Why arent you a Marxist, /his/?
>inb4 muh judeo-christians morals
>inb4 muh-judeo-christian idea of heaven
>inb4 muh right to completely explote all the natural resources
Pic related is literally the best philosopher ever, lets make earth and real life our heaven, bros.
>>>/cuckshed/
>>1149101
Oh look, it's this thread again. Little petit-bourgeoise me would love to see a different outcome this time, but I guess it's a historical inevitability.
Heaven is the spiritual dimension intersecting with the material, you don't make heaven by saying there is no heaven and let's have it strictly material.
>>1149108
>Little petit-bourgeoise
>Little petit
>>1149101
Marx is literally the most shit tier philosopher of all time.
>>1149101
Because 21st century Communist revolutions will always lead to more bloodshed, death, poverty and misery than had the capitalist system simply stayed in place to develop under heavy scrutiny. This has been observed time and time again.
To commit evils because we believe it to be for a just cause allows for the unscrupulous to use said cause as reasoning to inflict suffering. A critique of the capitalist system is all well and good until those critiques are used to justify murder, theft and torture.
>>1149129
Yeh dawg
>>1149101
Marx had good ideas, but Marxism as a pre-packaged ideology is outdated bunk.
>>1149101
marxists are the philosophical equivalent of those people still posting ragecomics on facebook or whatever.
outdated meme spewers.
Because Marx died before he could even formulate the theory depicting the actual functioning of communist society. He could never see past the revolution. It was all supposed to unfold according to inexorable historical laws he claimed to have discovered, and which had the same validity as the laws of physics.
Marx was far too keen on claiming his work was scientific, when a large slice of it is value-laden and idealized.
Regardless Engels was the better thinker, and he's the one who really saw the intellectual possibilities of dialectical materialism.
>>1149239
Engel was just some rich sugar daddy marx leached off of, confirmed for not reading
>>1149101
Because I'm not an idealist who lives in a fantasy world.
>>1149233
And whats the internet culture equivalent of neo-liberals?
>>1149264
Beliebers
>>1149264
Normies.
>>1149101
>lets make earth and real life our heaven, bros.
“Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he who would act the angel acts the brute.”
-Pascal
I like the guy. I'm attracted to leftism and agree with a lot of what he says. I also think the banter in his books is pretty top tier. But his work is just too metaphysical/continental, i'd rather support the anarchist equivalents. It's basically the same without the dialectical garbage and simplistic determinism.
>>1149101
Because I'm an anarchist. Marx is based, but I could do without marxists.
>>1149125
Hegel was worse desu
shit should be called engelsism but it doesn't sound as good, engels' 1844-45 work is maaaad underrated. marx peeped that shit and it all fell in place
marx still goat political economist tho
economic anthropology also dope, polanyi's great transformation is a must read
>>1149171
>literally can't afford the paper to print money on
>>1149374
What's your chief conceit with Marxism? You probably don't care for the presumption of a state during the transition to communism, right?
How do you suppose we should organize the transition as a species?
>>1149374
Marxist economics literally reduces human beings to machines in the same way that capitalism does though
read Nationalism and Culture famiglia
>>1149101
Every single time someone has tried to apply Marx's ideas on a wide scale it's ended in incredible bloodshed and misery. If your theories don't work in real life and only work in an ideological vacuum where everyone behaves as they should then your theory is shit.
Marxism is still fucking up the world today by popularizing the concept that strata of society are necessarily at odds with one another. The world would be a better place if he never existed.
>>1149101
Nice spooks nerd
>>1149374
>Marx is based
>>1149101
Because Marxists are idiot cunts, and for some reason they think Marx was 100% right about everything, don't even understand what he said and want retarded command economies.
I'm anti-capitalist, pro-market.
>>1150231
>anti-capitalist, pro-market
Kek. This is the biggest garbage I have heard on ages.
>>1150231
>anti-capitalist, pro-market
>I'm anti-car, pro-car engine
>>1150231
I'm anti-statist, pro-utopia
>>1150231
A market economy IS capitalism.
But to the central point, marx based his econonic theory on what was quickly to become an outdated model of economics.
Labour theory of value was quickly replaced with subjective value, nwoclassical economists revised the works of Smith, ricardo and say.
Not to mention that no socialist/Marxist system has ever worked in practise and has only ever ended in poverty, suffering and death. You have to consider when Marxists say every state has to be Marxist, that means repression of any and all who are not.
Well I'm over the age of 22 and not a student, and I hold a full time job.
I'm also not an idealist juvenile, with a simplistic view of the world, who likes to mentally masturbate to concepts which will never work in reality.
>>1150194
this, marxism and the concept of base-superstructure are the foundations of intersectional feminism and privilege theory
>>1150268
if Hayek thinks that the ends doesn't justify the means then he's just straight up fine with military dictatorships
>>1150282
>if Hayek thinks that the ends doesn't justify the means then he's just straight up fine with military dictatorships
What?
>>1150282
Hayek wrote that to point out that 'the ends justifies the means' is seen as an evil thing on the individual level and that applying it on a collectivist level doesn't make it any less evil, not as a support of the concept itself.
>>1150282
He worked with pinochet, sure. That's quite inexcusable.
However he detested socialism and probably saw it as his bit against an ideological foe. His theory did alot more damage to socialist economics in the long run however so eh. His fault.
Marxism nearly killed off my mother's entire family line for the unforgivable crime of owning land.
Fuck Marxism.
>>1150302
>He worked with pinochet, sure. That's quite inexcusable.
Doubt that is true,but even if it was,Allende was breaking the law,the parliament boot him,and he just kept graving power.
>>1150322
I call myself a hayekian, and hayek openly spoke about his involvement with pinochet. It was unfortunate but he did what he did.
>>1150332
Source? I am interested in reading about it. I know that Mises was kind of involved as an advisor.
He doesn't have any idea what morals are. He disowns them. "Thou shalt not steal" is problematic, because Marx was against private property.
>>1149101
Wow. Marxism is really just secular Judaism.
>>1150168
The state thing is a problem, yes, although I recognize that there are marxists who don't believe in a state building socialism. I also don't like tankies who support any right-wing movement as long as it's "anti-imperialist" and gloss over the historical repression of the working class at the hands of marxists.
I'm not sure the best way to organize society during and immediately after a socialist revolution. I'm tempted to say "it depends on the circumstances" but I'm sure that's not a satisfying answer.
>>1150222
>Stirner-posters still assblasted about the German Ideology
It's been 170 years bros
>>1150408
Kek. Marx proved nothing and made a fool out of himself writting more about Stirner than Stirner himself. And on top of that he proved nothing.
with the match only 2 min to go, he came too late
... just have a look:
https://youtu.be/B6nI1v7mwwA
>>1149147
>develop under heavy scrutiny.
this has literally never happened
>>1150349
>doesnt know the difference between personal property and private property
>opposition to a system based on poverty and exploitation is without morals
>>1150434
>opposition to a system based on poverty
Kek
>>1150436
>one capitalist country was successful where countless other failed
>cuba was blockaded and cut off from most of teh world for the better half of a century by the united states
learn some history before you post
>>1150446
I can post more. Hong kong had an embargo too and became wealthier than the UK. But I am sure that you cant post any succesful commie country,while I can spend all the day naming succesful capitalist countries
Marxism is by and for the bourgeois.
>>1150451
>Marxism is by and for the aristocracy.
Fixed for you
>>1149101
because Marx was wrong about economics.
>>1150460
He was wrong about everything,not just economics
>>1150450
>there were no successful communist countries
as i recall for basically 50 years one of the two most powerful countries in the world was communist, am i wrong?
and yes it did collapse, but if collapsing or not collapsing is your only measure of success, capitalism is hardly a good system, what with periodic market crashes and systemic inequality producing endless opposition ot the system
>>1150475
>as i recall for basically 50 years one of the two most powerful countries in the world was communist, am i wrong?
Yes,full of Gulags and genocides like the Ukranian one,while the GDP per capita of the USSR stagnated and compared to every metroc it was worse that their capitalist counter part. You just have to take a look to eastern vs western Europe to realise that Marxism fights for the poor,to create more of them.
>>1150483
>>1150475
>start as backwards shithole before wwi when america stronk
>america wins wwii and ussr and europe ravaged making america a super power
>ussr despite starting off in a shittier place and actually being affected by wwii still goes toe to toe
>the only way america can fight back is through statist non-market spending and centralized command economy in the military and aerospace sectors
>capitalism stronk
>>1150475
>capitalism is hardly a good system, what with periodic market crashes and systemic inequality producing endless opposition ot the system
If you can't understand the difference between a temporary crash and literally ceasing to exist then I don't know what to tell you.
>>1150489
Not a single argument m8. I can bring the production of Zarist Russia vs The first years of Lenin and rpove you how shotty your ideology is. Lenin was forced to liberalize the economy so the whole thing didnt collapse. Funny that you dont mention that and ignore the genocides that the USSR did.
>>1150489
You know the US was once an irrelevant backwater too, right?
Why do you think their power boomed in the 19th century and continues to this day? It's not because they were communist, that's for sure.
>>1150497
>I can bring the production of Zarist Russia vs The first years of Lenin and rpove you how shotty your ideology is.
>lenin
>marxist
>>1150503
>USSR
>Marxist
And you put them as an example.
>>1150507
I'm not pointing to them as Marxists. I'm pointing at you saying America won because capitalism.
>>1150184
It is the artists not the governments duty to spread culture. Government spread culture will always lead to propoganda
>>1150184
>implying anyone has every acheived post scarcity economics
Was this atlantean robot society or something?
>>1150434
Well, Marxism is without ethics; nothing "ethical" is said by Marx. A lot of Marxists even disparaged morality as a badge of stupidity.
>>1149101
He says he's "for the proletariat", but who is the "proletariat"? He's a globalist. He believes in the "human entity" which doesn't exist. I mean, if you know what taxonomy is, then you'd know that it's not an exact science; it's a classification; ergo, it's biased in the way we perceive such classification. You can tell he's biased in his classifications, because he says "the creatures too, must become free". The reason we call helping animals "humane", is because we're applying standards of humanity onto entities which may or may not share those standards. Which creatures should be free? Is the mammal equal to the insect? Is black equal to white? Is woman equal to man? The inherent differences therein are the justification for the difference in treatment. Give a boy a jockstrap, give a girl a tampon. Play a rap song for a black man; drink beer with a white man. Allow the economically responsible to hold capital; reduce the economically incapable to a life of servitude. Not even a capitalist; I just believe if you're responsible with capital, you should have it; if you're irresponsible with it, you shouldn't have it.
Marx was a bum who lived off the wealth of someone else. He is one of the economically irresponsible ones, even worse.
>>1150184
No, it reduces communities to machines. Humans are cogs and such.
>>1150539
>let people be free
>but people arent the same so thats bad
>women should be locked up as domestics and niggers should be slaves
What.
>responsible with capital
You do realize in Marxism, capital is socially owned, by society. I assume you've been indoctrinated by your previous rant that Marxism means absolute equality. It isn't. It's not capital that has been partitioned so each individual receives identical proportions of the same kind of capital.
"Responsible with capital" is what Rothschilds are. They will actively screw over societies, peoples, nations, economies and start conflicts using their capital to keep control over their capital and accumulate more. This is pretty much why Hitler hated the Jews.
>>1150561
You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that blacks should be enslaved, neither did I say women should be locked up. The woman belongs to the man as much as the man belongs to the woman. What I'm saying is that Marx doesn't understand how biased classification really is. "Race is a social construct" is essentially true, because all of taxonomy is a social construct. Marx believed in an ever-changing society, but to him, there was no justification for Socialism, just that it "felt right"; he never explicitly said why socialism is better. It was all semantics; first, he tried to tell us that we're enslaved by our wages, then he tried to sell us a key through his childish ideological nonsense.
>"Responsible with capital" is what Rothschilds are.
They were economically responsible with their money, which makes them good capitalists. Non-marxist socialism implies social responsibility as well, which rothschilds were not. Marx was never socially responsible, neither was he economically responsible; he was an irresponsible brat.
>>1150656
>there was no justification for Socialism, just that it "felt right"
Have you read any of Marx's work or just going of /pol/ infographics? Hold on, I know you're going to say you have but let's just be honest and admit you haven't.
>>1150656
Explain what
>he says "the creatures too, must become free"
has to do with
>Give a boy a jockstrap, give a girl a tampon. Play a rap song for a black man; drink beer with a white man.
This is a total non-sequitur
>Which creatures should be free? Is the mammal equal to the insect? Is black equal to white? Is woman equal to man?
Are you implying only white human men deserve to be free? What does equality have to do with freedom?
I'm not missing your point. You don't have a point. Freedom is not a jock strap, it's not a tampon, it's not a rap song, it's not a beer. If anything, freedom is the freedom to pick which one is most appropriate for yourself.
>What I'm saying is that Marx doesn't understand how biased classification really is.
You have no idea what you're talking about because you think Marxism advocates identical sameness for every individual. It doesn't. It says the individual should be more or less free to do whatever the fuck he wants when it comes to work. Obvious shit like being Jack the Ripper excluded.
>Marx believed in an ever-changing society, but to him, there was no justification for Socialism, just that it "felt right"; he never explicitly said why socialism is better.
Marx only said socialism was a stepping stone to communism. Again, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
>It was all semantics; first, he tried to tell us that we're enslaved by our wages
Are you?
>then he tried to sell us a key through his childish ideological nonsense.
You can't even articulate what you think he was trying to sell.
>Non-marxist socialism implies social responsibility as well, which rothschilds were not.
Explain what Marxist socialism is. You can't.
You are literally a clueless buffoon.
>>1150681
>Are you implying only white human men deserve to be free? What does equality have to do with freedom?
No... I'm saying that Marx talks about the proletariat, but NEVER defines it. Everything is always vague. His entire ideology is about changing words, rewording things. He doesn't attempt to define society or community as an entity, but to redefine them.
>Are you?
See, you're doing the same thing. You're trying to change the dialectic, trying to reframe something to fit your viewpoint. Am I a wage slave? No, I don't consider myself a slave; you could even change the textbook definition; it doesn't make me so. morality isn't defined, nor is it worded; it exists despite words and definitions.
>Explain what Marxist socialism is. You can't.
It's as it implies; Socialism with the implications and pragmatism that Marxist theory imposes.
He called his socialism "scientific", rather than utopian, but his socialism was the exact opposite. Science doesn't start with the conclusion and try to backtrack it; they start with evidence and make guesses, and they test those guesses to establish a theory. Marxist socialism is an assumption, not a theory.
Marx's theory was wrong. The west didn't become socialist; in fact, coming from a society based on regulation, taxation and social programs, the American revolution proved Marxist theory wrong, because it became liberal rather than social. It was again proved wrong when the socialist revolution didn't even happen in the west. In fact, China, a former socialist country, is becoming even more capitalist than America. Scientific socialism, as it would imply, isn't scientific, because it not only was wrong in its predictions, but was founded on the assumption that those predictions were true.
>>1150830
>No...
You're making a non-sequitur about freedom and equality, because you have no idea what you're talking abouy.
>I'm saying that Marx talks about the proletariat, but NEVER defines it.
This is bullshit. It's a worker that derives income from (wage)labor and not capital.
>See, you're doing the same thing.
I'm doing what same thing? I honestly don't get your point, except you think Marx is is Satan. I didn't call you a wage slave.
>It's as it implies; Socialism with the implications and pragmatism that Marxist theory imposes.
So, in other words, you can't define it.
>He called his socialism "scientific", rather than utopian, but his socialism was the exact opposite. Science doesn't start with the conclusion and try to backtrack it; they start with evidence and make guesses, and they test those guesses to establish a theory. Marxist socialism is an assumption, not a theory.
Engels.
>Marx's theory was wrong. The west didn't become socialist; in fact, coming from a society based on regulation, taxation and social programs, the American revolution proved Marxist theory wrong, because it became liberal rather than social. It was again proved wrong when the socialist revolution didn't even happen in the west.
So you can look into the future now?
> the American revolution proved Marxist theory wrong
This deserves special attention for being retarded and not knowing anything about history and trying to treat /his/ is /pol/ without dates.
>In fact, China...
State ownership, command economy is not the same as socialism. Any model based off the Soviet model is flawed, because the prole society loses control of the government, and does not own the capital through the government. It is in essence the same as any other government controlled by a small elite.
>Scientific socialism...
It was founded on the idea that there was an inherent contradiction in private ownership of capital.
I'm not even a Marxist. I just want you to understand how stupid you are.
>>1150484
Capitalism existed since before stocks were a thing.
What is capital? Capital is the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>1152252
You do realize socialist economies have capital too, right? It's just not privately owned.
>>1149147
I think the reason people think the revolutions of the 20th century revolutions were unsuccessful is because the countries ended up capitalist in the end. But that was their goal in the end; You cannot seize the Means of Production if they don't exist. You cannot become communist without being capitalist first.
And that's what they did. They became capitalist. Their next step will be to collectivize, but many of the regimes professing their adherence to communist doctrine currently will have to fall first.
>>1150231
Marx created a robust methodology for studying history and human behavior. However, any Marxist worth his salt would absolutely agree that Historical Materialism was incomplete and flawed in certain respects. However, the framework he created, and many of the core concepts, are quite powerful tools for analysis.
>>1149101
because fascism is better
>>1149101
Because the command economy was the worst idea to develop in recent history
>>1149101
Utopian fags are cancer.
>>1154222
trips don't lie
>>1154233
DUBly confirmed!
>>1150453
>Marxism is by and for the intelligentsia as a priestly caste
Now there is nothing more to fix.
>>1149261
This really
Marxism is literally idealism: the ideology.
>>1149101
Kek
>>1154259
Really, nigger? Marxism is idealism? You ever heard of Dialectical Materialism?
>>1149101
But I am OP
>>1154267
Yes, it's philosophical horse shit that holds no weight.
>>1154289
With such strong opinions on the subject, surely you've read Marxist literature and so are familiar with its basic core tenets, right?
Such as being based around materialism, the opposite of idealism?
Already there, bro.
>>1153860
This, classical Marxism says you can't go from agrarian to socialist. Marx's "scientific" analysis says feudalism to fully developed capitalism, then to socialism.
>>1154207
Planned economies aren't the same as socialism. You could have a monarchist planned economy. The reason why planned economy is so ubiquitous with socialism is because that was the Soviet model, and the Soviets wanted all their satellite states to do likewise.
>>1154259
>>1154222
Marx is about solving the inherent contradictions that Rothschilds will fuck society over for their own benefit, because they own capital.
Marx is not about command economies where people are told what jobs to do by the state, and given identical and equal amounts of the same commodities.
USSR was a mistake and most self-proclaimed Marxists are Soviet apologists.
>>1150282
But there's nothing wrong with military dictatorships.
>>1154363
What about military dictatorships with command economies?
>>1154364
Inefficient and probably doomed to failure, but still arguably better than or on par with free market democracy.
>>1154363
>state terrorism
>having to worry about who is or isn't a government informant
>no freedom of speech or expression
>massive nepotism and cronyism
>unstable economy due to corruption
My grandma who grew up in Peronist Argentina, and my cousins who grew up under the Junta would have some choice words for you.
>>1154363
Edgy.
>>1149101
>>1154964
>>1154966
>>1154970
>>1154972
>>1154370
I agree and disagree. Command economies work in postindustrial societies. Russia wasn't postindustrial enough; I would contend they were still largely rural when Communism was implemented.
Free market/capitalism is amazing at making a country which is mostly rural industrial; see China and Japan and Korea, some other Asian countries too I'm sure. However, when a disproportionate portion of the wealth generated by private business is in the hands of only 10 or 20 firms, capitalism/free markets don't work anymore. Capitalism is based on the idea of competition. Big companies (which were not envisioned by John Locke or even Ayn Rand) disrupt the ability for competition to run rampant.
>>1154975
>>1154991
>>1154995
>>1154995
>arguiculture
>>1154998
>Juxtaposing terms is an argument
>>1155008
>>1149101
Because historically despotism is the proper way for people to successfully function
Some communal bullshit is bound to failure because a lack of chain of command, we're A. too competitive to allow equality like that to exist B. it goes against our nature to strive for economic equality which in my opinion is absolute tripe in the first place. People aren't born equal and shouldn't be forced to be economically equal, the strong should rule over the weak to be quite honest
>>1155023
> the strong should rule over the weak to be quite honest
Why?
>>1155026
Because the brightest make better decisions than the dull ones. kings aren't typically tyrannical and if they are they're hastily replaced with benevolent ones that enact the people's will. A lot of us are Americans i'm sure and our base curriculum and even more advanced books hastily overlook the many kings with the labels of Great and even then only list their big ole battles or great structures, mostly why they're labeled great is because the deeds they did to their own people to empower their lives though.
In comparison to any communal or republic system, despotism is faster to address the needs and suffrage of the people
>>1155040
> republic system, despotism is faster to address the needs and suffrage of the people
That simply isn't true. Whilst theoretically it could be "faster" on the basis it requires less administrative red tape it cannot be said to be as sensitive to the needs of the people.
It is a faster way to enact the whims of whoever is in charge, but it is not necessarily an accurate way to improve peoples lives. What can be seen however is that more than any other factor the people empower themselves.
There is no organ of society that can be more sensitive to your own needs than your own person, thus is the crux of Marxism. The people are best emancipated from all elites.
Because his Philosophy sucks and Hegel would shit in his grave if he realized that he applied his Philosophy to anything other than Metaphyisics
Kant would also shit his pants
>>1155023
Even King Sejong had his court to help him hear the needs of his people.
>>1155023
>equality
There's that meme again
>>1155091
No shit a ruler should hear the concerns of his subjects. That doesn't mean he has to follow them if he judges it to be against their best interests or against the best interests of the country.
Egalitarianism and universal democracy were mistakes,
I already am a Marxian Socialist.
Comrade!!!!
OP/anon, have met on this board before?
Long live the Bolshevik Revolution! !
I read somewhere that marx was actually a classical capitalist in the same vein as adam smith.
How true is this?
>>1155185
The French Revolution was also a mistake.
>>1149171
Can someone please explain to me how Venezuela managed to fuck their shit up so badly?
>>1155219
I'm pretty sure it was a conspiracy.. I might make a thread about it but think of it this Joseph II and Louis XVI are bffs and the French and Austrians are by far the strongest in Europe with Austria eyeing Prussia to expand domains and France finally getting back at Britain
Joseph II dies almost mysteriously, then Leopold II subsumes throne and he has the throne he gives limited support to Marie Antoinette making the rebel forces even stronger
Fast forward to Leopold II untimely death as well, along with the rise of Francis II and Marie Antoinette's death, true that he supported the french royals but at the same time, after Marie Antoinette's death there was no reason for France and Austria's relations were already severely weakened. Plus the rise of the napoleonic wars and the rise of Jewish banking
>>1155219
Nazi or monarchist????
The French Revolution is one of the greatest events in human history.
It's cry for human freedom still resounds around the world.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite! !
Death to kings and tyrants!
>>1155339
Nazi. Humans aren't equal and many can't handle freedom.
All his predictions were wrong.
His writings were mostly cribbed from Engels.
His ideas were defeated utterly by the success of capitalism systems.
I'm sorry, maybe you could have distribution of wealth and a healthy growing economy within a tiny community in the USA. Oh wait, even that shit never worked (look up Robert Owen as well as countless examples of failed utopian socialist colonies).
His ideas have failed utterly and there hasn't been a single successful example of his ideas put into place. Social democracy was an alternative at the time and has proved to be completely superior.
>>1155349
Humans may not be equal in terms of ability, intelligence, health, etcetera.
But ALL of us deserve equality before the law.
ALL of us deserve equal protection by the law.
If you cannot agree with that, then you are an enemy of humankind and of the world itself.
But I know that a Racialist like you will disagree, due to your desire for Thanatos.
Long live the People's Revolution for Freedom and dignity!
>>1155497
Marx predicted the success of capitalism, he just also anticipated that eventually it would be replaced by socialism.
>>1155208
More or less. Smith wrote about markets and complained about economic privlege. Especially merchantilism which was rampant in his days.
Marx updated LTV, fools errand or not, so it made a little more sense, but also said it had little to do with real world prices which was influenced by other things. Some people ignore the fact that Marx said LTV does not predict prices. LTV is mostly the abstract basis of how to show distribution of profits is unfair.
Marx expanded upon the concept of economic privledge in the industrial age. He tried to demonstrate in an industialized society being a capitalist allowed one to exploit people without capital. Keep in mind education is a limited form of personal capital.
He predicted that there would be capital accumilation and an ever increasing amount of inequality and exploitation that would cause class conflict. The point was that capitalism was not self normalizing, and things would get worse and spiral out of control at some point.
He thought this was unsustainable and took some guesses how to solve this problem, such as post scarcity, and lack of private capital. Contrary to popular belief he did not draft up the Soviet command economy or a dictatorship with only a superficial parliment.
>>1155519
this is what people seem to forget. Capitalism replaces fuedalism because it is better. What Marx said is capitalism wouldn't go on forever because in some ways things would get worse because of the inherent contradictions of capitalism.
>>1155594
>Capitalism replaces fuedalism because it is better.
It isn't though. Hopefully we will revert back to feudalism soon enough.
>>1155601
The Road to Serfdom, Hayek. It comes afterwards.
>>1155519
That's not true. Here predicted that the middle class would disappear and that the rich would become smaller and the workers bigger. This did not happen. Capitalism succeeded in the 19th century by increasing wages and living standards.
>>1155696
It's happening right now.
>>1155701
Predicting something that would happen 150 years ago is not a prediction at all. It's a complete coincidence. He had no idea that Western economies would suffer from low population growth rate and that globalisation would shift means of production.
At the end of the day he wasn't an economist and he had no idea what he was talking about.
>>1155713
You what?
>>1149101
because every marxist i've ever heard bar none is a complete cunt and revolutionary ideologies with unfalsifiable jedi mind tricks like false consciousness are terrible
>>1155713
>i predict man will be colonizing mars within the next few hundred years
>2314 AD first Martian colony is established
>COMPLETE COINCIDENCE
>>1155701
>the rich would become smaller and the workers bigger
The opposite of that is happening, the rich are growing and the poor are shrinking. People are wealthier now than they were at any point in history.
>>1155939
>People are wealthier now than they were at any point in history.
Of course they are. Changes in technology drive real wages up. That has very little to do with the distribution of the newly produced wealth.
> the poor are shrinking
What, you mean in developing countries?
>the rich are growing
Capital is accumulating in the upper classes.
>>1155973
http://humanprogress.org/blog/senator-sanders-fixed-pie-fallacy
>Economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institute showed that between 1979 and 2010, the real (inflation-adjusted) after-tax income of the top 1% of U.S. income-earners grew by an impressive 202%. He also showed that the real after-tax income of the bottom fifth of income-earners grew by 49%. All groups made real income gains. While the rich are making gains at a faster pace, both the rich and the poor are in fact becoming richer.
Tell me about how the "rich" are becoming "smaller"?
>>1155989
What are you even trying to say by the rich getting smaller? This seems like some sort of weird think you're projecting, and I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say. Marx said though would be an increasing stratification of capital.
>>1155497
Name the ones that have not happened.
Please.
He didn't crib from Engels at all.
Engels did the writing after Marx's death.
Capitalism is right now failing exactly like Marx said it would.
Capitalism has utterly failed to provide its promise of "a rising tide raises all boats.
>>1149101
>muh judeo-christians morals
Christianity is idealist Marxism and Marxism and practical Christianity.
>>1156194
>18 million die each year from poverty related causes
and many more died each year before modern capitalism
>Global agri. could feed 1.18 the global pop.
Degredation of food stores, transportation, import and export issues, cultural eating habits, cartels and warbands all have much more issues with hunger than capitalism
>5 vacant homes for every homeless person in US
Some homeless prefer to be homeless, others refuse to get a job, many do not have the ability to care for themselves and maintain a household
>77.5% of households are in debt
and? debt is an extremely useful tool to imply it is inherently evil makes you no better than the christians you mock
