Criticism of Marx

Ok Sup Forums, enough childish ad hominems; we can do better than that.
What are his arguments?
Please share your thoughts and criticisms.

Other urls found in this thread:

investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Essentially his view is that the distribution of resources generated by people in a society should be based on need and be indifferent to by who and how those resources were generated.

His argument is that all workers are exploited and that history has been an ongoing struiggle between the haves and have nots. He predicted that capitalism will evolve to a stage whereby communism is possible but that there will need to be a transitional stage that he calls socialism. There is no point arguing with Marxists or socialists cause they start from the standpoint that Marx is objectively correct (about his conflict theory interpretation of history)and so they take his predictions for the future of capitalism as being inevitable. Just don't ask them how the socialism stage will look.

None of his predictions have bore fruit.
None of what he has claimed can be backed up by historical evidence.

the results are critical enough

...

>Never had a job
>Rich friend gave him money to live
>Died in squalor
No wonder liberals love him so much, he's just like them

Thank you.
>conflict theory interpretation of history
Could you please elaborate on this?

investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp

Or 'social conflict approach'.

It is today one of the three main schools of thinking in sociology.

The starting point of Marxist analysis is historical materialism, which examines the economic foundations of social structures, and the historical laws that follow the establishment of these structures.
Marx held that "being determines consciousness", that is, the socioeconomic relations that men reproduce daily in society - which are established by the relations in the current mode of production - determine their consciousness, the whole ideological superstructure that reinforces the economic "base".

Here's a quote from his "Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy" that probably explains it best:

> In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

It would be nice if anyone actually bothered with Marxist theory on this shitty board desu.

Retarded wide-eyed idealist whose ideas have repeatedly killed millions.
B-but not real communism!

Marx is a fucking gay commie scum who killed trillions of people

>bbbut my sociology professor said

Shut up faggot, stop drinking the coolai

Hitler hated him, thats enough for me.

Hitler was a fucking faggot communist too dumbass. National Communist Dictatorship, fucking retard

You're all absolute fucking retards who can't recognize the immense contributions Marx made to human knowledge. Your arguments are literally those you ascribe to the Jews "muh gorillion xDDD"

I never said he wasn't a socialist, he just believed in socialism only for his nationality. And he compared marx to a jew in mein kampf, soooo

Fantastic, thank you!
Why does he believe Communism is preferable to the occasional natural 'recalibration' of the social hierarchy?

What are his contributions?

Kek

Yeah, founding a death cult that makes even Muhammad blush is such a grand contribution.

All he did was promote atheistic socialism which borrowed from Christianity but replaced God with man and the various horrors and flavors are what follows. Sharing because I agree to is one thing, forced redistribution via coercion is another.

It's really that simple. And what is so astonishing to me is how people do not understand this and continue to shill for this pseudo intellectual who hated mankind and himself.

The worker is unable to add new labor, to create new value, without at the same time preserving old values, because the labor he adds must be of a specific useful kind, and he cannot do work of a useful kind without employing products as the means of production of a new product, and thereby transferring their value to the new product. This is a gift of nature which costs the worker nothing, but is very advantageous to the capitalist since it preserves the existing value of his capital.

This ideology is ancient history and his theories were an opinion based off his world view at the time in relation to the way the world was back then. There were tsars and monarchs and the entire way the world was run by the people in control at the time is completely different than today. People who cling to this outdated thinking and worldview of oppression and social classes are out of touch with reality now and are about as relavant as people beleiving the church should still run the world and dictate morality and ones beliefs. It's an outdated mentality and has spawned endless regimes that genocide their own people and finally collapse causing endless human suffering. When the fuck will people pull their heads out of their asses and stop denying history and the harsh reality of what has come from any sort of attempt to institute any states based off these ideology's.

The main criticism of LTV

Is this

There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command. The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.

When everything you said can broken down in fewer words than even i will use

JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEWISH
E
W

BAIT

MARX WAS A JOBLESS FAGGOT THAT SPONGED OFF HIS FRIENDS AND FAMILY UNTIL HE BLED THEM DRY, HAD AN INDENTURED SERVANT HE RAPED AND REFUSED TO PAY, WAS A DEGENERATE ALCOHOLIC, HAD B.O., DID I MENTION HE NEVER WORKED A DAY IN HIS LIFE? WHAT AN EXEMPLAR OF SOCIAL EQUALITY......SOCIALISTS AND COMMIES ARE FAILURES AT LIFE, FUCKING GAY CRINGE WORTHY FAGGOTS.

Also why would anyone even consider basing any sort of economic/political system from the ideas of an unemployed man supported by wealthy elite backers? 100 million people have lost their lives to their own govts based on these ideas. If anyone can take a page from science and look at the history's of these as experiments then you can easily determine the enevitable outcome. How many have to suffer and die before people finally wake up?

You can thank Marx for this garbage also. The ones not killed are completely destroyed by hyper individuality and moral relativism and this i touted as the highest virtue. This is absolutely not sustainable and will cause the wests destruction if it's not reigned in.

What kind of world do you think this child will be able to build or participate in when he gets older and also when his generation, all raised like this get to the age where they are running the world? This horrify me when I think of the future

How does it feel knowing that Adam Smith talked favourably about worker cooperatives, John Stuart Mill outlined a system of market socialism etc. It's disgusting how capitalists appropriate every notable thinker in their libertarian ideology.

A few favourable opinions of individuals don't absolve millions of deaths

>Ok Sup Forums, enough childish ad hominems; we can do better than that.
>What are his arguments?
>Please share your thoughts and criticisms.

So sick of this leftypol bullshit

KYS

People who argue against his beliefs tend to end up dead. That doesn't say much to the value of an ideology. If you have to litterally kill millions of people until the rest shut up nots not any sort of discussion

Look up the top 10 deadliest dictators and look up the strange coincidence in the majority of their political ideology...
>they read Marx btw

A lot of his stuff if based on moral philosophy and equality but the fact is that the reality is sometimes unjust and from time to time we will need to make compromises.

>social classes dont exist now
A fucking leaf

...

Thats a monetarist criticism, which is as unverifiable as any labour theory of value.
If labour didnt have value, then why do people pay others for doing things they themselves can do?

1-mao
2-Stalin
3-hitler
4-leapold 2 Belgium
5-hideki Tojo
6-Ismail never pasha
7-pol pot
8-Kim 2 sung
9-Mengistu haile Mariam
10-Yakuba gowon

his argument boils down to humans being perfect and homogeneous in all forms and differences only appear due to class discrimination by the bourgeoisie and such, that's it.

>its another left/pol/ flings shit in all directions post

Nobody cares. This thread is about Marx. You can't suddenly retreat back to the safety of Co-ops that literally nobody ITT attacked., That's called a straw-man you tedious prick.

An argument he didn't believe in because he wouldn't sleep in the streets.

his is a shoddy philosophy dressed as pseudo-science supported by flimsy off hand one liners that are never explained further.

Things like alienation is at the heart of Marxian philosophy yet it is the most idiotic concept ever connived. Why does a man need to "see himself" in the product he is making? How would you make anything that requires complexity without alienation? Do Chinese workers see themselves in RAM chips they make? Could they ever see themselves in the RAM chips they make?

Then there are the never ending contradictions. He wrote so much and contradicted himself even more. At one point he admits that what men do or don't do is of little relevance to history and that history is nothing more than a process of change of modes in production, thus making philosophizing in order to "change the world" kind of idiotic but then he recoils and scrubs that thought, moves on saying nothing...

Also it's interesting how he despised the products of capitalism as much as he despised capitalism itself. And technological progress was only relevant to him as long as it is used in the transitional period between capitalism to socialism and then to communism, but when communism is achieved technology would essentially be destroyed. It is as though the only role technology plays in Marxian thought isn't some tool that will bring upon utopia and allow no one to work(because remember according to Marx, human species-being is that of a production so not working is not an option, very ironic coming from him btw), but the role of technology is a reset button that will erase all progress and power structures of capitalism and return us to a Marxian ideal of prehistory. Ideal of living without society, without cities and industries, scattered along in small communes living off of the land. That is the Marxian view of the future, the past.

...

communism is shit but marx wasnt all bad desu

I don't see any active monarchs currently ruling any modern western countrys user. Sure there are rich and poor but there is the opportunity for advancement. Why do you thing all the immigrants love moving to the west from their country's that have antiquated class systems? They are not stuck in their cast in the west and can attend school, open business etc and have the oppritunity to grow rich without a social class system imposed on them by their society that keeps them in their social position

>105591965
>I don't see any active monarchs currently ruling any modern western countrys user.
You see wrong.

All of the top are monarchies.

I 100% agree with Nassim Taleb that if you want into politics you need skin in the game. Marx is like 100% the opposite, a pseudo intellectual leecher who never worked a day in his life telling poorfag workers what to do.
Communism was a way for (majority Jewish) new rich to depose the old money and nobility and grab power by pitting the lowest classes against them. Funny thing is, of course the peasants will have it even worse under their new overlords (see eg. Russia where the Tzar + family was murdered and jews took power).
If you dont believe me look up historic records of communist parties all over yurop and usa.

Sounds like he wanted to live in fallout world.
>utopia achieved

Communism is not about building but destroying.

Kek.
That's about as accurate as calling trump king user. Other than being a public icon and incredibly rich I don't recall queen Elisabeth giving me any royal decrees any time ever.

Instead people elected this fag

>I don't recall queen Elisabeth giving me any royal decrees any time ever.
Many kings in the past rarely did political policy, the cabinet and ministers did that.

pic explains his thinking, you can clearly see he knew what he said

I've read his "Das capital" and manifesto. Two biggest reasons I've become anti socialist/anti communist.
The irony of his ideas is that everything that is required for a communist society to function can only be effectively produced in a free and open market.
Even the open source software, which was the idol and the golden baby of many commies around the globe was only made possible by the capitalism (mind you, there is literally zero commie coders of any significance in the open source community, aside from a few very loud and borderline mental tinfoil heads).

Are you from 1950?
Immigrants moving to the west are either already stinking rich (ie vancouver) or uneducated arabs and niggers looking for gibs

A fundamental aspect of socialism is the self-management of enterprises by workers, retard.

As a leftover technicality Canada is tied to the queen but there is so little influence people are completely indifferent. As a citizen you see her face on one of the bills and coins and there is the novelty of a royal visit. To actually legally remove the monarchy ties would be a fairly involved for the government and then Quebec would chimp out and leave at the same time.
It would be pretty sweet if the prince took the crown and went full monarch but everyone would tell them to fuck off now a days

To understand why his ideas can't work please see the "economic allocation problem" in terms of the state dictating the supply side logistics through central command.

Instead of allowing companies to seize market opportunities, the state would perform that role under communism and dictate the i nnovations that are to have success, leading to at least efficiency issues (An example is Vietnam or North Korea and how far they have gotten in the past few decades while we have entered the technological era).

But there are more problems, namely that of who gets in charge in a dictatorial system that requires the suppression of dissent by the tyranny of the majority to protect the workers from things such as individualistic and democratic choices which might not be in line with the party ideal? This has always gone out of hand to create a highly crony and corrupt system.

He was totally right about the effect of owning capital on class division.
He doesnt try to "solve" the problem of capital as much as make a prediction that it will eventually be obsolete as a socioeconomic force.
So for one he doesnt provide a "solution" as such, which is poor philosophy, but not "wrong" so to speak.
His predictions have yet to come to pass, and may still come to pass, so they havent been "debunked"

He said some things right (means of production n shiet) but he didn't believe in property and he believed everybody is equal when we're not (more clever n stupid people, talller and smaller, stronger and weaker, bad and good,...). Apart from this all the times his system has been tried it's been a disaster.

My articulation of Marx was that he did not only intend to abolish the ownership of the means of production by one particular person, but also to abolish private property and the notion of something that is personal altogether. It goes against the formulations of John Locke and Hobbes that something could be personally owned, when in its innate form it belongs to nature, possibly drawing the more rational conclusion that objects do not have imperatives that physically stunt the moral agent from choosing to steal them. I feel that Marx's theory would work better if the world human population was a lot more bijou, but kept the efficiency of the horticultural equipment from our modern times; replacing the money-form with a barter system might also help.

Funny how everyone giving this system even the time of day ignores the elephant in the room, that the communist party becomes the new elite and yhey will abuse this totalitarian power.
This has been proven in practice last century many times over and is also apparent fir anyone with more than 2 brain cells. This is the only true goal of Marx and further studying or praising communism is a waste of time except for prospective party leaders.

So? Conflating co-ops with Marxism is dishonest and you know it. We're criticising Marxism, not co-ops.

He attempts to make the law of value objective, as opposed to mediating it through the subjects as it should be. We know that value varies from society to society (Indian workers versus American for example), but Marx doesn't follow this to its natural conclusion that the subject, historically conditioned though he may be, is the final determinant of value.

Having criticized capital as fetishized, he then proceeds to do the exact same thing with value, rendering it external and alienating to the subject. This is why the USSR was such a tyrannical, bureaucratic shitshow.

Also I don't think he fully grasps the conplexity and subjectivity of use values but I can't sum that up on Sup Forums

Because this recalibration process takes place through class struggle. Communism abolished classes and therefore "completes history".

Carl Menger go home

Bingo. The term 'philosopher kings' is the one they use for themselves. They're not your better cause materialism. They're you're betters cause they read enough revolutionary material to lead the revolution. Of course that they maintain this role after the revolution is complete is a burden but I'm sure they'll bear it.

His entire plan seems to lead to Socialism and a strong and authoritarian state, with no actual plan of guide as to how the state will one day magically step aside.

So Communism seems to be just a pipe dream sold to idiots who revolt against one state just to build another one that is way shittier.

Prove me wrong.

well first he believed that all humans are equal simply because they are human.

A more specific critique is the Marxist notion that scarcity doesn't really exist or that it is contrived by capitalists.

This then feeds into the problem of having an economy in which there are no prices, or prices are arbitrarily determined in central planning.

I mean I am a marginalist too but there are a few criticisms here which aren't true. What you say about it not mattering if a diamond was found by accident or dug up is something Marx addresses and is why he uses socially necessary labor time on average.

The underlining belief that all humans are equal is evidently wrong. The pyramid is an indispensable components to a fuctioning society. Basically it unnatural. The system should be built to accommodate human behavior. Human behavior cannot be change to accommodate the system. This is why all attempts to create a communist state fail.

No it's not.

Yeah it would be.

Marxist analysis is the best materialist analysis of capitalism. It's of course not the whole picture, but that's inherent in all analysis.

>I have read Kapital
No you haven't, don't lie Vladislav

Sup Forums has no real criticism of Marx, because no one here has ever read Marx.

They've just watched InfoWars or clickbait tier youtube vids about 'debunking Marx' without ever giving the ideas consideration themselves.

I havent read the quran either but i know i hate islam.

You have no real criticism of this thread, because you clearly haven't read this thread

The most coherent criticism I've seen of Marx in this thread was the post below, and even then it was based off of some lazy cultist molymeme video from 5 years ago
>JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEWISH
>E
>W
>BAIT
>MARX WAS A JOBLESS FAGGOT THAT SPONGED OFF HIS FRIENDS AND FAMILY UNTIL HE BLED THEM DRY, HAD AN INDENTURED SERVANT HE RAPED AND REFUSED TO PAY, WAS A DEGENERATE ALCOHOLIC, HAD B.O., DID I MENTION HE NEVER WORKED A DAY IN HIS LIFE? WHAT AN EXEMPLAR OF SOCIAL EQUALITY......SOCIALISTS AND COMMIES ARE FAILURES AT LIFE, FUCKING GAY CRINGE WORTHY FAGGOTS.

Its all based upon the labor theory of value, basically saying workers are exploited because by how much labor they put into the commodities in accordance to their actual payout is minuscule.

He also throws in alienation in the 4 different senses, but it basically means since they dont get to use or see their work they are alienated from it.

This is all totally wrong in the sense of modern industry because of the assembly line and due to the rise of the middle class... thats why hes wrong.

Your not much better.

If Marx is such a fucking genius then why is is revolution over 100 years overdue? Why in the aftermath of the great war did Europe reject Marxism? His entire thinking is predicated on two possabilities. First, that the workers of the world will unite and overthrow the capitalists in a bloody revolution and appropriate the means of production for themselves, leading to a truely fair world. THe second is almost magical thinking as it seems to rely on some greater force forcing the revolution on the docile pleb. Neither are going to happen. So lets talk about what else Marx had to offer. Anything outside heterodox economics?

>modern industry

Yeah he may have seen it coming but he didn't see it and 8bn people in little over 100 years from his time. Here's a fun little thought experiment for you libtards ITT. How does a fully socialised Volkswagen Group (with all 600,000 employees) look and function?

>most coherent

it's literally the least coherent and that's why you picked it you massive faggot

More importantly, why should we listen to the kike in the first place? He's not worthy of constructive criticism.

So:

>It goes against the formulations of John Locke and Hobbes that something could be personally owned, when in its innate form it belongs to nature, possibly drawing the more rational conclusion that objects do not have imperatives that physically stunt the moral agent from choosing to steal them.

>Marx doesn't follow this to its natural conclusion that the subject, historically conditioned though he may be, is the final determinant of value.

>see the "economic allocation problem" in terms of the state dictating the supply side logistics through central command

>Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.


I could go on. Fuck off you utter cretin.

He thoroughly underestimated the spinelessness of the lower classes and how adaptable capitalism is to crisis. Despite this, Marx still had one of the best and most in depth understandings of capitalism around.

His body of thought is not based on the Communist Manifesto. The alienation of labor is a much more fundamental Marx text that deals with the inherent alienating separation between laborer, its labor, and its product within a capitalist system. In creating a product, a laborer surrenders himself to it, becoming defined by his labor and its value, not his inherent value as a human being. The laborer, having become alien from his product, becomes alien from society itself. The laborer is dehumanized in his labor.

The magical thinking you're referring to is his Hegelian and Kantian influence, which unites human beings by our capacity for reason and our ability to seemingly accomplish literally anything. Marx is saying, in short, that it is capitalism that continues our division and therefore progress itself. This is the groundwork for the communist manifesto.

Do you think libtards know anything about economics?

So beyond telling me I'm exploited, what has Marx to offer me?

You know what's really funny about these posters Sup Forums? They're going to go on back to the stickied thread on left/pol/ and laugh about how they 'schooled some nazis'.

An eye opening view of living within any commodity based society. He's an incredible influence on historical study and his work owns an immense array of influence. He read just about everyone.

Most Marx stereotypes are false, his work has very little in common with his image.

he was a satanic kike as all political kikes are. With Marx the evidence of satanic possession is much stronger than average.

>Malawi poster believes in hocus pocus

Define exploitation.

>He predicted that capitalism will evolve to a stage whereby communism is possible but that there will need to be a transitional stage that he calls socialism.

Marx never made a distinction between Communism and Socialism, and the idea of a transitional stage is solely an idea of Lenin.

Do FOSSfags actually believe that open source software is a success story for communism? Corporations dump millions of man hours into contributing to open source. For instance, Microsoft is one of the largeet contributors to the Linux kernel because it is advantageous to their business of selling cloud infrastructure via the Azure platform.

He worked as a journalist for many years and had a Phd. He could have easily worked in academia and been a professor, but his views and work were too radical. Engels basically provided him with a stipend, so he could focus on his work. And he did, Marx worked himself into the grave.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory

His system so far has proven to be impossible to implement in the real world for any significant period of time
The subjective theory of value is better than the labor theory of value
Capitalism, for whatever faults it may have, has benefited the poor more than any other system. The standard of living in the 19th century alone rose by unprecedented levels.

Nice to see someone with an actual idea of what Marxism is on here, instead of the typical retarded shit Americans spew out.

>His system
Marx never created or defined a system, retard.

>given an infinite timeline, his predictions are inevitable, so he wasn't wrong

Really makes you think