Why Marxism?

This is often thrown around by aut-right circles, but anyone who has actually studied humanities at university knows that it's very rare to encounter a literal Marxist professor. Marxism is not in vogue in academic circles and professors have been cuckolded by bourgeois "socialism" (i.e. succdemism) or some non-Marxist lil-bit-a-capitalism-but-not-too-much ideology or another

The right has no idea what capitalism is. The nazis think that it is when jews do things, and the various disciples of the Austrian School think that it is based on Tinkerbell magic where if you believe hard enough and clap your hands it will be okay. Then you have the basic bitch liberals who think that capitalism is human nature.

Because it includes a compehensive systemic analysis of capitalism. Capitalism is the status quo, and marxist theory dissects it, lays it bare.

Says who? Mises? The labor theory of value is what all classical economics is based on, and it remains the best model for determining the nature of the value of commodities.

brb work

lol
Outside of hypothetical models such as market socialism, property is centralized and its existence results in the exploitation of labor regardless of who owns and controls it.
They take the place of money in a revolutionary or early post-revolutionary society. They've largely been abandoned by the left.
Marx's critique relies on the LTV and it wasn't proven wrong, rather price was conflated with value and the "socially necessary" was ignored so they could make the mudpie strawman.
Even if serfs got more free time than workers it is irrelevant because we are not going back to feudalism barring an apocalyptic disaster.
I'm not, Marxism has ceased to mean anything and calling yourself such can mean you're anything from a pretentious ancom to an anti-burger capitalist. I'm a communist who values Marx's critique of political economy.
Socialism comes from liberalism and rejects core tenets of liberalism.

Holy shit this is one of the worst serious threads I've ever had the displeasure of seeing. I'm not going to contribute to it I'm just going to bash it because at this point it deserves nothing more. OP had a confusing post that shows he doesn't know about Marx to bother asking why people might follow him, and asked this on a predominantly alternative to Marx board. So the replies obviously ended up just as horrible and no one knows what they're talking about.
Tongue my anus.

Attached: 762.jpg (294x313, 18.67K)

*Enough about Marx.

Yeah, the only marxists at university are in the anthropology department or, on very rare occasions, in the history department.

Absolute Monarchy is the only ideology OUTSIDE of the enlightenment.

Yes, but what you don’t understand is how primitive accumulation of small farmers and artisans causes it, and you suggest we return to such a state of small property owners like America during the Articles of Confederation, however a return to a past state would inedibly lead us to where we are now.

Nations have existed sense forever, it is not the goal of (most) socialists to abolish them. What we want to get rid of is the relatively recent politicalization of them. Also what many right-wingersdon’t understand is that nations break apart, bend and merge back to together. Just look at how the proto-germans broke into Scandinavians and the south-germans who broke into Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons, etc. But then merged back together into the modern German Nation. Modern Nations are constantly changing, this change is neither good or bad, but inedible.

You may not want to make retarded statements that bring down your entire argument and make you look bad within the first two sentences or ever actually.

Before you start gushing on a bit too much about the nobility of Roman civilization, you should read this book. Roman history was largely written by the upper class and for the upper class; ignoring the suffering on a massive scale of its slave and proletarian population for the enrichment of its oligarchs. It's a pretty easy read, give it a go.

Attached: people's history of ancient rome.jpeg (1200x630, 47.63K)

Rome had significant social and class-collaborative movements, meanwhile Carthage was literally an imperialist power exporting merchant capital and using the antique equivalent of Blackwater to crush their enemies.