What are the definitive critiques of Marxism from a scientific (economic, mainly) point of view?
What are the best philosophical criticisms?
After watching the Peterson vs. Zizek debate, I decided I am going to read some books on the subject in order to never sound like one of them.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Come on.
Are you guys gonna tell me you're not familiar with the critics of Marx?
Shapiro, Carlson are the modern greats. O'Reilly and Hannity have some solid work too.
But really, read Marx and decipher why it's "bad" yourself
Hm... I getting the impression that Yea Forums is slightly unfamiliar with the actual critics of Marx!
This is a troll post but have a serious answer anyway. What you are looking for is Leszek Kołakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism"
They're all shit. Seriously.
That one was on my reading list already.
Do you have any more books to recommend?
So Marx is Christ? Come on, there are good critics of Plato, Aristotle, Frege, Russell... But Marx has no good critics?
Well then, he can only be a God!
Now seriously, my post is not trolling, I am just trying to make you people tell me which authors you think are good for someone who wishes to read both Marx as well as his critics.
I own the first volume of the Capital already (Great Books translation) as well as the Manifesto, the Jewish Question, the Critique of the Gotha Programme in an anthology.
"did someone say critic of Marxism"?
nobody on this board is going to have an answer for you because marx was most interesting as an economic theorist and everyone on here is only interested in innuendoes and aesthetics
The best critic of Marx is Marx himself.
So you don't have an answer either?
Stirner ended him
>Shapiro, Carlson are the modern greats.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Looks like the communism understander has logged on
The best critcs of the communists were the anarchists. Marx and mikhail bakunin would get into slap fights all the time
en.wikipedia.org
Bakunin has sometimes been called the first theorist of the "new class", meaning that a 'class' of intellectuals and bureaucrats running the state in the name of the people or the proletariat – but in reality in their own interests alone. Bakunin argued that the "State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class: a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class. And finally, when all the other classes have exhausted themselves, the State then becomes the patrimony of the bureaucratic class and then falls—or, if you will, rises—to the position of a machine."[52]
The most commonly cited argument against Marx is his espousal of labour theory of value, which some economists actually argue is defensible. Up to you to do the research.
The main criticism of mainstream economics is that it pretends it's a natural science - money is not an electron, so it assumes a social ontology rather than a natural ontology, and that the agents of economics are assumed to be rational for the calculations to work.
I have 0 understanding of economics though, so do your own research.
He's better than (((christ))) because he existed :^) lol
make one yourself.
The only non-awful critiques of Marxism come from leftists. and even then they are not that good
That's what a Christian would say about the Bible.
>the only amendments, corrections, complimentary comments and such of the Bible come from my Church's theologians, and even then the Bible is the greater authority
Start with the basics - Vilfredo Pareto. Cummulative advantage is a simple concept, yet both Marx and mainstream economics refuse to understand. Wealth redistribution is only possible when you completely shatter the equilibrium (wars).
Isaiah Berlin offers some criticism in the biography he wrote on Marx.
You don't need to critique someone claiming pigs fly.