Nobody knows marxism

How about you read 'capital' y Marx and realize you're whole ideology is a joke? Your view of communism is based on propaganda and Stalinism (propaganda)
Sjw's and the new left should choke on their idpol tho, fucking hypocrites

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=M_dnRA5NFhs
socbg.com/2014/11/спомените-ми-от-неразвития-социализъ.html
libgen.io/get/1BEACEB3633178BF543F1096A513BAC9/Gottfried Feder-Manifesto For The Abolition Of Interest-Slavery (1919).pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Marxism is not pro white therefore it is anti white and shitskin empowering.

>communism failed to be implemented every time it was tried
>but this isn't a drawback of communism

He was a rich spoiled daddies boy who never worked a day in his life he never wanted communism to be it's own ideology it was a criticism of unbridled capitalism of the time

How can anyone even see this books view and positive and logical?

>THAT WASN'T REEEEEEEEAL COMMUNISM

...

Communism is a great idea for how to run a small club, or the boyscouts... something like that.

Trying to apply it to a largescale society is a disaster though.

Except USSR wasn't the only Communist country. Anything that relatively comes close to the ideology always ends up failing! Cambodia, Vietnam, China all fell under Communism and none have prospered from it. Even Scandanavian countries to implement full Socialism (Communism) because the economy will fail (Almost did in the 90s).

Both Russia and China after Communism regime had implemented Capitalistic ways, their economy prospered! That is why Russian vote against Communist politicans because they know how bad it is.

You can't implement Communism world-wide because not everyone will contribute (almost a given). Who will make up that work? There needs to be an incentive to work hence money through employer.

In essence Capitalism is the reason for people to create new things to better the world.

Most of Sup Forums doesn't really know anything about deep reading topics generally considered intellectual like political philosophy, economic theory, geopolitics, etc.

>"muh form of communism has never been tried"
Same bullshit every day.

marxism needs soulless robots to function, so its no wonder goyim fall for it so easily.

I highly doubt you could even run a lemonade stand on communisim.

"Lemonade is free!"
"What happens if we run out from too much demand?"
"We impose strict rationing, and hang anyone caught hoarding cups comrade"

Marxism creates false class conflict where there was none. It was always a vehicle for Jewish tribalism from day number one.

Private property is not the cause of wealth inequality, Jewish usury and control of the production of wealth in the financial sector is what causes economic dysfunction.

youtube.com/watch?v=M_dnRA5NFhs

Communism Looks fine to me, dont be so biggoted you assholes

Aint reading any gottfried feder are you nigga?

>Muh not real communism

elaborate
feels right although wealth inequality is per definition established when private property is installed, it's just that wealth inequality is preferable to wealth equality considering sin is inate to man

No, just C.H. Douglas and the Culture of Critique.

>2.5 percent of the U.S. population.
>Control at least 55 percent of the media.

Freud liked to project his Semitic Kabbalist beliefs into Freudianism, where he claimed that humans are essentially soulless goyim driven by nothing but animal instincts. This is in reality a classic case of guilty accusing the innocent, the Jews are the real blood sucking parasitic animals that pervert and destroy everything that is wholesome and good. They have no souls contrary to their claim that we are mindless automatons, and no philosophy created by Jews has any value whether it is Neo Conservatism, Libertarianism, or Marxism. They have no value besides promoting Jewish ethnic interests.

I have the first volume of The Capital in my ereader. I have read some parts of it. It only describe how capitalism works. How the products has a value or another, how the added value is made, etc.

Op here. To anyone saying 'it failed everytime but that isn't communism'. All those states had a bureacratic systel, which is inherently not commmunist, because it is supposed to be 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. The only one I would argue in favor is societ russia under Lenin (obv not Stalin). There it is obvious it didn't work, because they were under pressure from like half the world, constant war, etc. Communism can never work in one country, it is supposed to be carried out throughout the world.

>muh utopia is the best, we just have to get the whole world to subscribe to it, forcefully if need be

Gottfried feder, was a german economist that pointed out that banking caused problems in an economy.

For example he pointed out that the presence of loans ends up making things more expensive. A person who cannot afford a house takes out a loan and buys one. This increases demand for housing and therefore prices. This in turn means that other people end up paying much more than they would otherwise. (Of course the original guy still ends up paying for it, he just has debt.)

Another problem is that loans increase exponentially rather than in proportion with profits. A buisiness might take out a loan and they still owe the banker money wether they make a profit or not. Unlike equity (stocks, or as he called it "industrial capital") loans are still a burden wether or not the borrower makes a profit. This means that the borrower takes all the risk. And therefore bankers wealth relative to the rest of society increases overtime. Eventually bankers would come to own everything.

Additionally he pointed out that paying taxes to pay off debt is stealing (which is something alot of libertarians would agree with) the presence of loans also makes people become materialistic, since they can (temporarily) indulge in whatever purchases they feel like.

I agree. They suck. And should be removed.

Same as with islam

It's amazing that people who go to college don't realize this. This explains why tuition has gone up three times the rate of inflation over the past 40 years.

How exactly do you plan on organizing the economy without a bureaucracy?

>i didnt think this through.

t. doesn't know what communism is

>le everything is free meme
isn't communism

communism is retarded in its own right, but this is just misinformation

Probably because feder was a nazi...

Of course with college not only do you have regular private loans which are a problem by themselves, you also have government grants and loans. So you have massive price inflation.

>muh communist utopia
>it wasnt real communism

You must be under 20 years old and never had a job Im sure, only teenagers and manchilds support communism, manlets need a nanny state so they can keep playing vidyas while the women are fucked by hordes of uncivilized savages

"But in the People's State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view, but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, though I doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and the course it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government, and, note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do today, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and direction of commerce,, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many 'heads overflowing with brains' in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a, minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!" - Mikhail Bakunin, Marxism, Freedom and the State, 1872

Bukunin's ideas were just as loopy as Marx's, but he had that pegged.

You know what I mean.
Rationed, allocated by the state. Yes you have to work, but its not longer following supply and demand.

Your average bernie voter thinks its for free.

I've read more than you. Marx was shit. He was wrong about the dialectic, he was wrong about the law of value, he was wrong about the nature of capital and about exploitation and he was wrong about his predictions for the future of economics.

Wrong wrong wrong, period. The only defense of communism is that other people fucked it in the ass? That isn't a defense it is submission to my criticism. Marxism was an irrelevant philosopher, Lenin and Trotsky would've just found some other bullshit excuse to murder and torture people, he can't even claim the success of the Soviet Union.

Just stop. Stop trying to convince people that this fucking LOSER had anything correct to say. He's worthless. Read Bakunin or something, at least his reputation hasn't been ruined yet.

>belgium

who the fuck are you, irrelevant cunt?

>wasn't really communism
Read up on the early days soon after the Bolsheviks took power. If they didn't achieve "true communism", it wasn't for lack of trying.

Are you a country?

We haven't really even gotten to see what good Capitalism is because the governments of the world fucking suck and try to implement some bizarro Socialist/Capitalist hybrid and somehow manage to more often than not incorporate the worst aspects of both into their economic policies. Oh we need regulation? Okay, well let's write it to create higher barriers to entry for new participants while mostly not impacting the larger participants that were the impetus for this regulation in the first place. Oh government can act as a consumer and create demand? Let's do it primarily for planes that fall out of the sky in rainstorms and missiles we'll let rot in a warehouse somewhere. Thousands of examples. Despite that, even our "freeish" markets do work, but they work in spite of the societies they are present in.

In regards to bakunins left-anarchisim. The closest it got to reality was under nestor mahkno in the ukraine in the 20s
They still ended up having to form a "central economic committee" to manage crop exchanges. And still had to form a secret police to keep people from "hoarding"

Stealing is stealing no matter how you paint it, you fucking filthy commie

I know Marxism, I've read some of his material. The reason I'm not a Marxist is because I don't believe in the internationalism inherent in Marxism. There are better alternatives.

Marx was primarily a theorist of capitalism. He didn't focus much on what a socialist or communist system would look like in detail or practice.

>Your view of communism is based on propaganda and Stalinism (propaganda)
>Sjw's and the new left
Commies lost the economic war, but they're winning the culture war

a communist lemonade stand wouldnt give away lemonade for free. thats stupid.

In a communist lemonade stand, all of the lemonade would be owned by the lemon czar until sold to capitalists.

The lemon czar would control the flow of sugar and lemons to the proletariat lemon worker, who would get just enough sugar and lemon to feed oneself

As a post-"socialist" country citizen, I can, with my hand on my heart, say that communism destroys countries, and is a plague to mankind.

Ok strasserite.
Do you believe people should have private property or not?

Communism is not political or economic philosphy, it's neo-creationism and historical revisionism taken to its logical conclusion when you accept the erroneous claim that all people have the same capacity for success.

An example of this is Marx's baseless assertation that meritocratic, hierarchically organized tribal societies are somehow communist despite massive distributive and power inequalities both internally among the members and externally towards other tribes. It also fallaciously assumes that this barely functioning system which is dependent on the inherent altruism exclusive to family members can somehow apply to a nation state full of radically different people, the majority of which have never even met.

...

There's no totally free market country either. Even the early USA had very protectionist policies designed to maximize internal growth.
>Russia prospered after capitalism
The whole former Eastern Bloc area actually suffered at the very least mild shock from the collapse of the old regimes. Some countries recovered quicker because of moderation. Others like Russia and Albania lost large numbers of people from reckless "shock therapy," with the latter country even dissolving into civil war. While capitalism has increased production of consumer goods, many old people in the region still look back fondly on the old regime because in spite of poverty, unsustainability, and corruption, everyone had a job, homelessness was very rare, education and healthcare were guaranteed despite periodic lack of certain goods, and street crime was much, much less common.

Yep.

Of course none of it ever had to make sense. The whole thing has never been anything other than an excuse for power and theft. No matter how much we argue or point out the bullshit, they will change nothing. Its not about right or wrong, its about semi plausible excuses to steal shit.

>1. Own two sports cars on an island where everyone owns three sport cars, am the poorest goy
>2.Own a shitty car on an island where nobody else has a car, am the richest goy

All of this could also be said about the south after the civil war.

Dude comunism is dead. The world has been and always will be rich vs poor.

IIRC the majority of the agrarian economy was operated by peasants, and the secret police was primarily used to keep the Bolsheviks out.

wtf

I love Marx now

That's not true. A fair number of Marxists, mostly lesser-known, weren't gangsters or murderers like Stalin or Mao.

Not quite the same.

Bonus

socbg.com/2014/11/спомените-ми-от-неразвития-социализъ.html
Google translate this Bulgarian blog, to see what things really were like during socialism, and what we lived through.
Modern leftist shitstains would be quite unhappy to know that having an iPhone or heaven forbid, a foreign car, would be deemed burgeois, and it would be the labor camps for them. And yes, we did have proper food only 2-3 times a year, usually around socialist holidays. The rest of the time is as the blog states, bland shit we used to call "dog's happiness" ("кyчeшкa paдocт"), as only dogs would eat it gladly.

I frequent Ancom groups on normiebook. r/pol's mockery of them is pretty spot on actually. Das Kapital is as much of a meme as the global gommunism manifesto

Because capitalism on a large scale works so well

>800.000.000 people live in extreme poverty

IT WQSNT REAL COMMUNISM YOU STUPID FUCK HOLY SHIT FUCKING BOURGEOISIE FATFUCK CAPITALIST WE NEED TO KILL EVWRYONE BEFORE IT CAN BE REAL.

No. Personal property is fine but private property as a concept leads to subversion of the nation.

So are you saying that guys like trotsky were not violent? Can you think of any communist governments that weren't violent?

A fair number of Muslims aren't terrorists--they just support terrorism.

They live in mostly failed states, or are bums/druggies. Try approaching a hobo, you will see that most are just that - lazy drunkards.
You live in the one country you can literally compare east vs west, check it out and see the difference.

Personal/private?
Your system is functionally identical to communisim. So example in practice the soviet union was highly nationalist. How is your nationalist communisim any different from them? Marxisim+not liking jews is still marxisim.

theory does not work in practice. correction - it can work for one generation max and then it will become corrupted bureaucracy and it will end.

human factor user, there are greedy pepople about. and there are lazy and hardworking people about. and there are competent and incompetent. you get my point i hope.

Marxists believe in the elimination of money and global revolution. They don't believe in markets either. Strasserists believe in elective monarchy, markets, and loathe internationalism. Just because you think everything collectivist is Marxism, that doesn't make it so.

Stop reading a 19th century author thinking that he can have every answer for 21th century problems.

His analysis on antrophology and sociology are better and more relevant than his economy.

I don't know if that's what OP meant, but if you keep stuck in the way the left reads Marx you aren't going to learn anything useful.

That's because they were killed off or exiled before they could take power for themselves.

I live in the part of the world that benefits from capitalism. Do you really think our standart of living could be supported if everyone on earth would be paid fair?
Compared to f.e. Greece the DDR was a well financed state. And greece is part of the countries that benefit from capitalism. If you go to southasia, afrika or parts of southamerica you see what real poverty is.

Seeing as I lived through 2500% inflation, I know what poverty looks like. Greeks have SOCIALIST governments, who preferred to just take loans, and not pay them back. The only way socialists know.

How can you have markets if you dont have private property?

I have no problem with monarchy.

And from what Ive read about the original strasserisim and modern nazbol many do advocate eliminating markets and money. Which means other than maybe holding onto a few traditional values is still marxist.

But perhaps we are talking about different things.

B-b-b-but everyone I see benefits from capitalism!

How many of the 20.000 people that die of hunger every day did you see there?
The countries with the biggest social states on earth are the wealthiest, what are you talking about? Name a country with little to no social state that works good. Please, go on

I am familiar with early nazi political theory.

libgen.io/get/1BEACEB3633178BF543F1096A513BAC9/Gottfried Feder-Manifesto For The Abolition Of Interest-Slavery (1919).pdf

If you deny that western countries benefit from capitalism then you are borderline retarded. But i guess americans really think that..

never read it and have no intention. i lived in it. it does not work.

I know, everyone in district one loves capitalism. Works really well if you don't have to see what's going on outside your walls.

>How can you have markets if you dont have private property?
Private property referred to the means of production and the great landed estates owned by the Junker class in 1930s/1940s Germany.
The idea behind Strasserism is that is that private industries would be reorganized into cooperative industries which would be organized into syndicates/guilds. Guilds would elect representatives which would form a grand council which would in turn elect a monarch. These cooperative would compete among themselves within a market setting.

Went to heterodox econ school for both undergrad and grad school. I've read it all m8. Marx, Wolff, Resnick, Bowles, etc. If you even mention classical theory to you autists you screech NO SUCH THINY AS A FREE MARKET. Then I point to Bitcoin and crypto and you fags, "Don't know anything about that." As if that's a counter argument. Logically inconsistent ideology. Also responsible for millions of deaths. Inb4 so has capitalism. Capitalism isn't a political ideology just an economic one.

I do like how Marx writes though. Very clear.

Any form of egalitarianism is anti-white, since the only way to make whites equal to shitskins is to hinder whites in some way.

Kek.

That was more Engels, but true.

>I've read it all m8
>implying communism not also a political ideology, not an economic one

Excellent example of capitalist education.

Communal ownership is literally impossible anyway. In any dispute over how to utilize the property, the person with most decision making power is the de facto owner. Even if it were "democratic" there would end up being factions and voting blocks, much like political parties, with clear hierarchical positioning within the faction, just based on natural social dynamic. And the same way democracy serves to obfuscate corruption and shift blame at the state level, when applied on the level of industry it would do exactly the same.

To be fair, the Russians are fucking up capitalism pretty hard too. Maybe it's just slavs ruining everything as per usual.

And then it 'answers' the problems

the only way communal living will ever work is stay around dunbar's number and expel all degenerates

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite

Iam not talking about the religious group, but wanting to get rid of hierarchies is always degenerate. Mixing the low with the high results in the mediocre.

Ok. This makes more sense. However the references to strasserisim I have seen involved the abolition of all private property, not just nobility.
Also the idea of workers cooperatives has been around for a long time. They don't typically do very well. A democratically run buisiness will not compete with one that has clear profit driven central leadership.

Also, why do you see monarchy as being nessesary but not see the aristocracy underneath him as nessesary? The principle of needing central leadership applies for smaller divisions within a country just as much as the country itself.

True.

Anyone who believes in social hierarchy is a primitive subhuman unable to control his animal programming.

This is retarded and you will back away from the criticisms of socialist states saying they aren't real communism, while claiming Stalin accelerating he economy under (reformed/capital-based) socialism "proves the system works"

Communists are so aftraid of critique, it's astounding

Your ideology cannot be free of beaurocracy if it wants the workers to manage; workers who manage / performs analysis are not proletariat, they are removed from hard labor and are by definition the beaurocrats and intelligentsia that real workers despise

Please stop apologizing for your implicitly overbearing bureaucratocracy

>economic hierarchy
ftfy
Eh, you might have misunderstood me. It is the abolition of all property. I just brought up the Junkers because Strasser specifically mentioned them in his book.
>Also the idea of workers cooperatives has been around for a long time. They don't typically do very well. A democratically run buisiness will not compete with one that has clear profit driven central leadership.
I've seen them do fine. Credit unions seem to work much better than traditional banks because they don't have a tendency to gamble with their members money and people are more likely to put more money in their accounts because they get higher interest rates and low interest loans (assuming they qualify). There's also the mondragon cooperative that faired much better after the great recession than traditional companies. The motive for profit is still there but it's the workers who benefit. Therefore people are more likely to want to do a better job because it will ensure they get a bigger paycheck in the long run.
>Also, why do you see monarchy as being nessesary but not see the aristocracy underneath him as nessesary? The principle of needing central leadership applies for smaller divisions within a country just as much as the country itself.
I'm not a full on Strasserist, I'm more of a neostrasserist so there's some details that I don't necessarily agree with. With that said, it's superior to democracy in the sense that the leader of the state doesn't have to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to get votes and can instead do what he thinks is best for the nation as a whole.

>economic hierarchy

Same thing, really, since our economic substructure practically determines social organization.

>trying to suppress your inner animal, abolish social classes
>reaching towards Nietzsches Übermensch
>Going full NatSoc

Ok so now the actual commies have shown up...

What does that mean? Nietzsche was for the aristocracy.
You too are degenerate; higher people (nobles) should be the social ideal. You idolize the low (common people).

>You too are degenerate; higher people (nobles) should be the social ideal. You idolize the low (common people).
You're a retard. I literally advocate a form of monarchy.