>When you work at a bookshop and the new guy (early 20s, doesn't talk much; this is maybe his first real job) tapes labels saying 'Mobile Army of Metaphors' over all the 'Non-Fiction' shelf tags.
The annoying thing that actually happens is that it's put in the "philosophy" section (if one even exists) rather than the economics section. And no, don't bother saying that "it's a work of political economy, not economics", this is an irrelevant distinction for a bookstore seeking to broadly categorize its inventory. Capital (V1) is best classed as "an economics book", regardless of its philosophical, historical and sociological implications.
The Marxism section is really a subsection (labeled as "Marxism") of the political science section which is adjacent to the history section.
There's also a German history section where the employees have printed out little portraits of different Germans and stuck them on the sides of the shelves, so there's a Karl Marx there but someone took a colored pen to him, I think trying to deface it but it ended up making Marx look like an Andy Warhol painting. Someone else wrote "DADDY" on it.
There's also an Erich Honekcer which someone wrote "Verräter" on his forehead.
>Has…Marxism ever predicted a stunning novel fact successfully? Never! It has some famous unsuccessful predictions. It predicted the absolute impoverishment of the working class. It predicted that the first socialist revolution would take place in the industrially most developed society. It predicted that socialist societies would be free of revolutions. It predicted that there will be no conflict of interests between socialist countries. Thus the early predictions of Marxism were bold and stunning but they failed. Marxists explained all their failures: they explained the rising living standards of the working class by devising a theory of imperialism; they even explained why the first socialist revolution occurred in industrially backward Russia. They “explained” Berlin 1953, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968. They “explained” the Russian-Chinese conflict. But their auxiliary hypotheses were all cooked up after the event to protect Marxian theory from the facts. The Newtonian programme led to novel facts; the Marxian lagged behind the facts and has been running fast to catch up with them. (S&P: 4–5.)
>It has some famous unsuccessful predictions. It predicted the absolute impoverishment of the working class
65% of the American public live paycheck to paycheck
2 years ago
Anonymous
That doesn't at all imply impoverishment
2 years ago
Anonymous
Living outieth your means is not real poverty.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO SPEND 70 BUCKS A MONTH ON AN IPHONE, 400 BUCKS ON A CAR AND BUY THE LATEST GAMES CONSOLE AND WEAR BRANDED FASHION CLOTHING AND YOU DO NOT NEED TO WASTE VASTS AMOUNTS ON ALCOHOL EVERY WEEKEND.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>65% of the American public live paycheck to paycheck
Third Worldists told me that's a luxurious lifestyle that many around the world would envy
2 years ago
Anonymous
Does this stat correct for debt and poor spending habits? I would be interested to see a study that compares monthly necessary expenses to monthly income. So add up car, gas, home, electricity, food. And ignore unnecessary spending and debt payments on unnecessary spending. I bet "paycheck to paycheck" would be less than 10%.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Does this stat correct for debt and poor spending habits?
Nah, they will usually just assert that poor spending habits are caused by bourgeois/corporate propaganda and that the poor are not responsible for poor money management.
>itt; people who have been to three book stores
Book stores which lack a dedicated philosophy section shelve philosophy where it is most likely to trigger an impulse buy which tends to scatter it throughout the entire book store. The bulk tends to end up in classic/general fiction or religion. Even book stores with a dedicated philosophy section will often stick copies of the big names in with the fiction to get those impulse buys.
the humanist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy an hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money corrupts'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.
so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.
This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ''because they say so'' lol.
Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.
This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).
Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how christian monarchies are evil
this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.
the humanist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy an hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money corrupts'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.
so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.
This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ''because they say so'' lol.
Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.
This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).
Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how muslim monarchies are evil
this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.
Well I read it and I still wonder how stupid one must be to believe that one very dubious take on the economy and society from the fricking mid XIX century is supposed to in any way shape or form reflect our current world
I suppose commies never take the time to read that huge slog of a book, they just dilate over the manifesto which is specifically made to be as radicalizing and simple as possible. lmao
There must have been a mistake. It should be categorized as garbage and placed in the garbage can.
Alas, noble knight, I am promised to Another.
god literally isn't real
>When you work at a bookshop and the new guy (early 20s, doesn't talk much; this is maybe his first real job) tapes labels saying 'Mobile Army of Metaphors' over all the 'Non-Fiction' shelf tags.
The annoying thing that actually happens is that it's put in the "philosophy" section (if one even exists) rather than the economics section. And no, don't bother saying that "it's a work of political economy, not economics", this is an irrelevant distinction for a bookstore seeking to broadly categorize its inventory. Capital (V1) is best classed as "an economics book", regardless of its philosophical, historical and sociological implications.
It's literally a philosophical work from which one is intended to derive an economic ideology
My local bookstore has a dedicated Marxism section
I want to set up a camera in that isle, the sci-fi isle and the romance isle.
The Marxism section is really a subsection (labeled as "Marxism") of the political science section which is adjacent to the history section.
There's also a German history section where the employees have printed out little portraits of different Germans and stuck them on the sides of the shelves, so there's a Karl Marx there but someone took a colored pen to him, I think trying to deface it but it ended up making Marx look like an Andy Warhol painting. Someone else wrote "DADDY" on it.
There's also an Erich Honekcer which someone wrote "Verräter" on his forehead.
>There's also an Erich Honekcer which someone wrote "Verräter" on his forehead.
KEK
They have their own islands now? Woah!
I hope it's in the store's toilet.
It has 0 predictive and explanatory power so it's not wrong to put it there
I hate communism but even I can't agree with this blanket statement.
>Has…Marxism ever predicted a stunning novel fact successfully? Never! It has some famous unsuccessful predictions. It predicted the absolute impoverishment of the working class. It predicted that the first socialist revolution would take place in the industrially most developed society. It predicted that socialist societies would be free of revolutions. It predicted that there will be no conflict of interests between socialist countries. Thus the early predictions of Marxism were bold and stunning but they failed. Marxists explained all their failures: they explained the rising living standards of the working class by devising a theory of imperialism; they even explained why the first socialist revolution occurred in industrially backward Russia. They “explained” Berlin 1953, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968. They “explained” the Russian-Chinese conflict. But their auxiliary hypotheses were all cooked up after the event to protect Marxian theory from the facts. The Newtonian programme led to novel facts; the Marxian lagged behind the facts and has been running fast to catch up with them. (S&P: 4–5.)
>It has some famous unsuccessful predictions. It predicted the absolute impoverishment of the working class
65% of the American public live paycheck to paycheck
That doesn't at all imply impoverishment
Living outieth your means is not real poverty.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO SPEND 70 BUCKS A MONTH ON AN IPHONE, 400 BUCKS ON A CAR AND BUY THE LATEST GAMES CONSOLE AND WEAR BRANDED FASHION CLOTHING AND YOU DO NOT NEED TO WASTE VASTS AMOUNTS ON ALCOHOL EVERY WEEKEND.
>65% of the American public live paycheck to paycheck
Third Worldists told me that's a luxurious lifestyle that many around the world would envy
Does this stat correct for debt and poor spending habits? I would be interested to see a study that compares monthly necessary expenses to monthly income. So add up car, gas, home, electricity, food. And ignore unnecessary spending and debt payments on unnecessary spending. I bet "paycheck to paycheck" would be less than 10%.
>Does this stat correct for debt and poor spending habits?
Nah, they will usually just assert that poor spending habits are caused by bourgeois/corporate propaganda and that the poor are not responsible for poor money management.
>they even explained why the first socialist revolution occurred in industrially backward Russia.
?t=179
>ching chong ping pon-
No one cares.
dumbass
There is no contradiction between Smith, Marx, Rothbard and Hoppe. Only midwit Kenysians are incongruant.
>There is no contradiction between Smith, Marx, Rothbard and Hoppe
Yes, and they're all wrong
One time I found Freud in the "New Age" section.
Hehe, funny. At least they have it, my local bookstore got rid of the philosophy section. YA is there now.
Frick.
>itt; people who have been to three book stores
Book stores which lack a dedicated philosophy section shelve philosophy where it is most likely to trigger an impulse buy which tends to scatter it throughout the entire book store. The bulk tends to end up in classic/general fiction or religion. Even book stores with a dedicated philosophy section will often stick copies of the big names in with the fiction to get those impulse buys.
Put it back, miscreant.
Stupid frogposter.
https://big-lies.org/h-g-wells/psychoanalysis-of-karl-marx.html
the humanist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy an hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money corrupts'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.
so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.
This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ''because they say so'' lol.
Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.
This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).
Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how christian monarchies are evil
this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.
the humanist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy an hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money corrupts'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.
so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.
This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ''because they say so'' lol.
Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.
This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).
Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how muslim monarchies are evil
this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.
Could you possibly be any more reductive?
It's a bot, dude.
Well I read it and I still wonder how stupid one must be to believe that one very dubious take on the economy and society from the fricking mid XIX century is supposed to in any way shape or form reflect our current world
I suppose commies never take the time to read that huge slog of a book, they just dilate over the manifesto which is specifically made to be as radicalizing and simple as possible. lmao