Dude you don’t understand Marx

Why can't I ever follow what Zizek is saying? He never seems to make any point. He just rambles.

Attached: 1566576688499.jpg (400x400, 29K)

You have to read Lacan and realize he learned English from people that speak it as a secondary language

Do all Slovenes talk like Zizek

bump

Bump

Yugoslavs are very lateral.

I am imagining Trump talking to his wife now.
>Some say I am- I have the best politics-
>Ah yes, but you see the question of what is "the best", it is like that old joke about the farmer with the turnip, and so I ask you did Lacan not-
>Yes honey.

>Ah yes, but you see the question of what is "the best", it is like that old joke about the farmer with the turnip, and so I ask you did Lacan not-
Kek thanks user

>He doesn't even know the subject of Marx's works
Read Marx

99.999% of the time the receiver of "read Marx" is someone who hasn't even read the basics like Capital or The German Ideology. You're right about the remaining 0.001% of the cases, except for the part where you say that his thought noticeably evolved, which is simply not true. What is true is that his discoveries in his critique of philosophy had quickly led him to engage deeply in the critique of political economy. The two can look different superficially, but they're part of the same train of thought. Unless that's all you meant by your remark of course, but it doesn't seem like it.

>talk about Marx without reading him
Why?

>99.999% of the time the receiver of "read Marx" is someone who hasn't even read the basics like Capital or The German Ideology.
Bringing up a book that requires such intensive study as Capital in general conversation is a pretty futile endeavor. If you're going to claim that something in Marx meaningfully contradicts a point, you should at least give a specific location.
Also, The shift in moral tone from his early days to his later ones is pretty noticeable. I guess that's what you meant by superficial differences, but when it comes to the targets of the phrase, that difference can be pretty meaningful.

Read Proudhon.

People always boast about their IQ, but with a simple 115-120 IQ, Marx is very intelligible.
Makes you think Yea Forums is either lower than 120, is just intellectually lazy.
Hegel, on the other hand, is hard.

>a book that requires such intensive study as Capital

capital requires about a high school level education to read.

It's delusional to assume that someone is supposed to read a 3,000 page work of economic analysis which is largely outdated by today's economic theories. In order to get through that shit you have to irrationally fetishize the 1800s. Capital 3 has less than 1000 reviews on Goodreads. You need to explain the ideas in it simply and pick your battles. You can't claim a point of moral superiority because you lack the ability to convey information

>a simple 115-120
god I hate myself

Anyone who sincerely clings to IQ is far too nihilistic to get anything out of art or philosophy.

I think iq is a crude tool but that it does basically measure someone's ability to recognize patterns and manipulate abstract concepts. Art and philosophy are to me not at all reducible to that ability, art involves a great deal of other faculties such as emotion, creativity, passive association, etc. and philosophy requires above all lateral thinking and a desire for truth above all else.

I will.

It's not an economic analysis, it's a critique of political economy from the standpoint of communism. There wasn't any "progress" in this area since Marx, except maybe stuff like Bukharin's writing on imperialism.
>moral superiority
Imagine thinking communists give a fuck about "moral superiority". It's hard not to respond "read Marx" to everything people like you write since you drop a dozen hints per post that you have no idea what you're even attacking.

>make stupid point
>Get destroyed
>If you don't read 3000 pages then you can't possibly understand the depths of my amazing argumentation

He admits himself that if he ever stopped talking people would realise he's talking absolute shite.

>Imagine thinking communists give a fuck about "moral superiority".
They absolutely do, even the ones that still unironically believe that Marxism is a 'science'.

>actually read Marx
>disagree with a good deal of what he says but enjoy the historical value of the work

Attached: 1511163845809.png (1328x764, 122K)

Is it wrong to rebuke Marx on materialistic grounds, though? Counter arguing "but it's just politics, you clearly didn't read the political dogma i subscribe to" isn't doing you any favors.

Attached: gibmedat.jpg (480x310, 24K)

>other people should study but not me

You're telling me i can't just skim the manifesto?

Attached: 1549916460547.jpg (400x386, 37K)

Yes, you definitely need to pore through minutae details of household commodity expenses of late 18 century. It's absolutely crucial to the soundness of the argument when applied to modern supply chains.

literally any marxist would tell you that capitalism is a step forward in quality of material life

>b-but you can't use the manifesto as an argument because this was just propaganda for the masse

It's the equivalent of "just trolling bro, ahaha"

>criticize socialism based on countries that tried it and failed
>hurr that wasn't real socialism
>criticize socialism based on the standard definition of socialism
>hurr you don't know anything go read the manifestos
>criticize socialism based on what you read on the manifestos
>hurr the manifestos aren't the real material go read the other works
>criticize other works
>hurr that isn't the real material go read this obscure work
>criticize obscure work
>hurr why are you reading that obscure work?
and this is why communists still exist in this day and age: it's a multi-layer system of retardation where you go down the rabbit hole until you find your own unique brand of communism - or come out unscathered if you have half a brain

They have a cult operation going with the 'read Marx' argument. Having questions about Marx or doubts about Marx is evidence of not having read enough Marx. The read Marx argument serves as a cut off from any alternate point of view, it says 'if you want to have a conversation with me about Marx then you must already be as indocrinated as I am'.

Okay, so what are your criticisms of Marx?

Too much to go into in a single Yea Forums post, I'd be here for hours. I'm just making fun of your religion.

I never touched the manifesto. I seriously haven't read a word from it. I've read capital, family and state, principles, German ideology but the manifesto is something I never have any intent of even looking at. I seriously don't care about it and I don't understand why people do.

Attached: dab.png (1440x1401, 1.31M)

>my religion
What are you are about user? I asked you a neutral question just curious of your criticisms. Are you just going to shitpost or post something of worth?

shitposting is something of worth because I put my labour into it

Based. Marx was literally wrong about not all labour being valuable. Even shitposting is valuable.

In regards to economics, valor being subjective makes his entire model fall apart. In regards to history, he shoehorned and omitted so many things to make them fit his preconceived patterns that is almost sad. In regards to his predictions, they didn't come to pass. In regards to the movements he bred: the political movements were atrocious failures, and the academic movements are pitiful.

What things did he omit? What predictions of his were wrong?

The Poverty of Historicism makes a detailed account of historical periods he omitted and/or distorted.

Among many things, he said working conditions would worsen dramatically. Modern Marxists justify this mistake by saying he just couldn't predict that the capitalist class would actually improve working conditions as a form of self-preservation.

>Among many things, he said working conditions would worsen dramatically.
He didn't. He said they would get worse from the standpoint of the Capitalist class (wealth inequality would get larger). Then Marx and Engels weren't saying they held some kind of "eternal truth" and Engels criticized such position himself.
>valor being subjective makes his entire model fall apart.
The thing is that what you mean by value and Marx means by it aren't in any way exclusionary from each other. One explains price, the other personal consumer choices.
>the academic movements are pitiful.
>t. Didn't read Land

>Among many things, he said working conditions would worsen dramatically.
Where? I haven't read that much of Marx, but in Capital he just says that more value will be extracted by either intensifying work or prolonging working hours (or both). Working hours have declined but intensity/productivity has gone up. He also says that living standards will decline relatively (gap between capital-owning class and wage working increasing) but that conditions would improve absolutely, which is what has happened.

>99.999% of the time the receiver of "read Marx" is someone who hasn't even read the basics like Capital or The German Ideology
lol, the received AND the emitter

>Among many things, he said working conditions would worsen dramatically. Modern Marxists justify this mistake by saying he just couldn't predict that the capitalist class would actually improve working conditions as a form of self-preservation.
Wonder why people are telling retards like you to read Marx? Marx, "Wage Labour and Capital":
>To say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital", means only this: THAT THE MORE SPEEDILY THE WORKER AUGMENTS THE WEALTH OF THE CAPITALIST, THE LARGER WILL BE THE CRUMBS WHICH FALL TO HIM, the greater will be the number of workers that can be called into existence, the more can the mass of slaves dependent upon capital be increased.
>If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capitalist rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm that separates him from the capitalist has widened.
emphasis mine

>The Poverty of Historicism
This anglo retard couldn't even read Plato and Hegel correctly.

Why does he talk like he has a dick in his mouth?
youtu.be/ObnBHMzIQ_A

you should be able to explain the point marx made and how it relates to the conversation. if you cant do that you dont belong here

>zizek
>cocaine
name a better combo

Attached: drugabuse-shutterstock220086538-cocaine_feature_image-cocaine.jpg (500x335, 13K)

>In regards to economics, valor being subjective makes his entire model fall apart.
(pic related)

Attached: Value - labor.png (1127x634, 408K)

Cockshott is a crank.

jstor.org/stable/23602189

Sorry m8, but the heavy weights already had this argument a century ago, and some nobody coming out of nowhere is not going to change it with that many methodological flaws

FPBP

Hegel was wrong, and everything he borrowed from Hegel is wrong.

academia.edu/1067849/A_reply_to_Brewster

>valor being subjective

>if I make arbitrary controls to flatten results to fit my model they disappear so im rite
lmao look guys its a liberal economist

I can only explain to you so many ways that price and value you are not the same thing. You have to figure it out on your own.

what's the formula relating them?

>He is wrong in saying that our labour values are no longer labour values since
they are now inuenced by market prices. In Marxian economics there are three
distinct concepts, value in use, value in exchange and labour value. Value in use
is held to be non-comparable, it sets up no scale, and is a matter for technology
and design study rather than political economy. Value in exchange, is, when
represented in monetary prices, a scalar quantity. Labour value is another scalar
quantity but is distinct from exchange value.

from the first page here its really not complex but if your not familiar with how values are represented and manipulated in maths then I can't teach you how algebra relates to mechanics on an imageboard.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm
you could have just googled it

It might help if you knew what you were talking about.

this doesn't solve the transformation problem. i simply must stop arguing with marxian brainlets.

marx is the cancer of socialism
if we're talking commies bakunin shits all over him