Has someone who has actually read Karl Marx dispute his ideas? Even the Dalai Lama is a Marxist...

Austrian economics have been applied across the world since at least the 70s, always resulting in increased class antagonisms. The health of the economy is measured in arbitrary ways while workers and poor people get fucked, and recessions and crises always come eventually.

>30 minute fashy youtube channel vid

you really expect me to watch all that shit?

Attached: untitled1.png (882x1339, 445K)

Zero economists want to admit money printing, cartels, monopolies, shitty law enforcement, retarded government and an epidemic of white collar crimes is what fucks the economy.

Labor theory of value doesn’t make any sense.
>value comes from labor you put into something
>a diamond that is found vs dug therefore would have different values
Yet on the market are sold at different values?
>labor hours are value, more hours spent creating something gives it more value
But then if a janitor takes 100 hours to mop a floor vs a janitor that takes 30 minutes the janitor that takes 100 hours should be paid a high wage
Ie being lazy is worth more than being productive
>workers are exploited due to the extraction of surplus value
Doesn’t take into account the work of the owner who owns the capital by saving his income and spending thousands if not millions or billions to make a factory and faces a risk of a loss of all that investment if he fails
But muh workers are exploited by earning a wage at the owners expense, when he could easily find a dozen workers to do the same job, or could automate? Despite the worker investing nothing in the factory or in himself?
>false prediction based on his thought
Also Marx failed. His predictions failed to come true. He predicted that the workers would continually be exploited and the rate of profit would fall. That workers would continually become poorer and then they would rebel.
This hasn’t happened. The opposite did. Workers become extremely wealthy. And the rate of profit has increased.
>2nd false prediction
The withering away of the state also never happened. The USSR become more and more powerful and bloated. At no point did the state wither away.
>class analysis
Marx states there are two classes in capitalism; workers and capitalist.
Ok. Workers are exploited, yet doctors, lawyers, bankers, movie stars, athletes, all earn millions of dollars per year in income, ie they are exploited by Marx’s definition yet they are paid millions per year?
What about a factory worker who owns stock or capital of a company?
Lastly historical materialism is unfalsifiable

*sold at the same value on the market
It doesn’t matter how much labor it took to find the diamond, it sells at the same price

This
This
This
and pic related. Read it, you dirty commie, and try to refute it.

Attached: marxism.jpg (316x475, 24K)

>Austrian economics have been applied across the world since at least the 70s,
You know it's based on the idea of abolishing the central bank and being on the gold standard. Every country in the world had a central bank in the 1970s and therefore were not following Austrian economics.

This
It's admitting that they actually don't have control over anything and if they attempt to control anything, it makes everything far worse.

>Labor theory of value doesn’t make any sense.
>>value comes from labor you put into something
>>a diamond that is found vs dug therefore would have different values
What if I don't value diamonds as much as I value the work you put into mining it.

>Austrian economics have been applied across the world since at least the 70s
It hasnt, youre mistaking it for keynesianism

Attached: this is what discord trannies actually believe.jpg (1527x654, 319K)

I looked at his bullshit book. And I say it's bullshit.
Communism is a meme.
Socialism is a meme.

In capitalis yes, we have poor class, middle class and rich class, but nothing holds you back from moving to higher class if you put enought effort. While I. Communism/socialism there is a small group of elites(usually actual ruler and his family/friends) what has everything and rest just struggle to get at least 1 meal per day and if you are born as commoner, you are sentenced to starve without any hopes to go to elites without miracle.

You wanna know how communism was "awesome"? Ask any 50+ y old Pole, he will tell you about empty shelves in shops, staying in long queues only to get loaf of bread.

Hidden hand pose. FREEMASON
JEW ALERT

Bohm Bawerk was throughly BTFOed by Bukharin that he made Austrian Economics a meme:
marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/ch03.htm
>Böhm-Bawerk therefore admits that in our subjective evaluation (he modestly grants that this means in a majority of cases) an objective real value is assumed. But since his task consists precisely in deriving this value figure from subjective evaluations, it is obvious that the entire doctrine of substitutional utility developed by our author is simply a circulars vitiosus: objective value is traced back to subjective evaluations, which in turn are explained by objective value. And Böhm-Bawerk was guilty of this theoretical outrage at the, very moment when he was directly faced with the problem of explaining some hypothetical economy having no point of contact with reality, with an actual real economy, characterised by “a developed exchange system."[84]
>It is interesting to note that Böhm-Bawerk himself recognizes the “serious theoretical difficulty” this point involves for the theory of marginal utility. Yet he attempts to make his escape from this maze of contradictions. Here is his method of saving the face of his theory: the assumption of the winter overcoat at forty florins is based on the “anticipation of a condition which can only be created later on the market."[85] Therefore, “such subjective evaluations have no other influence on their [men’s] practical actions on the market than would any general expectation of being able to purchase the necessary commodity at a certain price, for example, forty florins.
Neoliberal niggers try to say their theory is objective when prices only exist because someone can force a particular amount through a combination of material AND POLITICAL force.
That's why Das Kapital's full title is A critique of POLITICAL economy, but of course Austroniggers are lazy and have lazy analysis

Attached: 1566729648996.png (1002x552, 287K)

Communism, as a doctrine which interprets history and all social phenomena solely in economic terms, predicates the primacy of gold over blood. It, like capitalism, is alien to us in origin and essence; and it, also like capitalism, is racially destructive. If collectivism and statism were the only aspects of communism we had to worry about, I, for one, would welcome it with open arms, as an infinitely superior alternative to the Jew-ridden, minority-coddling, culture-defiling, soul-stifling, filth-wallowing, corruption-breeding, decadence-producing, race-destroying monstrosity of a System which now squats so unwholesomely in the power centers of our nation (and which, of course, is also collectivist and statist, in the worst sense of the words, even if not so forthrightly as the Kremlin).

I tried to read the Communist Manifesto and it was just all retarded and obtuse and I really don't remember anything from it. I think there was 1 page in there that had a bullet by bullet point about some actual tenets of Communism, but if I remember right it was just a lot of gibberish about the minor differences between french socialism and german socialism. I guess I remember that part about how the merchant class of the middle ages became the bourgeoisie class of his time, or whatever. I'm just too low IQ to get it I'm sure.

Attached: 1542517337374s.jpg (237x250, 8K)

Bukharin did nothing but write a propaganda pamphlet against the marginalist economy, Marxists ironically say that the marginals do not understand the theory of objective value, when reality is different Marxists do not understand that the marginalist theory confuses subjective value with its theory of exchange value, which is why they make such stupid arguments as saying `` muh, the theory of marginal value is only valid in capitalism, because it cannot explain the other historical stages ''

Attached: Captura.png (825x1063, 1.35M)

>you really expect me to watch all that shit?
ies