/liberty/ - Liberty

Never knew Nazis believed in free markets.

4/10 bait

>>68663

>Hurr Durr you're either a communist or a Nazi.

Both are fucking Socialist Cancer

That is some lebensraum you gave the nazi in that picture.

>nazi has helmet

>commie exposes his brain inside a glass jar

Who's stupid now?

>>68695

everyone who bumped the thread

>equality

>not a spook

>>68818

>Insulting leftists then leftist insulting them back then getting triggered over why the leftist insults you.

Keep being blind faggot.

>>68884

Well at least that beats being blind to organic processes.

>>68884

>leftists never attack first

>>68891

Dey protecc but they neva attacc

doesn't go far enough.

>legalized rape

>legalized murder

>open carry for everyone. yes EVERYONE.

>no work

>free housing

>no Jews

>no academia

>secular humanists get the bullet too

>no money

>>68667

>Hurr Durr you're either a communist or a Nazi.

It's true though.

>>75314

>legalize Jews

>institutionalize feminisim

>criminalize masculinity

>free soy products

>ban private property

>>68663

>communists/socialists are extremely intelligent

>communists have never built a stable, technologically advanced, and successful society

jej, 4/10 I replied

>>76334

>communists have never built a stable

USSR lasted 74 years. Not amazing put not horrible compared to many countries.

>technologically advanced

Communists were the first people in space

>and successful society

The USA was in an existential struggle with them for years. Sounds pretty good to me.

I dunno, i've never been a socialist, OP.

>>76200

Fuck,, I'm bored.

>legalize Jews

Duh.

>institutionalize feminisim

Yup.

>criminalize masculinity

Not normally, but since I have a sneaking suspicion that by "masculinity" you mean "random acts of violence COUPLED with constantly whining"…

>free soy products

In most climates, yes. Can you figure out this riddle?

>ban private property

Meh, okay.

>>84125

>existential struggle

More like a convenient excuse to enrich the military industrial complex.

>>84125

Russian rocket science was a thing before the commies took power. It's also not really an achievement sending dogs into space when the whole country is starving.

>>68663

Why you heff to shitpost and suck dicks, OP?

>>84125

>USSR lasted 74 years.

USSR was state capitalist.

>Communists were the first people in space

Moskals aren't people.

>The USA was in an existential struggle with them for years.

And lost like a bitch, and handing over your economy to Soros and Sachs on platter. WTF I love communism now.

>>84125

>USSR lasted 74 years

Heh, not like they had to imperialize several countries and sell military weapons to do that, essentially living off of Capitalism

>First people in Space

Economy crashed trying to get to the moon

>USA Existential struggle

Having to deal with the Russians expanding their control and threatening America with new areas for nukes, heh, yeah, Russia was totally great

>>84189

>sell military weapons to do that

<Selling things is capitalism

LOL

>Economy crashed trying to get to the moon

You mean after wasting their money on middle eastern proxy wars.

>Russia was totally great

Yep, now its a shit hole in comparison under Capitalism.

>>84171

~65 years

>>84125

>USSR was socialist

fuck off tankie

>>84263

yes. selling things is capitalist, if the idea of cummunism and socialism is that its a stateless money-less society, where everyone just lives happily working in the dildo factory.

People saying "spook" are so annoying that they need to be shot. After all, the value of their life is a spook, right? Blah blah blah fuck off.

>>84341

>is that its a stateless

I did not know you were an ANARCHO COMMUNIST anon, i'm not.

>money-less society

Woah whg said anything about getting rid of money

>where everyone just lives happily working in the dildo factory.

We cant allow everyone to work in a dildo factory anon

>selling things is capitalist

Anon capitalism is not the same thing as market economics.

>>84353

*will be shot

>>84361

Marx is not the god of communism. There are different types.

>>84361

It's a waste of time trying to learn communism. Even commies don't know what the fuck it is.

communism essentially trails back to wanting what belongs to other people - only a cuck would embrace it

>>84368

This. I don't think Marx ever justified why he used the LTV (when there have already been other theories around, some of which he quoted), he never justified his social necessity criterion ("Why isn't useless labor valuable? Because it isn't valuable."), he presented several iterations of the stages of history, he had no coherent vision of communism, he presented three different arguments as to why worker-boss-relationships are bad and they had nothing to do with each other (extraction of surplus value, alienation, and - what he actually talks about the most - low living standards). I don't think he anticipated any counter-arguments that would later be used against his position, he wasn't even able to make sense of utility-based theories of value. His critique of the position of one of the physiocrats, I forgot his name, was basically that it wasn't his own position. A thinker of the first order? Hardly. A complex thinker? Definitely. You can waste decades of your life trying to make sense of the bullshit that Marx wrote. You have to do it if you want to be taken serious by commies. I have seem them flat-out tell people that reading the Capital is not enough, they have to read it intelligently. (A valid criticism, there is such a thing as being an unintelligent reader, but if the criticism ends there - if they cannot point out a single thing you got wrong, or any error in how you read - then it can be discarded.)

>>84379

I can get behind that.

>>84387

Marx benefited from the laziness and blitheness of his would-be critics who didn't meet his postulates on the grounds of what he attempted to explain. He basically had first mover advantage for an entire series of social and economic questions. He got away with not having counter arguments because nobody offered him a coherent secular and intellectual challenge until long after he died. Most of the dissenting voices read like nostalgic and emotional defenses of cherished traditions or religious people offended by Marx's atheism. Martin Luther King didn't reject Communism because of what the Soviets were doing or how he thought it would affect the poor and minorities but because it "denies God."

Thomas Sowell, a hard line proponent of the free market, explained that he was a Marxist all throughout his youth for essentially the same reason he turned against it after leaving academia: Simply that nobody else was talking about the problems Marx talked about or answering the questions he asked and rebutting him with research and history. He had to wait until he went to the University of Chicago and studied under Milton Friedman before he was presented with a cohesive counterpoint, and at that point he was still too steeped in Communism for even Friedman to change his mind. What ended up converting him was getting a job at the Department of Labor and seeing that the Keynesian consensus was so ingrained by bureaucratic self-interest that here too was another landscape where nobody wanted to ask the questions he wanted to ask or talk about the problems he was interested in addressing and the Department was supposedly meant to handle.

There were probably many well-read and educated people who thought that Marx's theories were unsubstantiated trash and his philosophy was bunk that didn't stand under closer inspection but they didn't bother to excogitate and articulate a compelling refutation.

>>84387

>I don't think Marx ever justified why he used the LTV

Capital vol.1, chapter one.

>he never justified his social necessity criterion ("Why isn't useless labor valuable? Because it isn't valuable.")

I think you're confusing terms here… When Marx talks about socially necessary labor he means the average amount of labor necessary to produce something, not whether or not a certain type of labor is valuable in the market.

>he presented several iterations of the stages of history

His theory of history is pretty weak, imo.

>he had no coherent vision of communism

True

>extraction of surplus value, alienation, and - what he actually talks about the most - low living standards

Exploitation, alienation, and immiseration are not moral arguments though.

>I don't think he anticipated any counter-arguments that would later be used against his position

Marx repeatedly addresses counter-arguments in Capital in almost every chapter.

>You have to do it if you want to be taken serious by commies.

I think intelligent criticisms could be made of Marx by non-Marxists but they're very rare. Almost all criticisms of Marx from non-Marxists are based upon misunderstandings of his key concepts. (muh mudpies) There's a lecture on youtube by Steve Keen about the Marxist concept of value and it's very, very good and he actually understands the concepts involved while disagreeing with key parts of Marxist theory. Aside form that it's very hard for me to think of anyone else whose criticisms aren't strawman arguments.

>>84403

He was proud of being vague. It was a skill to him to be intentionally misunderstood.

>>84396

Yeah, change your flag next time you shitpost.

>>84396

>Capital vol.1, chapter one.

Read it, could find no justification. Or none worth the name. Also read the relevant chapter in the Wealth of Nations, found only sophistry and non sequiturs, still more than I remember from Marx. The LTV is not the best thing economists had to offer at the time, it was a bad theory to begin with.

>I think you're confusing terms here… When Marx talks about socially necessary labor he means the average amount of labor necessary to produce something, not whether or not a certain type of labor is valuable in the market.

I'm not confusing terms. When I asked Marxists why mudpies aren't worth anything, they invoked socially necessary labor. The value of the produce of a Rube Goldberg machine is also discounted because the labor to produce it wasn't socially necessary. At no point did Marx say why socially necessary labor time should serve as the basis of calculation and not total labor time.

>Exploitation, alienation, and immiseration are not moral arguments though.

They are, and a pigeon remains a pigeon even if we call it a sparrow. Marx didn't produce a value-neutral theory.

>Marx repeatedly addresses counter-arguments in Capital in almost every chapter.

By calling people faggots, most of the time. Or getting hung up on peripheral points, then calling them faggots.

>>84396

Not even Marx knew what he was writing about. You see numerous contradictions, such as in Ch.1 he agrees with the subsistence theory of wages. In another (I think Ch.3), he mentions) that they are paid what is deemed appropriate according to societal standards.