No.13234
>An unironically socialist board exists
How do these faggots not know that their Marxist theories have been debunked?
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Murray N. Rothbard literally fucked Marx's shit up.
The impossibility of rational economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth, where the State’s fiat pricing mechanism can never effectively guide the allocation of scarce resources to their most efficient and valuable lines of production in a rapidly-changing world; the errors inherent in Marx’s labor theory of value (which Marx originally adopted from Adam Smith and David Ricardo); the flaws embedded in Das Kapital’s theory of surplus value in its first volume, which is flatly contradicted by the presentation of subjective exchange values in the third; and the way in which the tentative theory of capitalist exploitation arises out of the foregoing tangle of fallacies, predicating the ubiquitous “class conflict” dogma of Marxian hermeneutics.
I suppose you'd have to ignore all of this to somehow still be a Marxist. I've noticed most Marxist have taken to a more Lacanian approach to things but at the end of the day it's still the same garbage.
How do they not know?
No.13235
>>13234
>Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Murray N. Rothbard literally fucked Marx's shit up
Alimony is a tool of the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat.
No.13238
>>13234
>he doesn't know getchan exists
lel pleb
getchan.net
No.13239
>>13238
How does that have to do with anything?
No.13240
>>13234
They decided that if they cannot indict capitalism on rational or economic grounds, then they can shift the argument to an emotional or subjective playing field and just say they win. Frustratingly enough, it works, so of course they're going to keep doing it.
I'm serious. Marx very early on said that no critiques of his economic theories counted because he had determined anyone who critiqued him would be a "bourgeois" who was just trying to continue exploiting the proles. Meanwhile, Marx was rich as fuck in his upbringing and hardly worked a proletarian job, and was certainly not a prole, but he determined that he had a "proletarian soul" of sorts because of his rightthinking.
It pissed Mises off to no end. I remember him trashing Marx for this over and over again in Theory and History.
>>13239
Resident shitposters, anon, fighting the good fight.
No.13241
>>13240
>Marx very early on said that no critiques of his economic theories counted because he had determined anyone who critiqued him would be a "bourgeois" who was just trying to continue exploiting the proles. Meanwhile, Marx was rich as fuck in his upbringing and hardly worked a proletarian job, and was certainly not a prole, but he determined that he had a "proletarian soul" of sorts because of his rightthinking.
Didn't he die in poverty?
>It pissed Mises off to no end.
Marx just labeling anyone who disagreed with him a capitalist oppressor? I could see why.
Isn't it funny how most Marxist forums turn into one big hugbox? Seeing how Marxism is a mental disorder, maybe this translates well into the modern day.
No.13242
The thing I always found funny was the leftist insistence on reading books when intuition shows that Libertarianosm is correct, and one can make the jump to anarcho-capitalism with only some mold reading.
No.13244
>>13239
I was just telling you that there is a complete imageboard dedicated to communism and socialism.
>>13240
I'm not shitposting
No.13245
>>13244
It's all just idealism. In the FAQ it even says that it only exists to piss people off.
No.13257
>>13241
No idea if Marx died in poverty, but he didn't live his life as a member of the working class. He was very reliant on his mediocre publishing business and his friend Engels for cash, so it's possible.
Marxism has hugbox built into it. You need to determine the proletarian character of a person; essentially you must be Thoth weighing a human's heart to see if they get to paradise, and your only criteria is if they agree with you. All other people can be dismissed as uninformed, brainwashed, or evil. Those who resist are uninformed. Those who disagree are brainwashed. And those who work against you are evil.
If you declare the current state of affairs an evil plot by unseen schemers, it's very easy to see how you can lose your grasp on reality and decide who is good or evil based on how much they agree or disagree with you. It's easy to see how the jump was made from evil capitalists to evil Jews in the 1930s, and how the Nazis viewed communists as their biggest ideological competitor - they were competing for the same market, people who would buy into a global conspiracy to explain their problems. If you accepted the logic of the first, the second was only a small leap to make from that.
>>13244
Apologies, thought you meant it was a good thing. Not much context to go off of in your post.
No.13261
>>13234
Just what we needed, another kike
To the oven with you
No.13273
No.13276
>>13257
>Here's the deal: ancaps lack an understanding of the vast majority of historical anarchist thought, and so try to appropriate the term 'anarchism' to describe their philosophy which is decidedly not anarchist.
Most anarchists I've met are fucking idiots, so I don't actually think they understand what . For one, they hang around with marxists. For another, they are incapable of defining their own terms. It took me more than a year to find an anarchist who could describe to me the difference between private and personal property AND why they mattered, without ever resorting to "exploitation", "means of production" or "classes".
>The ones who do have started using 'voluntaryist' to describe themselves, which is a great example of using information density to mislead, but that's a whole separate rant.
If the term "voluntaryist" conveys so much information that Steve Klabnik is misled by it, then Klabnik is an idiot, plain and simple.
>So while academics and Marxists seem aware of the anarchist opposition to the state, they usually fail to grasp the anarchist critique applies to all other authoritarian social institutions and how it fits into the overall anarchist analysis and struggle. They seem to think the anarchist condemnation of capitalist private property, patriarchy and so forth are somehow superfluous additions rather than a logical position which reflects the core of anarchism.
>patriarchy
And this is another thing I don't get: Why the fuck do anarchists say bullshit like that as if feminism was somehow a pillar of classical anarchism? Neither Proudhon nor Tucker ever gave much of a shit about getting rid of the patriarchy, at least not in the all-encompassing sense that this term has somehow acquired in recent times.
To sum it up, anarchists are fucking idiots these days and a disgrace to the great thinkers the early anarchists were.
No.13313
>>13276
>To sum it up, anarchists are fucking idiots these days and a disgrace to the great thinkers the early anarchists were.
>early anarchists
>great thinkers
>
No.13360
>>13273
>What a capitalist would call 'value,' a Marxist would call 'price.'
Marxists even got this definition wrong. Capitalist's value is the benefit less the market price.
No.13361
No.13362
>>13273
>9) All of Q is the product of B's labor, even though B only receives w, a small fraction of Q
Why hasn't opportunity, investment, and entrepreneurial costs factored in this equation?
No.13374
>>13362
Because they are not real.
No.13375
>>13374
>Opportunity isn't real
That makes no sense.
>Investment isn't real
Meaning you can't invest in something. You automatically have it, I guess.
>Entrepreneurial costs aren't real
Are you fucking kidding me? None of what you said makes any sense
No.13437
>>13374
you're brain don't real
No.13438
>>13437
The brain is real, the thoughts are not. Immaterial concepts has no place in economics.
No.13444
>Is against leftism
>Has tricolor flag
Pick one, faggot.
Also, the Labor Theory of Value is correct. (And, this includes Adam Smith and Ricardo. In fact, Proudhon and various other socialists were already taking the Labor Theory of Value to it's conclusion before Marx came along.)
Also, negative liberty is a shit. (Along with positive liberty.) The liberty of the ancients or, republican liberty, is far superior to the liberal individualist definition of liberty.
No.13451
>Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Murray N. Rothbard
No.13456
No.13459
>>13451
>posting the trashman trashing some of his libertarian heroes
I don't think you know what you're doing anon
No.13461
>>13459
le trashman's reasons for being libertarian are sound, but they only really apply to left libertarianism, he is politically illiterate
>I'm a right-libertarian because i don't know what's best for people, our virtous captains of industry do
No.13462
>>13459
>libertarian heroes
No.13473
>>13461
>I don't know what's right for people, but I do know that I feel morally justified in using coercion to prevent people from voluntarily arranging themselves in contracts that are exploitative according to some dead smelly jew that regularly exploited other people
No.13475
No.13493
>>13475
>>13475
LOL EPIN NIHILIST EGOIST MEME AM I RIGHT FAMS LOL LEFTYPOL BEST BOARd!/1!/!@3@!?3
@!?4RT
RE
TRGR
R
No.13506
>>13493
There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;
And frogs in the pools, singing at night,
And wild plum trees in tremulous white,
Robins will wear their feathery fire,
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;
And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.
Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;
And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.
No.13618
>>13444
>Also, the Labor Theory of Value is correct.
any peer-reviewed studies to confirm this theory?
No.13621
>>13618
yes
reviewed by retards tho
No.13651
>>13444
>Also, the Labor Theory of Value is correct. (And, this includes Adam Smith and Ricardo. In fact, Proudhon and various other socialists were already taking the Labor Theory of Value to it's conclusion before Marx came along.)
Nice arguments from authority, m8.
No.14925
>>13234
>leftism = socialism
why is /liberty/ so dumb?
No.14927
>>14925
>implying all systems that espouse collectivism aren't the same
kill yourself
No.14932
>>14927
>implying they are
what a dumb ass
read a book
No.14933
>>14932
also
>implying leftism = collectivism
No.14934
>>14932
yes they are, you faggot.
No.14938
Libertards rival feminiggers in terms of faith that their idealogy is the one true word of god
No.14939
>>14938
>implying every libertarian is the same
>implying the core principles are based on faith and not reason
> judging an ideology by the devotion of its supporters rather than its contents
lol
no wonder you are racist
No.14941
>>14939
>I think it'd be the best thing to seize your property and jail you, but, like, you know, I might be wrong about that.
According to nazitard, this is preferable to an unwavering belief that we should leave each other alone.
No.14996
>>14939
>libertarians complaining that others are racist
that's rich
No.14999
>>14939
The contents of your idealogy are worse than communism
No.15002
>>14999
>you're worse than x!
Not an argument, you can fuck off now :^)
No.15004
>>14941
aaand you're actually not contribooting
>>14996
lol monkey, your group of animals is over there
>>>/pol/
>>14999
>argument by authority
check
No.15007
>>15004
>aaand you're actually not contribooting
Neither are you, but I act a lot less like an e-intellectual about it.
No.15018
No.15066
>>15004
>>argument by authority
>my opinion is a fallacy
No.15081
God I wish I was smart enough to understand OP's post. Sometimes I think I might be the dumbest anon on /liberty/.
No.15090
>>15081
try reading slower and with emphasis, and read a few books on the same subject by different writers.
No.15273
>>13242
>leftist insistence on reading books when intuition shows that Libertarianosm is correct,
This board is amazing. I've not seen such retards in the wild before.
No.15306
No.15324
>>13235
Who exactly are the "bourgeoisie", how are they defined?
Who exactly are the "proletariat", how are they defined?
No.15325
>>13257
So Marxism is basically a religion.
No.15326
>>14999
Explain, if you would be so kind.
No.15327
>>15066
Definitionally, you didn't properly defend your opinion.
No.15328
No.15340
No.16435
>>16434
kill yourself retard