Who will play him in the inevitable biopic?

Who will play him in the inevitable biopic?

He did nothing wrong.

Nice bait.

Another example of Germanroach trying to destroy humanity.

Ryan Gosling with beard

Shia LaBeouf

His ideology resulted in the enslavement and murder of millions of people.

But it's literally true nigga just wrote some books.

well his ideology has never been tried so...

If you actually read marx's theories they are the biggest load of pseudoscience you will ever read.

They actually unironically believe that human nature doesn't exist and that all human action is the result of purely economic forces.

Not to mention the countless other contradictions in his surplus value bullshit theory.

These people are so fucking stupid I'm surprised they even know how to breathe.

heh heh

Remember in the late 1800s when marx said the workers under capitalism will end up on subsistence wages barely able to even survive?

Remember when wages increased dramatically in capitalist countries the 1900s, utterly proving marx wrong?

Its resulted in the deaths of million across the glove, dingus.

Ever heard of Holodomor or Maos famine?

The concept of human nature is extremely flawed because what is deemed "human nature" is highly influenced by ones environment which of coarse is driven by economic forces, it is common in our capitalist society to say humans are naturally greedy, self-serving etc. while also living in a economic system which promotes this behavior to get ahead. But if we look at say a primitive hunter-gatherer society its pretty much the exact opposite, and if we look at ancient societies like say Rome the concept of a person who was naturally born free and born slave was the human nature of their time though would seem ridiculous to people of today, biologically their is no real difference between us and them except our economic development.

>Labour theory of value is important because it proves workers are being exploited
>Tendency of the rate of profit to fall is important because it proves that capitalism is unsustainable
>Labour theory of value implies that as more workers are involved, profits will increase due to exploitation of the worker
>tendency of the rate of profit to fall states that as more workers get involved profits will decrease
I've never had it adequately explained to me why these can exist at the same time. The closest I've gotten was some morons long winded explanation of marginal costs and economies of scale. Even then the two Marxist ideas are not existing side by side. Plus it hardly proves the un-sustainability when these concepts are things businesses already plan for.

>The concept of human nature is extremely flawed
No it's not.
It's basic human instincts, neuroscience and sociobiology.
Why do leftists deny evolution when it comes to human beings?

>is highly influenced by ones environment
It's actually not though.
It's mostly genetic. Countless different cultures separated from each other had very similar behaviors. Environment influenced a bit yet but it's not as much as you'd think.

>which of coarse is driven by economic forces
Obviously economic forces influence some of human behavior as well.
The problem is that marxists delusionally believe all human nature is the result of economic forces.

>it is common in our capitalist society to say humans are naturally greedy, self-serving etc
They can be. There's nothing wrong with this.

>But if we look at say a primitive hunter-gatherer society its pretty much the exact opposite
LEL
Those were extremely small societies. This proves my point, it's human nature to be communal with a very small amount of people that you actually know and care about. We have these things today, they're called FAMILIES.
Look up Dunbar's number.
Even within these small units, people aren't 100% self sacrificial. They just tend to share more things than they otherwise would with each other.

>slave was the human nature of their time though
That's not human nature, that was a political system. There were countless people that thought slavery was wrong back then.

In conclusion, to claim that all human nature is the result of purely economic forces is fucking absurd.

The other thing that's funny is the working class already consumes what they produce.
They consume 99% of all consumer goods.

How are they being exploited if they already get what they produce?
How could you get more consumer goods like food and housing if your class is already consuming 99% of it?

>The concept of human nature is extremely flawed
>the concept of an apple tree is extremely flawed

You pretty much much disproved human nature yourself by indicating it as a politically enforced set of rules proving my point though, all Marx is saying is that human nature argument is essentially meaningless as an argument for the support of say capitalism over communism because one is more "natural" than the other when it has been shown that humans are neither completely selfish or completely altruistic because how much a society is in these regards is generally fueled by the economic framework it is built upon which supports and nourishes these behaviors.

Because they're paying to consume something they made. It shouldn't be normal for human society to have a class of people who take the majority of the benefits from the work you do while making your community poorer, sicker, and less productive.

the concept of an apple tree is flawed, who's ever heard of a tree that grows food?

Well said, true.

You're a retard. Humans have never not been corrupt. Capitalism may in some forms exploit some aspects it, but Communism in turn exacerbates other aspects of human imperfection. A nicely-constructed system doesn't magically make us all saints.

Hell, the guys who post the child images on this board themselves subscribe to a lot of Marxist ideas at least in what they espouse when tring to lay out their own take.

a wet turd.

Well the idea is that the working classes are the ones who add value in production, while the capitalist sells it for a profit while himself adding no value. It's an extremely simplistic way of looking at the nature of business and is related entirely to its time. You can imagine someone having such an idea in Marx's time after the industrial revolution with masses of factory workers and coal minors and the like, all wondering 'what is that guy in the office even doing?'. But is it applicable to modern times? Absolutely not. Unironically, there's no excuse to have such a simplistic view of business operations in the current year.

>You pretty much much disproved human nature yourself by indicating it as a politically enforced set of rules proving my point though
I never once said it is a politically enforced set of rules. I did say that politics can influence human behavior, but the same human instincts will always be there pushing back against it.

>all Marx is saying
Marx was wrong about basically everything.
Your religion makes absolutely no sense you scientologist.

>all Marx is saying is that human nature argument is essentially meaningless as an argument for the support of say capitalism over communism because one is more "natural" than the other
This is bullshit and I already disproved it in my previous post.
Do you have a reply to what I said?
How are humans not naturally looking out for their best interests most of the time?

Why do you retards deny human instincts?

>It shouldn't be normal for human society to have a class of people who take the majority of the benefits
But they don't take the majority of the benefits you gigantic retard.
The working class consumes what they produce.
How could the working class possibly consume more than what is virtually everything?
How stupid are you?

Poor attempts at his ideology by the inept. You might as well mention the Killing Fields and Juche, while you are at it.

Forgive me for being hesitant about 'getting it right this time'.

>Humans have never not been corrupt.
When did I say this? And the concept of human corruption is kind of irrelevant when it comes to Marxism, Marxism is only concerned with the exploitation of the working class as it is a system which benefits them and seeks to overthrow the ruling classes.
>A nicely-constructed system doesn't magically make us all saints.
Which isn't the point of communism its a system which is meant to benefit the majority of society and the majority at the reigns of economic interest not create a perfect utopia where everyone is happy and nice all the time.

>Poor attempts at his ideology by the inept.
lol what a joke
these things WERE his ideology, there's no other way to implement them except massive state violence

marx himself wanted a state to control everything and then the state would wither away

>le not real communism

Give it up kiddo. Your ideology is flawed and has no place in society.

>And the concept of human corruption is kind of irrelevant when it comes to Marxism
No it's not, marxism seeks a totalitarian state which controls all human behavior in an attempt to mould humans to be communists so the state would wither away.
>Marxism is only concerned with the exploitation of the working class as it is a system which benefits them and seeks to overthrow the ruling classes.
But this is bullshit though and we've proven this throughout the thread.

>Holodomor
That's Stalin.

>Holodomo
I don't deny that, I'm just saying that all the attempts were by the inept. The closest anyone came to getting it "right" was Lenin, but even he fucked up.

Thats the nature of Communism. It can only work in a world fo Saints. Problem is, we all crave property, and we all crave money. But they tried. And, honestly, I think they're going to keep trying.

And of course, they will most likely fail, but when has that stopped anyone, ever?

If you hear someone defend marx then you know they are a total brainlet and pseudointellectual.

guys...

>The closest anyone came to getting it "right" was Lenin, but even he fucked up.
How did he attempt to get it right?
He killed millions of people.
Also again, it's impossible to "get it right" because dialectical materialism is a pseudoscientific religion that makes no sense and human nature does not allow for pure communism.

He's baby's first philosopher. Some idiots get really attached to him and can never let him go, I know it's tough to admit you're wrong but eventually they will have to grow up.

Clancy Brown if he grew his beard out fuller. He's already got experience playing evil madmen in crash bandicoot.

>No it's not, marxism seeks a totalitarian state which controls all human behavior in an attempt to mould humans to be communists so the state would wither away.
It's neither is nor isn't yeah a socialist government could be totalitarian it could also be democratic, that is like saying capitalism is totalitarian because there have been capitalist dictatorships.

>a totalitarian state which controls all human behavior
That's true for all ideologies.

Breathing is fairly easy though.

>It's neither is nor isn't yeah a socialist government could be totalitarian it could also be democratic
How can it be democratic if the people are still capitalists at heart? Marxists would never allow this because they know it would slip back into capitalism really fast.

>that is like saying capitalism is totalitarian because there have been capitalist dictatorships.
There should be desu.

No it's not.
Is the government in your country controlling ALL of your human behavior or just some of it?

Literally inevitable, too. Nice foresight.
They'll try to advertise it as "controversial" but we'll know.

Some of it, but they would like to control all of it. It's not like communism controlled all of human behavior either.

this guy gets it

>How did he attempt to get it right?
>He killed millions of people.
You're confusing Lenin with Stalin. yes, Lenin had a hanging order, but he was merely trying to maintain an incredibly flawed system. Lenin, however, was not the fascist Stalin was.

>defending this utter garbage

>dialectical materialism is a pseudoscientific religion

Define dialectical materialism first. Before we go anywhere, explain what you believe dialectical materialism to be first.

All I know is that every Marx-admirer I've ever known turned out to be the most cynical, self-interested, corrupt fucker ever. It's really weird. Like as if espousing Marxist or nice-sounding 'socialistic-y' ideas is how they try to redeem themselves to themselves since they know how they really are all day.

Like, how about drop the bullshit political LARPing and just become a basically decent person who has a minimum of respect for other human lives and some relative sense of ethics?

>implying fascism is bad

Well, millions died during the civil war. It was partially Lenin's fault.

>200 million
Whoa, they can't find 20 million allegedly killed by Stalin and you're talking about 200 million?

...

...

is that way

>How can it be democratic if the people are still capitalists at heart? Marxists would never allow this because they know it would slip back into capitalism really fast.

If that were the case I'd doubt that there would be a socialist government at all then since there would have never been enough popular backing of the people to overthrow the capitalist in genera if that's how they truly felt. But even in a democratic socialist state there would still be suppression of capitalist ideologies like there wouldn't be capitalist parties allowed into a socialist parliament much like how lots of monarchist were suppressed after the rise of republicanism.

lenin literally killed countless people as well, dummy

pic related

The entire concept of DM depends on all human action being the result of economic forces and there being no true human nature.
This is pseudoscience.
The rest of DM doesn't even matter.

>the classic sophistry argument of 'we're not going to get anywhere unless you define everything the way I want'

>DUDE CAPITALISM IS BAD LMAO
>GIVE ALL YOUR STUFF TO ME GOYIM!!!
>DA BOURGEOIS!!!!!
>Sent from my iPhone™ in my parents house

You absolute fucking liar.
Lenin was the one who started the collectivisation of Russia. He was the one that started the killings of all the academics and aristocrats that resisted the Bolsheviks.
He caused the brutal murder of the Romanovs.
He started the gulags, the prison labor camps, the destruction of the agricultural development of Russia.
His actions led to the death of hundreds of thousands and enabled Stalin's reign of terror.
You are trying to revision history, because you can't admit that every single socialist was a bloodthirsty autocrat at heart.
You absolute fucking dipshit.

They're sociopaths basically.

Marxist cunts always do this.
Their religion is needlessly complicated because they want to sound intelligent.
But if you read even the smallest amount of their theories, you'll see it's a pile of horseshit filled with contradictions.

And millions more died during the Eastern Front. Hell, way I see it, the civil war was inevitable, even if the communist revolution had not succeeded: more than one party was pissed off with the Tsar at the time.

>50 posts arguing about communism but only the hitler poster should go to Sup Forums

this guy probably

commies always get BTFO Sup Forums which is why they troll on other boards or go to 8ch or reddit.

they even get BTFO on other boards too, see this thread

>lenin literally killed countless people as well, dummy

Like I said, hanging order

>no true human nature
Now here's my next question - what would you define as being a "true human nature", if any.

And in case any of you fags are wondering why I''m doing this
I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I don't deny that Marxism, ultimately, is a very flawed system, but there was a much larger reason as to why Marx wrote what he wrote. To fault Marx for writign the Communist manifesto is like faulting Nietzsche for writing "Thus spake Zarathustra" and "Twilight fo the Idols". or Schopenhauer for "The World as Will and Representation".

Now tell me - are you lot going to defend Scopenhauer and Hitler simply because they belonged to the "better" ideology?

Lenin didn't start the collectivization.
>Gulags
Yes, but during Lenin's regime only some 40.000 people were Gulag prisoners, and only 17% of them for counter-revolutionary crimes.

Anti-commies will do anything to make Lenin look like a megalomaniac. The real terror started with Stalin. If Lenin is to blame for anything, it was to get Stalin to do the dirty work