Need a crisp elucidation of Marxs ideas

Need a crisp elucidation of Marxs ideas.
The more one reads his snippets, the more I'm in awe of the sobriety and depth of it. Don't care about the ideological connotations of his theories.

Attached: Marx_color2.jpg (155x198, 23K)

you want someone else to paraphrase Marx but you don't care for the ideological connotations? are you selfaware? or just an npc

socioeconomic incels complaining about socioeconomic chads and that capitalism is unfair

“Kill whitey” - summary of his ideas

Ignore the pleb-poster Karl Marx said "Karl Marx is not a Marxist."

This was at the end of his life, when he saw his writing being used by revolutionaries set on hurrying up the fall of capitalism to make way for commune-based living.

If you read his work without too much bias, you can see someone writing pragmatically about the market-driven eco only he found himself in. When he was talking about workers uniting and shedding their chains you have to remember there was a whole massive aristocratic class still in existence back then. Virtually every town and village had at least one stately home which was being supported by increasingly mechanised labour. Marx saw these idle rich as the big drain on his society. He saw unity against these households as a fix. He was not really advocating non-hierarchical militarised hivemind nation states.

Today, if you are into crypto, and you view the banking class as a needless and wasteful drain on our societies, then you intuitively understand what Marx was describing in his day, too.

Make his language not mired with idioms of the time he lived in. His writings on the nature of property for example aren't really tied to the days he lived in, they are relevant today as well.
>muh npc
npc-posters are always blatantly projecting, as one can see here.

Any particular book you'd recommend? Or should one go directly to the source text?

you type like a fucking blatantly obvious kike

Try this lad

Attached: marxists.png (598x902, 1011K)

Marx was mostly operating within the framework of classical economics, user. This is actually why classical economic was abandoned, the bourgeoisie became too afraid of it providing ammunition to the socialist movement.

You want to understand marxian economics the first should read contending economic theories: neoclassical, Keynesian and marxian. You should also understand the basic ideas of david Ricardo and Adam Smith.

Perhaps the three most important aspects of marxs theory was the labor theory of value, exploitation, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Essentially he said that the value of goods, that is their long term exchange (equilibrium) exchange ratio between goods was determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time required to make them. This meant values, and real prices of commodities, goes down when labor saving technology is used. (Even main stream economists say the only way to have real wage growth is to have higher productivity, this is a similar forumulation) Competition also means that you cannot simply do a really lazy or bad job and expect a higher value, hence socially necessary. And if you are making something that doesnt have a use value in the first place, you aren't making a commodity.

With the theory of exploitation Marx isnt necessarily making a moral arguement. Rather, he's saying that the reason profit and surplus value exists is because the value of labor power is not determined by the value of the goods produced, but rather by the value of the commodities required to reproduce that labor. This allows profit and surplus to exist.

Attached: 52085d623cb85e6c1cc2b3de3dc8a428d56971ea02e37d429f81f63314827f5d.png (755x931, 328K)

Thanks

The Communist Manifesto is not difficult to read. After that if you still feel you need to know more Google "Marxist critical theory" and you'll find an infinity of tenured academics churning and reselling somebody else's idea.

You type like a braindead moron.

The best take is that Marx was actually libertarian

And the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a theory about how profit in an industry is determined by the amount of organic constant capital in it. This is empirically true, btw, as are the other theories. He furthermore posits that organic constant capital generally increases over time as labor and efficiency saving technology is discovered and widely adopted due to competition. As the costs for capital increase relative to surplus value, so does the rate of profit go down over time. This is a big driver of instability as money capital seeks out riskier and riskier investments to get the same returns it used to.

L fucking mao

526. The argument between socialism and capitalism comes down to this: to those who, when left to their own devices, naturally rise above the mean, and to those who fall below. The former will be proponents of capitalism, the latter of socialism. The former are talented and hard-working, the latter talentless and lazy. And all this is proved by the failure of socialism, and in particular that of communism: its ultimate manifestation — as if a group of habitual losers at the individual level would be able to create, by pooling together all their weaknesses and failures, a winning combination!
But it is plain that, as they lose on the individual level — as individuals — they will ultimately lose on the group level too. The only reason they temporarily succeeded at a few points in history is because they were facing even greater losers: a complacent and degenerate aristocracy.

I mention contending economic theories, you should also try to read capital eventually. That is the bulk of his economic work. Maybe read wage labor and profit first. All this stuff is online btw

When is this initial state of universal equality established?

Complaining about one's lot in life is just another cop out.

If capitalism was a true meritocracy it would have blown up year 1. Nothing breeds resentment more than being worse off in society because you are in actuality inferior.

Thanks

this, but it could be more eloquintly greentexted like this:

>History can be understood as a constant struggle between oppressed groups and those who oppress them
>Capitalism hinders personal actualization
>If it makes money and a rich person owns it then take it from them and give it to the workers

It gets more retarded as it goes on as you can see

I'll say what I always say to people, read Critique of the Gotha Programme, shit's like twenty pages and the rest is just other people commenting on it.

You whole point lied in an initial state after which great individuals float to the top, and the shit one drown. There's little argument that this is desirable.
Not really sure where did this initial state happened. Is it true for every person that is born? How do the inhericucks come into this?

Only a sick creature would choose a stranger over his blood.
Also, strong family/cultural bonds are yet another strategy in the game of life. And yet another thing that those who can't handle it complain about.

The retarded lazy bum children of successful men are not socialists.

The concept of inherited wealth kills your entire position.

Will check out, thanks

He was one of the kikes that invented communism and should have been publicly before he was allowed to open his mouth.

It's not the socialist who wishes to destroy the family, but capitalism. The extended family is the bedrock of cuban society, for example.

What topic are you talking about. Certainly the one we supposedly were discussing.
Fuck off with your knee-jerk strawmen elsewhere

It's nothing to do with desirable. It's nature. No one is born equal, that's the point. This jealousy of inheritance is just another form of ressentiment, whining instead of doing something about it, or even, trying to rally a bigger group of losers to steal from the rich because inheritance is so unfair.
But only a sick withering human wouldn't set up his offspring with the best starting position in life.

>But only a sick withering human wouldn't set up his offspring with the best starting position in life.
That nullifies the statement made earlier, given the assumption that the losers started from an equal footing to the current winners.
This is obviously not the case.

remainder that if your parents gave you money as inheritance:
>they were shitty parents who neglected you and want to compensate by giving you a non-state provided gibsmedat
>Basically admit you are a utter failure that can't fend for himself. Hopefully the defect is not genetic so that you might correct it with the mass of undeserved wealth you now have.

Jow Forums is full of commie faggots
Jesus !

He didn't invent communism. The people who actually invented it had him push it for them with his Communist Manifesto, where the foundation was already established, he just filled in the gaps and put it in terms that would make it more palatable to the masses and relevant to the contemporary political climate.

I disagree. An inheritance is a responsibility.

You are strawmanning with the equal starting point. You want to make it seem like inheritance is undeserved, yet old money has been building, sometimes for centuries, to get into the position they are.
While your forebears probably whined about life being so u fair, like you now, and your offspring after you.

THIS. Gay people with no kids spend the most on garbage products and leisure.

Read the post this discussion started from. It's literally in the post, at the start.

>An inheritance is a responsibility.
Like people have responsibility to mentally disabled children in their community.
What parents are responsible of is raising the child to be able to fend for themselves.

communism is just what happens when capitalism is taken to it's logical conclusion, user

Let me just end on this note. For those who are capable but misled.
If you follow communism, you are CATTLE, used by one group of elites, to bring down another group of elites by riling up the ressentment in you.
After communism is implemented before it implodes or turns into pure police state, you will still be CATTLE. Your master will just have changed.
A cursory study of actual historic facts will give you ample examples.

Intending to give their children an heritance does not prevent a parent from raising their child to fend for themself. The inheritance would be a strong reason for the parent to ensure their child can fend for themself so that they can be assured that the wealth they preserved or created will not go to waste. The inheritance can be witheld until the parents decide their child can fend for themself.

Also this. None of the powerful people pushing for communism actually adhere to the ideology. Paraphrasing Spengler who said that there was never a communist movement that wasn't at heart capitalist.

Tldr: idiotic in theory and always genocidal in practice.

>my audience is cattle
>the only redpilled thing you can do is never challenge the system
>checkmate gommies

Attached: 1420854588304.jpg (722x349, 78K)

You're a retard. He was very responsible and pretty much the worst philosopher of all time. Only kikes say "Marx was not a marxist", all of Marxism was based around what he wrote.

loser ideology for losers.

He was making the argument that changing the economic system would solve the problem of worker exploitation and inequal distribution of wealth without accounting for human nature.

Why are there businesses exploiting workers? Why are there poor people who keep living on welfare? It's not because of the system. It's because the business owners and the welfare leech are shitty people.

Communism works until you run out of other peoples money.

This might just be the dumbest most lemming take in the whole thread

I'm not saying he wasn't responible for what he did. I'm just saying why he did it.

Maybe you should move to Venezuela if you like Marx so much

Imagine that capitalism is more succesfull in creating prosperity despite that. Kinda proves his point, doesn't it?

INARGUABLY BEST MARX QUOTE COMING THROUGH

Attached: Screenshot_20181001-211006_Samsung Internet.jpg (1076x2533, 989K)

>Is against an oppressive state
>Wants to create an even more oppressive (communist) state
>"Haha... I am challenging the system!"
...but you are not challenging the principles that make it oppressive in the first place.
You are merely puting them to another use. The state as a tool is inherently evil, and gommie faggots like you can't seem to realise that.

Attached: PublicAuthorityandweapony.png (662x849, 445K)

>t. dumbfuck

Dress it up with some more verbiage, professor thesaurus

no faggot, communism is what happens when people are brainwashed by dumbfuckery. you are one of these people.

Many eastern bloc countries such as Yugoslavia had citizen militias designed to make invasion more difficult, it's one reason its break up was so bloody.

Whether the state is evil or not is irrelevant, it is the unit of political organization that we are faced with. The only way to destroy the state is to destroy its foundations: state enforced property rights, uneven international development, money, ect.

If the state is not evil why destroy it?

Yes. Lets end the capitalism driven economic that is lead by a few wealthy indoviduals, and give control to a small priviledged communist cadre.

Difference is trivial and normal people suffer.

>Many eastern bloc countries such as Yugoslavia had citizen militias designed to make invasion more difficult, it's one reason its break up was so bloody.
The break up was only possible because of the local militarisation, if the seperate yugoslav states didn't have the capabilty to fight then history would look quite different. A serbian controlled central military would succesfully guarantee the oppression of the other peoples of the yugoslav federation, since there would be nothing they could do about it.

>Whether the state is evil or not is irrelevant, it is the unit of political organization that we are faced with.
This is probably the main misstake of Marx, he just took the system in use, the state, for granted, and made his theories with the state as his basis - therefore leading to the practicall failure of his ideology in practice, since the state is inherently oppressive as a system. That is not irrelevant.

>The only way to destroy the state is to destroy its foundations: state enforced property rights, uneven international development, money, ect.
I mostly agree.

Maybe this guy is onto something. It is weird how libertairians so easily turn to both communism and fascism

Attached: lifeasanend.png (664x536, 232K)

t. hasn't even read Das Kapital

>Advice from a jobless kike leech

Venezuela is arguably one in a long series of countries that wanted to adobt a fairer society only to get (economically) pillaged, ravaged and embargoed by the world leaders.

Why would the leading capitalist power (USA) send military forces or impose trade restrictions if the common knowledge is that communist / socialist economies starve people and fail?

It doesn't make logical sense, and this is becuase the discussion is ideologically biased and reeks in propaganda. See Vietnam war.

The American system of self determination and self employment was true socialism before socialism even existed. In a system like the Founders intended, where every man works for himself gets what he earns. When every man works for himself he controls the means of production and gets whatever profits he earns.

Biggest problem with socialists is very few of them have any real world experience and are basically bookworm fags. They read their theory faggotry and then proceed to act smug as if they're better than everyone, despite accomplishing nothing in their life. Fact is, most socialists and communists throughout history are the most exploitative ever simply because they rise to power and completely leach off the backs of the workers they claim to be "helping". It's a bunch of bullshit and commies in this thread need to hang

Yugoslavia wasnt a eastern block country you dum dum....thats the reason it was a bit less shitty than other communist shitholes.

Why not make everyone's bank account and money transaction history visible to everyone by state law?

It's as easy as cake to implement technically (swift, online banking, sql queries on the databases by some googleesque search engine.).

Inb4 "my privacy", but you don't seem to care that much when the privacy of your brain organs get exposed by mercenary fired shotgun blasts.

lmao shut the fuck up faggot. fucking keyboard warrior, we're still waiting for you faggots to kick off the communist revolution. dumb fucking nigger

>fucking keyboard warrior
look whos talking

You sure? Pretty sure it was

Wow, doing some reading. It wasnt. Interesting

Read Marx, in "Das Kapital" he basically stated what you just wrote in the first chapter for rural Germany and England, but 160 years ago.

Yes these are words only, but when words meet deaf ears and humiliation words turn into actions.

Do you really think revolutions and wars happen only in text books?

No inheritance. Parents die? None of their money goes to you. Still like this idea?

No problems with it.
Why do you feel entitled to money someone else earned?

Yes.

If it means trust fund babies don't inherit their father's stolen millions, and have to work for themselves without the perks they were provided with by birth:

1) Mansions
2) Private schools
3) Private vacation districts
4) Private medial care
5) Closed rich communities
6) Intelligence in corporate architectures

Everyone gets a state owned flat, food and clothes and a safety deposit (6 months of rent) The rest gets confiscated.

Youre a total wanker. Those people are a small minority of the people who get an inheritance. Youre everything i despise about marxism

>communist praxes are so hilariously useless that a serious, unironic academic theory is "communism will just happen through capitalism"

Evrn your theorists are maximum cope

>small minority of the people who get an inheritance
who get a grossly disproportionate amount of influence

Thank god I have communism to save me from my middle class lifestyle!

Mandatory state only education, mandatory commieblock high rise housing! Utopia!

put your money where your mouth is and distribute your wealth to the community you are part of

what you call capitalism is actually corporatism

>real capitalism hasn't been tried yet

Argument ad hominem.

real capitalism was devoured by corporatism in its infancy
corporatism brings about globalism
globalism is the communism envisioned by Marx

Fallacy fallacy, address his argument instead of finding a fallacy that's unrelated to his salient point

How on earth do you justify people living in mansions enjoying private education while other people are homeless and starve?

What exactly is the ideology or scientific theory behind this?

Why should houses exist if its impissible for everyone to own a house?

this is the dumbest thing i've read yet today but the day is early.
dumbass. an insult accompanied by a proper argument isn't ad hominem

>It gets more retarded as it goes on as you can see
this

Fallacy fallacy?

His argument has already been adressed by

Ad hominem is claiming I'm a marxist.
Insulting people won't get you anywhere.

Now please justify why exlusive institutions should exist?

Because the alternative is a concrete commie hellworld where living in peace by myself in a small community away from the city centre is illegal

I really don't give a fuck about outlier cases

In a single family home with no shared walls*

Can everyone, every 60 million frenchman or 80 million germans, live in peace by themselves in a small community away from the city centre?

Equality of outcome is an arbitrary ethical axiom and I reject it as I have no reason to accept it

you see this is all a part of HUMAN NATURE. we evolved like this

Even when we were but simple grugs, human have always concentrated their wealth into the hands of a very few. You want to live in a cave? cave private property, pay grugstein half your berries. You want to hunt? sorry, griggs grandfather took a shit there, so the woods are his. Grug loves the way he lives though, because it is hardwired into his DNA to work 12 hours a day in another mans cave. He was born to do it
Even lobsters have been shown to exhibit this behaviour.

Marx clearly knew nothing about human nature because he was an autistic NEET who never studied lobsters

Attached: 1537953549154.jpg (720x1280, 350K)

Well so is theft.

Fucking retard, the Founders stated it over 100 years before Marx did, fuck off. And if you think the working class will choose communism then jfl @ you. They fucking hate you and want nothing to with communist bullshit

Sure, but legalism is a practical solution for the sort of world I want to live in. However I'm not about to give up wiping my ass just because someone somewhere can't afford toilet paper.

>It's not the socialist who wishes to destroy the family

Yes it is. Socialists want the nanny state to be their family.