What's wrong with marxism?

What's wrong with marxism?

Other urls found in this thread:

spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html
youtube.com/watch?v=oIeYoF1VhHc
youtube.com/watch?v=BNcERXGcpEY
youtu.be/NMYpaY7KKm4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bump

It doesn't work.

too idealistic
not realistic

Fuck off alt-right trolls

Absolutely nothing. Unfortunately racism is still very prevalent in our society.

As a real Trump supporter, I'll be the first to denounce white nationalism and embrace communism. We need to have a communal society if we want to Make America Great Again. I'd recommend looking up your local Antifa charter group.

...

ignores the biological and economic realities
>equality for all!!
Equality can not be achieved as long as there is biological diversity (structure, behaviour of humans)

>redistribute all the money!!
How? There is no way to logistically and practically achieve this. Worst of all its effect is that it lowers the incentive to work and makes it shit for everybody

> Capitalism is evil!! Capitalists take all our money away along with the government!!
So will making the government even bigger and stronger and have more regulations over us solve the problem?

Marx was a pseudo-intellectual NEET

Are you actually being anti-Semitic??

For anyone neutral reading this page, the above poster does NOT represent us Trump supporters. We are always the first ones to denouce bigotry.

Subversive

It doesn't work. There are too many fatal flaws in it that guarantee failure. Disincentive to work, inadvertently incentivizing bad behavior, etc. I honestly think that if Marx were alive now, and could see what happened in practice, he would admit it and work on another theory.

Oh look!

This shit again

Read this.

...

it was debunked several times

Interesting how very few to zero populace of former communist states support marxist principles, while upper-middle class, privileged millennial fuck heads from traditionally capitalist nations shill for it relentlessly?

Its because "real communism" in idea is a utopian fairy tale paradise, which in reality does not work. It is nothing more than tyranny, poverty and famine.

Two of my grandparents were refugees from Poland, and they voted conservative every single fucking time. They knew the reality of your broken ideology, you do not. And god willing, you never will.

marxism? well for starters it's philosophy
you are probably thinking about communism since communism is a social structure

>I honestly think that if Marx were alive now, and could see what happened in practice, he would admit it and work on another theory.

he wouldn't, he intentionally used fake data in his books in order to 'prove' that his version of socialism was scientific

this.

stop replying to slide threads. saged.

It is highly destructive to both parties, the one being used against and the one using it.

My grandparents, even parents experienced communism first hand, I was born just couple of years after its end in the former Czechoslovakia, the state took everything, their big firm, villa, just by a miracle they weren't killed, there was a gun pointed at their faces, at least one time. From what I remember, the villa wasn't even confiscated, but actually burned down ...

there is no real communism, as there is no real capitalism nor real democracy.

ussr was socialism, just not according to an utopian idea.
yugoslavia was socialism, just not according to an utopian idea.
cuba is socialist, just not according to an utopian idea.

china is... well i guess only china knows what it is.

my grandparents as well lived under socialism, and they were quite happy. grandmother finished 2 universities law and economics, grandfather was an architect, doing plans only hospitals.

Marx

checked

but it is funny because trump is more leftist then hillary,

>le joos le lololol ebin XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Marxism doesn't claim that everyone has to be completely equal in every regard. It doesn't call for redistribution of all money either.

the people defending it

>muh jews

Egalitarian

The Soviet Union in that era was Stalinist, not Marxist.
>Rummel
lel
He's notorious for bloated death tolls. Not to mention the fact that much of that isn't even demographically possible.

The result

First define what you think Marxism is.

>very few to zero populace of former communist states support Marxist principles
That's a meme spouted by American anti-communists and Poles. Millions of former Soviets, Yugoslavs, and Eastern Bloc residents are nostalgic for the old days.

Human nature

Source?

>Being nostalgic for bread lines and cold winters
Bullshit

>>>/reddit/
Gtfo normie
Search up how many jews were involved in communism, look at the leaders of 1918 november revolution, search up who who consisted the commisars of the early soviet union, search up winston churchill's essay on zionism vs communism.

It assumes that equality is achievable when in reality nobody is equal

spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html
Anything ends up being done 'in the name of the proletariat'.

If you think the jews who started the spark of communisum didn't set up the system stalin inherited, maybe you should learn who leon trotsky and friends is.

Marx argues that as the economy grows under capitalism, technology advances. As technology advances wages decrease while labour input increases while also decreasing the honor of labour and the living conditions of the laborer.

Let us first condemn these accusations as technophobic and drawn entirely from a realm of emotions, not having any correspondence to the world in its actual form.

First: the argument that as technology grows wages decrease.

This is clearly untrue, evidence against this can be found by comparing the living conditions between any developed and developing nation.

As technology increases more production is increased leading to a cheapening of the value of products and an increase in the quality of said products. Due to the cheapening of said product the wages paid will always pay for more products in the larger economy.

Consider the wages of those in the middle of Mali an African Country vs the low class of the USA, obviously it can be seen that the low wages of the lower class in the USA overshadow the wages of the middle class of mali.

We can now say clearly that this is just overly emotional and fearful rhetoric
Second:as technology advances labour input is increased and value of said labour is decreased.

This is also clearly untrue when we consider the high paying wages of the U.S. Factory worker when the manufacturing was done chiefly in said country.

It is obvious that as technology advances according to the principles of Fordism and scientific management(Taylorism) physical input from workers decreases while increasing the wages of said workers because every corporation wishes to turn a profit they shall pay their employees enough to earn said profit.

When you maximize the gains of your corporation you maximize the payment of your workers.

As such we can now clearly say after examining these principles and the state of reality as history judges that this argument is nothing but emotion fueled fearful rhetoric.

Third: it is argued that as the economy grows the honor of the worker is decreased and the further is he exploited.

I argue that seeking honor for physical labour, that is to say for payment, is an unrealistic demand that is made purely to appeal to the emotions of those who feel the need to be honored or respected without placing any extra work for that as payment.

The only honors and glory one should receive from his work is the following. The honor of knowing he provided for himself, the honor of knowing he provided for his family, and the honor of knowing he helped his nation-state/society with his work.

Seeking of any further honor than these is pointless.

After understanding that this was nothing but an attempt at appealing towards the emotions of the poor and the emotions of the narcissistic we can now say that is was again nothing but emotion fueled rhetoric.

i dont know but if liberals like it then it must be bad

>labor theory of value is false
>see Walras, Jevons, & Menger circa 1871-4
>economics be marginalist now niggas

Marxism is just an analysis method of history that uses dialectical materialism, which is also often used as a critique against capitalism. It can't "work" or "not work". Idiots.

(you)

The argument of Marx about the means of production continuously changing by the shifting of hands from the minority into majority is also a false argument with no place in reality.

Rome was capitalist for example, and Egypt had state-capitalism.

Rome had banks no? It had legal tender no? It had a legal system and a court system no?

Further if we give the argument to Marx that this is how the economy shifts and grows eventually, that bourgeois overtakes aristocrat and proletariat overtakes bourgeois, we have no reason to assume that proletariat is the bottom line, the lowest principle. "Worker" isn't the lowest common denominator, especially not in modern welfare states. Person is.

If we go by Marx's own logic taken to the extreme, eventually the means of production would be forcibly taken from the proletariat by a different people.

Marxism was invented by a jew. It exists for one purpose: to force equality for jews. Everything else is extraneous to that key feature. The Communist Manifesto clearly and explicitly states that they intend to achieve this by killing national elites, destroying the nation state and asset stripping the economy. It benefits no one but jews. That's why communism is overwhelmingly a jewish movement. It is the ideological expression of jewish consciousness, a reflex of the jewish survival instinct and the ultimate revenge for 2,000 years of persecution by white Christians.

>Putin: Soviet Government Was Mostly Jewish 80-85%
youtube.com/watch?v=oIeYoF1VhHc

>Winston Churchill exposes forces behind Communism
youtube.com/watch?v=BNcERXGcpEY

The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party:

Krylenko Russian
Lounatcharski Russian
Ulyanov (Lenin) JEW
Bronstein (Trotsky) JEW
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) JEW
Lourie (Larine) JEW
Ouritski JEW
Volodarski JEW
Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) JEW
Smidovitch JEW
Sverdlof (Yankel) JEW
Nakhamkes (Steklof) JEW

The Council of the People’s Commissars:

Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
Agriculture Protian Armenian
Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
Ulyanov (Lenin) JEW
Economic Council Lourie (Larine) JEW
Food Schlichter JEW
Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) JEW
State Control Lander JEW
State Lands Kauffman JEW
Works V. Schmidt JEW
Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) JEWess
Religions Spitzberg JEW
Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) JEW
Hygiene Anvelt JEW
Finance Isidore Goukovski JEW
Press Volodarski JEW
Elections Ouritski JEW
Justice I. Steinberg JEW
Refugees Fenigstein JEW
Refugees (assist.) Savitch JEW
Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski JEW

>critique against capitalism
And society, culture, gender, race, etc.

Fuck off JIDF.

Everyone who proposes any kind of communistic view fails to realistically apply their theory. Not to mention how equal distribution of wealth means no one has the capital to innovate and progress technology.

not sure what the big deal is, all he did was talk about commodities for 20,000 pages in das capital

>an analysis method of history that uses dialectical materialism, which is also often used as a critique against capitalism
Yes. And it doesn't work. It's totally worthless. Just made up bullshit from the jewiest jew in history.

This. I remember being in a very liberal philosophy class at a very liberal university and the one Chinese girl in my class talked about how much she disliked communism and how much Chinese people disliked communism. The class was quiet after she talked lol.

studying economics in a socialist country. I can only imagine the bs they were taught.

Bump

It's wrong.
But Neoclassicals, neoliberals, austrians, libertarians and anarchists are also wrong.

They're all a bunch of religions supported by tenets of faith. Pick the faith that serves your ideology and join the meme wars.

>Economy isn't even a real Nobel Prize
topkek

Then who's right?

About Economics? Nobody. We're still in the alchemical stage of Economics.

No control experiments
No testing of hypotheses on the real world
No busting of dogmas like "100% rational economic actors"
Fiddling with initial conditions to arrive at your worldview

>wewlads

>comparing ussr with rosa lux
idiot

I'd rather die than live in a world where other people tell me how to live, what I can buy, and so on. You can't have socialism without authoritarianism you stupid bastards. It's also a two class system of a minuscule ruling party and everybody else, the proletariat.

You deserve to be be beaten to death without mercy if you think Marxism is super cool, dude.

That's not entirely true, you can see that countries that are capitalist do better than socialist countries and some pretty good explanations have been given as to why

>Diffferent jobs can be valued equally

(You)

>tfw China is first economy in the world
>tfw europe had its apex during socdem period
>tfw communism turned russia from a failed agrarian state into a industrial superpower in 20 years
yeah communist countries sure do terribly.

It ignores natural law.

Cold winters are normal there.
As for the bread lines, the numbers speak for themselves. Even in East Germany, there's a word for the phenomenon: "Ostalgie." Some obscenely high number of Russians think that Stalin's purges were justified.

Rosa Luxemburg and her comrades weren't anything like the Bolsheviks. Learn your history.

It literally falls on it's own idea, a utopian on paper until it gets tried because human nature destroys it, every single time.

How do the statuses of developed vs developing countries relate to wages falling?
>when you maximize the gains of the corporation you maximize the gains of the workers
>believing trickle down economics
Only in certain businesses is this true. Ford was one of them.

It's an ideology for thieves. And as such, deeply (((globalist))).

Give them your money and they will take your factory. Give them your factory and they will take your family. Give them your family and they will take your nation. Give them your nation and they will take your guns. Give them your guns and they will take your life.

Nothing is yours. Everything is theirs. Even your own body. It's the very reason many of you are fapping a flesh wound.

>give supreme power to the state
>expect the state to eventually give it up

Great idea.

Kek wills it; Marxism is for fags.

Most of my Chinese friends have said both good things and bad things to say about life in China. They've said that living quarters are much smaller and that some consumer goods are of low quality. However, they've also said that the country is developing very rapidly and that there are a lot of very talented craftsmen and service specialists if you know where to look.

It puts too much power in government hands and can lead to authoritarianism.

>What's wrong with marxism?
Does not predict shit.

Does not incorporate other social elements like rural peasants.

Hegel was a dead loss and Marx was too.

Marx himself? A tosser but that's not strictly relevant to his work being toss. His work is toss though.

Casualties of marxs work climing insights into society and economics and predicting uture events?

Millions due to gobshites believing in this crap.

Everything, because the problem of the world is not inequality, the problem of the world is poverty and misery. Inequality is effect of human evolution. Inequality is not a bad thing.

>Unfortunately racism is still very prevalent in our society.

What the fuck does 'racism' have to o with Marx? He was a young Hegelian and Hegel made broad generations about race defining Asians as 'despotic'.

You are not one of these sad hipster cunts who blatters about marx and race and knows fuck all are you?

Marx was a complete failure by every criteria imaginable and his followers were either conned, immoral or idiots.

>KEK HAS SPOKEN!

It's the doctrine for the psychopaths:

Step 1: An elite EXTRA SPESHUL VANGUARD OF THE ENLIGHTENED must LEAD AND INFORM THE PEOPLE (appeal to the narcissistic and egomanic)

Step 2: This small EXTRA SPESHUL VANGUARD will be given ALL POWER - ECONOMIC, MILITARY, POLITICAL, JUDICIAL, CULTURAL

Step 3: The EXTRA SPESHUL VANGUARD will spend a long time BRAVELY FIGHTING ENEMIES LIKE TRUE BRAVE IDOLS LIKE CHE GUEVARA BEING BRAVE MANLY MEN WITH MANY WOMEN ADMIRERS, MANY YEARS

Step 4: when they have won they promise that they will give away all their power and become just another normie, pinky promise rly swear

They justify themselves outwardly with number 4, when in reality it's numbers 1-3 that appeal to them.

And holy fuck when you give someone all this power you must be a fucking autistic retard to think they will give it all away willingly.

not an argument

None of what you wrote really applies to Marxism.

The idea of a vanguard party was introduced by the Soviets.

and is part of marxism.

It's just classical Judaism without telling the goyim up-front.

There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.

The worker is unable to add new labor, to create new value, without at the same time preserving old values, because the labor he adds must be of a specific useful kind, and he cannot do work of a useful kind without employing products as the means of production of a new product, and thereby transferring their value to the new product. [This] is a gift of nature which costs the worker nothing, but is very advantageous to the capitalist since it preserves the existing value of his capital.

Based on a false premise with zero data supporting it.

Marx believed that Communism was "inevitable" for human societies and that humans went through stages of achievement and Socialism and Communism would be the final stage in a sense.

He believed that once there was no longer a need for labor and capital had grown so productive that it could supply the needs of everyone without issue, that communism would result.

Remember this is an argument that this WOULD happen not SHOULD happen.

He believed this because he believed primordial humans were "primitive communists" surviving off of each other in equal fashion. This can be seen in small tribal groups, but between tribal conflicts were extremely brutal and not egalitarian. Even within tribal communities hierarchies arose based on who got the most resources, who was the strongest, etc.

Again this wasn't based off of data, it wasn't based of an anthropological survey of primitive tribes that existed at the time, nor was it an anthropological analysis showing that maybe primitive humans acted this way. It was just his "hunch" and knowledge of history essentially.

Well his "hunch" of how primitive societies operated is completely wrong, and thus humans cannot return to their roots so to speak.

The problem is Marxism is inherently flawed as it depends on the individuals fear of a shit economy and assumes cash ruled society always result in flaws. What this world needs now is some basic income:
youtu.be/NMYpaY7KKm4