Source
r/CapitalismVSocialism•
BothWaysItGoes

Request for good criticism of capitalism (not Marx)

I am tired of Marxist, Marxian and Marxist-esque criticism of capitalism: capital contradictions, inevitability of communism, vague bullshit about alienation, exploitation, """amorality""", dialectics, etc.

I would like to read something that wouldn't make me audibly groan, something that would touch actual issues at hand instead of abstract convoluted nonsense, something that isn't related to Marx.

Marx was a very impactful thinker, which has done enormous damage to leftist thought as every social critic I know either builds on, expands or responds to Marx. French (Derrida, Althusser, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Lyotard, Foucault) and German (Frankfurt School) critics of capitalism all seem to be poisoned by Marxist thought and its nonsense.

Are there any good critics of capitalism worth reading who ignore Marx as much as possible?

Posted Mar 22, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

14232
PerfectSocietyPost-Left Anarchist•

Read Kropotkin. Here's a quote of his that you might like:

Firstly, the duration of time given to any work does not give the measure of social utility of the work accomplished, and the theories of value that economists have endeavored to base, from Adam Smith to Marx, only on the cost of production, valued in labor time, have not solved the question of value. As soon as there is exchange, the value of an article becomes a complex quantity, and depends also on the degree of satisfaction which it brings to the needs — not of the individual, as certain economists stated formerly, but of the whole of society, taken in its entirety. Value is a social fact. Being the result of an exchange, it has a double aspect: that of labor, and that of satisfaction of needs, both evidently conceived in their social and not individual aspect. On the other hand, when we analyze the evils of the present economic system, we see — and the worker knows it full well — that their essence lies in the forced necessity of the worker to sell his labor power. Not having the wherewithal to live for the next fortnight, and being prevented by the State from using his labor power without selling it to someone, the worker sells himself to the one who undertakes to give him work; he renounces the benefits his labor might bring him in; he abandons the lion’s share of what he produces to his employer; he even abdicates his liberty; he renounces his right to make his opinion heard on the utility of what he is about to produce and on the way of producing it. Thus results the accumulation of capital, not in its faculty of absorbing surplus-value but in the forced position the worker is placed to sell his labor power: the seller being sure in advance that he will not receive all that his strength can produce, of being wounded in his interests, and of becoming the inferior of the buyer. Without this the capitalist would never have tried to buy him; which proves that to change the system it must be attacked in its essence: in its cause — sale and purchase, — not in its effect — Capitalism.

18
Dr-Evi1Anarcho-Tankie•

Kropotkin is the best

1
zuzak427Georgist•

Progress and Poverty by Henry George was written before Marx was translated into English. Obviously, I highly recommend it. It's a little long but there's also condensed versions.

G.K. Chesterton had an interesting perspective on things, I'd recommend The Outline of Sanity. His writing style is witty which can make it a fun read, though it can also be offputting if you're looking for solid arguments.

15
CarltonFraterGeolibertarian•

Looks like you beat me to it

2
MissBrainProblemsDirty Dumb Syndie Scum•

I don't know how he's considered on this subreddit because I've never seen him brought up before but let me say that this suggestion is 100% serious:

Zizek.

He's incredibly pragmatic and rational in his criticism and is very fair and recognizes some of the merits of capitalism whilst still managing to critique it in a meaningful way. He did start with Marx but has managed to create his own way of thinking which is honestly genuinely compelling to read about.

I hope I'm not about to get flamed into oblivion after I submit this post...

11
ChaUniNovTan•

Upvote, Zizek is cool and easy to understand aside from the slovvy accent.

2
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Eh, his casual speeches are ok, but his books are the same Marxist nonsense amplified by Lacanian bullshit.

1
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Not in recent history, no. Simply because Marxist critique of Capitalism is the most scientific one out there. You can find tons of pre-Marxian Utopian Socialist however.

10
OlejzMakuobligatory vague and needlessly specific ideology•

If the most scientific critique of capitalism is Hegelian pseudoscience, then there is no scientific basis for socialism.

7
specterofsandersismPosadist•

You've not read Marx tho

6
OlejzMakuobligatory vague and needlessly specific ideology•

I've read some Marx seen some lectures, but as with all pseudoscience I am not going to read everything there is.

6
mavman97•

A critique of capitalism is more of a negation.

I'd say that some "socialist-lite" policies could positively provide a basis from a social science perspective.

3
slayermentExitarian (crowdfreedom.com)•

Surprise, surprise!

2
Hhturanational-syndicalist, post-communist•

They don't use the term "scientific" properly. It's a reference to how Marx and Engels used the term in the 1800s, which was just chosen to distinguish their theory of social change from Utopianism.

2
AhnDwaTwa•

Surely there's empirical merit within the concepts of socialism and communism, without incorporating the prophetic mumbo jumbo of the dialectic. That wasn't the entirety of his argument

1
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Simply because Marxist critique of Capitalism is the most scientific one out there

Well, shit, if that’s the best you can do...

5†
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Have you actually read Marx? His critique presented in Das Kapital is actually pretty indepth, and much more hands-on than most Utopian Socialists

9
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Yes, I’ve read it. It’s ok if you keep in mind its date and Marx’s philosophical education. But, for example, the section on commodity fetishism is lame no matter how you look at it.

8
mattsahMarxist-Capitalist (I won the lottery)•

What is lame about Marx's concept of commodity fetishism?

9
RandomCapitalist•

wew

1
Hpunk98•

Simply because Marxist critique of Capitalism is the most scientific one out there.

LUL

1
nathanweisserThere is no right/left, only authoritarian/libertarian•

I don't like it that companies like Google and Facebook can get big enough to then direct speech in the ways they see fit. Boom, I critiqued Capitalism.

8
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Are there any instances of Google or Facebook actually doing any such thing outside of their own domains? Not that I support them, but it's a very weak critique of Capitalism, if it only applies to two companies doing something entirely within their established legal rights.

1
nathanweisserThere is no right/left, only authoritarian/libertarian•

Yeah, they're entirely within their rights. It's just that they've been ripe to be overthrown by competition with more libertarian views on regulation, but it takes decades to get the server space and things together. This is my one and only gripe with our economic world right now. People who believe in free speech cannot find the investors they need to get off the ground. Either that, or the free speech programmers out there actually trying to do something meaningful are near-alt-righters.

1
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

So your one and only gripe with Capitalism is that Capitalists are able to do as they want, within their own property? Or that there isn't any large online community of people who "support free speech", and as such they can't find investors? Or that Capitalists are allowed to create monopolies, or nearly monopolies, rendering their competition irrelevant, however existent it may be? Or that building up online communities take time, and it was basically a "first come, first served"-endeavour?

1
nathanweisserThere is no right/left, only authoritarian/libertarian•

I guess. Idk.

1
diezeitenCommunist•

How about trying to be literate and not asking for pseudo-spiritual ideology?

5
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Yes, do this, please.

6
diezeitenCommunist•

Nice, but the reason Marx is so influential is because he was the first person to examine capitalism from an empirical basis. So far, Marxists have been the only people to do so.

9
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Marx believed in exceptionalism of humans and human labour. Empirical basis, myass.

3
diezeitenCommunist•

Where?

4
Hpunk98•

So far, Marxists have been the only people to do so

Lul. If that's true then its no wonder economics is still a soft science.

1
diezeitenCommunist•

Econ isn't a science at all.

3
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

He's not nearly as systematic as Marx, but I enjoy reading Bakunin when he isn't ranting about the Jews. He was dead on about some of the implicit authoritarianism (seize the state and let it "wither away" into a ruler-less utopia? Not gonna happen.) in Marx's writings and why it would be problematic later on.

Bookchin is also interesting for his "social ecology" and "first and second nature" ideas as they relate to capitalism, as well as seeing how his writings have influenced the DFNS, but I don't care for his writing style as much.

5
specterofsandersismPosadist•

Bakunin when he isn't ranting about the Jews

So like never?

2
specterofsandersismPosadist•

Your being tired of something doesn't make it wrong. It's indicative of a low emotional quotient to dismiss things out of hand because they cause you emotional discomfort.

5
HeFlipYajust text•

You mean like 150 years of economic science?

4
specterofsandersismPosadist•

*150 years of economic mystification that basically exists only by virtue of Marx, that is, as a reaction to Marx

4
HeFlipYajust text•

Marx had no microeconomic theory to speak of, and marginalism describes an essentially microeconomic phenomenon. So this comment makes very little sense to me.

3
mentatmookie•

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

1
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

First developments in marginalism were published before Capital. But Marx ignored them as he ignored any developments in math because he was reading outdated books of English political economists while math and economics were getting pushed forward on the continent.

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Right, it’s the opposite. I am tired of it because it’s wrong.

3
specterofsandersismPosadist•

Well, I'm convinced

4
alienated_proleAbolish the Spectacle•

He thinks he debunked Marx because slaves and farm animals don't create Value.

2
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

I'v never said anything close to that. You sound pretty dumb.

1
ChaUniNovTan•

Assuming something and calling names. Hello specific percentile.

0
Merkava_AntifaZionist•

Read the young Marx and avoid Engels. Engels isn't so bad, and he can be a biting critic, but he falls into positivist scientism very often, e.g. in that parable about the chicken and the egg in Anti-Duehring. As for any of his predictions, take them with caution. If I were writing in the 19th century I'd expect capital to end soon, too. Note that he never said that communism is inevitable. It only takes the prospect of global nuclear war to prevent that. That's just bs scientism from second-rate theorists.

Marx is ultimately building on earlier attempts to critique the state of things, to imagine a world where you can live without fear. These projects were outdated by the time of Marx so he responded by approaching the situation as it had developed since. But you'll find all the enlightenment philosophers (flawed as they were) were critiquing a social order that prevents the development of human potential to live free from misery.

You can probably imagine how capitalism is not conducive to ending that order: for example, one of the big issues we face today is that there is no incentive - in a system which deforms all men, forcing them to care only about their self-interest - to live in a way that ensures harmony with nature. If you can grasp things like this, you are critiquing capital.

Take another look at Marx. He's not the 'Marxist' you imagine him to be.

4
specterofsandersismPosadist•

Read the young Marx and avoid Engels. Engels isn't so bad, and he can be a biting critic,

Without Engels there would be no Marxism

4
HeFlipYajust text•

Didn't the concepts Marx developed exist in larval form in The Condition of the Working Class in England?

1
Raminelwolf"It creeps behind at night, ready to seize your toothbrushes."•

read the young Marx

"muh early/late marxism"

2
Fuck1917and1776Dear NATO, Don't hurt people and don't take their things•

What is the main difference? In theory?

1
SihplakMarxism-Leninism, Central Planning, SW/CC, LTV•

Saying Marx is abstract is utter nonsense and only goes to demonstrate failure on your part to seriously examine Marxist literature. There is nothing vague about dialectics, exploitation, alienation or other such terms; they are all simple and based on material relations in the real world.

4
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

It is the same in mathematics. Let us take any algebraic quantity whatever: for example, a. If this is negated, we get -a (minus a). If we negate that negation, by multiplying -a by -a, we get +a^2, i.e., the original positive quantity, but at a higher degree, raised-to its second power. In this case also it makes no difference that we can obtain the same a^2 by multiplying the positive a by itself, thus likewise getting a^2. For the negated negation is so securely entrenched in a^2 that the latter always has two square roots, namely, a and -a.

Lol, dialectics are totally not arbitrary or vague.

they are all simple and based on material relations in the real world

Wut, alienation is just vague subjective nonsense.

Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (i) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (ii) In your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature . . . Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.

2
SihplakMarxism-Leninism, Central Planning, SW/CC, LTV•

Lol, dialectics are totally not arbitrary or vague.

Dialectics is not arbitrary nor vague; two antithetical systems reach a conflict, and their contradiction results in a synthesis, being a new system all together. In simple terms, dialectics, and more specifically, dialectical materialism, is viewing the world as evolving through conflicts of opposites. One simple example for purpose of clarification would be to say that the want for healthiness and the existence of diseases are in conflict, in contradiction, and that the synthesis is a vaccination or medicine or other such medical treatment.

However, this being said, there are more complex components as well. For instance, the struggle between the feudal ruling class and the early Capitalist bourgeoisie brought about Capitalism, the negation of Feudalism. However, Capitalism's internal components, its class structure, profit structure, and so on, all are in contradiction with itself; the falling rate of profit demonstrates that as Capitalism makes production more efficient, it simultaneously makes itself less efficient at making profit, and similar trends can be seen in many other aspects of it. In this sense, Capitalism is the negation of Feudalism, but also creates its own negation, being the need for Socialism/Communism.

Using solely the algebraic example and nothing else might lead you to believe it's vague or arbitrary, but that's because of you not taking the effort to try to understand via other forms of information or other examples. If you want a modern, simple explanation, look at this site's description of it. If you want it even simpler and shorter, you can look at this reddit comment explaining it.

Wut, alienation is just vague subjective nonsense.

I'm gonna steal someone else's ELI5 explanation for this:

"When you work, you are working on someone else's private property and you do not get to keep whatever it is that you are producing nor do you have any say in what or how you are producing it. Thus, you are alienated from your labor.".

You quoting the first textual reference in the wiki page for Marx's theory on alienation and then pretending to have an informed opinion on the concept is an absolute joke.

4
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Dialectics is not arbitrary nor vague

I've just shown you the most retarded example Engels could come up with. Your bullshitting won't convince me. Either explain how this example is not arbitrary or don't waste your time.

You quoting the first textual reference in the wiki page for Marx's theory on alienation

So what?

When you work, you are working on someone else's private property and you do not get to keep whatever it is that you are producing nor do you have any say in what or how you are producing it. Thus, you are alienated from your labor.

You can't be alienated from something you wasn't attached to in the first place. The idea of alienation presupposes a normal or natural state of things, which is just ideological nonsense.

Also, it's fucking stupid to pretend that this is the only kind of alienation Marx talks about when I literally quoted the different kind.

1
SihplakMarxism-Leninism, Central Planning, SW/CC, LTV•

I've just shown you the most retarded example Engels could come up with. Your bullshitting won't convince me. Either explain how this example is not arbitrary or don't waste your time.

Oof, using the anti-fascist tag while using ableist slurs. Fun.

Also, now you're changing the topic. Your initial argument was that the entirety of dialectics is arbitrary. Now you're saying the specific example is arbitrary. In regards to the example, one could say it's arbitrary, sure. I think that Engels's reasoning is probably to use the algebraic example to demonstrate dialectics with simpler examples, but that can obfuscate the actual meaning.

You can't be alienated from something you wasn't attached to in the first place. The idea of alienation presupposes a normal or natural state of things, which is just ideological nonsense.

Are you implying that the expenditure of energy by someone is not solely attributed to them naturally?

When, say, I exercise or exert force upon something, I am using energy to do so. This is basic biology and physics, literally the natural state of how the world works. If I exert energy to produce something, that energy is called labor, and therefore the product is the product of my labor. If someone is dictating how my labor must be directed, what purpose it must be used for, and how much of the value of my labor I am actually given, then I am alienated from it, because a literal physical aspect of my being is being controlled by someone else.

And, furthermore, you say "alienation presupposes a normal or natural state of things, which is just ideological nonsense".

This is incorrect on multiple levels. To begin with, it doesn't presuppose a normal or natural state of things, but rather makes what is more akin to an ideological statement, which in simple terms is to say "people ought to have autonomy over their labor, and the products of labor should be used for their uses, rather than being used for exchange". It is basically making a statement of what Marx perceives ought to be versus what currently is.

As such, you cannot interpret it as "ideological nonsense", because it is perfectly sensible; labor (i.e. human energy used for social production) is being perceived as being a physical aspect of humanity, i.e. your labor is an extension of yourself and not separate from your being. Therefore, it being claimed by another, and having its usage, rewards, and so on dictated by another, for the purpose of benefited exclusively that person, is seen as alienation.

Also, it's fucking stupid to pretend that this is the only kind of alienation Marx talks about when I literally quoted the different kind.

No, you quoted Marx's description of labor itself. In the two points of what you quoted, Marx says that labor is the manifestation of the individual's labor, and thereby an objective extension of their labor and thus themselves. This is to say that using your labor to make something imbues that object not just with labor, but with your labor. Extending this to the products of labor being exchanged for use value, Marx then basically says that converting your essential essence into a physical product for the purpose of satisfying the essential essence of a need of another person is what people are being alienated from, more-or-less.

Alienation itself has multiple aspects; alienation of worker from their labor, from the products of their labor, from themselves, and from other workers. In simple terms, workers are alienated from their labor because they have no autonomy over their labor under the Capitalist mode of production. Then, they are alienated from the products of their labor because their compensation doesn't come in the form of the products themselves, but is in fact a monetary wage representative of a value that is worth less than the labor they did, while they simultaneously did more labor than is necessary for their (and by extension, society's) well being. They are alienated from themselves because of the typical situation of only having a singular career path which is at conflict with the variability in human interest, in simple terms, alienation from the self comes from repetition, redundancy, "day in day out" methods of perpetual labor that Capitalism functions off of. Finally, they are alienated from other laborers because not only are the people reduced to their labor, but their labor is also commodified as though it were another product to buy rather than the essential thing that creates all commodities and products.

Hopefully this clears things up for you. For a final short summary, alienation is essentially having one's labor not in their own control, and on top of it, having all aspects of it be commodified so that it no longer has a human element, but instead becomes treated as though it is a commodity to be bought.

1
HeFlipYajust text•

exploitation

What is the rate of exploitation exactly?

1
SihplakMarxism-Leninism, Central Planning, SW/CC, LTV•

As far as I'm aware, exploitation isn't measured as a rate. Exploitation described simply is the process where a worker receives less for their work than is the value of what they've created, and where the owner of the means of production the laborer works upon gains that value through doing none of the labor, and largely relies upon the performance of surplus labor by a worker.

In material reality, we see exploitation manifested as being profits. All profits a company makes are monetary representations of exploitation because it represents money (and therefore, value) that was created by the workers that was not paid to the workers.

In this sense, if you were adamant about wanting to determine such a concept as a "rate of exploitation", you would say it is either linked to or equal to the rate of profit of a company or firm.

4
HeFlipYajust text•

I asked u/specterofsandersism, and now u/Sihplak, both clearly learned Marxists what the rate of exploitation was. Neither could tell me, the former never replied, and here, you state you aren't aware of one...

The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of the labourer by the capitalist.

s/v = (surplus labour)/(necessary labour)

Marx's formula can be found buried in an obscure passage titled THE DEGREE OF EXPLOITATION OF LABOUR-POWER at the beginning of Chpt 9, of an obscure work titled "Capital Volume I."

1
SihplakMarxism-Leninism, Central Planning, SW/CC, LTV•

I'm sorry, what point are you trying to make here? That I happened to not recall a specific formula from a dense text, but still explained the concept without the formula?

How dense of you. If you bothered to read what I said, you'll see

In material reality, we see exploitation manifested as being profits. All profits a company makes are monetary representations of exploitation because it represents money (and therefore, value) that was created by the workers that was not paid to the workers.

In this sense, if you were adamant about wanting to determine such a concept as a "rate of exploitation", you would say it is either linked to or equal to the rate of profit of a company or firm.

This implicitly necessitates determining a ratio such as you have, being surplus labor over necessary labor.

Memorizing equations does not determine if someone is a Marxist; you failing to understand that by, to use the phrase appropriately, "virtue signalling" via quoting specifically from Capital, makes no real point or argument at all.

3
mattsahMarxist-Capitalist (I won the lottery)•

s/v

EDIT: Whoops, didn't scroll down enough. Awell, looks like you already found the answer you were looking for on your own.

1
Hhturanational-syndicalist, post-communist•

My complaints about capitalism are fairly non-Marxist. I haven't written books as long as Capital, though.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/5bcceo/capitalist_wage_labor_is_inefficient_because/
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/7xsgwp/a_critique_of_coops_and_my_suggestion_to_improve/

4
BastiatFanAnarcho-Capitalist•

I am tired of Marxist, Marxian and Marxist-esque criticism of capitalism: capital contradictions, inevitability of communism, vague bullshit about alienation, exploitation, """amorality""", dialectics, etc.

https://i0.wp.com/all-funny.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/darth-vader.jpg

3
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

Seriously. If u/BothWaysItGoes keeps going, he'll abandon 'the left' in a few more months. As of now, I think it is safe to say he has found the bible full of a few to many fairy tales for his rational mind to take, so now he is looking for something with more substance.

Someone should slip him a reading list - maybe start with some Bastiat. He is clearly searching for a new lens to view reality through, hopefully he finds one that makes more sense.

2
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

The left is a code-word for autism.

-6
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

I look forward to your conversion story. You can title it 'How I punched a non-nazi and ended up a conservative'.

1†
RandomCapitalist•

That's very rude to most autistics who function at a much higher cognitive level than socialists.

-5
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

Are you officially CheapShill's new account, or are you like a copycat troll or something?

7
DoomlordKravoka"Commodity" is my favorite word•

I hope I do.

2
ChaUniNovTan•

Got'm.

0
Flpgneves•

Look for Karl Polanyi. But even him, although much better than Marx, couldn't really prove that capitalism was bad in it's essence.

3
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Noone can prove Capitalism, nor Socialism, nor Feudalism, nor any system, is inherently bad. That is because Bad is a subjective statement. There is no such thing as a universally accepted "bad".

7
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

False.

1
SPAMisgood007Anti-Fascist•

Proudhon

3
RandomCapitalist•

😂😂😂😂😂😂

3
SPAMisgood007Anti-Fascist•

they wanted someone other than marx. not necessarily a good critique.

6
RandomCapitalist•

I LOLed but the title literally says "good"

4
SPAMisgood007Anti-Fascist•

They why are people suggesting Austrian school economics?

2
EJ2H5SuusuTendencies are a spook•

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber

^Popular ^English ^Translation:

C. D. Burns, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Max Weber ," The International Journal of Ethics 41, no. 1 (Oct., 1930): 119-120.

Read here at archive.org

Popular download formats:

Wikipedia article:

Here's a cute video summary.

3
specterofsandersismPosadist•

Weber

lol cute

3
EJ2H5SuusuTendencies are a spook•

It's not the greatest and the criticisms against the book are strong. It's definitely original, non-Marxist, and not Utopian though.

2
ikonoqlastMinarchist•

Maybe you should try read defenses of capitalism, rather than critiques. I recommend-

Milton Friedman 'Free to Choose'

and

F. A. Hayek 'The Road to Serfdom'.

3†
test822collective raw materials/market determined finished goods•

nah

3
nate23401•

You might want to check out Chomsky's critiques of capitalism.

3
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

I like some of his criticism and "Manufactured consent" is a good book.

1
-wobblies-•

They don't ignore Marx, but...

The Utopia of Rules, by David Graeber (Link)

The Revolution of Everyday Life, by Raoul Vaneigem (Link)

2
happybeard92Democratic Socialist/Economic Democracy•

These posts are getting worse and worse. Just because you don't like (or understand/read the material) doesn't mean its wrong.

2
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Oh wow, I've never considered this.

1
happybeard92Democratic Socialist/Economic Democracy•

not surprising.

2
BothWaysItGoesOPStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

Just because you didn't like (or read or understand) Main Kampf doesn't mean it's wrong.

0
happybeard92Democratic Socialist/Economic Democracy•

I have read Mein Kampf, and it's methodology isn't anything close to Marx, it's filled with nonsensical anecdotal evidence that doesn't apply qualitative analysis like that of Marx. Besides that, Marx has multiple publications that are taught in every reputable university. You just don't want to do your homework and/or be proven wrong.

2
RandomCapitalist•

What do you mean by "capitalism"?

Most people don't share the same bizarre analysis of reality as Marxists do where everything can be compared and described by some sacred Platonic Form and the Capitalism that Marx described doesn't really exist, for all intents and purposes.

Do you mean property rights in general? Wages? Markets?

1