capitalist? Marx only uses ownership of production as the distinction. Don't you think that's too simplistic? How can you see the problem in an empirical way when you reduce people to such simple models and completely ignore their individual motivations? Have you ever thought about why so many countries that attempted communism failed?

I'm not opposing communists to nazis. Mein Kampf was repetitive pasta. Some "interesting" parts but lot of loose noise.
If you're interested in Hitler, "Hitler's table talks" are breddy gud. He's got some good analogies about rodents, cancer, things like that. It's uncanny how Jow Forums tier it reads like.
Although I'm in favor of capitalism, "wealth of nations" 's invidit hand was taken out of context so much it became like a commandment from the Bible or something.
From "if shipping takes too long then people will be more likely to buy locally even if it's more expensive" to "lmao capitalism fixes itself"

Invisible hand *

cont'd

I never hear communists explain how to prevent problems that occur with failed communists states from occurring. Instead of trying to analyze the causes of the failures and trying to come up with ways to fix them, they just write the failures off as "not real communism".

Reality isn't some video game where you make the same attempt repeatedly and then succeed after gaining enough experience and skill. Communists think reality works with a script. If you change the script, everything will fall into place and communist will work. It's not that simple. That's why communism appeals to so many people. The solution is simple, just take over the means of production and every will work out.

Not for nothing but to my experience and those of my friends this is required reading in some business degree programs.

they weren't real communism though

This kind of thinking worked for most of human civilization's history
It won't work in the future.
Marx was right

It doesn't help that most communist revolutions require the funding/logistics/organization of successful capitalist in said nation state. They usually do it for a guaranteed leadership position or leniency on their enterprise. When the rebels get into power they never want to lead either, and they prop themselves up with a bunch of the capitalists as advisors so they can keep the lights on.

>ltv has never been tried
Yes it has

Jesus, you fags actually think capital is using labor to make "things" in the current year.

Attached: justdiealready.jpg (819x285, 48K)

you're a brainlet

why is Jow Forums so retarded? don't you faggots read any real economists?

Attached: image2.jpg.png (843x403, 529K)

Attached: ludwig-von-mises-920588.jpg (640x980, 156K)

Real fascism has never been tried

Money isnt really a "thing"

>communist parasites trying to fit in on a board that discusses privately owned business & finance

fascism = socialism = shit

Attached: Ideology+Mussolini+was+initially+a+member+of+Italy+s+socialist+party.+However,+he+was+thrown+out+bec (1066x800, 208K)

Incorrect.

enjoy your shitty dis attempt on Adams economics God's masterpiece

Attached: raw.png (456x196, 162K)

> It seems like you're contradicting yourself here. You say you don't want to classify people but, even though you haven't done it yet, you're considering applying a label to me.

I'm not contradicting myself, I was trying to get you to examine the question very literally. I don't have a problem with putting a name that represents and idea or a piece of data on something. Is the word Argon a label, or does it represent an element? I'm making the point that you're position is reductionist and ultimately nihilistic, relativism doesn't leave room to actually talk about anything because a person can always fall back on something akin to, "that's your opinion."

"You're viewing the problem on a macroscopic level and seeing people with a simplified model."

That would be a good point if it were true. Marx's model wasn't simplistic or lacking. The prole and the bourgeoisie are a part of the argument, not the whole thing. The whole point of capital is find laws of motion that apply to different forms of economy and understand them, and there were a hefty amount of actual statistics and mathematics involved in that process, which he never got to finish because he was born a few centuries too early to reach escape velocity for biological immortality, I digress.

Long story short, I'm not going to claim to understand all the intricacies economics in the way you describe, nor will I advocate a planned economy, like many failed "communist" states.

What I will say is that the evidence speaks for itself and Marx's laws of motion have actually demonstrated themselves in reality, which gives credence to his theory. We don't need to understand why stock X falls on day Y to understand the gestalt of economics.

> See the FACT that the rate of profit in capitalist society has steadily fallen for over a century now, which Marx's theory predicted.

> See the FACT that crisis cycles in capitalism have come like clockwork as his theory also predicted.

As a NEET, I completely support Socialism.

It's only wagies who complain about socialism, because they want everyone to suffer like them.

It's not wanting other people to suffer. It's wanting other people to take responsibility for their own lives. On the contrary, it's NEETs who are uncaring about other people's suffering. They think they deserve to live life in easy mode because their imaginary problems are preventing them working.

If you want to be a NEET and your family can take of you, fine, but don't expect society to pick the tab if that doesn't work out.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is basis if industial menegement, but only for mashines
labor power is not property, sometimes need pay to em more than his needs

>everyone who has a different opinion than me is a nazi

oh wagie when will you learn that not everyone wants to live their lives serving someone.

Attached: 1536898501911.jpg (3000x2000, 2.23M)

It is true - purely because of the mental models you create in your head while reading it. These kind of abstract dynamics between elements of the production process

So you critizise Marx for not being a wagecuck?

The crux of Marx's argument lays in his labour theory of value. It short, it states that economic value is derived from labour.
This may have been true in his day, during the height of the industrial revolution, when output was an almost direct function of input of labour. Only by 'stealing' the surplus value of their workers could the bourgeoisie make economic rents. This, Marx claimed, was exploitation of the highest caliber. Because the bourgeoisie owned the means of production, plus the capital to employ it, and the economics of survival meant that workers were constantly denied access to either capital and/or means of production, they were at mercy of the capitalists.
This is no longer the case. Not only is social mobility easier than ever before, but the means of production are more distributed than ever before. On top of that, the capital expenditure required to become a 'capitalist' is at the lowest it has ever been. Furthermore, you don't even need capital nowadays if you have brain - you can simply leverage your skills and experience, as for example in a joint venture.
If you think of the relationship between labour and capital, picture it as a slanting line creeping towards just above zero.
Marx is dead, and we have killed him. He will not be missed.
As for socialism, it will survive, simply because the vast majority are woefully inept at surviving in the information age and bleeding heart liberals won't allow nature to take its course. However, economic conditions may force darwinism upon us yet. We shall see.

There is a very good section in Das Kapital about the Ludites and how technology displaces labor which is still very relevant - I dont agree with you about it being outdated in that sense.

If you made this argument in the 50s to the 80s it would be very strong.
Now its basically just propaganda

Lol if you need Marx to tell you what you should already know. 105 IQ guy detected.

>: Read the bio of authors if possible. Their works would make more sense in the context of their lives.

Holy shit this, fuck death of the author crap.

By that logic nobody should even read your post.
Or mine.
Jow Forums shouldnt exist and everyone should kys

Late capitalism will strangle the last bit of ingenuity the human spirit has —- and some will welcome it as a new dawn, just as the many useful idiots that cheer capitalism today.

And we will be like flies, a hivemind, buzzing around a rotting corprse of what was: all of culture and what preceded us laid to waste, “all that is solid melts into air,” and we will be crushed by the boot of capital. By mindless homogeneity. This is your free market.

There is a reason both leftists and rightists in the turn of the 20th century were against capitalism. But now, we have far too many useful idiots who can’t make a distinction.

Marx did not put this forward as an ethical valuation. He looked at the process of value creation as a whole and the trends it created. It was not the fact of proles suddenly realizing their exploited status that would bring about communism, according to him. Rather, it was the fact of increasing consolidation and accumulation that would doom private property as a method of coordinating production.

youtube.com/watch?v=bFtcLJVN8yg

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

Attached: 15ad43cb6cabff20f1cc0c01dc19cced61225220e47fe34cf4597b9a21057b0f.jpg (1024x768, 172K)

user, if I spend all day digging a ditch and then all tomorrow filling it back in, my labour deserves to be rewarded?

Attached: 1476647728200.png (741x568, 29K)

Marx's labor theory of value isn't a normative formula but a descriptive one for how things work under capitalism.

In order for labor to have value it must first be socially useful. Marx's version of labor value was thus called "Socially Necessary Labor time." The value of a socially useful commodity was thus = the social average of labor required to produce it on a realistically competitive market.

It should be noted there's a large body of empirical work confirming this:
pdf-archive.com/2017/09/11/emperical-strength-of-ltv/
pdf-archive.com/2017/09/11/labour-values-prices-of-production/
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf
helmutdunkhase.de/marxts.pdf
pdf-archive.com/2017/08/14/japan-ltv-test/

What about the large body of empirical evidence proving communism doesn't work?

>Venezuela
>USSR
>North Korea

>Venezeula
>70% private economy
>communism
lol

Either way, if you do actually read marx instead of spend all your time shitposting, you'd find that his theory rests on the development of capitalism. The USSR and North Korea were semi feudal backwaters that attempted to US state mobilization to replicate capitalist development. Stalin in particular was explicit about this.

>not real communism

Every. Fucking. Time.

user, I'm more than willing to say the USSR and whatever communist bloc country was a part of the communist political project. But it's quite a stretch to say that this is what Marx was talking about.

His predictions still hold a lot of weight, and as capitalism develops it must reckon with the constraints of private property on production and economic coordination. If you want to understanding his theory, or even argue against it, you first have to read what he actually said. You cannot even dispute LTV, as you changed the subject the moment you were shown to have no idea what you were talking about.

Fucking kek, OK then user, I promise to read about the LTV if you put your onions milk down and head to mises.org and read about Austrian economics.

Attached: numale2.jpg (480x480, 52K)

I haven't read marxs' work for the same reason I haven't read the Koran... Its literally not worth reading

Attached: 1497710554285m.jpg (923x1024, 97K)

This outs you as a brainlet - how would you know that it's not worth it if you haven't read it?

I'm already reading "Human Action" for a book I'm writing. It's the most absolute drivel I've ever seen, on an academic level it can't even touch Capital.

Attached: 289fb94d746692be3aae0ee9575e7cd7dc9aa3aa.png (675x1500, 1.88M)

Those faggot book writers wouldn't have been able to get an audience these days. Shit tier authoritarians with a bunch of words to back it up.

The fact that you think "authoritarianism" is the greatest evil in politics shows how baby blocks tier your own ideology is.

>But user, how do you know you gay sex isn't good if you never sucked a dudes dick?

As I said before. It is not worth reading. It's an extremely crude and limited theory that is largely disproven. Why waste time reading about something that is completely wrong? Do you also like to read books about how the earth was created in 7 days? Or about how the sun revolves around the earth?

>This theory is crude and disproven, I say as I conveniently ignore all the empirical studies that prove it and consistently show I have no idea what it is.

Lol, marx fucked his maid, got her pregnant, then dumper her ass in a back ally to never be seen again. Such a man of the working class.

Why dont all you commie faggots who believe in the labor theory of value spend 10 years digging a hole in the ground and find someone to buy it. Then, when you discover everyone thinks you a stupid faggot for believing dumb horseshit about economics, you have a convenient place to commit suicide without bothering other people anymore.

Attached: 1532410045222.jpg (4832x5787, 1.78M)

You have equally ignored all the empirical studies showing LTV to be complete garbage. Nice cherry picking faggot

>he thinks a weak correlation amounts to significant empirical evidence