3.14chan

[Return]

Posting mode: Reply

File: 37778.jpg - (59.8kb, 480x563, Karl_Marx.jpg) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Anonymous 07/5/2009(Thu)07:22:39 No.12250

So what do you guys think about Karl Marx?

Expand All Images

Anonymous 07/5/2009(Thu)09:47:49 No.12319

He was a smart guy and communism was a great idea!

Too bad that communism didn't work in real life...

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)12:43:39 No.13031

>>12250
Cheese and communism are two opposites in life.

Cheese is a horrible idea but works out very nicely.

Communism is a great idea but doesn't work out very nicely at all.

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)02:23:59 No.13177

>>12319
name me a place where communism existed

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)04:57:48 No.13485

Claiming to be rational isn't enough to be rational.

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)06:15:12 No.13620

>>13177
Great. Another one of those fucking douchebags who think Communism is still a viable idea because it "has never been properly practiced". What horseshit, it has been attempted many times already and failed. There's no waiting to be had, it will never work.

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)07:29:55 No.13668

>>13177
The reason why communism has never existed is because it is impossible.

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)10:29:12 No.13845

>>13620
>>13668

please don't defend people who say "communism didn't work in real life... herp derp" because that statement is technically WRONG - THIS IS SCIENCE MOTHERFUCKER LEARN IT

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)11:58:55 No.13928

>>13845
you're one dumb motherfucker
it's not science
lrn2since and lrn2laguage philosophy

Anonymous 08/5/2009(Fri)03:15:53 No.14105

Today capitalism has a lot of communism features, if capitalism continued as during century XVIII there would be no way for it survive.

Karl Marx was a intteligent man, but he couldn't foresee that a capitalism nation would care about it's workers like it is today.

Anonymous 09/5/2009(Sat)11:24:35 No.16669

>>13845
Communism did work in real life? Where?
>>14105
I don't see why Marx believed that worker's unions could not exist under a capitalist regime, not every nation in his day was oppressive enough to gun down strikers and in those nations skilled labour was getting increasingly scarce as the industrial revolution progressed.

Anonymous 09/5/2009(Sat)04:25:11 No.16777

>>16669
First of all: I'm not >>13845

I think that the nearest form of pratical communism is the primitive communism:
The model of primitive communism applies to early human societies because hunter-gatherer societies had no stratification order and did not create surplus. Furthermore primitive societies may have contained all of the features presently associated with the goals of "communism".

In a primitive communist society, all able bodied persons would have engaged in obtaining food, and everyone would share in what was produced by hunting and gathering. There would be almost no private property, other than articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive society produced no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed. The few things that existed for any length of time (tools, housing) were held communally. There would have been no state.

>I don't see why Marx believed that worker's unions could not exist under a capitalist regime(...)
When we see past changes it seems obvious because we know how it started and how it end.
When we look at the future it is not that obvious because we only know how it started.

Anonymous 09/5/2009(Sat)10:32:50 No.17280

>>16777
made up anthropology is made up
and that's not even it
primitive societies had verifiably "criminals" (or whatever you want to call them) and violence
however, according to marxist dialectics, a communist society does NOT have that because the material wealth (wich comes with it) made everybody too happy to antagonize each other
apparently neither you nor the other commie in this thread has a clue as to what marx' work is all about
if you want me to convince otherwise start with:
"defending the validity of his dialectic method and the usage of the labor theory of value in the 21st century should not be rejected as ignorant-teenage-grade-retarded because[...]"

Anonymous 10/5/2009(Sun)12:55:19 No.17376

>>17280
I think that anarchism and communism are impossible in big populations, but there is something similar in some tribal groups, of course it's not Mark's communism, but are the nearest that you can find to "communism".

Of course there is criminality because there are psychopaths anywhere but many of our crimes make no sense when there is no private property (steal, robber, invasion).

Those groups that advocate a return to or are inspired by hunter-gatherer society are associated with the movement of anarcho-primitivism. However, Marxists believe that this would be an impossible and undesireable task.

Anonymous 10/5/2009(Sun)09:31:45 No.17702

>>16777

First of all: I'm not >>17280

It's still not communism if it's the closest thing, even in a gift economy you need the concept of private property for obvious reasons. Also many of the facts you've stated are inconclusive, tools and housing were not always communally owned, individuals who did not obey the tribal customs such as "I make you a bow, you give me your first gazelle" or "I help build your hut, you help build mine" were punished by the chief. This could be described as a regulated barter economy.

I don't expect Marx to have been able to predict the future, though he should have been able to identify the factors which influence economic disparity and extrapolate the effects when certain parameters change and realise there are alternatives to having a communist party take over. In fact I expect he did but didn't publish anything for political reasons.

>>17376
The rich are rarely victims of property crime, it's usually the very poor who are targetted.

Anonymous 11/5/2009(Mon)04:02:18 No.27108

>>17702
Pure capitalism and pure communism never existed in practice. Today "capitalist" nations are very far from capitalism.

Some consider laissez-faire to be "pure capitalism." Laissez-faire (French, "leave to do (by itself)"), signifies minimizing or eliminating state interference in economic affairs and the competitive process, allowing the free play of "supply and demand." Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in practice. Because all large economies today have a mixture of private and public ownership and control, some feel that the term "mixed economies" more precisely describes most contemporary economies. In the "capitalist mixed economy", the state intervenes in market activity and provides many services.

The nearest form of socialism can be found in some small groups (not all).
Also, they have low criminality not because of material wealth but because they need each other to survive.

Anonymous 11/5/2009(Mon)04:55:24 No.27309

File: 72090.jpg - (7.46kb, 297x198, 4redx.jpg)

>>17702
>I don't expect Marx to have been able to predict the future, though he should have been able to identify the factors which influence economic disparity and extrapolate the effects when certain parameters change and realise there are alternatives to having a communist party take over.

Again, in retrospective everthing seems very logical, but foresight is something much harder to do.

Today there is a lot of people talking about how will be the future (global warming, economy, politcs, etc) Like them, Marx saw a problem and tried to allert people about it and the best solution that he could think with the information that he had.

Communism seemed like a good idea at the time but now we know that it don't work as planned...

Anonymous 11/5/2009(Mon)09:29:37 No.28369

I just started studying Marx recently and am new to social sciency things.

My readings so far;
The bourgeoisie (capitalist middle class?) wrongly believed themselves to be the norm for society (as aresult of indulging in surplus product from laborers?)

Men had become worshippers of their creations (where as they mayhave previously worshipped their creator in the form of God).

It seems, from what i have read so far, that he borrows these ideas from Hegel and Feuerbach.
I have heard that Marx had his own style of critical thinking but I cannot find any good examples of it.

Anonymous 14/5/2009(Thu)05:01:57 No.32143

Huge faggot is all he is. That's all.

Anonymous 14/5/2009(Thu)10:10:10 No.32514

>>28369
Social science is not like physics where you can perform experiments to test your theories, not only because no one has that kind of power over a society but also because there are an impossibly large number of factors which can influence an outcome. You would need to be either omnipotent, a charlatan or an idiot to treat theories in social science as concrete conclusions, yet that's exactly what Hegel and his followers believed according to their notion of concrete universal.

The validity of those 2 conclusions you have there really depends on how you treat them. Many bourgeoisie engaged in mental labor and had every reason to view themselves as regular plebs and indeed there are similarities between religion and how people treat their possessions, idolatry one might call it, but to assume your assertions are valid everywhere all the time is without scientific basis.

Anonymous 25/5/2009(Mon)03:34:25 No.43904

>>16669

"I think that the nearest form of pratical communism is the primitive communism"
_____________________________________________

I agree with this view, and have a few things to add to it:

1. The DEDICATED, unified search for better tools.

- We really don't do anything else. Where's the best water? What's the best food? What's the best way to get "there"? We must trust one another.

2. A dedication to remain peaceful, truthful and kind.

- Though this may seem hokey, extreme behavior is the only thing that upsets balance and calm. (Seems obvious, but think about how easily it can be to become angry.) The search for truth can be infinite, but the obvious is always such: in order to continue to search, we need each other for survival, and we need as many minds/bodies focused on the problems-at-hand as we can gather. (We need everyone's help to solve problems.)

The search for truth requires a continuously rigorous intellect. (Question everything.)

Kindness requires a constant evaluation of perspective. That evaluation is, simply, the analysis of observational principles. You understand someone's understanding, and guide them from their points to yours. Instead of ridiculing, you simply analyze the gap and bridge it.

During that process, be sure to note any new ideas from either party.

To sum this all up, no one should ever be ignored or mistreated. (Before anyone asks, I think people learn to lie. I think they imitate the behavior either in search of cheap humor (to replace genuine satisfaction) or in search of relief. That is, they don't know the answer and they don't know how to find it. They can't bring themselves to tell you that because they believe the admittance of weakness/ignorance will arouse predatory behavior in you. So, they make something up and hope that you don't notice.)

Edited at 25/5/2009(Mon)04:22:21

Anonymous 26/5/2009(Tue)08:51:56 No.45000

>>43904
I don't think that people learn to lie.
Lie is a part of humanity, even some animals lie (but not in a complex way like us)

If every lier learned it from another, who was the first lier?

Anonymous 27/5/2009(Wed)03:01:53 No.45117

>>45000

What does it matter who did it first? It happened.

Edited at 27/5/2009(Wed)03:02:08

Anonymous 27/5/2009(Wed)04:56:31 No.45160

File: 91995.jpg - (5.53kb, 212x136, 682266-4226-cp.jpg)

>>45117
What I mean is that if every person learned to lie from another person the first one would have no one to learn from.
In a evolutionary system robots learned how to lie or be altruistic.
http://www.ib4f.com/board/science/sci/topic/41594
It was nothing expected or taught. Lie is just a tool for survivor, just like any other.

Anonymous 29/5/2009(Fri)08:12:25 No.49965

>>43904
You raise some interesting points about psychology in an ad-hoc manner. Humans are pack animals capable of bullying and humiliation which corresponds to behaviour you have outlined, hubris and anxiety.

The problem is that raw indoctrination never works, religions have tried to indoctrinate people from birth to be kind, wise and generous for millenia but they still end up torturing people for challenging their beliefs.

Anonymous 01/6/2009(Mon)04:04:16 No.51685

File: 107406.jpg - (41.88kb, 365x494, 18890 - bw insult macro marx your_mom.jpg)

>>32143

Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)01:17:05 No.52222

>>13177
The Paris Commune

Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)01:19:02 No.52224

>>13668
>The reason why communism has never existed is because it is impossible.
Those who fought and died in the Paris Commune say otherwise

>>13620
>Great. Another one of those fucking douchebags who think Communism is still a viable idea because it "has never been properly practiced"

suck a dick faggot:

Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)01:20:25 No.52225

>>16669
>>14105
HAHAHA.

Care to explain the shitty policies in the USA that allow corporations to shit their workers? It's happening in China right now, they need a REAL dose of communism right about now.

Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)01:54:37 No.52242

>>52222
Are you serious?

Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)04:24:51 No.52314

>>51685

I need to work that joke into everyday conversations somehow...

1984 !e3RO8eSK8k 03/6/2009(Wed)08:50:13 No.53687

He's a genius, also one of my relatives I'm particular proud of. Maybe my only. I'm not a communist, but he had several wonderful ideas.

Franklin Van Houten 22/7/2009(Wed)07:32:11 No.131912

File: crabby-avatar_ib4f.gif - (1.47kb, 100x84, crabby-avatar.gif)

Communism exists nowadays and is working pretty well; it�s called internet. Although not political or economical, you can see many aspects of it in sites where the content is integrated collectively, including Wikipedia, youtube, and yes imageboards too. The strongest example would be sites such as piratebay, in which people literally take the information and provide it publically free of charge.

See http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism

Kurz Herschel 22/7/2009(Wed)09:47:56 No.131949

>>131912
It's more like anarchy than communism. If the internet were like communism, you could change any site you looked at. In anarchy, socialism can arise in some places and capitalism in others. Youtube is almost purely capitalist, whereas Wikipedia is democratic rather than socialist, with imageboards more so collective, and torrents completely so.

Franklin Van Houten 23/7/2009(Thu)04:37:47 No.132554

The concept is not related on how the site authority manages (or in some cases censors) the content, but the fact that this type of site virtually gives common ownership of the information on it. Altough the community still does not have control over the means of production (this function is basically performed by the administrators).
The idea is much better explained in the article and extends to the use of GNU general public and creative commons licenses.

Kurz Herschel 24/7/2009(Fri)09:22:23 No.133754

>>132554
The way I thought of it was how private the content the poster is entitled to create.

Bjorn Neylon 03/8/2009(Mon)09:43:48 No.196189

File: cockmongler_ib4f.png - (188.33kb, 300x396, cockmongler.png)

i think he was a dumb fatass!

	[ File Only] Password
Description
Post Text Description Duration (in days; 0 is indefinite) Board Ban Host Name Ban Image Hash Delete Post
Move To