← Home ← Back to /lit/

Thread 24600651

93 posts 28 images /lit/
Anonymous No.24600651 >>24600653 >>24600664 >>24600712 >>24600750 >>24601551 >>24601691 >>24601784 >>24601904 >>24602137 >>24603244 >>24603666 >>24603744 >>24605292 >>24605661 >>24605779 >>24606950
Marx was right about everything
Anonymous No.24600653 >>24600666 >>24600711 >>24602143 >>24603449 >>24605678
>>24600651 (OP)
Maybe if "everything" boils down to the very shallow reality he defined. Marxism is religious dogma at this point
Anonymous No.24600654
no
Anonymous No.24600664 >>24600668 >>24600819
>>24600651 (OP)
All you need from Marx is “progress comes from the collision of forces in conflict.” Everything else is fluff
Anonymous No.24600666 >>24600668 >>24604155
>>24600653
>Marxism is religious dogma at this point
And that's a good thing.
Anonymous No.24600668 >>24600683 >>24600711 >>24600819
>>24600664
And he was far from the first person to say this.
>>24600666
Checked. Marxism is evil
Anonymous No.24600680 >>24600690 >>24600711 >>24600722 >>24601954
No, but given that he based himself on materialism, Hegelianism, and LToV, it's impressive that he got as close to intelligibility as he did. He didn't build a cathedral, but building a crooked shack using nothing but chopsticks and glitter glue is still an achievement.
Anonymous No.24600683
>>24600668
I wasn't going to wait to get the 7's
Anonymous No.24600690 >>24600711 >>24601954
>>24600680
The materialist angle was a bad choice, but if you stick to politics and ignore philosophy you can make sense out of it- especially in multiculti societies that are post-secularized.
Anonymous No.24600711 >>24600715 >>24600717
>>24600690
>>24600680
>>24600668
>>24600653
what is it with you religious retards in this board as of late?
Anonymous No.24600712 >>24600726
>>24600651 (OP)
Then why hasn’t the revolution happened yet? If class consciousness manifests through material conditions, why did this never happen? Doesn’t this prove that idealism, at the end of the day, reigns supreme? This is the single thing keeping me from being a marxist (I’m a socdem).
Anonymous No.24600715
>>24600711
What about these posts are religious lol
Anonymous No.24600717
>>24600711
???
I'm not religious.
Anonymous No.24600722 >>24600731
>>24600680
Absolute halfwit
Anonymous No.24600723 >>24600740 >>24600744
marx threads without fail always bring out retards that havent read him
Anonymous No.24600726 >>24600734
>>24600712
the material conditions weren't there
how could you have had a WORLD socialist revolution in the early 1900s when only a small part of the world even had workers to begin with?
trotskyites don't need to reply
Anonymous No.24600731
>>24600722
Still trying to make materialism work in 2025?
Anonymous No.24600734 >>24600741 >>24600749 >>24601498
>>24600726
Are they ever going to be? Seems to me like the system will only be actualized when the serf class of AI bots is taking care of everything and we don't give a shit what they do or how long it works because it doesn't have any feeling.
Anonymous No.24600740
>>24600723
not reading marx sounds like a very intelligent move actually.
Anonymous No.24600741 >>24600761
>>24600734
Just 2 more weeks bro the workers of the world will unite real soon just give them a bit more time bro
Anonymous No.24600744
>>24600723
>Heh... marx was right... about everything...
>Lol... you guys... just havent read him... once you do... trust me... youll see
Anonymous No.24600749 >>24600760
>>24600734
I think so
like think about AI
you need so many massive resources, you need such a scale to run, that it can't really be redistributed
it does however make producing things take less time (let's say making art)
so people won't be so inclined to get rid of it
the only step forward is collectivization
socialism will exist when it's a necessity, not merely an option
Anonymous No.24600750 >>24601668 >>24603744
>>24600651 (OP)
This nigga wanted to talk about socialism but didn’t want to get social, like wanting money without wanting to work, ah eureka.
Anonymous No.24600760 >>24600770
>>24600749
>like think about AI
you need so many massive resources, you need such a scale to run, that it can't really be redistributed
The pride of Marx. Very astute analysis.
Anonymous No.24600761
>>24600741
Yeah I'm not a commie at all. But I do find it funny how many redditor commies wank off to star trek when it's pretty much just tech that completely resolves the worker question there. They all think we should apply that gay ass model in the here and now as well. Fat fags
Anonymous No.24600770 >>24601478
>>24600760
nigger read his books
Anonymous No.24600819 >>24605771
>>24600664
>>24600668
>le ebin aphorism
Marx's main insight is his finding that the 'objective laws of economics' are reified social relations, they are historic and that the purpose of the economy of capitalism is capital, money-begetting money.
Anonymous No.24601478
>>24600770
>retarded post not unlike something I thought during 6th grade social studies
>Thats retarded.
>DUDE JUST READ HIM BRO TRUST ME
The pride of Marx.
Anonymous No.24601498
>>24600734
>Seems to me like the system will only be actualized when the serf class of AI bots is taking care of everything
That's literally marx's argument
Anonymous No.24601551
>>24600651 (OP)
Would you believe that you're not the first guy to say this?
Anonymous No.24601668
>>24600750
ah hell naw dis nigga didn just put the Kshatriyas over the Brahmins :skull: :skull: :skull:
Anonymous No.24601691 >>24601752
>>24600651 (OP)
Read the Federalist Papers instead,
Pinko.
Anonymous No.24601752
>>24601691
No, I'm a red. Liberal
Anonymous No.24601768 >>24601954
the socialist experiment has failed everywhere it has been tried and keeps failing and shall ever fail. fuck all commie shills.
Anonymous No.24601784
>>24600651 (OP)
>It turns out the good guys were right all along
Heh, well... look who's come back to the drawing board.
Anonymous No.24601904 >>24601946
>>24600651 (OP)
what not getting any replies to job applications does to a man
Anonymous No.24601946
>>24601904
Yeah that'd be in the chapter about the price of labour power being socially determinate, not determined by the skill composition of the commodity, merely its current predicted future inputs as realised.
Anonymous No.24601954 >>24601975 >>24602046 >>24603449
>>24600680
>>24600690

Imagine denying materialist analysis in 2025. Marx threads truly do bring out the worst midwits
>>24601768
The socialist experiment has succeeded in lifting people out of poverty and improving living standards almost everywhere it has been tried.
Anonymous No.24601967 >>24602185
Anonymous No.24601975 >>24601979
>>24601954
head over to /r/venezuela or watch cuban vlogs on youtube. see for yourself.

socialism *causes* poverty.
Anonymous No.24601977
>writes an ideology for the working class
>the only people who care about it are the spoilt children of the upper middle class
Anonymous No.24601979 >>24601987
>>24601975
Both of those countries started out poor and only improved under socialist systems. Plenty of non socialist poor countries out there too. You don't have a point
Anonymous No.24601987
>>24601979
>Both of those countries started out poor and only improved under socialist systems.

you lie.
Anonymous No.24602046 >>24602079
>>24601954
>The socialist experiment has succeeded in lifting people out of poverty and improving living standards almost everywhere it has been tried.
That was capitalism that did that, friend. Socialism has never in human history lifted anyone out of poverty except maybe the dictators and tyrannical elite who ended up running the show for a couple of years or decades until it all came crashing down on them. You might be confusing socialism with social democracies that exist in western europe, where alongside a capitalist free market, we have social safety nets funded by our tax money. There are pros and cons to that system, but it most definitely isn't socialism, we still have a capitalist economy in europe through and through.
Anonymous No.24602079 >>24602128
>>24602046
>That was capitalism that did that, friend.
Leaving aside that this is objectively untrue in reality, what I am more interested in how people justify this belief in theory itself. When socialism pretty much works with the explicit goal of uplifting people while capitalism has the explicit goal of impoverishing as many as possible (leaving the actual real world results aside).

Capitalism is the system which, if left to its own devices, will give you the poverty of 19th century working class London at the height of British imperial power and wealth. Marx was simply a result of his times since the situation got so bad that class struggle became inevitable and governments had to step in to reign in capitalism. It was not until 20th century and populist socialist policies rolled around that Europeans (besides the burgeious) developed any living standards.

>You might be confusing socialism with social democracies that exist in western europe, where alongside a capitalist free market, we have social safety nets funded by our tax money.

As I said, given equal standards of wealth, the places with more social policies will have higher standards of living than places without.
Anonymous No.24602128 >>24602172
>>24602079
>Leaving aside that this is objectively untrue in reality
No anon, you can't just leave aside a historical fact. I refuse to bother with someone who wants to predicate their entire argument on a complete and utter falsehood. It is a historical fact that capitalism has liften hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and created a prosperous middle class with higher living standards than any communist country could dream of. You yourself right now have a better life than 99.9% of every single person who had the misfortune to live in a communist regime. Aknowledge this objective truth or fuck off.
Anonmous No.24602137
>>24600651 (OP)
Marx was a genius. Doesnt mean he was right about everything. Does mean his critics are hacks.
Anonymous No.24602143 >>24602161
>>24600653
Anonymous No.24602161 >>24602168
>>24602143
If someone offered you a one way flight to North Korea where you could participate in those awesome parades and stuff, I bet you wouldn't be too eager to take them up on it.
Anonymous No.24602168 >>24603452
>>24602161
If someone offered me a one way flight to Detroit, I wouldn't be eager either
Anonymous No.24602172 >>24605776
>>24602128
>It is a historical fact that capitalism has liften hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and created a prosperous middle class with higher living standards than any communist country could dream of

You've still not answered how you'd reconcile this fiction you've cooked up with the explicit workings of capitalism which have the logical endgoal of impoverishing and enslaving people. Ignoring my question will get you nowhere. You continue with this nonsense even though I pointed out what unfettered capitalism was like in 19th century and how it was the socialist policies of 20th century which created middle class europe.

>You yourself right now have a better life than 99.9% of every single person who had the misfortune to live in a communist regime.
I mentioned same standards of income for a reason. Of course comparing UK to Soviet Russia will lead to a certain result. But now compare USSR to tsarist Russia to get the real picture. I'd say itsymore than an improvement. And capitalist Russia is on no path to become the next US.
Anonymous No.24602185
>>24601967
Genuinely, what kind of retard tries pushing the idea of a cycle of collapse? Most places were taken down and never did it again.
Is this capitalist projection? That's the system that has regular global meltdowns every few decades.
Anonymous No.24603244
>>24600651 (OP)
Dialectical materialism collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.
So no, he wasn't.
Anonymous No.24603274 >>24603744
Anonymous No.24603449 >>24604249
>>24600653
it is, just like Voeglin basically said

>>24601954
you can't really prove material existence outside your own perspective. it may be true for you but it may not be for others
Anonymous No.24603452 >>24604145
>>24602168
The only one way ticket you're getting is one to the gulag
Anonymous No.24603666
>>24600651 (OP)
>Outrageous, absolutist rage bait argument. Tries to make a thread about it.
You forgot to add the Gigachad meme, poltard. Go back to /pol/ or /gif/ if you want to post Little Dark Age cringe edits.
Anonymous No.24603744 >>24604249
>>24600651 (OP)
Hell nah. The most basic problem is that it destroys the motivation for most people to be productive. Communism (and probably all forms of socialism) favors nonusers and nonproducers, while raising the 'work' of producers and users. There won't be much investment, because why? You can't become rich or everything so there is no need to work that hard. People will start to become more lazy.
There is a big problem with allocation of producing. The market isn't really driven by supply and demand. The market needs to adjust according to arbitrary information. Who actually decides what is being Produced? Random people get chosen? So the means of production wouldn't be public anymore. Some people get elected, like in a democracy? It would have the same weaknesses as democracy, but worse. It would just turn into all talk and no doing. Production rates would go down because it would just turn into the typical democracy talk, but with bigger impact. A person's position in the production structure has an immediate effect on his income, be it in terms of exchangeable goods, psychic income, status, and the like. Thus people want to improve their income and want to move up in the hierarchy. Thus most would spent more time actually developing their political talents instead of working.
People wouldn't be as careful with the public means of production. If I can work hard and save 5 % of the resources, why should I? I personally wouldn't suffer any negatives. All of society would and thus it would be too little to notice.

Marxism results in less production of goods over time (look at history. Most Communist society got worse over time). People get lazy. If the government wants to stop this they force people to work. Nice.

Marx maybe had some good analysis of society and his work was more or less necessary at that time, but the product of his work isn't really that great for humanity.


>>>24600750
Also based. Communism as well as capitalism focus too much on material wealth instead of becoming le traditional Ayran spirited aristocrat.
>>24603274
Good Point. Germany is very good example. A quite homogeneous society was divided. The BRD was more free market, while the GDR was heavily influenced my Marxism. The results speak for themselves. Sure, the GDR was maybe better in some very few aspects (which east Germans nowadays miss sometimes), but altogether the life in the West was better. Thats why most people wanted to get the legendary packages from west Germany from their relatives.
Anonymous No.24604145 >>24605255
>>24603452
Sure thing bucko
Anonymous No.24604155
>>24600666
pottery
Anonymous No.24604249 >>24605279 >>24605747
>>24603449

Gravity won't stop pulling you down if you stop believing in it. Ignoring material circumstances will be the downfall of philosophy. Thankfully Marx saved everyone from it.

>>24603744
The *lazy* argument makes no sense whatsoever. Most people under capitalism are not working because they'll get rich. They are working because if they don't earn money they'll starve. And what is "becoming rich" if not using your own state sanctioned control on resources via private property to extract other less fortunate people's labour. A situation which will never ever materialise for the vast majority of those living under capitalism

The fundamental truth about reality is that humans must work to create things and then share those things to survive and maintain a lifestyle. This is true for every system whether it's socialist or capitalist or feudal. "Getting rich", "success", "ambition" are just layers of social constructs which exist over this reality. Humans can't afford to go "lazy" whatsoever simply because otherwise we'll go extinct.

But we don't need to become workhorses for the destructive forces of capital either.
Anonymous No.24605255 >>24605502 >>24605505
>>24604145
>posting that quote out of context
i shiggydiggy
Anonymous No.24605279 >>24605367
>>24604249
Yeah people never starved in socialist countries. Super safe system. No grisly tortures, mass imprisonment of innocents, mass forced labor, mass executions. Thank u Marx, Trotsky, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot. Thank u Adorno, Gramsci, Lukacs. Thank you to all you kids out there reading them and quoting them full of passionate intensity. You are the worst.
Anonymous No.24605292 >>24605810
>>24600651 (OP)
I’m conscious of my limitations when it comes to economics/history which is why I’ve never even bothered reading Marx because I know I’m vulnerable to being propagandized by any persuasively worded thesis. Just based on what I’ve gleaned of Marx and my lived experience under capitalism I would lean towards him being right and preferring another system, but I will never undertake to form a real opinion. It’s just not my milieu. What I do know, however, is that the world is dog eat dog and always has been, and that’s all the really interests my train of thought. So I read Nietzsche and Machievelli and don’t have much patience for the whining of the poor. We live in a society, empowering yourself within our given system is entirely up to you. Not up to you in terms of participating in a fair system, or a true meritocracy, but in terms of your genetic endowment and personal conviction. Either you have the ability to make your way or you don’t. I’m sure there are very intelligent economic analyses in Marx for why retards live like pigs and why it’s not fair, but all I hear when people talk about that is that pigs expect to live like humans. No piggie, you get what’s given to you in your trough. If that’s not what you wanted, maybe you shouldn’t have been a pig. So fundamentally I guess I’m a eugenicist.
Anonymous No.24605367 >>24605370
>>24605279
>Yeah people never starved in socialist countries

Yes they didn't? Most famines that thought ending midwit anti-socialists report happened during early stages of socialism in those countries. During an era when such things were extremely common. Otherwise Socialism has a proven track record of better food distribution than any capitalist system. Meanwhile people are still starving and dying of hunger or otherwise suffering from malnutrition as a direct consequence of capitalist logic.
Anonymous No.24605370
>>24605367
lying shill fuck.
Anonymous No.24605502
>>24605255
You want context? I'll give you context

"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

"Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Anonymous No.24605505 >>24605511
>>24605255
You want context? I'll give you context

"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give."

"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

"Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer."
Anonymous No.24605511
>>24605505
>You want context?
no, i just wanted to waste some of your time; i've never read smith or marx lol
Anonymous No.24605516
how about both marxists and lolbertarians are wrong and we need a little bit of both. a little bit of state and a little bit of free market. a balance between stern bureaucratic order and healthy productive controlled chaos.
Anonymous No.24605661 >>24605677
>>24600651 (OP)
He struggled with basic arithmetic (see the appendix of Volume 1) and wrote an essay calling calculus fake because he was too retarded to understand the infinitisimal. Surplus value is a retarded concept and the only interesting parts of Das Kapital are the (lengthy) quotations from government reports on working conditions.
Anonymous No.24605677 >>24605682 >>24605684
>>24605661
Those cheap trolls won't work here, son.
Anonymous No.24605678
>>24600653
yes, yes it is
Anonymous No.24605682 >>24605685 >>24605687
>>24605677
What troll? The appendix has text that says something like "these damned figures can be corrected later" with an editor note saying "the figures were corrected."
Have you even read Marx?
Anonymous No.24605684 >>24605685
>>24605677
shut up shill
Anonymous No.24605685 >>24605691 >>24605708
>>24605682
Yes I have, and you've not dealt with Ricardo or Smith or Marx. You've read a political summary instead of dealing with the primary text.

Go away.

>>24605684
Suggesting reading the text in context is shilling? Then give me 12 pence.
Anonymous No.24605687 >>24605708
>>24605682
there's nothing wrong with adding a notation about having to correct you're math
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_08_10a.htm
this is pretty funny though
Anonymous No.24605691 >>24605702
>>24605685
how about a gulag archipelago signed by jordan peterson and a one way ticket to north korea
Anonymous No.24605702
>>24605691
Jordan Peterson isn't a poet or a liar as far as I've heard.
Anonymous No.24605708 >>24605710
>>24605685
If I'd only read a summary I wouldn't be able to reference a minor note you mongoloid. I wish that I had only read a summary, it's one of the only books I regret having read.
>>24605687
It's pretty weird for it to make it into the final work but I'm not familiar with the circumstances of its publishing. In any case it's more that he spends 1000+ pages attempting to explain a pretty simple concept with endless examples. Math clearly wasn't his strong point.
Anonymous No.24605710
>>24605708
>I wish that I had only read a summary, it's one of the only books I regret having read.
How the fuck did you fail out of the category work in the first seven chapters that overturned political economy in a fundamental critique emerging from the reality that their categories reflected?
Anonymous No.24605717 >>24605733
commies ultimately just have bad taste, corrupt instincts, enfeebled souls. a weird attraction to what deep down they know is synonymous with bleakness and decay. a vulgar taste for playing the militant, for the petty clandestine adventure of being an apparachik. none of these fucks ever go and move to caracas. they keep playing the revolutionary in the comfort of their first world milieus. they eat fast food and play vidya and read deleuze. they have the dirty aura of regular liars and they speak without conviction. thy are not men.
Anonymous No.24605733 >>24605744
>>24605717
You over-used the fallacy and weakened its effect thereby.
Anonymous No.24605744 >>24605754
>>24605733
it's not a logical proposition nor a set thereof, it's what i sincerely think about your lying pinko ass.
Anonymous No.24605747
>>24604249
Normal workers don't work to become rich. That is right. But under capitalism hard work gets rewarded more. In Communism, if you work with 50 % intensity, you will end up with the same as if you have worked with 100 % intensity. The "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ends up resulting in people just not seeing any reason to put in all their effort, if they aren't rewarded for it accordingly. Under capitalism you get more if your work more. But CEOs and the sort also don't have a reason to put in effort.

Under capitalism people make some sort of symbiosis. Both sides (the worker and the employer) have their own demands and if they can both agree on certain conditions, they help each other out in this regard. If one isn't happy with the conditions, don't do it. Communism won't work in that big of a population. It may work in small groups of close people like friends and family. But close to no people would 'sacrifice' themselves (working hard) for the other people and get nothing in return. It may work if everybody just become selfless suddenly.
Anonymous No.24605754 >>24605769
>>24605744
>it's not a logical proposition nor a set thereof
Exactly why I called it a fallacy.
Anonymous No.24605769
>>24605754
christ almighty.
Anonymous No.24605771
>>24600819
>the 'objective laws of economics' are reified social relations, they are historic
Garbage. Economy isn't evil men do bad things. It is people maximizing output and return where and when it is beneficial to do so. When there are markets to sell wares in exchange for currency, people who are in capable and in a position to benefit from it are liable to intensify production
>the purpose of the economy of capitalism is capital, money-begetting money.
Incorrect and so far afield it is laughable. 'Capitalism' has no ultimate purpose. It is an intensified organization of production which every advanced country, even if they are ostensible """""communist"""", arrives at because not doing so is in violation of the maximum power principle.
I would think Marxists at least would take materialism seriously. Jesus Christ. Men have no more control over their historical development than a buck has control over how his kind evolves in response to his environment.
Anonymous No.24605776 >>24605780
>>24602172
>You continue with this nonsense even though I pointed out what unfettered capitalism was like in 19th century and how it was the socialist policies of 20th century which created middle class europe.

He's ignoring you because you're ignoring reality. While the beginnings of the welfare state (or what you might call "socialist policies") can be traced back to Bismarck's Germany, the creation of robust welfare states in Western Europe and its offshoots only start in the 1930s and even then they only came in to being after the second WW.

There is very little correlation between "socialist policies" and the disappearance of poverty or the creation of the middle class in Western Europe and its offshoots.

As you can see in the chart:
Anonymous No.24605779
>>24600651 (OP)
Communism doesn't scale. Communism works for people raised in tribes as part of extended family social networks. Communism doesn't work when you expect people to try to actively benefit complete strangers in a society of millions or billions.
Thinking Marx was also right about everything is an overreaction to people saying Marx was completely wrong.
Anonymous No.24605780
>>24605776
Now compare that with public social spending, which was almost non-existent up until after the second WW in Western Europe and its offshoots:

Stop reading clowns like Jason Hickel and start reading actual historians and economists.
Anonymous No.24605810
>>24605292
>capitalist euginicist
have you seen physiognomies of the rich
Anonymous No.24606950
>>24600651 (OP)
the interesting thing is, capitalism wasn't the global phenomenon we know it to be today. he was just observing something growing in isolated urban centers. describing the very state of capitalism which is so universal and obvious now was in his time a prediction (not just a description of the obvious).