Karl

Marx was right about some stuff, right Sup Forums? Like false consciousness, alienation, commodity fetishism, right.

being correct about observations doesn't mean the arguments built on them are sound

Sup Forums will never understand that Marx was a critic of capitalism but never actually prescribed a solution (ie a different economic system).

His criticism of capitalism is at most part legitimate, but his solutions to these problems are horrendous. You cannot expect a bunch of tractorists, plumbers, assembly line factory workers and miners to know how to run an entire country.

>Hitler was right about some thing right? like vegetarianism and being nice to animals

yeah, and? what is your point you cretin?

FUCK OFF FROM MY BOARD, /LEFTYPOL/

go away karl you smelly jew

Marx was right, Stirner was a fag.

I think he was wrong

to raise your awaremess

marx tried to btfo stirner and failed spectacularly, then subsequent marxist historians and thinkers pretended that he had actually landed a glove on stirner. he hadnt, his attempt was pitiful

Anyone can be a critic.

so think on the observations

is that why he was centrally involved in the Communist League party?

Marx was completely right with his theory of alienation, which comes right out of French and German romanticism and has nothing at all to do with Stalinist totalitarianism. It's a very crude slander to associate the two

He identified some shit everyone is well aware of but he described it in fancy words to make it seem intellectual. And the assumption is that somehow because these things have been identified that makes them bad. There is literally nothing wrong with commodity fetishism for example, calling it a fetish is just a manipulative way of conflating a simple perfectly reasonable thing with sexual perversion

Marx has done the best analysis of Capitalism ever written.

Marx said himself he wasn't Marxist.

Most retards on this board don't understand this, and the term "cultural marxist" is cringey as fuck.

No conceptual framework is beneficial in all contexts. Marxism seems to ignore the fact that capitalism creates enough variety conflicting views in all industry except that of money borrowing/lending. He people love their money these days so I guess he's a futurist.

What's even the point of living anymore?

>Literally all conclusions drawn don't even hold up in theory with idealised humans, let alone in practice
>Led directly to the deaths of tens of millions, the cold war and arguably caused WW2
>"Best analysis"

Sure he was right that capitalism has problems, mostly that it tends to devolve into corporatism and regulatory capture, but criticising things is easy. What matters is if you can come up with something better.

>Marx caused WW2

I've never heard such concentrated nonsense

>force people to live in a capitalist mafia state
>force people to pay for things they already have
>HURRR DEY CHARGE A FEE PROOFS DAT GOMMUNISM IS BAD

>implying communism is not the most idiotic system ever implemented

What you are describing is identity politics, not Marxism.

Far-right is more closely related to idpol than far-left, which is goal-oriented.

I should have said "contributed to", but yes. Hitler believed that Stalin was going to attack unless he attacked first. There is some evidence this was probably true, e.g. massed Russian troops on their western border (albeit low morale conscripts who mostly defected / ran away when the Germans invaded.) Stalin was paranoid and militaristic, with a government full of equally crazy bolshevik kikes, and may well have struck into Europe at some point even if he wasn't planning to do it right then.

Why'd your country breed with the aztecs and create the worst mongoloids on our continent? Also, what's with siestas? Are you guys just hungover from sangria all the time?

Alright, now it's time for some gems from Marx's books.

whatever the case may be, Stalinist imperialism has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism, in fact it's the exact opposite of it.

The funny thing is that a much better case could be made for capitalism causing WW2 in the European theatre because the rise of the NSDAP in the Weimar republic is directly correlated to worker dissatisfaction and unemployment by the Great Depression

Anything that Marx was right about, Hitler acknowledged too.

The modern hard left still unironically spews that "families are evil because reasons" crap too, so it's not like we have some new and improved version of Communist thought these days. Some Irish leftist political party recently put out a treatise against the nuclear family (the extended family having being weakened substantially already), I think they were the same crazies that suggested society needed to accept "intergenerational relationships" aka pedos.

They seem to think that if everything stable, good, natural and wholesome is torn down then a shitlib utopia will magically emerge from the ashes. Never mind that this makes zero sense and has been shown to always fail in practice. Plus if they really wanted to live in such a society, couldn't they immigrate to North Korea?

As I said, Marxism attempts to destroy any and all identity politics and unite the people.

How is marriage even a good thing? Marriage and burgeois family allows the parents to raise their children against the interests of a society as a whole.

But Stalin was only able to rise to power because of the Communist revolution, which at first was led by people who more or less believed in Marx's ideas. Cause and effect. The fact that it turned into an authoritarian hellhole shortly afterwards is irrelevant.

Marx is the greatest socialist killer of all time.

...

>whatever the case may be, Stalinist imperialism has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism, in fact it's the exact opposite of it.
It really does though, when your retarded philosophy demands an angry mob to create a power vacuum and it repeatedly turns into an authoritarian hellhole then you should learn not to get your ideals from NEETs

the February revolution was led by people who believed in socialism
the bolshevik faction came to power in the October revolution, which DESTROYED socialism in russia. Lenin dissolved the factory councils and soviets to create what he called a "labour army".
So you're wrong on that point to, Stalin's rise to power was only possible after the destruction of the tools of worker's control over their own industrial fate.

Shut up Trotsky.

exactly the same thing could be said for Democracy
the German peasants war, the glorious revolution and the French revolution all began with abused subjects (or what you call "an angry mob") wanting protection from the ravages of absolute power and have a say in their own lifes. All of them ended in civil war, atrocity and massive bloodshed.
Does that mean that democracy and opposition to state violence are wrong?

He certainly did justify violence against the people he deemed privileged though, which could be anyone that owned any sort of business.

Other than that, commies sound like muslims who do acts in the name of their religion and then defend their religion saying it has nothing to do with their religion.
>Marx has nothing to do with communism, I swear!

Yes, he was right about many things.
He wasn't right in the part where he proposed the solutions.
If you separate these two, Marx and Marxists can teach you a lot.

The difference being that in terms of the American Revolution they had use time tested systems of government that have worked for thousands of years and were deliberated over in all that time by actual statesmen who had actual roles in governance.

Getting your opinions from Marx is about as valid as following the ideals of a Starbucks barista. Actually, no, a barista would probably have more valuable insight since unlike Marx they actually have a job.

February Revolution was about deposing Tsar.
It wasn't a socialist revolution. Kerensky though was a socialist, and Kerensky is easily the most responsible person for Russia falling to Bolsheviks.
>no enemies on the left
>muh democratic army
>muh obligations to Entente
He's competing for the most retarded statesman ever.

No one aid you should treat Marx as a prophet. That's a Bolshevik thing, and Bolshevism/Leninism is a pseudo-religion.
You should read Marx to understand capitalism. That said, he wasn't infallible in that regard either, but it's still useful material.

Didn't read shit. But from what I understand he blamed every problem of this world on Capitalism. And same thing occurred in Communism.

He used critical theory so I will assume he was wrong about everything. It's no the system it's the people.
Personal responsibility not blaming everything at some abstract being.

so you picked the least bloody out of the struggles for democracy and made the exception into the rule.
I'm going to phrase it in a direct question:
Does the fact that the February revolution was deposed with a coup d'etat by another non-socialist fringe faction in your mind invalidate the grievances and criticisms of capitalism (uttered by Marx, Engels and others)?

He didn't blame everything on capitalism and "muh personal responsibility" when taken to extreme is just as retarded as the ideas of communists.
In Marxist theory capitalism is a NECESSARY stage in evolution of society.

what socialism has always meant is "workers control over production". The biggest achievement of the February revolution, besides making the Duma a governing body, was the establihsment of factory councils and soviets, which makes it absolutely into a Socialist revolution (but this was as I said all destroyed very quickly by Lenin in October)

Those were Bolshevik, not SR bodies.

Funny how capitalism need to do its thing before communism can take effect. It's almost as if communism is fucking useless and requires capitalism to build things up because it can't do so itself

>Does the fact that the February revolution was deposed with a coup d'etat by another non-socialist fringe faction in your mind invalidate the grievances and criticisms of capitalism (uttered by Marx, Engels and others)?
The fact that every communist country became the same exact system of extortion and robbery with 0 political freedom for dissidence and produced nations like USSR, Maoist China, Derg Ethiopia, Cuba, Cambodia, leave a big question as to how Communism is such an epic failure that seemingly only non-Communists can easily answer.

Capitalism produced many great nations and can be evidenced economically within China when it began to switch in the late 70's up to today.

Communism worked pretty well for rapid industrialization. Turns out when you rob most of the people in your country and use all those resources towards infrastructure it's pretty effective. Too bad it's a shitty evil way of governing and it relied directly on capitalistic countries inventing everything beforehand for them to do it.

Yes, he was right about some stuff. Like german wurst is tasty in the morning while reading the newspaper. Not much on the political front though, no.

But that's exactly what Marx said. Capitalism is necessary.
Pro-tip: I'm not a Marxist, I hate communism.

Toplel should we let the state raise our children then? So that they can be raised according by their vision of tolerance and cuckoldry?

USSR wasn't communism, it was state capitalism.
State was the only economic actor and used capital and resources how it saw fit.

Still shit, still ruined the entire fucking world my kids have to grow up in.

I couldn't give two shits how accurately Marx stated the obvious about corporatism, the man was a slob, a hypocrite, had a weak understanding of the nuance of reality and his NEET ramblings will probably end the rise of the human race so fucking thanks for that cunt.

It sucked what happened in Russia & what it meant for the events of WWII but what's far worse is the infection of the Fabians & their gradualism.

I hope some of them live to see their failures, they deserve to suffer with the rest of us before being hung. The road to hell is paved with envy & good intentions it seems.

If an ideology falls apart before it can be implemented each time its tried then that says a lot about that ideology. Communism was a failure at conception, just like the people who advocate for it.

>muh personal responsibility
Yeah. There should be non right? There is no such a thing as "extreme" personal responsibility. Ether you take it or avoid it.
Now what happens when somebody commits a crime and you blame it on some abstract being? He continues to do so.
You can blame a fire on a thunder but you can't excuse stealing with Capitalism. For one to commit a crime gain must outweigh the risk.
You put no risk.

>capitalism is a NECESSARY stage in evolution of society
Capitalism is a product of evolution. Communism was removed by evolution. It was actually a regressive system one would say.

No, they should be raised the way they were raised before marriage was invented: by the whole commune.

Society doesn't have interests as a whole only individuals having similar interests that doesn't mean some individuals interests transcend everyone else' & become "societies interests".

...

Fuck off marxie.

But they weren't a communist state. There is no communist state. Communism is a stateless society.
They WANTED to REACH communism.
I hate communism but I also hate it when people like you act like fucking robots and just repeat mantra.
You have to understand things you don't like.

nobody is forced to live in capitalist states, though. we don't build walls and shoot at anybody who wants to try a different system.
the problem with capitalism is its so fucking good that communists dont run/swim/climb from it like they do actual communism.

>it's never been done rite
fuck off faggot

The "commune" is just an underdeveloped state. Really the only way marxist communism could work is in a small tribe.
So it's unreacahble then.

please stop posting. your argument is basically that scientology isn't a failure of a religion and that people just haven't reached a high enough thetan level yet. same degree of mental gymnastics to defend what are bad ideas followed by stupid people. if communism were a realistic goal then at least one of its revolutions would have managed it. please, stop trying to justify failure.

How did Stalin manage to beat out Trotsky as Lenin's successor?

basically communism works only among a group of neanderthals

>intergenerational relationships
Have they considered that no parent worth anything is going to allow this to happen?

I'm not defending communism.
The way Marx and his followers imagined it, yes.
But I'm anti-communist you fucking idiot. Communism is a failure. I never argued against that.

They were communists in the middle of a revolution attempting to implement communism, while being praised by western communists as successful communists.

You literally can't get more communist unless they reached their end goal which surprise surprise they can't. "Not real communism" is only a thing because Communists wanted to distance themselves from their comrades failures.

Which is ironic considering how much they were praising each attempt as proof of concept at the time, oh no we musn't talk about that, some edgy 17 year olds in 2017 know more about Marxism than the Marxist revolutionaries & academics of the time themselves.

then stop making retarded apologist arguments for communism

I despise communism. I find Marxist analysis of economic behavior really interesting, though.

This may surprise a lot of people on Sup Forums, but if you read Marx you'll find how insistently and deeply he was redpilled about (((them))).

>commune
Define this.

But taunt responsibility. One of the most basic foundation of the civilized world.

this. capitalism > communism.
communism people literally run from

They were communists, but USSR wasn't a communist society. Do you understand the difference?

commune - a group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities

>So it's unreachable then

Haha. This time only 40,000,000 will have to die, comrade.

>How is marriage even a good thing? Marriage and burgeois family allows the parents to raise their children against the interests of a society as a whole.
You are fucking retarded. So I guess you don't believe in freedom? Holy shit.

fuck off, literally nothing wrong with capitalism

False consciousness is total drivel though and basically just propagandizing
>commodity fetishism
Literally just conjectural jew babbling

Communists and Anarchists need to understand one very simple thing about their ideologies: a state will form wherever there is an absence of a state. In the case of Communism/Anarchy what you end up with is a state formed by whoever is strongest, and in most cases, that turns out to be a bad deal for society at large and often ends in the deaths of millions of its own citizens.

The best thing we can do is recognize state as being an inevitable form and attempt to manage it responsibly.

>never actually prescribed a solution
Thats kind of the problem with Marxism

They were explicitly attempting to implement a communist economy. That they failed is besides the point. Of course they would fail. They're still attempting communism.

My commune is falling behind, yours will have to pic up it's slack. Sure, I know some in your commune may not survive the winter without adequate food and medicine so it's a good thing there's no such thing as family to hinder progress.

>You are fucking retarded. So I guess you don't believe in freedom? Holy shit.
There's no such thing as freedom, nor will there ever be.
In capitalism, only those born into money are free and the rest are their slaves.

That's not even true, because you have a way in capitalism to create your own foundation. If you give into parts of the system that treat you as a slave, then yes that is not freedom in a certain sense, but there is a way out, so you are free to leave and make something of yourself.

You sound like someone with literally zero real-world experience.

>Litterally tried to invade Cuba

I agree.
True, but I simply stated USSR wasn't a communist society.

...

The theory of Marxism-Leninism is great and the USSR and Stalin are great examples.

Yeah, all those Americans paddling through the ocean using doors as flotation devices to escape to the freedom of Cuba was a pretty common thing.

...

"Cultural marxism" triggers commies, because they can't admit they are also playing identity politics

Marxism = identity politics

Fetishism had a different meaning back then. Nothing sexual about it. Educate yourself

>the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat
>not identity politics

He never even had a job ffs