Why do leftists insist that Marx's method is scientifc, and therefore correct?

it has no predictive value and is based on retarded premises

hypothesis:communism will work and it will be wonderful
experiment:the soviet union
data:millions dead
conclusion:whoopsie dasy

Marx's method can be defined as "kinda correct, but often not really".
He misses way more than he hits.

>its correct because its correct
lol marxshits are no different from religious lunatics. I swear.

"No predictive value" yet everything marx predicted happened.

The USSR was a massive improvement over capitalist nations though.

When does he hit and when does he miss? be specific and dont say "human nature"

Love that part in capital where Marx said
"we have to do a BIG communism with soviet union"
Too many people think Marx was some sort of revolutionary when he was a fucking historian.
He tried to predict the way the world would go, as after capitalism we would enter communism, he critiques the capitalist system and the contradictions inherent to it.
In no fucking way in hell did the fucker try to "force" communism.
Go look what Lenin did instead.

See

>"No predictive value" yet everything marx predicted happened.
Let me guess, you're one of those people that unironically believe we're living in late-stage capitalism.

>The USSR was a massive improvement over capitalist nations though.
Say that to Ukraine and Belarus and Poland and Hungary and pretty much every country that wasn't mainland Russia (and once in there, good luck if you worked as anything other than a civil servant).

>yet everything marx predicted happened.
lol no it really didn't. Im sure your utopia will come one day just keep waiting

you forgot the variables (weather, drought and other natural crises) and influencing/data changing factors such as the fact that most of the ussr is a desolate wasteland, the very heavy competition with already well established superpowers and nations, the heavy weight of WWII and the revolution, the calculation problem, the immaturity of the political system, lack of trade with other countries because of a different economic system, the fact that the bourgeoisie didn't hand over their property nicely and many other factors
in conclusion: it's apples and oranges comparison. further research/study needed

Attached: 1567873253697.jpg (540x720, 82K)

Not him but the idea that human relations are strictly materialistic is just silly, as well as his attribution of objective value to subjective aspects of production, like time.
Honestly almost the entirety of Marx's claims fall flat if you don't buy his theory that time has objective worth.

imagine an airport in a communist society.
>get in line behind 100 people
>next
>give me your ticket
>wait let me find it
>if you don't give me your ticket right now I'll go to the next person
>okay "hands over ticket"
>goes through security where they put on a glove and stick a finger up your ass to make sure you don't have explosives or contraband
>go sit down and wait for the schedule flight at 3:00 pm
>6 hours later
>alright everybody move your asses and get on board
>get on board and sit down on a plastic chair people crammed on the hallway
>alright everybody put on your seatbelts now!
>4 hours later
>plane takes off
>while in the middle of the flight the plane malfunctions and it crashes and everybody dies
>the end

He doesn't. Also, dialectical materialism just as a form of logic isn't even disputed by scientists. Its the three laws are all observable in the real world.

>we're living in late-stage capitalism.
We've been living in late-stage capitalism for over 100 years. Only liberal fischerites believe we've just entered into late stage capitalism because 80's movies are becoming popular again or something.

>Say that to Ukraine and Belarus and Poland and Hungary
Nothing wrong with them other than that they had market socialism and didn't really cooperate very well, but neither did the USSR in its Khruschevite stage.

Yes it did.

They don't insist that it's scientific and THEREFORE correct. They insist that it's scientific AND correct. And they insist that it's scientific because it aims to explain from observation of the real world rather than from metaphysical speculation or from moral principles.

It's not his attribution but social attribution. And the fact that a car takes more labour to make than a pencil is not subjective.
Seems like you're misinterpreting social, economic value as some metaphysical kind of value.

It's really naive to pretend the main reasons the Soviet Union "flourished" weren't the forced labor in the gulags and the constant "extraction" (more like pillaging) of satellite state's resources for the sustenance of the soviet machine. The USSR wouldn't have lasted a decade if it weren't for the imperialistic acts commited by them (which, unironically, commies are so keen of criticizing western societies for).

>And they insist that it's scientific because it aims to explain from observation of the real world rather than from metaphysical speculation or from moral principles.
I don't see how that makes it scientific unless you're talking from a strictly positivist perspective.

>Seems like you're misinterpreting social, economic value as some metaphysical kind of value.
Marx claims that what determines value is the time used to create a product and, to a lesser extent, the utility of said product. Yet there are plenty of divergent factors that influence value, most of them subjective (brand name, personal preference or the cultural zeitgeist, for example). Marx also completely ignores the competitive nature of capitalism which is essentially about creating as many superior quality products as fast as possible as to curb the opposition while still retaining a high enough margin of profit. If the value of time truly was objective I could spend 10 years of my life making a single chair and charge millions for it based exclusively on the time I spent making it.

>communism
>Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
?

>it wasn't real communism!

> Labour theory of value btfo by Austrians
Not even contemporary Marxists subscribe to LTV, the lynch pin of Marx's theory of economic exploitation, the basis of his whole economic project.

If the communist party running the USSR didn't call it a communist country, and by Marx's definition it wasn't a communist country, what is the value in calling it that?

>further research/study needed

I guess the other multiple times it was tried didn’t count.

Not it wasn't "BTFO" by Austrians. Every argument they make either is attacking something marx never said or stems from their own misunderstanding. Its also pretty rich they worship Adam Smith yet it was Adam Smith who came up with the LTV.

wrong criticism of marx > "have you read him?" > "lol look at the ussr" > "not communism" > [insert not real communism mockery] > "read marx"
you realize this logic is flawed right? marx didn't say anything about suddenly moving the entire agricultural sector to newly built industries or forcing urban inhabitants into countryside to produce fucking steel or to establish fucking primitive communism.
marx thought that after a series of violent revolutions, class struggle and conflicts the proles would win and communist society would be built and stabilized on its own through experience just like how former societies went through serious wars and conflicts but always ended up stabilizing themselves. whoopsie that didn't happen because history is not so linear and obvious. the bourgeois increased the standard of subsistence, workers no longer care, marx's ideas of society successions is not fully correct. but marxism has a shit ton of ideas so it's not refuted yet.

Attached: ho-chi-minh.jpg (1200x675, 115K)

I don't think there's really much reason to read Marx.

Sure you could do it out of interest or intellectual exercise, but someone who has been shown to be so often empirically wrong doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, even if they still remain somewhat influential today.

Adam's LTV and Marx's LTV aren't the same. Marx takes after Ricardo which conflates the sum of production costs with value. Adam has more practical, intuitive method of gauging value: how much is someone willing to work to get something. So, for Smith, the wage a worker is willing to work for equals the value of his labor time. For Marx, the worker is exploited has long as there is profit somewhere down the line because if trader doesn't physically change the product and pays the worker than he gets for the worker's piece, either the worker was shortchanged or the buyer of the product was. This makes some sense in his metaphysics in which labor input becomes embodied in the material product, but if you stick to actual materialism, and eschew absctract values, there is no objective gauge of the real use-value, exchange-value or market-value. The solution is treating value-making as a pyschological and social process, rather than trying to catch the ghosts of labor.

>pays the worker than he gets for the worker's piece
pays the worker LESS than he gets for the worker's piece

>either the worker was shortchanged or the buyer of the product was
either the worker was shortchanged or the buyer of the product was OVERCHARGED

Sorry, forgot to proofread.

his theory of value is scientific by mainstream criteria. that doesn't make it correct though. I don't know who claims that

how is it?

>Why do leftists insist that Marx's method is scientifc, and therefore correct?
Only Marxists do that and most "leftists" aren't Marxists.

How is the LTV and marginalism methodologically different? (Even Bohm-Bawerk had a theory of exploitation FYI.) I wouldn't really call either "scientific" since their both equally unfalsifiable and even if that wasn't the case you can always use the scientific method to arrive at incorrect conclusions.

You don't understand either, Marx deals in pure macroeconomic aggregates. How can an average rate of profit emerge when industries have different ratios of fixed-capital to labour inputs? Your understanding obviously can't explain that.

>there is no objective gauge of the real use-value, exchange-value or market-value. The solution is treating value-making as a pyschological and social process, rather than trying to catch the ghosts of labor.
That's just wrong since prices actually do obviously exist. Also if you want to go down the "psychological" route you run into all kinds of problems.

>That's just wrong since prices actually do obviously exist. Also if you want to go down the "psychological" route you run into all kinds of problems.
How is it wrong, prices can be partly the product of psychological processes, how is that unreasonable

>(Brand name, personal preference, cultural zeitgeist)
He's talking about value, not price you dingus

>competition is about creating as many superior products as possible
Lmao when will this meme die, competition is about making as much profit as possible, you dont need to create anything supperior for that. In fact, its more profitable to produce shit that breaks within a year or so, so that consumers keep commibg back to buy more.

>10 years making a chair
Sorry, thats not the socially necessary time to build a chair, and again value =/= price

>there is no objective gauge of... exchange-value or market-value.
There is... market prices are there. Now you can take that as given and there's your data... now if you want to explain prices you need a theory. You have either more supply side explanations (classical/Marxism) or more demand side explanations (neoclassical/Austianism). Both have done a good enough job at poking holes in each others logic but it's obvious enough now that you can't have a coherent theory of profit or explain what "capital" is on psychological grounds.

>empirically wrong
Such as?

value isn't the same thing as price

I'm amazed that nobody has built on top of what karl marx wrote.
Like measuring automation via its labor value or measuring the productivity of different means of production, I don't know I'm no expert.
But its been like 170 years.
That almost 2 centuries since he wrote the damn thing.
nothing?

Competition is about destroying profit.

Yes but whatever you mean by "value" isn't an empirically measurable entity so it's all metaphysical speculation. We're never really in equilibrium and price includes rent and such which is a political phenomena.

people do build on him but it's mostly consigned to scientific journals.

>competition is about destrying profit
???

how could prices in a market possibly not involve psychological processes?

>I don't see how that makes it scientific
Well, then you're retarded or obtuse. I can't help any further.

>Marx claims that what determines value is the time used to create a product and, to a lesser extent, the utility of said product.
He was only talking about products that function as commodities, so that they have utility is already presumed.
>Yet there are plenty of divergent factors that influence value, most of them subjective
No, these are local divergences of price which Marx did consider but also correctly judged them irrelevant to describing the overall reproduction of the entire system.
>Marx also completely ignores the competitive nature of capitalism
Are you baiting? He talks about competition throughout entire Capital.
>If the value of time truly was objective I could spend 10 years of my life making a single chair and charge millions for it based exclusively on the time I spent making it.
Oh, you are baiting. Good job, at least you didn't make the rookie mistake of putting the most obvious part at the beginning of the post.

You don't understand Marx's project. The only way to build on top of what he wrote is to have a communist revolution, not this autistic shit you're describing.

Explanatory theoretical construct is not a metaphysical speculation you fucking retard. And there is an empirical expression of value. It's called price.

This may confuse you eurofags but we have a candidate right now that's promising everyone $1000 a month.
His name is yang in case you haven't heard.
And to your astonishment people will probably not vote for him.
If a president that's promising people free money is not elected what makes you think communism(or socialism) out of all things will ever and I mean EVER happen in America. hm?

Marc thought price tends towards value they are not the same thing goddamnit

Are you fucked in the head? What does some people voting or not voting in an internal election of a bourgeois party for some silicon valley cuck have to do with communist revolution?

Driving down the margins and accumulating a bunch of sunk costs isn't what you want to maintain profit.

When you say "a market" that could mean anything. For analysis you would want to assume fixed constant tastes... then how can you explain prices under those conditions?
You probably have experience going to a store to buy consumer goods and base your understanding off that but there's also massively expensive fixed-capital goods being bought and sold which you can't easily get rid of after you purchase them for anything close to the book value on your corporate balance sheet which is being used in market valuation of your corporation. Think about the technical factor in costs and then introduce real dynamics.

>Explanatory theoretical construct is not a metaphysical speculation you fucking retard. And there is an empirical expression of value. It's called price.
If you want falisification to be your standard it's problematic since how the fuck do you "falsify" a supply and demand curve? Stuff like "socially necessary labour time" nor "utility" can be measured. Economics just isn't methodologically similar to the natural sciences.

>value is metaphysical
Jesus how many times does this need to be explained, value is the socially necessary time to produce something.
You do know that the amound of workers thus laborpower thus the amound of shit that can be produced within a certain timeframe is finite right? The concept of value thus functions as a tool for analyzing the productive process within a society (and yes, production is a collective effort, no matter how much elon musk worshippers who believe in entrepeneurial superhumans want to deny this)

>If a president that's promising people free money is not elected what makes you think communism(or socialism) out of all things will ever and I mean EVER happen in America. hm?
Just because most people don't see their interests represented in being handed cash no strings attached doesn't in any way say anything about the possibility of socialism in America, there's a ton of reasons to be pessimistic but that's not one.

>value is the socially necessary time to produce something
Which isn't empirically quantified or quantifiable.

To add to this, by value marxists do NOT mean "what someone considers important" or "something someone wants". These debates always turn into a shitshow because the two sides talk past eachother (this is more due to marxists not bother to explain their definitions, though if some wants to debate marxism they should at least learn what it actually is)
"Private property" is another example of this

>You do know that the amound of workers
****and the varying ability, training, etc. of said workers
I don't accept this meme about 'average labor potential of an entire society'. It's like taking a tree and thinking you can cut off a branch and just stick it somewhere else on the tree.

>You cant measure how quick machines produce stuff, or how long it takes the average worker to perform a task
Even corporations do this

That doesn't change the fact prices really do exist and a bunch of metaphysical theories surrounding them to justify different interests. It isn't just terminological since that's just the smokescreen hiding the pretense.

You can't measure for tomorrow (or even today really since you don't have all the info). This is a big point for Marx in Volume 3 of Capital. I'll quote him himself:

>...of a general importance to the question of depreciation are:
>The continual improvements which lower the use-value, and therefore the value, of existing machinery, factory buildings, etc. This process has a particularly dire effect during the first period of newly introduced machinery, before it attains a certain stage of maturity, when it continually becomes antiquated before it has time to reproduce its own value. This is one of the reasons for the flagrant prolongation of the working-time usual in such periods, for alternating day and night-shifts, so that the value of the machinery may be reproduced in a shorter time without having to place the figures for wear and tear too high. If, on the other hand, the short period in which the machinery is effective (its short life vis-à-vis the anticipated improvements) is not compensated in this manner, it gives up so much of its value to the product through moral depreciation that it cannot compete even with hand-labour.[15]
>After machinery, equipment of buildings, and fixed capital in general, attain a certain maturity, so that they remain unaltered for some length of time at least in their basic construction, there arises a similar depreciation due to improvements in the methods of reproducing this fixed capital. The value of the machinery, etc., falls in this case not so much because the machinery is rapidly crowded out and depreciated to a certain degree by new and more productive machinery, etc., but because it can be reproduced more cheaply. This is one of the reasons why large enterprises frequently do not flourish until they pass into other hands, i. e., after their first proprietors have been bankrupted, and their successors, who buy them cheaply, therefore begin from the outset with a smaller outlay of capital.

> unironically believing that a theory is true isn't a form of metaphysical belief

Imagine being this retarded.
If newton discovers gravity, would you actually believe that there is some force pulling things down, or would you apply the math to predict some things and update the theory depending on measurements that can't be explained using newtonian gravity. And use the force story to remember how to set up the equations.

Since no one has mentioned it yet: Marx picked the term scientific mostly to differentiate it from Christian socialism.
(Christian socialism actually makes my h more sense since they are honest about the fact that it requires 100% faith in the system and not just the typical "some smart people will figure out the details")

No Marx really did believe his theory was as scientific as, say, Darwin. It wasn't just about "differentiation"... just because you hold a different epistemological notion today of what constitutes "science" doesn't mean people in the 19th century did.

>this does not change the fact that prices do exist
I am not talking about prices, thats the entire point. This discussion started by you claiming that the LTV is inadequate for determening prices, which is irrelevant since that's not what it was meant to do in the first place. Prices are arbitrary and are a tool to make as big a buck as possible for the seller

he used the word Wissenschaft, which was borrowed from the idealist Hegel; Darwin would have been practicing Naturwissenschaft. Don't be an anglo

Well now that's really bloody convenient isn't it?

>This discussion started by you claiming that the LTV is inadequate for determening prices, which is irrelevant since that's not what it was meant to do in the first place.
I never said that, I said it was a metaphysical notion just like marginalism.

>Prices are arbitrary and are a tool to make as big a buck as possible for the seller
Prices aren't arbitrary... that's the whole point of a theory of value.

There's quotes where he says he's doing for society what Darwin did for biology.

Wait, are you sugesting that laws of supply and demand are just as "real" and unchangeable as the laws of physical processes, and we should build our economic system around them? Because the ones who use actually physical processes in their calculations are marxists

>thinks about philosophy in terms of what is convenient for him

That's what most of philosophy is.

>laws of supply and demand are just as "real" and unchangeable as the laws of physical processes
The real point to hit home is any such curve is definitionally true and unfalsifiable and doesn't say anything at all.

>the ones who use actually physical processes in their calculations are marxists
Marx doesn't use "physical processes" but hypothetical social quantities to determine a state of an economic system.

No, i was just making a parallel with something, substantiating the claim that believing some theory is actually not only a decent description. But can be used to say muh theory says this and that it then necessarily must be true, instead of it being something that the theory can be cecked on. Hence if you actually unironically believe a theory, you aren't doing science but engaging in metaphysics.

Because They're religious people in denial and adopted the term "scientific" as to replace the term "holy". After all If there's no God But History and the materialista dialectic is It's prophet it follows logically that "science" means holy.
>Because it's based on the causality principle, as science is.
Strange sentiment considering Marx couldn't walk himself out of a sillogism to save his life.

So What experiment would prove the correctness of marxism's various hypoteses?

>Hence if you actually unironically believe a theory, you aren't doing science but engaging in metaphysics.
Metaphysics is the creative constructive process, believing in something isn't metaphysical it's faith. You can believe in all kinds of things physical or metaphysical. There's really no good definition of science that's not problematic.

The general attack is it can't be falsified not that can't be proven correct. Aggregate profit could move towards zero any day now.

>The USSR was a massive improvement over capitalist nations though.
It demonstrably wasnt and You know that too You're just being dishonest.
And then there's this asshole.

>The general attack is it can't be falsified not that can't be proven correct.
I'm not making the General attack I'm attacking another side
>Agregate profit could move towards zero any day now.
I honestly doubt it

The fact remains that the western world has been slowly moving further and further away from even the capability (let alone disposition) to stage a general strike. A violent revolution against the capital-owning class is essentially unimaginable, and if you think otherwise you're delusional. We are an atomized, self absorbed, violence-averse, ideologically fractured people. I don't care how much you lament this fact, but the average union worker in the western world is much much more likely to hate the new Magreban or Mexican arrivals than the person who owns their plant. And that's assuming these workers have the organizational capacity to unionize... most don't.
Class warfare will literally never happen how Marx described it. You can wait and wait and LARP as a tankie and argue on left book, the revolution is never coming. I am a blue collar worker and my fellow laborers are infinitely more interested in the next football game than entering into the home of our boss and cutting his head off.

Attached: 1523159496640.jpg (610x471, 40K)

Well Marx makes all kinds of claims about what one would expect to occur like profit diminishing, if you doubt it then that's something else but the real attack is you can always claim you're just not looking at a long enough time scale making all such claims meaningless.

You don't have to read Marx politically per se, capitalism is still developing and where things will go is still very much open.

A little extra:
So if marxists say, the theory implies this, thus it must happen. They are being religious.
If their marxism is a lense through which they interpret history, they are being pseudoscientist. Since they will interpret everything in such a way that it can't refute anything that marx says.
If someone only uses it as another lense through which we can look at the reality, and accept the fact that like every lense it only is usable fir pseudoscience, then that person would probably not call a scientific socialist.

I mean, if a person unironically calls themselves a scientific socialist, theyre probably a pseudoscientist.
If we talk about the religious kind, I can't feally argue against that. Except for the fact that they themselves hate religious attitudes, hence must engage in delusional behavior.

But implicitly - by believing in a theory, which is constructred - they engage in metaphysics. I agree that they will not engage in it explicitly, and probably not even realise they're implicitly engaging in metaphysics.

>but the real attack is you can always claim you're just not looking at a long enough time scale making all such claims meaningless.
Yes this is why I'm proposing an experiment to demonstrate the value of marxism once and for all. Since It's scientific It's claims must be falsifiable so it must be possible demonstrate or refute them by experimental means.
What do You propose?

stop posting jordan

Fuck off to reddit with your scientism and fedora tipping. Nobody cares about the magial attributes you and your buddies assign to the word "science". It's just a word that was chosen to be used to distinguish investigation based on the real world from one that starts from moral premises and/or speculation. That's it. If you choose to project something more onto it then this is your personal problem.

>no line
>people freely going in and out
>passengers get seated naturally on time
>converse freely on plane with everybody in a common salon.

None of this has even addressed the status of our modern economy, wherein not only have class lines been blurred but so has the very definition of capital. We are a service based economy, to our economic detriment, and we could resemble the factories Marx and Engels visited any less. Life in sterile office cubicles is fucking miserable, but it is nothing near the factories of old, with soot covered children having this fingers snipped off in machinery or men tirelessly mining coal or tin in terrifyingly cramped mines.
Is a blue collar young man who uses his laptop and HTML to create a highly successful marketplace website a bourgeois? Does he own capital? Is a laptop capital? He's a millionaire, yet he owns no machinery or land.
We don't live in the same world as Marx did, economically, socially or politically. Our population simply cannot organize itself enough to stage a popular strike. We are much closer to civil war than a Marxist revolution. Even if there IS a revolution, it will not be Marxist.

the way I see it
we will either achieve
a dystopia or an utopia.

If "communism" stand for utopia, you can say that
we will either achieve a just society
or will achieve our end.

The more familiar with the epistemological issues you become the more difficult it should become demarcating pseudoscience from science. Reality is a real trickster some times.

Belief is always there, some things are just rightfully more believable than others.

Have fun setting up an experiment to falsify Darwinism. No matter the result it can be rationalized.

Attached: abstraction.png (645x773, 9K)

This. They always speak of some class-conscious revolution like it's inevitable.

>Darwinism
Darwinism and Marxism aren't on the same level.

All the problems are essentially the exact same and just because you can't see it doesn't change the contradictions with socialized production and private consumption. We still live in a world of profit and reinvestment.

Neither can be falsified.

I do not attribute magical items to science, I personally think that for something to be science it should be falsifiable.
I only use this criterium, because it is otherwise pointless to have a discussion about the validity of a theory, since nonfalsifiable theories should be - at least if they are good - tautologically true. Hence they didn't tell you anything.
As far as I understand this, this isn't being a fedora tipping redditor.

why wouldn't there be a long line if the airplane ticket is accessible to most people?
Why would people not be assholes if they know they can't get fired?
why would they be on time if they know they can't be fired?
Why would they not stick a finger up your ass if they know you have no rights?
why wouldn't the airplane be made of cheap materials if their only objective is to get you from point a to point b and know you have no alternative?

>Neither can be falsified.
Who says marxism can't? Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it True.

>I personally think that for something to be science it should be falsifiable.
You better go read Imre Lakatos bro

I must admit i never read lakatos.

>We don't live in the same world as Marx did, economically, socially or politically.
We pretty much still do. The only difference crucial for the revolution is a relatively strong middle class. But those will quickly get proletarianized once shit hits the fan, with all the debt and all the dependence on toilers on the other side of the world for cheap shit.

>I personally think that for something to be science it should be falsifiable.
Well, your personal belief has been long abandoned even by the very discipline in which it appeared, namely philosophy of science.
And it is absolute and utter nonsense that it's pointless to have a discussion about the validity of a theory that's "unfalsifiable", because that's what philosophers have been doing for a long time, and that's we're doing right now by discussing the theory that says "it's pointless to have a discussion about the validity of a theory if it's unfalsifiable", because that claim is itself unfalsifiable.

Belief is always there. Yes, but it is never actually fully justified. It is only the belief that these symbols make sense, that makes it possible to have this conversation. Yet it is not a fully justified belief.

Unfortunately true, I know many who will gladly turn their guns in if it meant the facade of comfort was maintained and that they could get their yearly vacation cruise. I lean towards syndicalism and it grinds my gears how apathetic and gutless the typical older tradesman is

>t. Welder

> But those will quickly get proletarianized once shit hits the fan, with all the debt and all the dependence on toilers on the other side of the world for cheap shit.
Motherfucker, this is the delusion I'm talking about. If you think middle class Americans will suddenly become class concious workers of the world your opinion is basically invalidated, your ideology has so severely handicapped your capacity to see the world lucidly that it's laughable. The people are and will continue to lapse into identities far more relevant to their daily life than class, such as religion, race or region. Zizek is right, "why is it easier for us to conceive the ending of the world than it is to conceive the end of capitalism", but it's IMPORTANT that he's right, but what we can conceive limits the scope of our potential action. If you cannot conceive it, you cannot execute it, and the average American cul-de-sac dweller CANNOT conceive the mass murder of capital owners. Nor can he conceive a new politi made up of workers which can muster the logistics of distributing the gross product of the economy equitably to each according to his needs. Nor can he even fucki g fathom the concept of a society without private property. How will he bring this about?
He won't.

conclusion: beep beep NOT REAL COMMUNIMS

>only soviet union faced the real world

lmao at your will to power faggot

By claiming it is nonsense and giving itself as an example, didn't you just show it is in fact falsifiable.
But that is besides the point. I think i have expressed in a bad way. What I mean is that it is a lense through which we can try to understand the world, and I don't think it is of any use to categorize all the possible lenses in the science category. What I mean is that if people who look through the lense tend to act religiously, then I would think there is something more about this lense for the people who use it.
Back to marxism, there aren't that much people who are against a communist society that would call themselves a scientific socialist - as far as I am aware.

Do prosperity gospel retards empirically prove that Christianity is nonsense too?

>series of violent revolutions
>people with pronouns in their bios will lead us to another revolution

face it the average commie is not capable of such of thing. you lost.

That's literally what his post was about you fucking retard

>If you think middle class Americans will suddenly become class concious workers of the world
Not all of them and not suddenly.
This is not delusion. What IS delusion is thinking that nothing catastrophic will ever happen in the western world again. And this is coincidentally almost verbatim from Zizek, if you like him so much. youtu.be/JCUQS7TgkEs?t=3582

>and the average American cul-de-sac dweller CANNOT conceive the mass murder of capital owners
First, what murder? What kind of edgy anarcho-retard idea of the revolution one must hold to describe it as mass murder?
Second, the consciousness comes AFTER proletarianization. There's no consciousness now, because as I said, the middle class is relatively strong, and the proletariat is very weak.
You seem to have ignored the crucial part of what I said in order to twist it into the retarded "the middle class will literally think itself into a proletarian revolution tomorrow, their material conditions remaining constant".

>By claiming it is nonsense and giving itself as an example, didn't you just show it is in fact falsifiable.
At least 100 posts daily here claim that Marxism is nonsense. Does that make it falsifiable and prove you wrong? This is so stupid. You should maybe read some Pooper and learn what "unfalsifiable" even means because I don't think you have a clear idea, and you're trying to apply the concept way too broadly.

>What I mean is that if people who look through the lense tend to act religiously, then I would think there is something more about this lense for the people who use it.
You were wondering why I called you a fedora tipper. Here's the answer: insanely vague references to "acting religiously" that are somehow supposed to indicate that something is somehow bad or incorrect. Probably rests on a concept of religiousity as broad and therefore as meaningless as your concept of falsifiability.

marxists are quaint fellers with a weakness for all sorts of disproved pseudoscience, that's why so many of them are also really into Freud and Lacanian psychoanalysis and reject evidence based psychiatric treatments, just like they reject evidence based economics and dabble in borderline antisemitic conspiracy theories. I see Marxists as part of the same broad antiscience movement together with anti vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, creationists, and climate change denialists

Agreed probably applied falsifiable a bit too broad. But it was a silly joke, that i had to make.
On the religious, I do not mean it is incorrect or bad per se, but I think that science - at least as I understand it - shouldn't contain religious elements. This may be impossible, but I think we should try to keep some boundary between those. But I have to admit that if I use those not too spelled out principles, it may end up being vague.

Bringing class consciousness to a culture war is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Identity politics appeals to fundamental human needs and desires and social dynamics in a way cold abstract dialectics never will. The vast majority of leftists realise this, and this is why Marxist criticism of capitalism is of a secondary relevance even within the progressive left. The real political distinction is not between capitalists and anti capitalists, it is a cultural distinction between globalists and anti globalists, with the left defacto sharing the former camp with the neoliberal establishment.

>What IS delusion is thinking that nothing catastrophic will ever happen in the western world again
I never said this. In fact, I think catastrophe IS coming, and coming fast. I just don't think it's going to rally workers together. I think it will lead to regional secession, race conflict and international marauding.
>What kind of edgy anarcho-retard idea of the revolution one must hold to describe it as mass murder?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
Come on man.

And:
The joke about falsifiability wasn't about marxism, but on the
> we have a discussion on this sentence, which says a discussion on this sentence is pointless

>Neither can be falsified.
his theory of value is falsifiable

take a look at any leftist group and you will see, they spend most of the time jockeying for power based on identity politics and performative radicalism, their goals align with the liberal mainstream, they differ from the other liberals only in question of degree, in being even more strident, and on a personal level more neurotic and dysfunctional. Elite neoliberals are more pragmatic, but they can always count on leftists as handy attack dogs to be deployed against actual anti establishment forces.

Btw. you're free to falsify some of the theses of Marxism. You could for example show that there isn't a trend towards relative impoverishment of the proletariat; that there are no big crises of falling profitability and falling investment; that there's no trend of the increase of the ratio of the total cost of means of production to total cost of wages; etc. etc. etc.

Stupid buzzwords. The 20s/30s fascist version of this garbage was at least believable and appealing.

People are not illiterate anymore and they're aware that capitalism is a global affair. If working class could achieve consciousness 100 years ago then it will definitely be able to do so in the future.

>mao
A peasant, anti-colonial, bourgeois revolution. Nothing to do with a proletarian revolution except for the red flags, or alternatively: as much to do with communism as today's China.

>soviet collectivization
Happened after the Stalinist degeneration, so the party was no longer proletarian.
And besides that, from the fact that a bunch of idiots 90 years ago in a shithole ruined by a decade of war did this in a barbaric fashion doesn't follow that this is how it will to happen. Stupidly basic logic.

>Freud
>disproved pseudoscience
The entire 20th century proved Freud was right about everything, he just isn't as useful to psychology anymore because it's an industry based on selling pills
Bernays shaped Freud into the engine of unstoppable western consumerism