*Destroys capitalism*

Marxista genocided a lot more. Stoip being Marxist, you bigot. Ugh.

What about killing 16 milion of them

Don't be a pedant. I meant the more toxic sequelae of a society run by big capital: social atomization, ecological degradation, political cronyism, etc.

Before you tell me to fuck off back to r/communism, I should also tell you that I'm someone who works for a corporation which is partially responsible for all of these things (rather than some AntiFa-ite teaching at a community college). You can dislike the direction things are headed and still realize that conformity is your best chance of survival.

I'm not a Marxist, hun. I'm a liberal.

Edgelord humour. One day (hopefully) you'll think back and cringe at what you just typed.

Read more Jewish authors. They're some of the most talented.

money and market exchange are far far older than capitalism. capitalism is a specific mode of production.

>social atomization, ecological degradation, political cronyism, etc.
Do you think these were abscent or less prominent is the USSR, Eastern Block states or Cuba? Socialism failed miserably.

Capitalism is "money and market exchange" without significant amount of slavery and serfdom.

>Do you think these were abscent or less prominent in the USSR, Eastern Block states or Cuba?
No, I do not. In most cases, these problems were even worse in socialized nations.

I am not an advocate for socialism, just a pessimist about modernity, technology, and the entire human experiment. It isn't even that I believe things were "better" before - they obviously weren't. It's more like seeing every 'silver lining' in human endeavor a really being a haze of asbestos that will invariably give us all cancer.

>I am not an advocate for socialism
If you're railing against "capitalism" you're advocating for some form of socialism. Or you're just a retard.
>just a pessimist about modernity, technology, and the entire human experiment
Yep, a fucking retard.

okay, i'm a retard. a full-on, card-carrying retard. you are right about everything. i am wrong about everything, and always will be. satisfied?

seriously, what's wrong with you? how is it possible to even give this much of a fuck about stuff like this? do you just get off on verbally abusing people online? fuck you

If only something could fucking destroy capitalism. Goddamn.

>seriously, what's wrong with you? how is it possible to even give this much of a fuck about stuff like this? do you just get off on verbally abusing people online? fuck you

Attached: 1558622972181.png (1080x1020, 475K)

Just stop spouting your offensively idiotic nonsense.

no, capitalism is a system wherein capital owners use their control over free capital supplies and the means of production to accumulate progressively greater amounts of liquid and (most importantly and definingly for capitalist systems) productive capital.

market dynamics, the use of money, even things like waged labor are all secondary characteristics, more parts of human economy than capitalist economy. the use of "significant amounts" of slaves and serfs (I can't get on you too hard about that though, I never got what Marx meant by "socially necessary labor" so perhaps a bit of sloppy wording just has to be accepted) is not what makes an economy non-capitalist; except insofar as the mechanics of the productive relationships between labor and capital plus the political relationships of those times retard capitalist accumulation.

Why can't people just accept the fact that a mixed economy always has been and always will be the best?

Attached: 1558841537216.png (1000x1000, 268K)

But why can't we just be polite and decent to each other? Isn't life difficult enough without creating more obstacles for yourself in the form of animosity with your neighbors?

I responded the way I did because, in order to de-escalate the tension, someone had to be the first to show some kind of vulnerability. Why are you punishing me for that? It's borderline sadistic.

> It's borderline sadistic.

Attached: 1558620936963.jpg (225x225, 14K)

You can post as many "I'm upset" images as you'd like. It's true -- I am upset. I am upset about the degeneration of what might have been a good discussion. I am upset at the open hostility between us. I am upset that we've become unwilling to engage one another on a meaningful level.

Leave neoclassicals to me

Attached: steve_keen.jpg (400x400, 19K)

No such thing.

>no, capitalism is a system wherein capital owners use their control over free capital supplies and the means of production to accumulate progressively greater amounts of liquid and (most importantly and definingly for capitalist systems) productive capital
Unnecessary technicalities.
>what Marx meant
Who cares? He's just 19th century economist, just let it go.

>he says accumulation of capital is an unnecessary technicality of capitalism
and that is where I dip out.
dubs have been checked.

Accumulation of capital happens in pre-capitalist societies too.

No it doesn't. Capital circulates all the time. It is a dynamic concept, constantly re-entering the market and re-investing itself in order to sustain continuous growth, which causes overproduction crises when it surpases the masses' ability to exchange their salaries for commodities (which happens every so often because of the increasing gap between salaries and productivity since the fall of the socialist bloc (which also sparked the deconstruction of wellfare in western europe through "austerity" measures since 2008 mortgage crisis [a housing overproduction crisis]).

The accumulation of wealth under feudalism or slavery was not the same process, with the same aim and the same socio-economical relations as accumulation of capital under capitalism.

Wealth =/= Capital =/= Money

The same way that:

Price =/= Value

This whole discussion does not make any sense unless there's a bare minimum knowledge of Das Kapital or LVT.

That should go for you, moron. Marx says that static capital increases proportionally as the engine moves forward and that variable capital decreases proportionally. Capital is indeed somethig that exists under a Marxian analysis of the ‘Capitalist’ system you moron.

Have YOU read Das Kapital? It sounds like you’re just talking about working capital. :3

eradicate the culture embedded in the capital

dumb or American?

And yet he shills for a Catholic model based on the Mondragon Corporation while the major Banks and Companies are running a global Jew model.

Keen, Wolff, Cockshott gang

Read the book

Keen? Book?

Loaded this...

Attached: CEE8B923-532F-4DE4-B5BE-CB9D4FF405B2.jpg (445x600, 54K)

Go read Schumpeters book on socialism please :3

>neoclassical liberal
What a waste of time that would be. Fuck off

THE STORY GOES LIKE THIS

>mfw i pray not for the world

Attached: smiling-jesus.jpg (263x292, 11K)

Who has important things to say on socialism. Butterfly, when you are finished masturbating you should consider this: if I can read from all perspectives: liberals, marxists, Marx himself, scientific economists, etc then why can’t you? Why pigeonhole yourself into one ideology? You are simply proving Schumpeter right by not reading his book. I mean, he even wrote on socialism

Attached: 9CC8F550-829E-4B01-8F58-1447D48F4FD4.jpg (231x354, 48K)

Anticapitalism is antisemitic

It's a brainlet female.

A lot of Austrian tards make the false assumption that human activity can exist independent of other people, which is false since other people regulate your drive and mood due to serotonin being depended on your relationship with others.

Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis? And Debunking Economics

Oh stop. The fact is, that Karl Marx designed his system around an essentially materialist conclusion regarding the historical necessity of time.

If you’re unable to read the book because you’re constantly being inundated with Marxist economists saying things you want to hear, I understand, but when you get the chance take a walk down reality lane: Schumpeter is not an ‘Austrian school economist’ he is an economist who happens to be from Austria, like Oskar Morgenstern. He makes some concessions towards Marx and ultimately concludes capitalism itself is unstable.

But Marx was wrong about various things and wanted a passionate, violent revolution a little too much to be taken seriously as a social ‘scientist’

I came from the rightwing, I have considered Keynesianism and come to understand the differences between classical and neoclassical economics. The only one that gets it is anti-capitalist socialist economics, not to be confused with yet more state socialism, which is probably what Schumpeter does.
No capitalism is the only way. Democracy at work and then a non accumulative currency will free the world. And that’s why it’s opposed.

Thanks

We often move beyond Marx now

>state socialism, which is probably what Schumpeter does
No, Schumpeter is not a socialist, ahaha. Please stop ascribing to ideologies like this. Please stop adopting other authors ideologies as your own.

On a side note: I told you to start masturbating. I gave you specific instructions. You will do that now

Didn’t say that. Everyone who wants to critique socialism is critiquing state-capitalism

Side note. Go fuck off, turd-head

I'm not a marxist, I don't believe in some primitive teleological evolution of economic systems and society. Žižek (quoting Hegel) put it nicely, philosophy can only grasp things which are already in decay.

However that doesn't make the Austrians not-wrong. As soon as you start with a single person assumption you remove the social game aspect of existence itself.

I see what you meant, no. No no, Schumpeter has DEEPLY read Marx, unlike you. Schumpeter has read various letter etc etc. not insulting you, just saying, Schumpeter has given Marx an extremely serious read. He seems like more of a Marx interpreter/scholar than most of the so-called revolutionaries on this site.

Also, is it SO bad to give me what I want? Give me what I want :p

Schumpeter is not of the Austrian school of economics.

Might have to read him then.
What is his take on socialism and worker owned co-ops anyway?

You mean constant capital (c)?

Of course it increases proportionally, because variable capital (v) decreases in the same order since it represents the workers' wage, which at the same time goes to prove my point again (increase in productivity (total capital increase) goes hand in hand with decrease in salary (decrease of the v/c proportion) which in turn ends in a overproduction crisis because of the inability to mobilize commodities)

Of course capital exists under a marxist analysis of CAPITALISM, you idiot, my point was that the exchange of commodities and the existence of money is NOT an exclusive nor definitory characteristic of capitalism, but of the many modes of production that have existed ever since the invention of the market (asian mode of production, slavery, feudalism...)

What was even YOUR point?

I only want socialism that promises social equality among the classes, like national socialism.

I’m glad you understand Keynes as well, what have you read from him.

Also thanks for masturbating to me right now, go ahead and keep fingering that tight pussy in this embarrassing situation. It’s embarrassing for you and you’re doing it for me which is why you are so horny. Just slam your finger in so hard you can hear the wet slap from years away.
I win this one. You stated capitalism circulates ‘all the time’ anyone willing to follow the literally two post comment chain up the ladder will see that you’ve backtracked on your statement within literally one post
His take on socialism is an unbiased and scientific one, something many of you would know nothing about. After all, economists like Pareto wrote vast scientific works on socialist organization without being socialists themselves.

Marx was not a social scientist, he was a social philosopher. This was his message. His stance towards socialism in general at this point is unclear, but I think it is far more optimistic than Marxist communism.

He has not and most likely will not say anything about co-ops. He’s an actual economist. We have actually had threads on here about actual economists in the past (like Pareto, Fisher, Von Neumann, etc) and they work out pretty well, but not often because economics as a science doesn’t get the respect it deserves.

That’s supposed to be yards away

Mb

Materialism, Teleology, Dialectics and soft economical determinism may be criticized on their own terms if you are to criticize marxist analysis.

Nevertheless, said axioms which are per se inductively understood are the necessary starting point of any analysis, for there must always be a First Principle not deduced from a previous one in any logic system.

It'd be astonishing to watch an equivalent critique on the many assumptions (unlimited Free Will, Egoist Human Nature, Metaphysical justification of class society...) found in free-market economics.

Nevertheless if we are to discuss marxist economical analysis, we should focus on the method itself, it's insights and it's predictions rather than it's premises (which are in turn often misinterpreted such as the moralization of marxism, which is an a-moral philosophical system).

You win nothing. You have a clear misconception on the most fundamental point of capitalism: Capital.

Capital exists within a marxist framework as the necessary intermediate which transforms the M - C - M circuit into a C - M - C' one, which is the basis of capitalist economy. Should capital not circulate, the whole system would colapse. It's very nature and use is to mediate the constant exchange of commodities in order to grow exponentially by injecting non-paid workforce (surplus value) into the production process.

Do you think that static (which is called constant, hence the (c) used in marxist analysis) capital means that it does not circulate? It simply means that said capital is not flexible and does not incoporate value onto the comodities as the variable one (workers' time/wages) does.

Also, a dabate is not something you "win" it is simply a tool to improve your understanding of the world, which would be a very wise goal in your case.

Whether you like it or not, a system (Economy) exists regardless of your interpretation of it.

I am saying the methodology, the materialist cyclic nature of history (historical materialism) itself is flawed, if some of the realizations were valid.

You of course, like many others, want his entire system to be valid, leading me back to my original point where if everything relates to a pre-set materialist conclusion then that logically leads the system to be geared toward the conclusion. Who would’ve thunk.

Your counter-argument is completely invalid simply by the nature of the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about, for instance what IS free-market economics. Define this

wtf i love marxism now

>It simply means that said capital is not flexible and does not incoporate value onto the comodities as the variable one
Which is of course not true either. Barring the idea that for some reason or other ‘constant’ capital is all working capital under Marx’s system (which we both know is complete horseshit) the rate of return is not merely the same for all constant capital. Your stipulation that for some reason or another the only reason the rate of profits rise is decreasing wages and increasing investment in constant capital is a logically fallacy derived from a faulty economic system based on a static rate of capital profits over time.

Do consider other avenues of economic thought, as Marx as an economist was hilariously incorrect and we haven’t even gotten to the major key points yet

>mfw

Attached: pep.jpg (550x409, 53K)

Oh stop. No one here can claim to be a capital owner in any way shape or form.

You are either a NEET or a self-dependent worker at this stage of your life. :3

>capital owner in any way shape or form.
my 401k, and other accounts, say otherwise. i honestly like this system and am set to retire quite comfortably. its quite a large step up from being a peasant plowing fields whose kids had no choice but to also be peasants plowing fields. this was the reality for literally all of my ancestors up through my grandparents.

We will see what the future brings

Attached: 1507960209035.jpg (680x1020, 101K)

Well I hope the system functions as intended.

See
Not working causes you to lose money. Even if you are rich, if you cannot work, you will lose it. It’s only a matter of time.

>Whether you like it or not, a system (Economy) exists regardless of your interpretation of it.

Wether you like it or not, a system (Economy) follows a set of internal logical rules which can and must be understood. Wether or not there's a misunderstanding or a flawed framework is at discussion (or at least should be).

> I am saying the methodology, the materialist cyclic nature of history (historical materialism) itself is flawed, if some of the realizations were valid.

Historical materialism is dialectical, not cyclical. One of your main points is the critique of marxist teleology. Should there be a cyclic nature, there would be no end yo it, nor a telology to interpret it. So which one would it be?

Also, if the many instances of historical analysis found in Marx's works does not set a solid basis for a materialistic dialectical interpeetation of nature and history I'd like to hear your critique on it, rather than the statement that "it's wrong".

> You of course, like many others, want his entire system to be valid, leading me back to my original point where if everything relates to a pre-set materialist conclusion then that logically leads the system to be geared toward the conclusion. Who would’ve thunk.

I want nothing. Marxism is social scientifical analysis, and such an idea is stated on the preface to the Communist Manifesto ("Any critique based on a scientific spirit is wellcome"), not wishfull thinking.

Also, you seem to have a problem with dialectics itself, rather than marxism. Should we consider capitalism as the end of history, the most elevated and final stage of human socio-economical organization with no internal contradictions? Or should we consider said contradictions as minor inconveniences, finding ourselves in a much better situation than any other alternative ("Capitalism is the worst of all economical systems except for all the others."?)? Oh, I know, we can actually justify them morally, adscribing a moral flaw on those who are not benefiting from said system ("You're poor because you are lazy/lack ambition").

The real fallacy is expecting any existing thing to be whole and eternal rather than antagonistic and ephimeral in nature.

> Your counter-argument is completely invalid simply by the nature of the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about, for instance what IS free-market economics. Define this

Where? Where do I prove I don't know what I'm talking about?

Free Market economics? Austrian school of economics (Born-Bewerk et al.), Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman, Von Mises...

Of course there are many differences between each economist, as there are major differences between many marxist economists. The point was that said economists have a much less solid philosophical foundation (almost laughable) which in turn is never as scrutinized nor critiziced as much as Dialectical Materialism. (The dominant ideology is the ideology of the dominant class, who would've thought?)

>Not working causes you to lose money. Even if you are rich, if you cannot work, you will lose it. It’s only a matter of time.
this is just not true. one just needs enough capital such that capital gains exceed living costs.

Sure, so the materialistic interpretation of history is for the most part incorrect for a few different reasons. But let’s start with the fact that the idea that the viewpoints and material construction of reality changes the fundamental meaning of economic and sociological scientific interpretations is indeed an invaluable observation, however fundamentally does not invalidate the scientific findings of prior economists. Simply describing a system as it stands does not really mean that it is simply a product of the ramification of the situation the theorist was in, but rather that it is simply a system trying to describe human behavior.

For instance, let’s apply the sociological connotations of historical dialectical materialism, to for instance, Walras or Von Neumann. Walras’ observations are still as potent as they were back then. As opposed to being steeped in terminology or realizations if its time, it seems to be primarily based on the different offers and demands of the inhabitants of the economic society. And as opposed to being a viewpoint which will be outdated with a new regime or system, it is equally valid in the one as the other.

For instance, no one is stopping you to analyze feudal warlord tactics through a game theorist’s lens. Not only would this be intellectually rewarding and intriguing, it also isn’t a dated method to analyze it by.

Simply stating that history progresses through the advance of constant capital and decreasing variable capital while the rate of profit necessitates conclusions which are rather simplistic and revolutionary and do raise some doubt on his overall system in the first place
>The real fallacy is expecting any existing thing to be whole and eternal rather than antagonistic and ephimeral in nature
No the real fallacy would be to expect of the history of society a series of zero sum two party exchanges of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
>Free Market economics? Austrian school of economics (Born-Bewerk et al.), Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman, Von Mises
Then your criticism applies! But this is the big leagues, Zizek, we’re not talking about the institutional economists who analyze economics from a materially constructed point of view but the economists who deal with the phenomenon of exchange in the first place.

Which is very hard and very tricky to do.

My guess is you’re a NEET anyway so why does this matter? :3

>Which is very hard and very tricky to do.
you need $10 million, i would say. which is not hard to do in 30-40 years on a dual income with early and consistent investments.

So no denial on the NEET thing, because not being financially independent eliminates a lot of costs

well i'm not sure what my status has to do with the conversation. we are speaking about the general person, who imo works and has the capability to save money, thus can escape the wage trap via capital.