>debunks any marxist school. ????

>pagan
amerimutt hands typed this post. the monotheistic semites controlling the fed are "pagan" now

>the zeus eagle
This is equivalent to the Christmutt Identitarianism that claims Denmark is the tribe of Dan because of amateur wishful etymology. I can see that you saved the file as "pagan nazi eagle central bank" which is hilarious, not only are you enough of a subhuman seething non-white to equate eagles and paganism to nazism, betraying your insecurity, you are also trying to imply that the very race the national socialists identified as being the greatest threat to their country are also national socialists. In your smooth flat brain, Semitic, Yahweh/Moloch worshippers that control international finance are national socialist, right

This eagle is based on Rome, both east and western Rome retained the eagle as a symbol long after conversion to Christianity because it is unrelated to Zeus, it was one of several battle standards for the legions that included a boar and a human head. Something you would know if you weren't a midwit who hasn't read a book before. Founders of your oligarchic "Republic" sought to emulate Rome so chose the eagle to represent themselves in the seal of office and so on - so this is equivalent to pretending that the oval office worships Zeus, which is absurd and ludicrous, but then again you are absurd and ludicrous.

Since you are so fricking stupid that you equate this eagle to paganism with the most shoddy, non-existent symbol association possible, you have ended up disingenuously pretending that these literal israelites in control of your mutt country's economy are genuine Indo-European pagans worshipping Zeus, despite the fact that they are the antithesis to that.

Brutalist architecture isn't even the right category either, the building is built in Amerimutt neo-Renaissance style. Everything about you, from the dimwit image name, to the random buzzwords about paganism and architecture, indicate you are a 2 digit IQ shitskin mutt with obvious shit brown eyes seething at whites more than israelites. have a nice day

i am literally jacked with blue eyes. i look like a fricking pleadian

the nazis were papal agents framing the innocent hellenes. rothschild = red shield = roman legions. communism is rule by the pope/pharaoh

>this is equivalent to pretending that the oval office worships Zeus

you're like those guys on joy of satan who say they worship lucifer and then call christians "xtians" because they're too stupid to realize christ is prometheus

>blue eyes
doubtful

>the nazis were papal agents framing the innocent hellenes
This is your brain on Christmuttism.
The national socialists are "papal agents" after the papacy tried to assassinate Hitler?
The national socialists are "papal agents" when Hitler behind closed doors planned with others like Goebbels, Bormann, Rosenberg and Himmler to destroy Catholicism?
The national socialists are "papal agents" after Catholic elements in the Wehrmacht, Abwehr and intellectuals conspired together to undermine the government?
The national socialists are "papal agents" after abolishing the actually Catholic Zentrum party?
The national socialists are "papal agents" when Catholics in Germany and the rest of Europe were vehemently opposed to them?
The national socialists are "papal agents" after Pope Pius wrote Mit brennender Sorge which had to be smuggled into Germany, or the 1942 Christmas address, or the Mystici corporis Christi?
Why would the papacy choose national socialists as their "agents" when they had an already Catholic party at their disposal? You're so fricking stupid you can't even use that 2 digit IQ of yours to think for more than 3 seconds about how moronic you are

>"Rothschild = red shield = Roman legions"
Are you fricking moronic? What are you even trying to say? What's this Christmutt Identarian tier etymological association? It's even worse than claiming the tribe of Dan is Denmark. You think the name Rothschild means red shield? It means red coat. What does this have to do with Roman legions, exactly, except as the most bizarre non-connection you summoned up as the most straw-clutching 2 digit IQ cope I've ever seen?
>communism is rule by the pope/pharaoh
Explain to me how this is remotely relevant or related to the fact that the national socialists are NOT Catholics and that American eagle has nothing to do with paganism or how the israelites that run your subhuman country are not pagan but are instead Semites

this is your 3rd post or so in which you've not made a single coherent argument, everything you've said so far has been based on some schizophrenic nonsense you've made up in your head. No, I'm not calling you a schizo as ad hominem either, I mean it literally, you're deriving strings of meaning from things that are simply not there. Anyone who isn't schizophrenic can use simple observation of historical facts regarding Hitler to be fully aware that you are clueless and deluded. Instead of bringing up random things I did not mention at all, try addressing what I've actually said. Nobody mentioned the SS Ahnenerbe. If you're going to say Hitler was an actor and Walt Disney, and national socialists were Catholic agents, I'm not going to take you seriously

You expect me to read this ESL garbage, im not.

t. cannot read, is a zoomer with ADHD, has a 2 digit IQ, cannot make a single argument, is not even smart enough to read history let alone philosophy, cannot speak English properly and is an Amerimutt
don't get mad at me because you got so easily filtered and destroyed to the point people think my post is screencap material

>Yahweh, not Prometheus

You think Yahweh is literally that dude's real name? Like he has a birth certificate and it says "YHWH"? No vowels and shit?

Do you think Guy Beahm's legal name is Dr Disrespect too? LMAO

strawman argument. Prometheus is not Jesus, no matter what level of terrible mental gymnastics or strawman arguments about proper names and birth certificates you use. The USA and western world is dominated by israelites, those israelites are atheists, worshippers of Yahweh (the same god as the Christian god) or Satanists (an inversion of Christianity). They are not pagans, they are not Indo-Europeans, and none of their theological characters such as Christ, Yahweh or otherwise are related to pagans or Indo-European myths, so stop appropriating Prometheus just to make your Semitic shitskin religion of metaphysical communism palatable.

based, thanks for doing the work king

you're welcome bro

>no argument
2 digit IQ detected

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/13/jews-in-u-s-are-far-less-religious-than-christians-and-americans-overall-at-least-by-traditional-measures

not sure what objection or opposition you would even have to what I said, considering atheists are generally soulless, which fits israelites perfectly, but you are obviously an ESL not from Europe

Once again, another non-argument addressed to a strawman
Either you are disingenuous, or just stupid, or most likely both. israelites aren't a religion, they are a race, and a massive amount of them are atheists. Judaism is the religion so your "argument", if you can call it that, is only relevant if I had said "most followers of Judaism are atheists", but I didn't.

"israeli secularism, which describes israelites who do not explicitly reject the existence of God but also do not believe it is an important part of their israeliness, has a long tradition in the United States. A 2013 study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 62% of self-described American israelites say being israeli is mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while just 15% say it is mainly a matter of religion. Even among israelites by religion, 55% say being israeli is mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while 66% say it is not necessary to believe in God to be israeli."

Do you have anything to say except LMAO and strawmen, or not? If you don't, stop replying to my posts, dimwit. I would stop posting if I was as filtered and lacking in things to say as you are

once again, another non-argument because you're a low IQ shitskin dimwit, frick off you schizophrenic brainlet, go to IQfy and talk about how Hitler was a papal agent there

Kek right on cue, mutts cannot stop talking about muttdonalds or make coherent arguments. you lost, hard

america is run by jesuits working for the pope of rome who need to frame the israelites because israelites will never kneel to the roman emperor

also lucifer-prometheus the god of the israelites literally is aryan, which means that christian identity is correct because jesus is krishna, an indo-aryan god

stop shitting up this thread with your rhesus factor and go watch your relatives on the gorilla channel

well the NWO is catholic so draw your own conclusions

>america is run by jesuits
Jews*
>working for the pope of rome
Jews*
>who need to frame the israelites
Jews*
>jews will never kneel to the roman emperor
Jews*
>also lucifer-prometheus the god of the israelites literally is aryan
the god of the israelites is Yahweh, not Prometheus, sorry to burst your bubble, cope harder. You are as braindead as

i am literally jacked with blue eyes. i look like a fricking pleadian

the nazis were papal agents framing the innocent hellenes. rothschild = red shield = roman legions. communism is rule by the pope/pharaoh

>this is equivalent to pretending that the oval office worships Zeus

you're like those guys on joy of satan who say they worship lucifer and then call christians "xtians" because they're too stupid to realize christ is prometheus

>christian identity is correct because jesus is krishna, an indo-aryan god
lmao, no. Christian identity is the opposite of Indo-European migration theory, they are not compatible no matter how much you try to shoehorn or mental gymnastic Christianity into Indo-European origins
>stop shitting up this thread with your rhesus factor and go watch your relatives on the gorilla channel
no argument, posted nothing of worth reading either, go have a nice day you israelite worshipping subhuman mutt homosexual

based, thanks for doing the work king

rent free

Primitive communism was made up to retcon the past in support of communism.

yeah if you ignore the tens of thousands of years under the hellenic world civilization you fricking moron

"Now" is not particularly capitalist. Greece did not have half the population out of the productive economy.

>When you trade a goat for some cloth from another tribe, that's capitalism.
no it's not. that's incidental trade of surpluses. most of the product is made not for exchange with another tribe but for direct consumption by the producing tribe. if the trade stops, the tribe can subsist just fine. whereas in capitalism most of life necessities are produced for exchange.

All useful commodities have a value derived from the average labor input required to produce them. Therefore, to make a profit, capitalists must steal some "value" (denominated in hours) from laborers. who are therefore not getting paid for the full value of their labor time. Naturally this theory has a lot of problems, like the transformation from labor hours into prices in a consistent manner, reduction of different kinds of labor into a single unit of abstract homogeneous labor time, conflict with generally-accepted frameworks like marginalism, etc. read Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marxism

that's nowhere near the "basic idea of Marxism". here's the basic idea of Marxism:
>What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
>Naturally this theory has a lot of problems, like the transformation from labor hours into prices in a consistent manner, reduction of different kinds of labor into a single unit of abstract homogeneous labor time
this is a problem for capitalism, not for Marxism. the unrelenting swings in prices constantly undermine the stability of capitalism. but why would this be a problem for Marxists?
>conflict with generally-accepted frameworks like marginalism
every revolutionary class went against the ruling ideology. in fact every revolution in science too went against the existing knowledge. that didn't stop any of them though, because they had a basis in material reality, to which people's ideas must sooner or later conform. and so does communism.

>Muh labor theory of value
Do communists still say this? Things are worth what people will pay for them. For instance, you typing words on the internet might be lots of labor, but does that mean it should be worth lots of money? Whereas someone, idk, making burritos for one hour is infinitely more valuable than everything you've ever done. How much labor you've wasted doesn't actually determine what you're worth to anyone else.

>Things are worth what people will pay for them.
and what people pay for things they need depends on what part of society's total effort is needed to make those things. that's why an airplane is dearer than an apple.
>For instance, you typing words on the internet might be lots of labor, but does that mean it should be worth lots of money?
no. your point?

>why Marxists use the "socially useful" qualifier
Socially useful is doing most of the heavy lifting there. In what sense is an actor doing such socially useful labor such that their labor brings in millions?
It's much simpler to say an actor makes a lot of money because their labor is in high demand while being in low supply at the quality they give.

>It's much simpler to say an actor makes a lot of money because their labor is in high demand while being in low supply at the quality they give.
Marxism doesn't contradict this. there's no reliable way of producing world star level actors that will have mass appeal, so what they get paid has little relation to value. but it's very different with basic level actors, who can get mass produced by special schools or even just by talent scouting or open casting.

Marx never denies supply and demand

Ask David Ricardo.

Do you even know what marginal utility is a response to?

ok smith

What is the difference? Why is that NOT capitalism? There is no argument besides convoluted and pointless semantics.

"Capital" comes from head count, like a herd of cattle. Only under convoluted commie semantics is basic free exchange not "capitalism."

in those tribes the decisive part of the product is held in common by the tribe and the direct goal of producing is feeding the members of the tribe. what's being traded away is a small surplus. the process of the reproduction of the tribe doesn't depend on that trade but on production directly for the producers' consumption.
in capitalism the decisive part of the product is private property and the goal of producing it is the multiplication of the money in this owner's possession through selling the product. what's being traded is the majority of the whole social product. the process of the reproduction of society is entirely dependent on production for trade and the owner's monetary gain.

No, the cattle is held as property by an individual. Primitive communism is mostly made up.
Why does it matter how much is traded for other products versus used directly? The end is the same whether I eat the cow or trade it for seeds which I trade for eggs etc.

>A communist in 1850 defines "capitalism"
What I was trying to avoid were self referential communist definitions

>No, the cattle is held as property by an individual.
the result isn't changed here: the decisive part of the product of the proprietor's means of production is used to feed, clothe, etc. his family.
but if you want to say that cattle ownership is concentrated, the owners hire wage workers to milk it and then sell the milk, then we're getting somewhere. except at that point we're far away from a tribe that incidentally trades with another tribe.
>Why does it matter how much is traded for other products versus used directly?
because for a society to be capitalist, it must be dominated by capitalist production, and capitalist production is always production for exchange. so you can deduce that a society isn't capitalist from the fact that most of its production isn't for exchange
[...]
the USSR, Cambodia, North Korea, China and Venezuela were/are capitalist

Kind of lost here. What is your point? Even using this definition there has been "capitalism" since at least ancient Greece

Why should I let commie jargon define my words for me? They came up with their own moronic version of all sorts of words, not my problem. What name would you have me call what I'm referring to?

Here's a thought: I don't care what your desired economy is, and anyone who imposes on my basic pursuits is evil and my enemy.

Commies like the line about the worker being entitled to the sweat of his brow, but you literally do not believe that. You believe that whoever "needs it most" is entitled to the sweat of my brow. Laissez-faire capitalistism is the only economic model that actually supports self-ownership.

Thanks for admitting you want to take my property

>Kind of lost here. What is your point?
replying to your reply
>Even using this definition there has been "capitalism" since at least ancient Greece
wage labour must predominate for a society to be capitalist, not just exist
[...]
>Laissez-faire capitalistism is the only economic model that actually supports self-ownership.
yes, for about 10 years until capital centralizes and the proud self-owners become cucks living in tiny apartments owned by their banks and eating bugs

It's a socialist myth the capitalism leads to corporate centralization. The history of the US demonstrates a monotonic decrease in market share held by big corps. There are only 2 times they centralized and gained power instead, and both were under corpo-prostitute presidents who created world-shattering economic/regulatory policies (FDR's green new deal and the covid regime).
"Monopolies are kept in check by the government" is a bold-faced lie, it's verifiable that monopolies are created by the government. You can also consider the most monopolistic practices on earth, and they'll be all the most regulated ones. Cars, utilities like internet and phone, drugs (including patent protection bullshit), oil (almost exclusively owned by various governments, including US)

Think about that. The only reason giant corporations continue to exist are neoliberals who pretend they like your causes. They're inefficient and wither up in an even vaguely fair market.

>Chart by progressive think tanks
Begone, schlomo.

yes, this is what your laissez-faire fantasy works out to in real life. it needs monopoly to be established and then turns into monopoly as soon as capital has accumulated to a certain extent, has expanded its exploitation to the entire area available to it, and to continue accumulating needs now to turn from breadth expansion to depth expansion and start expropriating the proud self-owners as well as building a strong state that will be able to create conditions for the national capital to exploit foreign countries

Your hypothetical about banks owning all the farmland is better than the current system, in which Bill Gates owns all the farmland.

>nah, we need less outsourcing to china

Leftoids will deny this

see prime example here below

[...]
Leftists are against markets. Being anti-trade is anti-market, socialists.

you are a pet of globalist elites that hate you

biden is a socialist
you are his pet

>nah, we need less outsourcing to china

Leftoids will deny this

Leftists are against markets. Being anti-trade is anti-market, socialists.

>Kind of lost here. What is your point?
replying to your reply
>Even using this definition there has been "capitalism" since at least ancient Greece
wage labour must predominate for a society to be capitalist, not just exist

Here's a thought: I don't care what your desired economy is, and anyone who imposes on my basic pursuits is evil and my enemy.

Commies like the line about the worker being entitled to the sweat of his brow, but you literally do not believe that. You believe that whoever "needs it most" is entitled to the sweat of my brow. Laissez-faire capitalistism is the only economic model that actually supports self-ownership.

>Laissez-faire capitalistism is the only economic model that actually supports self-ownership.
yes, for about 10 years until capital centralizes and the proud self-owners become cucks living in tiny apartments owned by their banks and eating bugs

widescale barter never existed

political scientists, sociologists, and especially philosophers (absolutely not less rigorous than economics) are absolutely equipped to critique economics (which they have done, a lot) and evaluate marxism. you just look like an ideologue shutting off economics from critique

Science is a religion, actually, to many people. No wonder it winges at the slightest criticism

Science is a religion, actually, to many people. No wonder it winges at the slightest criticism

its not a case of x or y being 'a religion'. christianity, science, marxism, capitalism, e.t.c. are all supraindividual belief systems with a lot of structural similarities. there are only certain kinds of belief system like this which can emerge.

Science is a religion, actually, to many people. No wonder it winges at the slightest criticism

they both have pseudo religious folk beliefs and state ideologies surrounding them, though neither are inherently faith
for example, science only started taking on a religious aspect when scholars started considering empiricism self-justifying and building a materialist cosmology
this is why you kill them in Elden Ring
lgbtq though, thats a cult, especially the tq

cope

based

Even if I found their arguments convincing, you wouldn't have addressed the criticism I gave in context. Which was, if we're going to appeal to authority, let's appeal to the most relevant authority. Two, let's appeal to the authority that leans more heavily on rigorous empirical analysis. This characterizes economics more than sociology. Everyone can make an argument. I was talking data analysis.

Marxism is not an economic school. it's a critique of economics

political scientists, sociologists, and especially philosophers (absolutely not less rigorous than economics) are absolutely equipped to critique economics (which they have done, a lot) and evaluate marxism. you just look like an ideologue shutting off economics from critique

>political scientists, sociologists, and especially philosophers (absolutely not less rigorous than economics) are absolutely equipped to critique economics (which they have done, a lot) and evaluate marxism
no they aren't
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Funny, I see Marxism as a religion.
Waiting for capitalism to fall and for socialism to rise like Christians wait for Jesus to come back.

Marxists don't wait for anything. in fact they persistently criticize that kind of attitude:
>the proletariat still acts, during the period of struggle for the overthrow of the old society, on the basis of that old society, and hence also still moves within political forms which more or less belong to it, it has not yet, during this period of struggle, attained its final constitution, and employs means for its liberation which after this liberation fall aside. Mr Bakunin concludes from this that it is better to do nothing at all... just wait for the day of general liquidation -- the last judgement. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

most literate il/lit/eracy lurker

I didn't say he ignored political economy

>Marxism doesn't contradict this. there's no reliable way of producing world star level actors that will have mass appeal, so what they get paid has little relation to value. but it's very different with basic level actors, who can get mass produced by special schools or even just by talent scouting or open casting.
It sounds like Marxism can't handle this situation but supply and demand can. The rare skill gets higher compensation because that ability is rare and in high demand because worldwide attention is extremely profitable.

>It sounds like Marxism can't handle this situation but supply and demand can.
Marxism explains it by supply and demand:
>When we refer to a monopoly price, we mean in general a price determined only by the purchasers' eagerness to buy and ability to pay, independent of the price determined by the general price of production, as well as by the value of the products. A vineyard producing wine of very extraordinary quality which can be produced only in relatively small quantities yields a monopoly price.

So what's the point of the labor theory of value? What does it explain?

as for prices, it explains those of mass reproducible commodities. so like 99.9% of them. the number of world famous actors and other supply-limited products is negligibly small (because they're rare), compared with the mass of reproducible commodities, on which the reproduction of society depends. so the prices of the former are a completely negligible factor for understanding the overall movement of capital, while the prices of the latter are crucial.
this is another example of why thinking Marxism is a school of economics like that one other moron in this thread makes one immediately miss the entire point. Marxists don't give a shit about contemplating and explaining irrelevant minutia like economists would and publishing tonnes of worthless papers on it. they're only interested in understanding the broad movements of capital, to the extent that this is useful for the proletariat in advancing its struggle. that's because they're communists, not economists.

And this only applies to those who don't get murdered by the Natsocs who are rampaging through the land. If the Nazis had been even slightly less murderous at the start of their invasion of the USSR, they would've won the war. They already had a large number of Soviets fighting in their foreign legions even with all the rape and murder they ended up doing. Think of how many more would've rushed to their side if their goal hadn't been so immediate an eradication of the Slavs.

>autarky is the only resilient/sustainable
Yeah, the US producing its own baby formula has really made its supply chain more resilie-

>>a shortage caused by reliance on international supply chains
The US has stringent baby formula standards that force it to produce almost all the baby formula it consumes domestically. The supply of baby formula hasn't become any more resilient as result.
>a shortage worsened by inflation cause by reliance on international trade
Lol, this is your assumption. For one, tariffs make things more expensive because you're literally making competing products artificially more expensive so companies that otherwise wouldn't exist can sell their more expensive products. For two, businesses within a given country can fail too, leading to supply chain problems. For three, less access to overseas markets means less competitors to plug into any vacancies left by supply chain problems, so they'd actually take longer to resolve.
>in a country that is the center of global trade. abhorring autarky
Lol

Get out of my Sowell thread. The Chicago boys loved free trade. If you believe in free markets you don't believe in choosing winners. Ever.

>some ingredients are still supply chain dependent
Your beliefs imply a product should be more resilient the more domestically sourced it is. This hasn't proven to be the case.
>Letting Abbott monopolize so they can frick up and recall everything during a pandemic also has nothing to do with autarky.
It has everything to do with it. The quickest way to bring in competition to a market place is to allow foreign goods to come freely into the country.

It doesn't really matter if you are in the upper class or not. If you unironically use troglodyte as an insult you'll be laughed at. Upper classes when insulting each other often passive aggressively refer to each others financial status or general achievements to demean others. Troglodyte is more for people who want to appear smart but have never been in a room with upper class people

>can't read
Like I said the upper class is far more passive aggressive with their insults. It is just seen as bad manners to outright insult somebody. Calling people outright poor is not accepted. Reading philosophy books or knowing a lot doesn't make you upper class, at best it makes you part of the intelligentsia and they are not always taken as seriously. It can be quite surprising how different some of their mannerism are to that of the lower classes

no u

This is why Marxists use the "socially useful" qualifier when talking about labor time, they aren't talking about carefully hand-crafted mudpies.
>that labor has absolutely no direct relationship to value.
While this is true in ordinary language, Marxism DEFINES value in terms of (socially useful) labor time. You have to realize that Marxists have special definitions of things internal to Marxism that don't necessarily line up with their colloquial usage.

>why Marxists use the "socially useful" qualifier
Socially useful is doing most of the heavy lifting there. In what sense is an actor doing such socially useful labor such that their labor brings in millions?
It's much simpler to say an actor makes a lot of money because their labor is in high demand while being in low supply at the quality they give.

So if two products will sell, your claim is that one hour of labor is equal in value to another?