all comments

[] -0 points  

I find Marxists don't understand Marx or what is wrong with his theories. They are gullible. Marx existed before people understood prices and he certainly didn't as well. Why would people idolize an "economist" from the 1850s who contributed zero ideas that have withstood the test of time. He wasn't an economist, because then he would have worthwhile contributions, but instead a propagandist.

Me thinking I was somehow hyper-intelligent for agreeing with Marx would be like me thinking I was hyper-intelligent for appreciating Socrates' view on biology.

Marx didn't understand prices in conventional markets and therefor there is zero chance that he understood prices like interest rates and their impact on the economy. It's relevant to the discussion but he had a complete blind spot for the technicals of that subject.

If I were to debate Marx today it would be like arguing with someone from the 1200s about how nuclear power works, who doesn't even understand what an atom is.

Face it. Marx is dated. The only way you would think he was right in contrast to people who have a much more modern and rigorous view on the subject is if you were a psuedo-intellectual who agrees with anything you pick up.

Did you try to critique him when you read him? That's a pretty normal thing to do. It's called critical thinking. So really, non-rhetorical question, to you attempt to find flaws?

Because they are blindingly obvious to anyone who has studied even the basics of economics. Base theory uses backwards causality. The inevitability of communism uses circular logic, and is based on value judgements that have nothing to do with predicting any outcome. His concept of false consciousness and his guidance on how to confront it is outright anti-intellectual.

The marginalist revolution happened. It's technically accurate. But I'm sure you will avoid it to avoid the risk of exposing yourself to false consciousness. I've read Marx. Will you at least read Manger?

I would recommend you at least be familiar with the last currently accepted economics that is 140 years old at this point.

[] -0 points  

Yep, Marx used Ricardo's(and the other classical liberal's) flawed cost theory of value. Unlike the liberal economists, he took their idea to its full conclusion and reasoned that labor alone gives things value, thus laborers own the whole of the thing they produce, never mind contract, never mind investment, never mind infrastructure, etc.

The cost theory of value is wrong because it assumes value is intrinsic to the thing itself. This is false. An object has no value; WE VALUE IT. That distinction is what subjective theory of value is all about. Menger, Mises, and others solved the mistake of the classical liberal economists and roundly refuted Marx and communist theory.

Von Mises in particular is an absolute beast of epistemological and apodictic reasoning which is the basis of all economic investigation. His book on Socialism completely refutes socialism and communism alike, even when assuming 99% of the assumptions for these theories are true. He falls all the way back to one single concern: price. And he mops the floor with them. They had no answer to his rebuttal and prominent socialists of the 50s even admitted defeat, claiming that they'd have to redefine socialism in order to salvage it.

[] -0 points  

*at least

[] -1 points  

I'm tired of communists denying things are communist only after they result in a mountain of bodies.

It doesn't matter what the formal definition is if communists only use it as a shield to excuse mass murder.

[] -0 points  

And if you are one of the rare communists who opposes all the forms of murderous governments who call themselves communist while not permitting workers ownership over the means of production, I have one thing to say to you:

You are a useful idiot aiding in the concealment of mass murderers.

[] -0 points  

Commies are a pestilence on the nation.

[] -0 points  

For me the problem is not our society abusing the word "communism", it's contries that call themselves communist that have done this. Back when Marx wrote the manifesto, communism was a pretty popular thing, and so dicatorships used it as a way of saying "Hey this state is actually good, we're not just some power-hungry people". And so in trying to appeal people that they were'nt as bad, they transformed the word communism into something bad. A modern example of this is the word "feminism", which has come from meaning support for equal rights to an almost extremist sexism in some cases. The problem isn't the concept, or the people (Okay, that last one maybe a bit), the problem is that our language does not evolve at the same pace than our concepts do. For example, the word "imbecile" used to be a medical term to refer to mentally disabled people, but due to the evolution of the meaning of the word it had to be scrapped in favour of "mental retardation", which again has gotten a bad connotation.

[] -0 points  

I kind of dislike how no one is willing to give an example.

What concept do people associate with communism that isn't communism?

You are being really vague about "society abusing the word communism".

Is it just that people dislike it? Most of the things I see on NAB are people talking about it negatively, rightly so, but that in and of itself isn't misunderstanding it.

Can you link to someone on NAB that has a poor conception of communism and then explain from the text of Marx how Marx's theories contradict that?

[] -0 points  

They like to think that communism without statism can be achieved with a group of people that has more than 3 digits.

[] -1 points  

Commies like you peddle lies to people too stupid to know better.

[] -5 points  

That's just the sort of thing a communist world say.

[] -2 points  

The only form of socialism that works is national socialism.

[] -1 points  

Actually that doesn't work either. Read some Mises to understand how price controls fuck everything up.