Prove you aren't a blind follower. Name ONE (1) criticism you have about Karl Marx

Prove you aren't a blind follower. Name ONE (1) criticism you have about Karl Marx.

Attached: Karl_Marx.jpg (1280x1500, 980K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/ccm.IJUC07.pdf
huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522.html
youtube.com/watch?v=OJASnt8HqcM&pbjreload=10
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Internationalist

The smurfs make more sense.

Attached: 1401499475887.jpg (829x1475, 378K)

his moustache doesn't have the same colour as the rest of his beard

studies have shown that this genetic trait is connected to pedophilia (and early stages of dementia)

The dialectic view of history is garbage.

He is a Jew

/thread

this comparito

>he couldn't even convince himself to be a marxist

he was soft on jews

Let his kids starve to death.

Jew

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

He was a giant man-child that spent none of his life working; but, instead fed off of a rich friends and came to the realization that everyone should have a rich friend to leech off of. So, he wrote a shitty book based in nothing but his own experience in life as a NEET.

he's a mental retard

He is a Jew.
He's never had a real job, but claimed to know what the proletariat wanted.
He spent his life getting wasted in London with the money of his friend Engels, who inherited a factory from his parents.

>Abolishment of all private property
Fuck you Marx, fuck you, Fuck You, FUCK YOU

Don’t know enough to really critizise his philosophy. I can however say that most of his followers are horribly misdirected.

He's a bitch

Historical materialism in regards to causes for crusades was fucking wrong.

He's a Jew.

christian crypto jew turned satanist

He never worked a day in his life and so never understood the workers he patronizingly claimed to represent. Two of his sons committed suicide too, 'coz he was a hopeless, smelly drunk

>Prove you aren't a blind follower. Name ONE (1) criticism you have about [insert any name here].

His theries didn't worked.

Attached: h-h-h-communists-arent-people-communists-reject-our-rights-18061712.png (500x650, 115K)

Although his criticisms of capitalism are immensely accurate, all of his supposed solutions lead to things far, far worse. It is in the same manner that Socrates saw the flaws of democracy rather well, but his proposed replacement was simply a greater oppression. Communism is worse than Capitalism, no matter how bad Capitalism may become.

He was the atheism of economic theory, providing no viable solutions to the criticisms of capitalism.

he was a kike

Cuckeeist (cuckold atheist).

He believed that people fundemtnally had the right to keep and bear arms.

He looked ridiculous in Lederhosen

>implying "capitalism" even exists
No, it was a strawman invented by Mr Marx.

His eschatology goes against the nature of Dialectical Materialism.
He was also pretty weak with money and didn't analyse inflation as much as he could have.
That's all there is really.

Paul Cockshott proved that the economic calculation problem is not real:

macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/ccm.IJUC07.pdf

questioned Murphy’s requirement that planning requires pre-knowledge
of all possible prices,

argued that the domain of prices to which planning is applied is in prin-
ciple finite rather than infinite and that thus Cantor’s arguments are
inapplicable, or at worst prices are countable, and Cantor’s arguments
are applicable but irrelevant because there is no concievable require-
ment that this domain be closed under diagonalisation,

argued that planning over finite prices is tractable,

shown that diagonalisation is not applicable to prices or commodities,
and

discussed how infinite structures of predominantly zero values may be
given finite representations.
In conclusion we have shown that Murphy’s arguments are ill founded.
The computational feasibility of economic planning at a detailed level is an
issue that must be investigated in its own right, and cannot be settled by appeal
to Cantor. We have presented specific arguments that suggest that detailed
planning is indeed feasible.

wait,is this lefty/pol/?
I think I've on the wrong page
you guys don't actually unironically answer a question about commies being a "blind follower"
what the fuck happened to Sup Forums

Attached: 1521223659148.jpg (632x601, 74K)

Economic system: fine when incorporated right
System of social values: Horrible.

That is what i hate about commies that aren't nazbols the most. The lack of family values and good morals.

>The lack of family values and good morals.

lol what

The only issue I have with Marx and Lenin is that they don't have a place for God in their beliefs. It is the one thing I struggle with accepting as a Christian. But, I feel like Christianity is inherently socialist in nature.

You don't need a god to be happy comrade, hope you eventually come to that conclusion. Facts always before feels.

The state is not a tool of the capital. It maximizes power instead of profit.

he was a communist

Attached: confusednigger.jpg (505x431, 37K)

No it was an excuse to insult Marx retard.

LTV is not a good theory of value.

>YOU
Totally capitalist

Karl Marx the man, Marxism the historiographical method, Marxism the social theory, Marxism the socio-economical system or Marxism the movement? Because I have dirt on all five.

>the man
Massive son of a bitch who actually expected Europe to elect him Dictator.

>the historiographical method
Stupid "one size fits all" bullshit that always works its argument backwards to fit everything into its framework.

>the social theory
Unfalsifiable horse manure, second only to Hegel in terms of hazy abstractness.

>the socio-economical system
Vague to the point of meaninglessness. All attempted implementations revert to totalitarian hellholes which are diametric opposite to Socialism.

>the movement
Filled with edgy teenagers at best and insane authoritarian sociopaths at worst.
Come to think of it, "insane authoritarian sociopath" is the perfect description for Karl Marx.
>System of social values
>family values and good morals
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, do you? You've just been ingesting the "Culture Marxism" koolaid Sup Forums has been feeding you.

In a capitalist society, profit IS power.

>value of object determined only by labor put into it
OH NO NO NO NO

that was hegel

Only has a bachelor's degree

Questioning in good faith:
Why not?

Unfalsifiable theory, dialectic materialism outdated and pilpulish, datas in Das Capital outdated even when Marx was alive, huge amounts of destroyed documents by Engels given their poor quality...

He was wrong about most things

"I took the risk of prognosticating things this way, as I had to substitute myself for you as a correspondent to the Tribune ... I may be discredited. But in this case, it will always be possible to overcome this with the help of a little bit of dialectic. It goes without saying that I formulated my thoughts in such a way to prove that I was also right about the opposite case."

Karl Marx, letter to Engels, 15 August1857.

huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522.html

So if Jerome works REALLY HARD to bake you a pie, but used mud to do it, this is worth more than a pie made by a talented person who used less effort with actual food products?

Eh, makes sense.

A lazy fuck who was carried by Engels.

Socialism is just jealousy of others propagated by weak minded, underachieving faggots.

He never worked a day in his life

Really now? I kinda assumed it's the basic concepts of sharing and justice.

>you have more of a thing
>therefore I can take those things

doesn't take into account the fact that people are more and less productive, make better and worse choices, etc.

We aren't equal, why should outcomes be equal? kys.

Hypocrite
Claims to liberate workers from opression, never worked a single day of his life.
Claims to hate on aristocracy and wants to redistribute rich people wealth, his best buddy is a rich industrial that maintains him for years.

Objectivly wrong
Claims class struggle and revolution is inevitable, didn't happened
(Didn't happened YET is not an argument, he was referring to the post industrial revolution and actual industrial and agricoltural workers, not to post modern workers in services)
His actual solutions to world problems are vague and abstract, it's just "lamo, seize that shit, it's going to work dude".
Picks absolutism over individual rights

Attached: 2126507.jpg (500x358, 46K)

He was a Satanist more then likely

youtube.com/watch?v=OJASnt8HqcM&pbjreload=10

>Name ONE (1) criticism you have about Karl Marx.

He didn't use "sarcasm quotes" in his magnum op[us, to indicate where the jo0ke was, so people took him seriously.

>sharing and justice
Socialists conveniently always forget about human nature. Who is going to be in charge of this caring sharing and justice. You or me?

Attached: 1513307913212.jpg (570x469, 64K)

OH NO NO NO NO NO

He wrote a book full of bullshit. Also parasite on the body of proletariat.

I don't think outcomes to be equal. I think everyone should have a basic degree of dignity, personal agency and decent living, out of the simple humanist principle that all people deserve to have good lives. Yes, even the "stupid" and "lazy" ones.
Once we start from this (hopefully uncontroversial) ideal, we can actually plan out the specifics of work incentives and whatever else you might be frothing at the mouth over.

So in other words, The Constitution.

Do I have stop at 1?

Not an argument, Hans.

How is taking things that you didn't earn or produce by force dignified? It's not, but then again you are a jew and probably don't understand that.

Why do people deserve the products of other peoples' labor? Does the tick deserve your blood? Then again, you are a jew.

Why does one man's life and the products of it belong to the service of another man, and not to himself? Oh yeah, jew...

Attached: 1463606236892.png (536x386, 14K)

>all people deserve to have good lives. Yes, even the "stupid" and "lazy" ones.
I would rephrase it to
All people deserve to have a chance for a good life.

Today not everyone has the equal opportunity to shine and make a living for themselves, but i don't see the point of maintaining someone that openly refuses to provide for themselves

Attached: 1450133398042.jpg (654x539, 67K)

the fuck you mean
I'm laughing at commie cucks
imagine being such a cuck that you actually allow someone to steal shit from your property because
>muh ideology

He looks like Grover Cleveland. My least favorite president. Also he looks like the type of guy to say something stupid and then consider himself some sort of philosopher for saying that.

Attached: 1520781561490.png (1039x559, 261K)

That's my bad, Hans

Attached: my buddy.jpg (853x853, 122K)

call me hans again

Attached: 06_01_mariusz_pudzianowski_064.jpg (525x581, 110K)

> writing 18 books isn't working

>Socialists conveniently always forget about human nature
No I don't. I just don't have this extremely narrow (and frankly arrogant) view of "human nature" as a nailed-down, fixed thing that we have figured out (and - marvel of marvels - it was homo economicus all along!). Your idea of "human nature" is nothing more than some observed recurring tendencies which you absurdly extrapolate over the entirety of human existence - from 10,000 years in the past, to 10,000 years in the future. This ignores the fact that lots of things that have happened frequently in the past don't happen anymore, and lots of things that have never happened in the past are now a matter of daily routine.

>Who is going to be in charge of this caring sharing and justice. You or me?
Hopefully no one. This should be in the collective charge or everything - i.e. democracy.

He's talking about manual labor like with machines in factories.

Klaus?

All three of your "points" could very well be extended to the question of wage labor. All three, by the way, pitifully sidestep the actual contents of my post.

Well, he was a scumbag commie, for one.

I can write 18 books of bullshit too,doesn't mean I'm working,it just means that I'm wasting my time on fairy tales while a son of a factory owner supports me to spread my meme ideology

Attached: 1519139053904.png (931x691, 238K)

Even by his standards it's not

>This should be in the collective charge or everything - i.e. democracy

And what if I decide not to share the things I have earned over a lifetime of work and good decisions? Why is it that I, who obeyed the law, went to school, worked hard, and have talent should feel the need to share my wealth with someone who dropped out of school, is lazy, incompetent, and a criminal?

People don't deserve the labor of others. It's simply evil to take justly earned wealth from one person and give it to another by the instrument of force.

Attached: it's yours.jpg (746x348, 79K)

No, they don't sidestep your post, you are just not intelligent enough to see the logical connection. And I'm tired of trying to teach it to you, because you are a person who has a religious conviction for the theft of peoples' labor and no amount of logical reasoning will change that.

>never worked a day in his life
>came from an aristocrat family (viss-bauer)
>his "friend" payed for everything with daddys money
>probably a faggot

>observed, recurring tendencies
You mean like habits? Like those things that define us? Maybe could be considered our nature? You don't seem to be thinking this through very well.
>collective in charge of everything
So, you going to get your Muslim buddies over there in Israel to agree with the Jews on everything? Again you don't seem to have thought this through past the utopia part. Have you ever tried to get twenty people to agree on the same thing? How about 20 million? Good luck.

communism dumb lol
the red quadrant was a mistake.
Greens can be alright though, as long as they are not cyrpto-commies

Attached: commieshooting.png (640x1136, 771K)

>I would rephrase it to
And I would not.
We're talking ideals here, not concrete facts. I don't see the point of leaving suffering of any human individual to the matter of "chance".
An ideal society is one that minimizes suffering. Period. There shouldn't be a "point" in maintaining someone who refuses to carry their own weight, so to speak. A world made out of magic fairy dust where every need of every single human is instantly and met would be wonderful, wouldn't it? In my worldview, we as a society should be striving towards that impossibility, and try to reach as close as possible in our fairydust-deprived reality to it.

>No, they don't sidestep your post
Oh, but they do! They do nothing but restate the same old cornerstone principles of Libertarianism three times, each time targeting some semantic portion of my post, without addressing the underlying meaning I tried to convey.

Karl Marx what's wrong about the workers Revolution being inevitable, in actual fact class struggle is inevitable

even fucking Mao Zedong admits that class struggle is inevitable in a "socialist" country

so how the fuck is communism achievable if class struggle is inevitable?

Okay, congratulations, you really stumped me! You are right - taking another man's wealth from him is the single worst earthly sin possible to commit. A person who has has "justly earned" his wealth is entitled to it no less so than he is entitled to his own life. Under no circumstances you can justify taking another's wealth, and a person who does not possess wealth is one who might as well not possess humanhood itself!

Now what does any of that has to do with democracy?

The fact that people feel that what you're saying is a bad idea is amazing to me...

why should other people feel the burden of carrying that dead weight in our society?

Work is the production of value, value is determined as a measure of socially necessary activity of man. I claim Marx activity was not socially necessary, thus, having zero value and not work.

Democracy is a form of communism

Attached: get woke.jpg (1280x720, 86K)

I'll ask again since you ignored it earlier. You plan on getting your Muslim friends to agree with your Jewish friends? Because this is a must in your utopia.

It's not that we think it's a bad idea. It's an impossible and blatantly immoral idea.