When did you realize that Marxism is the ultimate redpill?

When did you realize that Marxism is the ultimate redpill?

Other urls found in this thread:

heatst.com/culture-wars/marxist-vegan-restaurant-closes-after-customers-no-longer-willing-to-wait-40-minutes-for-a-sandwich/
freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/marx_k.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

When scholarship met real-world experience

>Marx was a freeloading layabout scumbag, and also a masonic faggot, which is why he has his right hand over his breast, concealed by the lapel of his coat to signal that he is a master of the second veil

>real world experience

Real world experience teaches you that only faggots want socialism because only faggots can't survive in a society where you have to be useful to survive

Sorry, you don't experience the real world until at least the age of 18 - or never if you live in mommy's gated community.

>accepting anything coming from a commie jew as redpilled

A few moments before I understood you are an idiot.

When I saw pic related.

When I realized it (((wasn't))) opposite day.

You /Leftypols/ are a welcome and valued part of our online community.

>Filthy Capitalist: Hey neighbor, want to help me shovel my driveway?
>Poor Proletariat: No
>Filthy Capitalist: I'll give you $20
>Poor Proletariat: Okay

THIS SHOULDN'T ALOUD! EXPLOITATION!! REEEEEEEEE!!!!

i will make this argument as someone who advocates a fascist corporatist system, which is a mixture of capitalism and socialism generally,

Marx argues that as the economy grows under capitalism, technology advances. As technology advances wages decrease while labour input increases while also decreasing the honor of labour and the living conditions of the laborer.

Let us first condemn these accusations as technophobic and drawn entirely from a realm of emotions, not having any correspondence to the world in its actual form.

First: the argument that as technology grows wages decrease.

This is clearly untrue, evidence against this can be found by comparing the living conditions between any developed and developing nation. (consider any nation that went from an agricultural society to an industrial society, you can even consider the benefit industrailization had to the soviet economy.) the largest divider between developed and developing being chiefly technological.

As technology increases more production is increased leading to a cheapening of the value of products and an increase in the quality of said products. the cheaper every product is, the more of your money can be stretched. this results in either more products being purchased or money being saved(for those who say "the cheapening of one product isn't enough" it isn't one product, every product has prices that decrease and quality that increases when greater technology is introduced. for those companies which use sub-par materials and the like to artificially cheapen the product, a monopoly should never be allowed to function, as such any company will have competition and any overly large company that has a monopoly is should ne liable to be broken up into smaller firms. what this means is that the cheaper product has a lower quality, driving down consumer demand.)

cont

Because some leaf decided to use the ussr flag on some sinking island which is going to be taken over soon

Consider the wages of those in the middle class of Mali an African Country vs the low class of the USA, obviously it can be seen that the low wages of the lower class in the USA are extremely more valuable than the wages of the middle class of mali.

We can now say clearly that this is just overly emotional and fearful rhetoric

Second:as technology advances labour input is increased and value of said labour is decreased.

This is also clearly untrue when we consider the high paying wages of the U.S. Factory worker when the manufacturing was done chiefly in said country.

It is obvious that as technology advances according to the principles of Fordism and scientific management(Taylorism) physical input from workers decreases while increasing the wages of said workers. because every corporation wishes to turn a greater profit they shall try to reduce the work of making a product in order to create it faster, further the more they'll pay the employee to ensure that a good job is done. it should also be mentioned that when new technology is introduced, eventually so does new jobs relating to the new technology.

When you maximize the gains of your corporation you maximize the payment of your workers.

As such we can now clearly say after examining these principles and the state of reality as history judges that this argument is nothing but emotion fueled fearful rhetoric.

Third: it is argued that as the economy grows the honor of the worker is decreased and the further is he exploited.

I argue that seeking honor for physical labour, that is to say for payment, is an unrealistic demand that is made purely to appeal to the emotions of those who feel the need to be honored or respected without placing any extra work for that as payment.

The only honors and glory one should receive from his work is the following. The honor of knowing he provided for himself, the honor of knowing he provided for his family, and the honor of knowing he helped his nation-state/society with his work.

Seeking of any further honor than these is pointless.

After understanding that this was nothing but an attempt at appealing towards the emotions of the poor and the emotions of the narcissistic we can now say that is was again nothing but emotion fueled rhetoric.

The argument of Marx about the means of production continuously changing by the shifting of hands from the minority into majority is also a false argument with no place in reality.

Rome was capitalist for example, and Egypt had state-capitalism.

Rome had banks no? It had legal tender no? It had a legal system and a court system no?

Further if we give the argument to Marx that this is how the economy shifts and grows eventually, that bourgeois overtakes aristocrat and proletariat overtakes bourgeois, we have no reason to assume that proletariat is the bottom line, the lowest principle. "Worker" isn't the lowest common denominator, especially not in modern welfare states. Person is.

If we go by Marx's own logic taken to the extreme, eventually the means of production would be forcibly taken from the proletariat by a different people. The leech class.

Yes

Not quite.

If the shovel and driveway is owned by both of us, that's socialism, and paying me is meaningless. All we negotiate is how to do it, not how much to get paid.
If you own the shovel and driveway and pay me for the labour, that is exploitation (potentially) because you 'hold all the chips'. Negotiations are henceforth coercive, because I don't have bargaining power (potentially) because there is competition for labour and is thus devalued, and easily manipulated to keep it devalued by maintaining a reserve of labour.

Why don't socialists advocate for collective bargaining for both sides? Why not have a workers union and an owners Union?

Marxism isn't even worth talking about. We've moved beyond it.

...

Socialists are (nearly always) in favor of unionization and all forms of worker organization. However, there will always be an inherent imbalance of power between labor and capital because those who own the means of production control the distribution of basic goods necessary for life. The fundamental source of capitalism's authoritarian nature is that you must obey the owners of capital or starve.

the ultimate bluepill is actually the ultimate redpill which is actually the ultimate bluepill which is actually the ultimate red pill which is the ultimate bluepill which is also the ultimate redpill and is also the ultimate blue pill which is also the ultimate redpill which is also the fucking ultimate bluepill which is, by happenstance, the ultimate redpill and is therefore the ultimate bluepill

Yeah, like physics moved beyond Newton

Marxism is a failed ideology written by an evil failure of a man. It is my sincere joy that he died in agony, and that his ideology, which is fake and based on lies, has failed utterly.

He will be remembered as the abusive parasite that he was, and his ideology is the laughing stock of the world, and will remain so forever.

Marxism should be taken about as seriously as Varg Vikernes' LARPing about paganism ever being relevant again.

It's over. You lost. You will not retake control of anything and you will never be allowed to steal from me. I do very much want to see a Marxist "revolution" however, so that I can torture some Lefties to death. I would take great pleasure in heating up a bayonet and sliding it into some Marxist cucklord's belly, watching him scream and wail as the shit boils in his intestines.

Such an agonizing death is exactly what all Leftists deserve, and it is what they will receive if they ever attempt to implement their criminal thief ideology. I would get to snap so many cuckold fingers as they beg for mercy--it would be delicious. I encourage Marxists to try such a thing. I may never get a chance otherwise.

>The fundamental source of capitalism's authoritarian nature is that in reality, you have to eat to live

Daily reminder that the Leftist's gripe is literally that nature is unfair and so we should abolish property rights because he doesn't wanna work for a living, he doesn't wanna he doesn't wanna!

Thankfully like the children they are, if you ignore the Marxist's demands, he will eventually go and sulk somewhere where you don't have to look at him.

Another reminder that the Labor Theory of Value is objectively untrue and therefore all Marxism is Creationist-Tier non-economics.

Your religion is sick and evil, and thankfully it has been repeatedly humiliated and will continue to be irrelevant forever. Criminals BTFO.

"Everyone should work! Nobody should live off of owning capital and exploiting labor!"

>Duh fuck you commie duzznt wanna do work
>Civi - civi - civilizashuns are just like muh free statez uv natur

When I got in a terrible car accident and suffered irreperable brain damage I came to the realization that Marx is an smart guy doiiiiiiii

people who believe in marxism in the 21st century are literally retarded.

I can understand why marx said what he said given his situation and the development of economics up until then, but anyone who still believes his conclusions are correct is delusional.

Theres been over a hundred years of economic theory and constant real world proof that planned economies and making one super class is inefficient and may not even be possible

His model is way oversimplified.

There is no "Capitalist class" and "Worker class". In reality there are millions of competing capitalists and many more millions of competing workers.

In a free market with no inherit market failures(which is impossible but if you want to address these issues correctly thats a whole other subject) the capitalist class would not be able to abuse it's "power" because a slightly less greedy capitalist would just take advantage of it and the person who was being greedier would just lose out.

When i realized how retarded his followers are.

You don't seem to understand what "class" means.

you don't seem to understand that groups of people aren't a monolith and can't all be held to the exact sae standard. but you are a marxist so i wouldn't expect you to get that.

>you don't seem to understand that groups of people aren't a monolith and can't all be held to the exact sae standard

But that's not what "class" means.

Even outside of the fact that its a retarded and inefficient economic system.

It rests on the simple assumption that politically people will always be doing what is in their self interest which is self evidently not the case. People are not motivated soley by self interest, and are probably in politics more motivated by emotion.

Read Public Opinion by walter lippman if you want to understand the minutiae of why it's more likely that people are motivated by things other than rational self interest.

you are saying that capitalists have an inherit advantage due to their situation. I am saying they do not because they aren't one group with the same interests they are in fact a variety of different groups with competing interests.

It's an oversimplified archaic model that only people who refuse to look at the past 100 years of evidence can even hope to believe.

>It rests on the simple assumption that politically people will always be doing what is in their self interest

What?

Educate yourself, seriously.

t. edgy faglord teen fascist

If the workers aren't workings towards their self interest then they have nothing in common. Same with the "capitalists".

Why don't you educate yourself? I'm drawing a lot of my conclusions from classes i've taken taught by a professor who specialized in Hegel and teaches marxism and political theory.

>I am saying they do not because they aren't one group with the same interests they are in fact a variety of different groups with competing interests.

The existence of market competition does not preclude the existence of the common interests of a class. Class is determined by one's role in an economic order, and that role can obviously include competing for the control of resources.

>you are saying that capitalists have an inherit advantage
>inherit advantage

You said it, not me.

we're all here in this material prison because we rebelled against god and thought we knew / could do better, marxism is the ultimate expression of this , unironically trying to create a utopia on earth and not surprisingly a quintessentially jewish line of thought. You might think this can't be true, but there's little rebel spirits everywhere look at the atheists , materialists (and marxists obviously) etc

marxism isn't the red pill

it's the me pill

heatst.com/culture-wars/marxist-vegan-restaurant-closes-after-customers-no-longer-willing-to-wait-40-minutes-for-a-sandwich/

Red pills don't ever flop this hard

>If the workers aren't workings towards their self interest then they have nothing in common.

That makes exactly zero sense. It's at best a bad impression of a pseudo-intellectual.

>I'm drawing a lot of my conclusions from classes i've taken taught by a professor who specialized in Hegel and teaches marxism and political theory.

You really think anyone is going to believe that? You can barely spell and you're probably fifteen.

>When did you realize that Marxism is the ultimate redpill?

when i realized that the proletariat seizing means of production is capitalism and entrepreneurship

>comparing some lazy bastard with ideas that are about realistic as the land of Oz with Newton

When I read Sup Forums and saw how everyone here is a retard, and especially then I watched Sup Forums start spilling into IRL.

yes, ignore your professor, ignore history, listen to some random asshat make a 30 minute youtube video instead

That's retarded.

What about the fundamental imbalance between the worker and the Union.

>I want to work so I can feed my family
>No you have to strike the plant
>No I'm going to work
>it you vs all of us if you break the line. Good luck

How is that any better then a worker vs an employer? Why should a worker be forced into a collective if that worker has difference interest than what the unions?

When I realized that my goals for our species is so ultimately correct that other people should be subject to them. Seriously, if you really listen to what I believe you will finally understand that my way is the best way.

There's a sense in which Marx would agree with you in that the rise of capitalism began with a bourgeois revolution, but let's face it - you're never, ever, ever going to actually learn anything about it.

Wow, Americans really are the ultimate cucks of capitalism. No wonder Sup Forums loves that word so much.

>worker coop owns the plant
>going to strike
What?

freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/marx_k.html

Marx wasnt a freemason you fucking stupid cowan cuck. Fucking neck yourself at low tide.

...

So you're saying that with socialism, Joe and Janet are useless pricks who are fucking unbearable to work with or be served by because they don't have a boss to answer to and are already being paid a relative shitload of money?

God this meme is such dog shit

Pretty much this

>Communism
HARAM
>Niggers
HARAM
>Fags
HARAM

>talk about unions
>you bring up coops

Stay on target son

Have you found out how much the company is generating in profit compared to what you make?

>communist coffee
both of those situations are capitalist

>assumes anyone who isn't a white male must be useless
>how dare these women and blacks get the same amount of money as me

HMMMMM

If they aren't all politically aligned the same way they will not be able to bring about political change. If people worked in their common interest and they all belonged to the same class of people then they would be able to adequately form a political party and make change.

However it is unlikely that people vote soley or even primarily on self interest so making a political alliance of everyone in one specific class is unlikely. Without this happening the "marxist revolution" will never occur.


Also did it ever occur to you that when you talk to someone over the internet they might actually be more educated than you are?

Wow, user really is a cuck for collectivisim as I didn't mention capatlisim in and was taking a crack at how rediculous people sound when they drone on about an ultimate truth that someone else clearly fed to them.

Work on you're reading comprehension, friendo.

True - it said "cooperative", not communism. But it does help build class consciousness among the people.

I pursue mine and my family's self interest. I'm not going to bend over and be forced into a collective that claims to know what's best for me.

not even remotely close. if you pay your neighbor to shovel drive, he isnt profiting off of that. the service will be complete but the "capitalist" in your example would not profit

if you shoveled someone elses drive and your neighbor who did 0 work took a cut, that is exploitation. idiot.

Ever heard the term "economy of scale"

then why not support co-ops and ditch communism ?
one is good and the other is utter shit senpai

>this retarted leaf thinks he is entitled to waltz right into a company that someone else spent their blood sweat and tears, nevermind countless hours of unpaid overtime, never mind risking his own capital all in the process and make the same amout

Day of the Rake soon

Oh no, the cuckolds are coming to defend their bulls.

>D-did you read that quote? He called those guys cucks!!! Sound familiar?!! He's just like one of you guys, fellow Sup Forumsacks!

After Posting in this thread you will need this. Commie Cooties

...

if they are unbearable to be served by, why is their shop still being patronised?

think before you speak user.

Your "points" sound like someone trying to continue what might have been a reasonable thought after receiving a severe brain injury via brick or perhaps lead pipe.

>Also did it ever occur to you that when you talk to someone over the internet they might actually be more educated than you are?

Of course - just not you in particular.

Yeah, some people really are "rediculous". Way to crack wise, my embarrassing fellow countryman.

When did you realize the truth about Sup Forums?

What are some flaws of market socialism?

great argument you have there. You are just calling me names after i've explained several reasons why it's a failed ideology.

I'm done responding now it's obvious you don't intend to have a discussion. At least i can rest easy knowing that the rest of the world has finally realized how poor of a system it truly is.

>talks about the working class
>never visited a factory in his life
>literally stayed in college until he was middle aged
>came from a middle class family, when his moneybag dad died he leached off his wife's inheritance
>knowing anything about economics

Despite claiming to be entirely anti-religion, Communism is ironically completely faith based, aka, "it makes sense if you force yourself to believe so hard you have an aneurysm and lose half your IQ".

North Korea was communist, they had to reject it and go to capitalism(maybe not full capitalism but close enough) because the Government ran out of money and people were just starving to death. And I should remind you they had rations of something like 2 kg of brown rice a month, for an entire family.

Seriously communism is flat out retarded, ok maybe Capitalism isn't perfect in an overabundant and decedant sort of way, but if your ideology can't even fulfill a basic biological need such as eating that even fucking animals can do themselves then it's a pile of shit.

I can see why liberals love Communism though, Communism is a beautiful pipedream while Capitalism is an ugly truth.

masonic as in a member of secret societies, there's been a ton of them, and it was what all the coolkid intellectuals were doing during his time period.

>North Korea was communist
Stopped reading and I dont even support communism.

Why is it that you people can't tell the difference between someone taking you seriously enough to have a conversation with you and someone mocking you for being shockingly retarded at maximum volume anymore? It's not ad hominem; I'm just laughing at how stupid you are and wouldn't dream of taking you seriously until you actually read a book for real and not just in pretend-land.

communists only claim to be anti-religion to give a legal justification for stealing gold and silver from religious buildings. If you look at the history of the soviet union, the communists only cracked down on the church briefly. After soviet churches were ransacked, the state suspiciously went back to not giving a fuck about religion except when they needed an extra excuse to fuck someone up. The main reason communists hate religion, besides using it as an excuse to rob, is that religious institution represent a potential political power that could rival their own party which is why it ultimately must be suppressed and not allowed to grow.

Yeah, everyone knows that North Korea is a democratic republic, just like the United States. It's right there in the name. You can tell because they're both dystopian nightmares run by oligarchs.

I did indeed consider that and then realised if there is no motivation for profit, everybody will soon realise they don't need to bother putting effort into the service. So instead of one piece of dead weight being quickly sacked like in capitalism, everybody is dead weight because nobody is bothering to outdo each other.

And since everybody has shitty service they still succeed because people have to get their coffee somehow.

Even if you don't believe that is the case, what would happen to that one employee who refuses to pull their weight? You can't fire them because that would be treating them not equally to their coworkers. You just gotta deal with them being fucking useless and keep paying them in perpetuity, because to each according to their need right?

You said second veil

Second veil is part of york rite which is a freemasonic body

No one would show the signs of a secret society in a picture if its a "secret society"

Also he couldnt be a york rite mason if he wasnt already a blue lodge freemason

You dont know what your talking about

>1 post by this ID
RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE