I fucking HATE commies

[AbnormalAfrican]

View attachment 4655662 him btw

lore dump ?

 

[Chowdog]

May all of them get raped and killed. There is no way u js said "u have no idea what communism is" or tried defending communism. NGA 13 YO ME KNEW BETTER THAN U.
COMMUNISM IS FUCKING ASS

Edit:
I js wanted to rant not to argue. So dont bother. Peace

 

[svarddre]

its always niggas with asians or asian culture as pfp that have the worst takes known to man

Thinking an Asian girl is hot = worst takes known to man

Crazy

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

Dude i may not agree with u. But thank u. Thank u for using logic n making good arguments. Even if i dont agree w it, it looks like a blessing. Than u i needed it.
Start classes n teach all of those tt users how to argue

twerk for me

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

Thinking an Asian girl is hot = worst takes known to man

Crazy

pattern recognition

 

[Euron]

View attachment 4655681

The best reply in this thread

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

The best reply in this thread

thanks for repping me

 

[Euron]

twerk for me

I got no ass
I can show u a cool snake hand sigh tho or a finger knob

 

[Chowdog]

The best reply in this thread

 

[Euron]

thanks for repping me

Gotcha

 

[mohito]

This thread ends with me proudly stating that any communist/marxist will be personally molested and executed by me. End of story

 

[Euron]

This thread ends with me proudly stating that any communist/marxist will be personally molested and executed by me. End of story

Woah! Want an end

 

[willsmith]

May all of them get raped and killed. There is no way u js said "u have no idea what communism is" or tried defending communism. NGA 13 YO ME KNEW BETTER THAN U.
COMMUNISM IS FUCKING ASS

Edit:
I js wanted to rant not to argue. So dont bother. Peace

„but it was never real communism like marx said”
Shut up nigger you would fail econ 101

 

[mohito]

Woah! Want an end

No one dares to refute it anyway

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

„but it was never real communism like marx said”
Shut up nigger you would fail econ 101

have you even attemped econ 101 ? also ad hom

 

[Divineincel]

May all of them get raped and killed. There is no way u js said "u have no idea what communism is" or tried defending communism. NGA 13 YO ME KNEW BETTER THAN U.
COMMUNISM IS FUCKING ASS

Edit:
I js wanted to rant not to argue. So dont bother. Peace

Neoluddism is the way for us

 

[Euron]

Neoluddism is the way for us

Got me invested. Id read bout it the following days

 

[Divineincel]

nigga, talking to some cuban incel on discord doesn't count

+ this is appeal to authority/tradition fallacy

wow you read some jewish textbooks made by the rich and you just believe everything, don't you? just like a good little jew.

the truth is that it's us against the billionaires or rich generally. i don't even defend the communist ideology as a whole, but it sure is much better than capitalism lol.

We are fighting against forces of entropy

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

Neoluddism is the way for us

havent read much about icl, im not caught by primitivism myself. although it was very alluring during my redpill phase

 

[willsmith]

have you even attemped econ 101 ? also ad hom

Not ad hom since communism relates to economics
Ad hom is attacking someone personally, without connection to prior argument
I havent attempted econ 101 but i have worked with one big company in my area and had a meetup with the ceo (not tales) and i have knowledge abt micro and macro econ

 

[appleium]

This is why me and the bluds are all third pos

 

[Staddber]

source ? also communist country is an oxymoron its like saying waterless water what ? also who cares if karl marx was a jew . he could be a fucking alien for all i care

It matter a lot u r falling for a Jewish ideology which will never work dumb nigga

 

[Staddber]

Conflating authoritarian regimes with Marxist theory and adding antisemitic nonsense doesn’t make a coherent argument.

Try again

always the “ but it want real communism.”
Communism suck both in practice and theory.

 

[porn addict 67]

Why?

We can have a civil discussions we will both prolly learn from each others perspectives.

You can't learn from a cuck like that. He needs a bullet in the head

 

[RED LOOKS]

Communism has won.
Keep coping

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

It matter a lot u r falling for a Jewish ideology which will never work dumb nigga

nice spelling

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

Not ad hom since communism relates to economics
Ad hom is attacking someone personally, without connection to prior argument
I havent attempted econ 101 but i have worked with one big company in my area and had a meetup with the ceo (not tales) and i have knowledge abt micro and macro econ

so do i. So you havent attemped econ 101 but are certain all communist would fail are you serious ?

 

[willsmith]

Yes i am certain, also you just skipped the fact you tried to point out a logical fallacy without understanding what it is.

I dont want to argue
Spread love


rep my shit

 

[heightmaxxer1133]

300M dead from communism. National Socialism 271k. NS mogs

 

[hye732]

so do i. So you havent attemped econ 101 but are certain all communist would fail are you serious ?

I havent attempted econ 101 but i have worked with one big company in my area and had a meetup with the ceo (not tales) and i have knowledge abt micro and macro econ

i'm an econ student, i've done intermediate micro and macro along with a class on karl marx, @willsmith is right. actual communism is incredibly retarded

 

[registerfasterusing]

May all of them get raped and killed. There is no way u js said "u have no idea what communism is" or tried defending communism. NGA 13 YO ME KNEW BETTER THAN U.
COMMUNISM IS FUCKING ASS

Edit:
I js wanted to rant not to argue. So dont bother. Peace

capitalism vs communism is a retarded debate it’s the 21st century

 

[alwazzab]

Do you believe that capitalism is working

produced more wealth
innovation
freedom
than any other system the world has tried

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

i'm an econ student, i've done intermediate micro and macro along with a class on karl marx, @willsmith is right. actual communism is incredibly retarded

 

[BR32]

produced more wealth

For the ruling elite through exploiting the working class through centuries of slave labor and wage slavery.

innovation

Capitalists innovate for profit, not usefulness. The system rewards what sells, not what actually improves lives.

freedom

The so called freedom in capitalism just means you’re free to work for someone else’s profit. True autonomy is limited by the economic system itself.

than any other system the world has tried

Best system we’ve tried? That ignores how wealth and resources are distributed the system produces extreme inequality while basic needs go unmet for billions.

 

[alwazzab]

For the ruling elite through exploiting the working class through centuries of slave labor and wage slavery.

Thats very reductive. Exploiting labor doesn't work by definition in a free market society, being that its a mutual agreement and can be refused under exploitative conditions, of which bears a cost on the productivity of the firm. What you see happening in the free market is firms competing for workers, hence contributing to an increase in wages.

Labor would exist with class and with the absence of it. It’s something we have come to do to maintain the world we live in. “Slave labor” and “wage slavery” are not removed by communism, they are made worse as there is no reward for innovating or developing a unique skillset.

Capitalists innovate for profit, not usefulness. The system rewards what sells, not what actually improves lives.

Yes, through innovating for profit, it benefits society simultaneously (i.e it produces jobs). What sells is what is useful. Thats what demand entails

The so called freedom in capitalism just means you’re free to work for someone else’s profit. True autonomy is limited by the economic system itself.

Their profit derives from capital usually the company they created, own or run. Your wage derives from labor. Whether you dislike this system or not, you would be bound by this exact same concept through communism. You are not arguing for communism here. All economic systems require labor, with the difference between capitalism and communism being that the former allows individuals to chose whereas the latter doesnt.

Best system we’ve tried? That ignores how wealth and resources are distributed the system produces extreme inequality while basic needs go unmet for billions.

Does a free market produce wealth and income disparities

Yes

Does that derive from a difference in productivity

Yes

Could the government justify policies such as through education and hospitals

Yes

But in communism, the differences of productivity and meaningless. Its unsustainable

 

[hye732]

For the ruling elite through exploiting the working class through centuries of slave labor and wage slavery.

Capitalists innovate for profit, not usefulness. The system rewards what sells, not what actually improves lives.

The so called freedom in capitalism just means you’re free to work for someone else’s profit. True autonomy is limited by the economic system itself.

Best system we’ve tried? That ignores how wealth and resources are distributed the system produces extreme inequality while basic needs go unmet for billions.

read Marx's Capital. you dont even need to be an econ student to see how retarded it is. his labour theory of value isnt about usefulness either, he just claims that all value/usefulness comes from labour and refuses to ellaborate. that is what his entire economic theory is based off, an assumption from an outdated 19th century author

 

[BR32]

read Marx's Capital. you dont even need to be an econ student to see how retarded it is. his labour theory of value isnt about usefulness either, he just claims that all value/usefulness comes from labour and refuses to ellaborate. that is what his entire economic theory is based off, an assumption from an outdated 19th century author

You’re critiquing a caricature of Marx, not what he actually wrote.

He never said usefulness comes from labor. He explicitly separates use-value (utility) from exchange-value (what commodities trade for). Labour Theory of Value is about how exchange values tend to organize around socially necessary labour time under capitalism not about subjective usefulness.

So saying “he just assumes labour creates value and refuses to elaborate” is just wrong most of Capital is him elaborating that exact mechanism (commodity production, surplus value, exploitation via wage relations, etc.).

If you want to critique Marx seriously you’d have to engage marginal utility theory vs LTV, or argue price formation is better explained by supply/demand and subjective valuation. But dismissing it as an unelaborated assumption from the 1800s isn’t really an argument.

You can disagree with Marx plenty of economists do but at least engage what he actually said.

 

[Firstname.Lastname]

I agree the only good commie is a dead commie

 

[Firstname.Lastname]

You’re critiquing a caricature of Marx, not what he actually wrote.

He never said usefulness comes from labor. He explicitly separates use-value (utility) from exchange-value (what commodities trade for). Labour Theory of Value is about how exchange values tend to organize around socially necessary labour time under capitalism not about subjective usefulness.

So saying “he just assumes labour creates value and refuses to elaborate” is just wrong most of Capital is him elaborating that exact mechanism (commodity production, surplus value, exploitation via wage relations, etc.).

If you want to critique Marx seriously you’d have to engage marginal utility theory vs LTV, or argue price formation is better explained by supply/demand and subjective valuation. But dismissing it as an unelaborated assumption from the 1800s isn’t really an argument.

You can disagree with Marx plenty of economists do but at least engage what he actually said.

Marx was a moron who created a political theory in direct opposition to his own historical analysis.

Then for that past 100 years we've had to deal with 100iq cum guzzlers unable to properly analysis any of it while repeating the same bullish.

 

[hye732]

You’re critiquing a caricature of Marx, not what he actually wrote.

He never said usefulness comes from labor. He explicitly separates use-value (utility) from exchange-value (what commodities trade for). Labour Theory of Value is about how exchange values tend to organize around socially necessary labour time under capitalism not about subjective usefulness.

So saying “he just assumes labour creates value and refuses to elaborate” is just wrong most of Capital is him elaborating that exact mechanism (commodity production, surplus value, exploitation via wage relations, etc.).

If you want to critique Marx seriously you’d have to engage marginal utility theory vs LTV, or argue price formation is better explained by supply/demand and subjective valuation. But dismissing it as an unelaborated assumption from the 1800s isn’t really an argument.

You can disagree with Marx plenty of economists do but at least engage what he actually said.

My bad I worded it really poorly.

Marx creates his economic theory off Ricardo's Labour Theory, which states that "The value of a commodity ... depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production".

He supports this by "leav[ing] out of consideration consideration" commodities are used for, and focusing instead on a "common property" they apprently all share, "that of being the products of labour".

"Socially necessary" labour time means the average time it takes to make something under normal conditions, using typical methods and effort. This average is imposed through market competition, “like an overriding law”. So, in a given society, a good’s exchange value depends on the average labour time needed to produce it.

No modern economist takes the LTV seriously, for example uncultivated land has high value, yet it does not require any labour time whatsoever to produce. Similarly, art can take hardly any labour time, yet it can be sold for millions. There much more logical/empirical flaws to this methodology.

In hindsight, Ricardo and Marx lived in the 19th century. Early industrialisation and the "political economy" was still rudimentary.

Anyway under these assumption he claims that the rate of profit will fall over time (which it did not obv). Marx says that money spent on machinery and materials does not change in value during production, so he calls it "constant capital" because it does not add new value. By contrast, money spent on labour power is "variable capital" because labour can produce "an excess, a surplus value", and he measures exploitation as surplus value divided by variable capital, written as "s/v", which he says shows the "exact ... degree of exploitation".

In economics we measure aggregate demand, utility, prices, because it reflects many market mechanisms Marx ignores. For example, scarcity, individual consumer choices etc.

Ultimately, if you agree with his philosophical/social ideas like "alienation" or human nature, that's fine and its subjective. I cant tell you otherwise, and i'm not a philosophy/humanities major. But as an economics student his economics is both retarded and objectively empirically wrong.

 

[aryanroidfaper]

May all of them get raped and killed. There is no way u js said "u have no idea what communism is" or tried defending communism. NGA 13 YO ME KNEW BETTER THAN U.
COMMUNISM IS FUCKING ASS

Edit:
I js wanted to rant not to argue. So dont bother. Peace

I hope you get Charlie lurked

 

[LKira]

uncultivated land has high value, yet it does not require any labour time whatsoever to produce.

 

[BR32]

My bad I worded it really poorly.
Marx creates his economic theory off Ricardo's Labour Theory, which states that "The value of a commodity ... depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production".
He supports this by "leav[ing] out of consideration consideration" commodities are used for, and focusing instead on a "common property" they apprently all share, "that of being the products of labour".
"Socially necessary" labour time means the average time it takes to make something under normal conditions, using typical methods and effort. This average is imposed through market competition, “like an overriding law”. So, in a given society, a good’s exchange value depends on the average labour time needed to produce it.
No modern economist takes the LTV seriously, for example uncultivated land has high value, yet it does not require any labour time whatsoever to produce. Similarly, art can take hardly any labour time, yet it can be sold for millions. There much more logical/empirical flaws to this methodology.
In hindsight, Ricardo and Marx lived in the 19th century. Early industrialisation and the "political economy" was still rudimentary.
Anyway under these assumption he claims that the rate of profit will fall over time (which it did not obv). Marx says that money spent on machinery and materials does not change in value during production, so he calls it "constant capital" because it does not add new value. By contrast, money spent on labour power is "variable capital" because labour can produce "an excess, a surplus value", and he measures exploitation as surplus value divided by variable capital, written as "s/v", which he says shows the "exact ... degree of exploitation".
In economics we measure aggregate demand, utility, prices, because it reflects many market mechanisms Marx ignores. For example, scarcity, individual consumer choices etc.
Ultimately, if you agree with his philosophical/social ideas like "alienation" or human nature, that's fine and its subjective. I cant tell you otherwise, and i'm not a philosophy/humanities major. But as an economics student his economics is both retarded and objectively empirically wrong.

I think we’re talking past each other a bit.

I’m not trying to defend Marx’s 19th century price theory or say LTV should replace marginal utility in modern economics. You’re right that mainstream econ doesn’t operate on labour time value and that supply/demand + subjective valuation explain price formation much better.

My point is more about the structural/philosophical analysis of capitalism, not the mechanics of commodity pricing.

Even if you throw out LTV entirely, the broader observations still hold:

• Society is segregated along ownership vs labour lines.
• People who own productive assets extract income from people who don’t.
• Workers have less bargaining power because they need wages to survive.
• Profit maximization structurally incentivizes cost cutting on labour.

You don’t need labour time value theory for any of that to be true you can observe it empirically in wage stagnation vs productivity, wealth concentration, etc.

So when I reference Marx, I’m not appealing to him as a modern economist but as a political economist / social theorist analyzing power relations under capitalism/imperialism.

You can reject his value theory and still engage with concepts like alienation, class power, or ideological normalization (“bread and circuses”) because those operate at a sociological level, not a price-theory level.

Critique his economics if you want, that’s fair. I just think dismissing the entire framework because 19th century value theory is outdated misses the parts that are still analytically useful.

 

[hye732]

I think we’re talking past each other a bit.

I’m not trying to defend Marx’s 19th century price theory or say LTV should replace marginal utility in modern economics. You’re right that mainstream econ doesn’t operate on labour time value and that supply/demand + subjective valuation explain price formation much better.

My point is more about the structural/philosophical analysis of capitalism, not the mechanics of commodity pricing.

Even if you throw out LTV entirely, the broader observations still hold:

• Society is segregated along ownership vs labour lines.
• People who own productive assets extract income from people who don’t.
• Workers have less bargaining power because they need wages to survive.
• Profit maximization structurally incentivizes cost cutting on labour.

You don’t need labour time value theory for any of that to be true you can observe it empirically in wage stagnation vs productivity, wealth concentration, etc.

So when I reference Marx, I’m not appealing to him as a modern economist but as a political economist / social theorist analyzing power relations under capitalism/imperialism.

You can reject his value theory and still engage with concepts like alienation, class power, or ideological normalization (“bread and circuses”) because those operate at a sociological level, not a price-theory level.

Critique his economics if you want, that’s fair. I just think dismissing the entire framework because 19th century value theory is outdated misses the parts that are still analytically useful.

No don't get me wrong I'm not dismissing his entire framework and to be honest I'm not that educated on philosophy/social theories in general to even properly critique it.

I'm just saying his economic theory/methodology especially in Capital is questionable at best. It leads him to the conclusion of the law of the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall", which evidently did not happen. Similarly, absolute "immeseration", the fall in standards of living or income also did not happen like he predicted.

However, if human nature or "species-being" is to be social producers, and alienation in bourgeois civil society creates individuals who cannot become a "true man" because it is egoistic and selfish, then yea his philosophical ideas still hold despite any economic critiques.

If you think about it from a perspective of class power, he is making a humanistic claim about social relations and what it means to be a human being. I can't debate that. Rising living standards, income, productivity etc. as macroeconomic indicators means nothing if the "bourgeoise" are still gaining power and "extracting" from workers who are being alienated from their "species-life".

My point is about his economics specifically, Capital is based off very outdated assumptions and Marx uses very unreliable economic methodologies to support his claims. Consequently, he makes enitrely wrong empirical predictions. Marx is a bad economist, I don't know if he is a bad philosopher.