Considering that most of everyone's political alignment, ideology...

Considering that most of everyone's political alignment, ideology, or general beliefs seem to go directly against leftists, communists, etc.

Since they are your general target "enemy", or at least the group of people who are directly against your goals, stand in the way of them and whatnot, wouldn't it be a good idea to study their views?

I started hanging with communists because el red pilled-o in university so they're not hard to come by to garner further perspective to avoid falling into an equivalent echo chamber.

Someone argued you wouldn't waste time with unironic flat earthers and whatnot, but I don't see that as a fair comparison since there isn't a large enough demographic of those types to really pose as a threat to my goals, and not to mention it's not hard to hear all their arguments and debunk them.

Where as Marxists, feminists and other (((people))) like that usually spend 4 years LARPing as intellectuals in university solely to argue against fascism/capitalism/non Marxists viewpoints.

So even though they don't have viable skills, they have more to argue with when discussing politics.

Albeit, most are obvious retards who did fall into an actual echo chamber of feels with no actual dynamic perspective, making a discussion with them pretty retarded as they're obviously indoctrinated, but there are some (and by some I mean like a handful) who actually listened to pol arguments and thought through long enough to give at least decent points.

Would reading Marx and other "philosophers" of the left be a big waste of time? Or is that actually anti intellectual?

bump

read your enemy play book

enemy playbook?

Read Saul Alinsky. Then you can read some Austrian economics criticism of Marx.
At the same time, try to follow any well articulated marxist online (youtube, twitter, tumblr, hell even some stuff on Sup Forums)

Once you have some grasp on how they "argue", you can try to read Marxists works.

The problem with Marx in particular is that he makes claims that are super contradictory of other Econ theory. Also the USSR measurably implemented all points of The Communist Manifesto, but there's always an excuse for that.

He is pretty hyped, he is right about some things, wrong about others.
Read Weber, that dude is pretty smart.

thank you! I don't want to shell out gorillians of dollars for indoctrination camp, I'd rather come to these conclusions holistically

I always nonstop hear "muh state capitalism" and as much nonsense as that is, I want to at least understand it more than superficial screencaps and limited wiki articles

I consider myself Marxist, and, despite the fact that my philosophy is perhaps the most dominant and successful one in the modern world, I do not dismiss everything else as nonsense and everyone else as useless and deluded fools. I acknowledge that they may have legitimate issues and concerns and many of them are smarter, wiser and more experienced than me.

Not you though, since you seem to have some very ridiculous views that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a useless fool.

>Not you though, since you seem to have some very ridiculous views that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a useless fool.
on the contrary, last time I posted a similar OP I got that argument "you wouldn't waste time learning about flat earthers and other deluded fools"
So I just qualify as much as possible to avoid wasting discussion on that

It wasn't hard to critisize Marx's economic theory of value, as he was objectively wrong. Yet, Austrians failed at that, as they were wrong even more. And economy was the one and only thing they studied.

what is that pic from?

some /wg/ thread, from google it just seems like a deviant art artist's work

Well,wouldn't it than be obvious that Marx and other "philosophers" did some serious intellectual work?

And do you really believe that all universities are useless and just a place to LARP as intellectuals?

Isn't it also obvious that the majority of (native english speaking) Sup Forums users are significantly below intellectual, social and talent curve of an average person, so the so called Sup Forums arguments aren't that valid?

>Well,wouldn't it than be obvious that Marx and other "philosophers" did some serious intellectual work?
yes, but I really don't want to fucking get a bombardment of
>marx
>intellectual
laughingpeoplememe.fuck

>And do you really believe that all universities are useless and just a place to LARP as intellectuals?
Yes, even though it's worded in a condescending way, any form of humanities in academia has less empirical, scientific data (they could use statistical data, but doesn't undergo strict scientific rigor, but I'm fine with that as I study mathematics and I undergo a different kind of rigor than science/engineering students) and more so logical deductions from analysis of things like thought experiments and observations of the state of society and whatnot.

>Isn't it also obvious that the majority of (native english speaking) Sup Forums users are significantly below intellectual
which is literally why I'm putting it in the context of "these niggas dumb, but if they still effect you so it's worth learning to AT LEAST argue against them better", since if they don't subscribe to it, at least there's a more holistic view to the matter and strengthening of my stances and whoever does the same
>so the so called Sup Forums arguments aren't that valid?
"they're dumb because they don't think like me so I shouldn't listen" the irony

>economy was the one and only thing they studied.
What else do you have to study to critique failed pseudo economics?

why study marx when debunking socialism is so easy?
1) The initiation of the use of force is immoral
2) socialism inherently requires the initiation of the use of force
3) socialism is immoral

Any further and more in-depth discussion around this retarded ideology is just sophist BS

>1) The initiation of the use of force is immoral
well, they tend to argue that racism is a threat of force, and that capitalism is seizing naturally occurring resources and restricting them to a select group aka the big bad rich, forcing them to starve/suffer/whatever if it were not for those conditions. And that property is theft so them holding that stuff is theft and they're going to die or be used as slaves for that theft so blah blah I've spent enough time arguing with marxists online to get sick of it and desire an actual cohesive analysis.

Anyways, much how like I enjoy Sup Forums's willingness to discuss such things as race-realism, inherit inequalities, and other sort of axioms that society has taken a different stance on, I appreciate anyone else willing to go against the current narrative, and give a coherent view on it.

That includes ideas on shit like private property vs personal property. I don't want people touching my shit but it wouldn't hurt to have a more in depth understanding on what constitutes as "my shit".

i.e. piracy. I bought the album and I bought the harddrive and those electrons in that harddrive organized to that music file are mine, so I should be free to share with my friend, but that goes against ideas of intellectual property so there is a dynamic that I don't have a full comprehension of. I want to understand better.

On property:

Your body and the effects of your actions in reality, are your property. There is no distinction between "private" and "personal" property, that distinctionis arbitrary and inconsistent, there not valid.

If you own the effects of your actions (like "murder", "spoken / written opinions), then factory that you built or financed is also your property.
Please ask me some questions about that topic as I'm running out of ideas with this monologue

Interesting. So you reject the labor theory of value, how do you justify his claims of exploitation then? Is it just obvious, or does it rely on some morality? I think this is some major claim of marxism, that x economically exploits y. Or do you just subscribe to his general view of history?

Btw. the economic critique of his theory of value was not the main criticism of the austrians, I think it was more the subsequent problem of calculation (how much should a product cost, what and how much should we produce at all)

Agreed user, it's always good to look at other people's perspectives rationally.

ask them if they think women should have property rights over their vaginas OP.

If no then ask "why do women get special priviliges you sexist" and if yes call them a fucking misogynist.

@ digital copyright:

It can't be theft if the creator is not missing the good that has been stolen. Of you buy something it is your property (the original property owner transferred the property to you via a voluntary contract), so copying the music and giving it away is not theft. The creator doesn't suddenly "have no music" if you copy your harddrive's content. You did not forcefully remove property - does that make sense?

Copyright issues are not easy though. I'd really focus on the violation of the NAP and how socialism is NOt a valid moral theory as it fails to be universal & consistent.

>Your body and the effects of your actions in reality, are your property. There is no distinction between "private" and "personal" property, that distinctionis arbitrary and inconsistent, there not valid.
I agree, but I don't have an in depth reasoning to subscribe to that belief 100%. I'm not going to agree to it because I think it's wrong because it seems wrong or because you told me so, I want a cohesive, logical reasoning as to why those distinctions are arbitrary and inconsistent, or maybe they do have a valid argument and I'm just willfully keeping myself ignorant by rejecting their material? I don't know, and I want to know, thus, I'm trying to figure out if this is a fully reasonable venture, or it really is just a big waste of time.

>If you own the effects of your actions (like "murder", "spoken / written opinions),
But that's the thing, there are cases where the distinction of my effect played into the matter. The way I normally approach it is that since value is inherently subjective, imposing these standards of values is inane, but apparently Marx took this account (probably, probably not, again I don't know, which is why I'm considering reading it)

Plus, I don't have a single clue on what exactly "theory of labor" is other than there's a consistent ratio with time to output. I dismissed it because value is subjective, but again apparently Marx took it into account.

Yeah fuck it just going to read the recommend readings other anons mentioned and eventually get to Marx. Also going to go through /lit/'s list of philosophers eventually.

Something something private property vs personal property

I take the same stance, but it also put into question the limitations of things we call "our property" and it's not as obvious

>I'd really focus on the violation of the NAP and how socialism is NOt a valid moral theory as it fails to be universal & consistent.
Indeed, the NAP out of everything (even with all le epin ancap strawman meme pics) seems the most consistent axiom to follow in terms of values bodily autonomy

>>Your body and the effects of your actions in reality, are your property. There is no distinction between "private" and "personal" property, that distinctionis arbitrary and inconsistent, there not valid.

It is not a belief. If you argue that my actions are not my property, I will ask you why you are talking to me and not your computer screen - you clearly admit that what I write, is my property and I am responsible for it, not my Fingers, or your screen. You cannt say that property does not exist, it's a First Principle.
There is no difference between an origami swan that I just created, or a huge factory. I built it. It is my property. If I fish a pike and gut it in order to sell it, it is my property because I made it available - I invested some resource (time, money, whatever) to make something available for consumption that did otherwise not exist in that form.
If I pay workers to build a factory, that factory is my property. The agreed to do certain manual labor in exchange for credits, thats their voluntary contract with me - but if hadn't been for my investment, my planning and so on, the factory would not have been built. So it is logical to say that "I built it", which makes it my property.

>1 post by this ID

Go fuck yourself. I live in a fucking post-communism country. And I say: murrican lefties do not know SHIT about communism. So they can go to hell with their imaginatory perfect world of gayness.

State Capitalism is a term originating in Anarchist thought it basically an umbrella term for the whole apparatus of state and privet enterprise as well as all the hierarchies that exist within. The contemporary use of the term usually means the State ownership of means of production.

How can you write a 300+page treastise on economics and not mention usury once?

By accident? I think not.

Look, I was a lefty, and I think I'm not alone in admitting I was one simply out of unexamined ignorance and a seething sense of "injustice" that I wasn't born idle rich. What turned me away wasn't suddenly making money at all, it was the fact that the Left insist that the Narrative is more important than the Practical.

It fucking infurated me that they would rather sit around talking yet again instead of coming up with a viable plan of action. So I took a good long look at leftist literature, and lo and behold they all suffered exactly the same issue. Big on wordy concepts, absolutely deficient in real world soultions.

By design, in my opinion. The Left is a trap specifically aimed at bogging you down with inertia, while simmering your natural hatreds.

By all means read some of the lefty stuff from the 70s and 80s, the post-punk stuff in Europe, they almost broke the conditioning then. But in general unless you think randomly attacking people in the street is a viable soultion to anything, you are wasting your time trying to fit a square peg in to a round hole.

>It is not a belief. If you argue that my actions are not my property, I will ask you why you are talking to me and not your computer screen - you clearly admit that what I write, is my property and I am responsible for it, not my Fingers, or your screen. You cannt say that property does not exist, it's a First Principle.
Wouldn't that argue in favor of marxist labor theory then? The things they output is partially their property as they contributed to its development?

And you are talking to me, but through an intricate network of things i.e. Sup Forums, the internet, our computers, and we acknowledge that, you're talking me ON Sup Forums.

Remember, I'm not actually arguing in favor of this, because obviously I'm not as well versed as someone who studied it more indepth, because there are questions I'm not sure of, or inconsistencies in fascism/capitalism (mostly strawman, but occasionally they really do get me to go "wow, really makes you think")

Plus, I don't want to fall into an echo chamber considering that's all I mock them for.

I believe in scientific approach and having falsifiable arguments, and heavy critiquing on my views. Wouldn't studying the communist manifesto do that since it's mainly a critique against capitalism?

>murrican lefties do not know SHIT about communism.
I literally said this in the OP man, which is why I'm wondering if there should be more study of original input by philosophers that came up with this shit and their arguments.
Posted the thread on my phone on my school's IP but didn't feel like replying on it so I switched to my laptop.

>Wouldn't that argue in favor of marxist labor theory then? The things they output is partially their property as they contributed to its development?
No because they are being paid for it in a voluntary contract. That means that they sell their property of the good they are producing to the person who pays them.

I like your questions, they are smart and challenging. Keep on!

its the same as creating something and selling it. If I sell it, its not mine anymore - I instead own the money I got for the good. Does that make sense?
If I sell my labour and the contract says "you work for me 40hrs and create what I tell you, and you get XXX pesos a month", that is basically the same

>I'm wondering if there should be more study of original input by philosophers that came up with this shit and their arguments.
If you want fight them with knowledge - forget it. They wield stupidity as a weapon and are proud to use it on everyone. Being smart will not work. Giving them the truth about their own movement is as hard as red-pilling, so why even bother at all with commie stuff?

>Yes, even though it's worded in a condescending way, any form of humanities in academia has less empirical, scientific data (they could use statistical data, but doesn't undergo strict scientific rigor, but I'm fine with that as I study mathematics and I undergo a different kind of rigor than science/engineering students) and more so logical deductions from analysis of things like thought experiments and observations of the state of society and whatnot.

I studied mathematics as well, and really, in all those cases, mathematics and natural science institutions aren't much more immune from corruption and pseudoscience than liberal once. Although it would seem that playing with numbers and running useless experiments is more respectable than playing with words.

All the same, in both cases there are people and schools who do the most important job in the world.

>"they're dumb because they don't think like me so I shouldn't listen" the irony
They have a negative level of authority, so there's no point of invoking it.

>What else do you have to study to critique failed pseudo economics?
Marx wrote on philosophy, sociology, politics and economy. Everything but the mentioned was a huge success.

The Austrians just did Economy. And they failed completely, although they briefly rode the Cold War propaganda wave, being ideologically charged glorifying muh American capitalism and denouncing Marxism.

A concept of exploitation does not rely on labor theory of value. If I remember correctly, exploitation was introduced in his philosophical articles around 1850-60, labor theory was his latest thing.

Modern economic models and theories work just fine.

> I think it was more the subsequent problem of calculation (how much should a product cost, what and how much should we produce at all)
Like, game theory stuff, Paretooptimal equilibrium. Marx was studying calculus before his death, but they didn't have good enough calculus back than anyway.