Is there any conservative political philosophy which actually engages with marx or is it all "muh gulags"

carl schmitt

That's not homogeneity of labor whatsoever, that's a rate of exchange in a homogenous currency between heterogeneous labor.

though your marxist concern for the working class is certainly touching

I'd rather suck cock and own my own means of production than work at McDonalds.

They pretend that it's evil due to propaganda from way back in the day sticking.

Russia was fine with it from 1920 to 1970 but then the jews ran away so it fell. When all the doctors run away from your country shit like nuclear reactors failing due to dropping IQs happen. There's evidence of it. Look up jewish exiles and that includes 1970-1990 Soviet Russia. It fell a couple years right after that.

In other words jews are not capable of equality.

>chernobyl was due to a reverse flynn effect

conspiracy of the year, give me your fucking lapel you absolute legend

you're welcome

>communism denies the rights of the individual (like freedom of speech/religion/press/democracy)

where does marx write this?

>lower living standards under the USSR as an example of planned economies not working.

compared to what? the living standards of the US? or the living standards of tsarist russia?

Reddit spacing, do not respond

and for this exchange to be possible there must be a common denominator between the labour and the currency, therefore transitively also between labour and labour which are paid in the same currency (or pretty much any other currency as long as they're exchangeable against any other)

Schumpeter is not a conservative

For the exchange to take place takes nothing but one person valuing the labor or product of another more than whatever they have, currency just facilitates and abstracts this, it doesn't homogenize the labor in any way.

Not really within American conservatism. In fact a lot of American conservatives are former Marxists, Bill Kristol being the best example.

>american "conservatives" used to be marxists
I would bet one million dollars that this chap Kristol has a certain ethnic background

youtu.be/UsBLKhjfO7g

You're confused, Bill Kristol was never a Marxist, but his dad might have been in like the 30s or something. Irving Kristol was the more gifted writer and thinker.

The part about the Irish always gets me. Why are we the least respected group of white people, Irish bros?

Don't you know user?
Netflix made a show, so now everyone is an expert

retard

Lasch? Sam Francis? Burnham? At the very least, they lift from Marx's analytical categories and are not opposed to mechanistic, materialist explanations of economics and history.

Where?

what is this Schmitt guy all about? is there anything to him besides the fact that Strauss liked him and something something Nazis?

>DUDE CAPITALISTS DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO YOUR LABOR LMAO
>FILTHY DISGUSTING RETARDED PEASANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO YOUR LABOR

>Schumpeter is not a conservative
Schumpeter agreed with Edmund Burke's interpretation of the French Revolution and applied it to various violent Marxist upheavals. Did you not read the book or something?

Austrian socialism is an actual thing. And it's socialism with stepped wages (or even a controlled market for wages) :3

Anyone who rejects the underlying premises of liberalism, since Communism is the fulfillment of its promises.

>How does this make even the tiniest amount of sense, the skill of each individual, the training they've already went through, the social and cultural structures tied the entire civilizational set of conditions, make this abstraction of labor completely impossible
That's exactly what's so fascinating to Marx. How so different things can be compared. Abstract labor is, no doubt, a violent and aggresive category. It ignores the different qualities, trainings, etc. only to consider labor-time. This is the only way to interconnect human labor across different sectors.

conservatives literally think liberalism = marxism

Yeah, and retards like
think words are violent

>Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour
spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be
his commodity wouldnt be more valuable but hed be doing what its in his best interest if hes lazy

Lasch. de Benoist.

Thats not reddit spacing retard.

if you could measure labor based on how unidle and skillful it is i guess you could make a better argument for communism if thats even possible.
But how would you measure unidleness and skill?

He's an expert political theoretician who allied with the Nazis and is hence secretly but observably influential to this day.

I think the book you are looking for is Kolakowski´s Glawne nurty Marxizmu. Conservatives can´t be arsed to go over the massive volume of Marx´s work, so you better check former Marxists.

I don't watch even jewtube hardly much less kikeflix. I simply read wikpedia articles and make my own opinions about things. It's not hard to put two and two together. Jews have the highest IQs, they left, the nuclear site fucks over, it's not hard to see what happened. Jews effect a lot of shit, hence the drama surrounding abrahamic religions and the lelocaust despite like 50 other work badges and the count of their bodies being burned up. Any time you fuck over their superior genes they fuck everything up around them. They're trying to be king's gawd's chosen people, if you don't let them have their way they degrade your society.

You can work my means of (re)production for money, user.
If you're cute at least.

Not him but I think one of you two should have actually retorted.

Heres an interesting article
fee.org/articles/socialism-and-incentives/

>To counteract the incentive to shirk, the socialist rulers can establish production quotas for Clem and the other members of the commune and then threaten them with penalties for failure to meet the quotas. Since coercion will stimulate production only if the penalties are severe enough to counteract the incentive to shirk, socialism must reduce the population to virtual slavery.
>Coercion, on the other hand, is only able to establish the incentive to produce the minimum required to avoid punishment.
>Socialism promises prosperity and freedom. But the incentives created by socialism place it in a dilemma. If the workers are allowed to remain “free,” they will not produce. To stimulate production they must be denied their freedom. Thus, socialism cannot achieve both prosperity and freedom. Usually it results in neither.

>communism has never been tried

Attached: marx_terror_quote.png (250x332, 59K)

Alasdair Macintyre. Not "conservative" but he is viewed as such now.

It's reddit spacing.

Attached: npulb1hiyat01.png (989x741, 352K)

>socialism cannot achieve both prosperity and freedom
Prosperity and freedom are contradictory. Of course you can´t achieve them both.

Cops

The French New Right was Marxist yet "conservative" in the sense of not being societally liberal although they didn't care about bourgois morality.

>a violent category
jesus fucking christ
moralizing a fucking concept
just give me a lobotomy already

Francis Parker Yockey

>Schumpeter agreed with Edmund Burke's interpretation of the French Revolution and applied it to various violent Marxist upheavals
him being critical of marxist revolutions doesnt make him a conservative.
He was both a plain supporter of capitalism and well aware of it's culture-destroying tendencies.

Norwegian conservative Lars Roar Langslet wrote a few books on Marx. He basically agrees with a lot of Marxist diagnosis of capitalism. The base do change the superstructure, and therefore capitalism changes culture, like the family unit, the church and so on. Thus he concludes: capitalism is not necessarily conservative.

A History and Critique by an ex-marxist.

Attached: 01a06d7c-8fb7-11e5-9cb8-971146f13745.jpg (700x435, 60K)

This, where?

but you clearly already had one

He's the most influential political thinker of the 20th century.

dark enlightenment and r/acc in general

Mises btfo Marx so hard that marxists still seethe impotently to the mere mention of his name.
Watch.

>mises
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

Attached: 1564749534798.png (261x215, 19K)

lmao

How not? Traditional values and capitalism. What's wrong with that?

Some people also talk about human nature. Because Marxism is when you want everyone to be nice to each other and that's it.
>"Marxism with the nouns changed"

Nothing bad per se, It's that for some reason In pratiche it all tends to boil down to "FASTER GOYIM CONQUER THE MIDDLE EAST FOR US!"
Which is admittedly an improvement compared to "FASTER GOYIM GENOCIDE YOURSELF" but not such a big one. Also.
See?

It's disingenuous to frame the whole conservative movement as pro-war. You have your paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan who are anti-war, and even Trump ran on a message of pulling out of the Middle East.

Not the "war party" the demócrata started more and more heinous wars by a long shot. Just, You know, the pro-a-certain-middle-eastern-tribe party.

Why is this board being so low intellect regarding this thread, clearly OP means classical conservatism, not American conservatism, give some real suggestions.

You are a fucking retard. You can be cured.

We've been all shitting on american conservatorism this whole thread with the exception of one (1) of us.
Looks like you've allready engaded evasive manouvers.

not him, but capitalism is THE great destroyer of traditional social relations and values

Is it? The KGB and the Frankfurt school and the litteral trotskyst infesting of all places the Republican Party were so ineffective? Put it on the list of communist achievements.

the kgb was an agent of a capitalist state
frankfurt school was a bunch of impotent academic hacks. it takes a veritable retard to believe that they transformed society in any way by shitting out obsure pretentious garbage

I'm sure It's just a fuvking coincidence then that academia fawns over them and the consensus opinion in the West is a carbon copy of what they theorized and wanted, or that Gramsci's March through the institutions is litteraly followed like an instruction manual from the modern left.
>kgb was capitalist the ussr was not true communism!!!!
Nobody believes your shit anymore.

Regardless of how retarded the person you're responding to is, capitalism still revolutionized the world against tradition, a modern conservative who is pro-capitalism is merely taking a pragmatic stance.

Where?

>capitalism still revolutionized the world against tradition,
majuscule C capitalism maybe, as Marxists define it, but when the Right talk about capitalism a lot of the time they mean something pretty much ancient and corresponding to just a kind of freedom of enterprise and trade, with some basic regulations from a central authority(ie. monarch or similar figure).

The industrial capitalism that people focus on is likely to be seen more as a technological thing than a capitalist thing by the Right.

This is incredible.

For the thread: OP, check out Werner Sombart. Most of the best non-Jewish Marxists after WW1 became fascists of some kind, whether National Bolsheviks, National Socialists, etc. Second International Marxism was really a complete farce with its dialectical scientism and bizarre cult of materialism, and this drove a lot of the best and brightest toward right-wing socialisms. The oriental despotism that was Stalinism only made things worse. The Frankfurt School is an exception but even they are a lot closer to the right-wing critique of capitalism and bourgeois existence than they are to modern pseudo-Marxists. And of course there's Gramsci, but the entire post-war European right is Gramscian, because Gramscian was an organic socialist too.

Attached: dhir.jpg (228x221, 5K)

>The industrial capitalism that people focus on is likely to be seen more as a technological thing than a capitalist thing by the Right.
Or more aptly as a product of the New Deal and of the collusion at every level between the political class and the financial class in a way which resembled Mussolini's Italy and which is particularly evident in the last three presidential administrations (Obama and the billions given to Green energy with no chance of profit OR of any ecologist objective being reached)

>admits he didn't bother interpreting OP himself, instead opting to be a baby back bitch and baby back off of other's flawed comprehension. Undoubtedly, a baby-back-bitch-esque move.

I wish for once you and people like you were force to live up to their standards of debate. That would be fucking hilarious.

>The boogeymen, secret societies and conspiracies are what have been destroying tradition. Not the global economic system and the progressing means of production that destroy obsolete cultures and tradition that can't adapt to the new ways.

Exactly Thank you for resuming, brainlet.

Oh yeah my bad i misread.

>but when the Right talk about capitalism a lot of the time they mean something pretty much ancient
they're talking about a figment of their imagination (which can only be made "ancient" through anachronism), whereas marxists talk about the materially existing thing whose ideological impression this figment is in the first place

>The industrial capitalism that people focus on is likely to be seen more as a technological thing than a capitalist thing by the Right.
it only seems like something else to you because your ideology is clearly that of petty-bourgeois farmers (e.g. early US immigrants/colonizers), and not that of big industrial bourgeoisie

Marxism only works on a small scale that is enforced by community and I'm talking on a fewer than 150 population scale. Any larger than that and the centralization of power causes community to be diminished which makes COMMUNAL sharing impossible and it becomes theft and redistribution by a ruling class and may as well just be feudalism because it acts in the same way.

Marxism is attractive because it makes sense atavistically because we are a tribal species but it simply doesn't scale up.

It's not a figment of their imagination, they literally just mean the freedom of enterprise and trade that marxists don't like. That is not the same thing as the definition of Capitalism as a recent thing that Marxists talk about.

Your second point, actually your first point too really, they're not arguments, you're just saying 'you have an ideology', 'you're imagining things', you're not saying anything. This is about what I've come to expect though so don't feel bad, you're not below average for your lot.

well the actual arguments are beyond your comprehension. it would be easier to explain them to a child than to a bunch obtuse /pol/tards, so I'm not here to convince anyone

Don't you see how braindead this sounds? You're acting like Ben Shapiro and Donald Trump are the intellectual cornerstones of the Right. Conservative politics is a deep and incredibly long-lived ideology (albeit morphed through time) which has its own well supported works.

>i dont need to explain myself
This is why you're a joke

>it would be easier to explain them to a child

Because children are impressionable and easier to indoctrinate?

no, because Marx is correct. its not a matter of engagement or debate. you can't argue with facts and comprehensive conservative intellectual thought doesn't exists. It just various shades of "give rich people money and fuck the poor."
There's a reason why higher education is dominated by liberal and leftist thinkers. Its because education and intellect makes you anything but conservative. Conservatism is an astroturfed ideology funded by billionaires who want to keep their money at the expense of the rest of the world.

>no, because Marx is correct. its not a matter of engagement or debate. you can't argue with facts
i rate it 6/10

I only mentioned explaining, not making someone believe that the theory is correct

Based Nazbol?

no, because Marx is wrong. its not a matter of engagement or debate. you can't argue with facts and comprehensive marxist intelligent thought doesn't exists. It just various shades of "fuck rich people"
There's a reason why out rotten higher education is dominated by liberal and leftist thinkers. Its because these people are literally parasites who parrot the currently fashionable worldview so they can live easy but mediocre lives. Conservatism (aka neoliberalism, liberalism from 50 years ago) is an astroturfed ideology funded by billionaires who want to keep their money at the expense of the rest of the world.

How is Marxism not just common sense at this point? It's obvious the elites own all the money

>no, because Marx is wrong
How is he wrong?

>no, because Marx is correct
How is he correct?

The Conservative principle in general is that you have to demonstrate why something would be preferable to attempt at the cost of the current system, instead of doing what Conservatives do, which is nothing.

Marxists have thusfar failed to do this, in a spectacular string of catastrophic failures spanning over a century. This is sufficient evidence for a conservative that Marxism has no value as an idea.

>Marxism only works on a small scale that is enforced by community and I'm talking on a fewer than 150 population scale.
Marxism is now some kind of social organization schema?
Do you even know what you're talking about fucking chimpanzee?

other socialists already pointed all this shit out. it's deeply ironic communism is eponymous with a solitary Great Man.

>the "it's just disinterested analysis" revisionism

It's not disinterested, but that doesn't mean it's some sort of detailed plan for the construction of a society. Marx was not a Fourierite.

Ideal socialism =/= actual socialism
Marxism is just a system of categories that serve to explain and critique many aspects of past and current forms of capitalism.
Leninism and/or stalinism is just a derivation of marxist theories applied to certain a space/time which doesn't exhaust the posibilities of those theories and of their application.
This is not sufficient evidence of anything. If you knew anything about history you'd know how and why actual socialist regimes failed.

Because it's a non-sequitur. Marx's definition of value is creationist-tier nonsense, and more importantly his predictions were almost uniformly false.

Even the theory of class struggle is painfully incorrect. Mostly it is based off of a deeply flawed understanding of feudalism and its antecedent societal organizations. In reality, the history of mankind has NOT been a history of class struggle, but mostly a history of tribal struggle. The entire Marxian Historical worldview is post-facto rationalization to justify a system of analysis that was supposed to have predictive power... But then didn't.

Literally every word in your post is wrong

>. it's deeply ironic communism is eponymous with a solitary Great Man.
what are you saying?

i don't think it's creationist-tier nonsense to say the elites own all the money and bosses make exponentially more than the worker. those who do not work the mines receive way more than the miners, its unfair, you need to look into georgism. i dont care about a tribal struggle nowadays it is a class struggle

dont actually post anything of value though, you might make marxists look less retarded

his prediction came true though. there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall.His prediction of capitalism collapsing however did not come true.But it still might.

Attached: images - 2019-09-17T074019.254.jpg (739x415, 48K)

"Muh gulags" is enough desu. Why entertain an ideology that always results in widespread famine and death? Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature should instantly realize that communist utopia is unattainable and always lead to the same end.

I guess you arent a capitalist either then

Capitalism aligns more with human nature than communism does by a long shot. Not saying its anywhere near perfect but it's certainly more fair than forced equality

>durr
I'm quite happy with my arrangement and so are you. Sip your latte and post how much you hate living in the first world on the gram, zoomer.

>human nature
99/100 times when I see these words, I know I'm dealing with a magician who's trying to hand me a loaded hat. I don't accept.

You're not wrong.

Him agreeing with Edmund Burke, the essential founder of the doctrine of conservatism, should show you he did indeed have some conservative ideologies. :3

Austrian socialism is a more conservative socialism.

the end goal of lit types dont align with the end goal of normies.
the end goal of lit is doing the bare minimum so they have time to read, write and philosophize.
The end goal of normies is having a lambo and an a sic mcmansion.
and most people in america are normies.

I think you're wrong. I think most Americans, particularly those from traditionally conservative states, are pining for an Epicurean compound.

>you'll be happy doing work without incentives for people you dont know and will never meet
That's literally communism whether you admit it or not

people in conservative states want a big plot of land, john deer machinery, a boat, and a big cache of weapons.

Attached: Economic_and_Philosophic_Manuscripts_of_1844.jpg (260x383, 24K)

Marx didn't invent socialism. He didn't invent communism. He wasn't the first to critique capitalism. He wasn't the first to advocate for the working class.

Why did Marx and his ideology become such a big deal?

>It's obvious the elites own all the money
That's not what Marxism has to do with you absolute philistine

Attached: AFF61C59-392D-45C2-ADB0-985C48CD2435.jpg (1242x1495, 374K)

because he was right

About what?