Can we collect some good arguments against marxism?

Can we collect some good arguments against marxism?

Whenever I talk to one of those deluded faggots, they dismiss the mentioning of all the genocides by saying that was only poorly exectued marxism and real marxism would be better. So what arguments can I use to refute the actual theory of marxism without having to refer to the history of marxist regimes? From a purely rational economic point of view, why does marxism have to fail?

Sorry for the newfaggotry, but my disgust is too strong to read Marx's original work.

Other urls found in this thread:

mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

there's a reason you didn't get any replies.

and it's because nobody cares,
commie.

workers of the world unite

Whenever they try that "not true Marxism" bullshit, turn it back around on them. Say that Marxism is such a flawed system that it can't even get off the ground without getting hijacked by some genocidal lunatic or oppressive regime. That's why "true" Marxism has never been done.

You can't win using rational arguments.

Focus on the rhetoric battle and simply shame and namecall them for their retardation.

Any argument you'll make will be dismissed by using tactical nihilism.

"But user that's not real Marxism, It's state capitalism"

Aka you don't argue with commies, to them Marxism will never fail, and when it does it's not Marxism, since Marxism works.

The only people who wants communism are retards born in a capitalistic society.

So when they say that capitalism doesn't work. Just fucking tell them that the market is not " truly free" or something like that since they're not up for discussion anyway.

marxists are delusional edgelords. In the USSR and communist china for example the government siezed the means of production and gave it to the workers - which is what they would probably call marxism. The leftist sort of economic model always fails, hence why liberal politicians want to flood countries with as many government support dependents as possible to always vote for them

>Based Bernie
>Marxist
I wouldn't expect much else from a Swede

hey, hans, what is tactical nihilism?

Imagine you're trying to advocate for something, let's say nationalism and the other side will then reply with "But borders are just arbitrary lines on a map".
Or "Gender is just a social construct."

They will however fail to apply the same nihilism to their own values like multiculturalism. "CAN'T YOU FUCKING RACIST SEE HOW MULTICULTURALISM IS __INHERENTLY__ GOOD????"

If you then point out that this is also a social construct by their own definition since we'er all "one race, the human race" or whatever garbage they spout they won't accept that and just call you stupid/racist/anti-semite/redneck/scared whatever comes to mind.


I'm not perfectly happy with the examples I came up with but I think you get my point.
This is why you shouldn't even attempt to use logic on most liberals since that is a one-way street for them.

...

Ruling Party heads of communist states are typically immune to the limitations experienced by the rest of the population.

With no oversight there's no way to make sure that they (as a group) truly have the best interests of the commonwealth in mind.

And there is no way to enforce a change either.

You gotta be stupid to think we care about killing people. That's what we do, because we have enemies that oppose our project, like literally any political faction.

Where did all you scumbags come from?

Be honest, why are you on Sup Forums and since when?

SImply forget about them. Seriously fuck them they don't deserve any more attention, they've already wasted enough time and killed enough people.

>making assumptions based from literally nothing
Gdmit burger.

I think I got it. If you want to devalue something, deconstruct it by providing a reductionist explanation or interpretation. It's tactical because the deconstruction is conditional on the wanting to devalue something, instead of being always done.

Now that I think about it, I have faced this many times. It's always good to have a catchy name for it.

Thanks, m8.

There are more here than you think.

I just came here to stay away from "leftist" Hillary apologists.

who in the fuck says the bullshit of ""not real kommunizm""

>the government seized the means of production and gave it to the workers - which is what they would probably call Marxism.

No, the state kept the industries, which is what is precisely known as State Capitalism.

Proof? When the nationalized industries were sold off, who was the seller? The Workers? No, the State.

Who got the proceeds and kept the money?
The State.

Possession is 9/10 would not bang

>communist kike
>based

Get off my website reddit faggot

>. If you want to devalue something, deconstruct it by providing a reductionist explanation or interpretation. It's tactical because the deconstruction is conditional on the wanting to devalue something, instead of being always done.

You're a lot more eloquent than me. That was a very good explenation.

>Now that I think about it, I have faced this many times. It's always good to have a catchy name for it.

It's a very common tactic on the internet in general since the other side can't just punch you in the face for being a dishonest scumbag.

>guys help i cant refute something without resorting to ad-homs, what do i dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

maybe you should question your own philosophies

Marx was a wealthy industrialist paid to confuse the working class and divide them so they couldn't overthrow the industrialists.

mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf

>they dismiss the mentioning of all the genocides
Implying hundreds of millions of people don't have it coming.

>i hire you to collect potatoes from my field
>or i give you a ride in my car for couple bucks
>this voluntary agrements are somehow most dangerous crimes against humanity
>marxist try to defend this

You cant judge when and how to make your product since supply/demand doesnt exist.

Point out that most forms of socialism were used to make way for communism with violence by executing the moderates who want to wait.

Marx never took into account scarcity of resources and the resulting conflicts.

Every other criticism can be argued around, wangled, skewed "you're suffering from false consciousness" etc.

....his descriptive account of the transition from feudal, to agricultural, to industrial societies in the West, up until 1914, was extraordinary. Unfortunately this gives legitimacy to the more prescriptive parts of his writings (which were vague, flawed and open to abuse).

Wouldn't kill you to spend an afternoon reading an overview of marx's work if it gets your knickers in so much of a twist op. How can you vehemently hate something you don't understand?

You're not going to become brainwashed. I read marx and I'm still not a Marxist.

>my disgust is too strong to read Marx's original work
Too bad, he makes some eye-opening points.

Marxism discourages inter-class solidarity and replaces socially mobile society with flattened peasant society.

If you fucks call state-run enterprises "state capitalism" there's literally no reason as to say your cooperativism shill is not just small collective owned capitalism or cooperative capitalism.

Socialism is about abolishing private property and fucking up everyone that says otherwise.

And, if you got a brain, you'd know that private property =/= public (state) property. What makes capitalism is individuals owning entire enterprises and financial bodies and lobbies.

THAT'S capitalism, not the state running the key sectors of the economy preventing individuals from hoarding them.

> the meek will inherit the earth.

He's worse than fucking Jesus

In le marxist utopia you will be forced to be meek. No reactionaries allowed :3

>100 replies and No one Will point out the similarties between this shit and nazis arguing on Sup Forums using the same argument and ignoring past genocides

>poorly executed

as a socialist, I'd say we have a better record than fascists. Between Pol Pot, The Volya, and Mao, we got more people killed than hitler could even dream of.

Factor Stalin into this, and I'd have to say that Marxism suceeds in terms of raw bodycount

Nazis were actually a spin-off of communism. They were also a "worker party".

...

Marxism is a great method of literary/historical critique; heavily influenced by German idealism, it was absolutely cutting age in the era before great advances in cognitive science became possible. As a critical framework, it is high quality

>Too bad, he makes some eye-opening points.

No. He doesn't. He was a spoilt German Jew writing in the 1840s. His understanding of economics was equivalent to that of a modern child. His economic theories were obsolete within decades of being written because they predate (and never foresaw) every single modern economic discovery (theoretical and practical) and are founded on outdated high industrial economic concepts based on what Marx saw in the cotton mills of Manchester when Charles X was still King of France.

In every instance where it has been attempted, it has failed, primarily because Marxists assume the infallibility of central state planning while overlooking the fact that central state plannERS are simply human and any decision they make is, of necessity, a consequence of their own personal human preferences and biases rather than the impersonal metaphysical forces that Marx fantasised about.

In effect, Marxism empowers an elite of economic planners to give special treats to "good" people and special punishment to "bad" people. Whether a person is good or bad is decided by their adherence to the moral preferences of that elite. Thus, Marxism degenerates into an adolescent power fantasy where a handful of dicks get to pick and choose who should be rewarded with material goods and who should be punished by withholding material goods. Naturally, pricks like you assume you'll be one of the elite running the country and obviously you'll get to punish all the people you dislike.

And this is the part where people who've never read the Communist Manifesto and who do not understand economics start yelling that Marxism just hasn't been tried in the right countries. Fuck you. It's been tried in dozens of countries and it has failed for the very simple reason that it is a flawed ideology based on flawed methods of thought developed by an obnoxious purblind German Jew who knew nothing about economics and less about industry.

handful of people running whole country, sooner or later will begin to think that everyone is against you, cozz you are exploiting something that isn't yours (head of states), half of country works like crazy, while other half don't care cozz they know that first half will bail them out, but what happens when first half go broke?

also most countries are communistic PoS, even US (cozz of central bank)

I meant eye opening in a shocking way. I think it helps to know where your opponents are coming from.

Second example, Hungary, 1919. Whoever made this drawing should be shot. The 1919 regime was probably one of the darkest moments of Hungarian history. The communists, who happened to be 90% Jews, did so much damage that it couldn't be fully fixed even by the end of WW2, when they got into power again, that time with Soviet help. Also, Horthy and the white army, and white militias kicked their ass, Romanians just came to loot Budapest and steal Transylvania amidst our civil war.