>defends private property
>doesn't understand that inevitably capitalism leads to the centralized structures he professes to dislike
It's like you don't even 21st century, /pol/.
All media corporations are owned by a very small network of businesses; ultimately if you have immense wealth then you will want to expand by buying other businesses, increasing income. These businesses lobby government politics. In our system, we will ultimately reach a USSR-like status, with soft-power being wielded having any dissidents ostracized.
But private property is the result of patriarchy, marriage and masculinity.
So to destroy capitalism/private property you must kill marriage, patriarchy and masculinity itself. This is the type of shit rabid anti-capitalism leads to you know. Even if they structure of global capitalism is turning into the bane of capitalism, going full blown cuck is not the answer. In fact there should be a "white capitalism" (a la Trump) or Guillaume Faye's "archeofuturism".
Let me re-write
*So to destroy capitalism/private property you must kill marriage, patriarchy and masculinity itself. This is the type of shit rabid logic anti-capitalism leads to you know. Even if the structure of global capitalism is turning into the bane of white people, going full blown cuck is not the answer. In fact there should be a "white capitalism" (a la Trump) or Guillaume Faye's "archeofuturism"*
To be fair, Syriza (along with most marxist parties) are a reaction to already shitty conditions. IE, there was no Syriza government when Greece was borrowing money. They're generally elected when conditions are usually at their worst (normally from Capitalism).
You're not wrong, I just think that Trump, or anyone really, can't stop this process. It would take the collective force of the people for a paradigm shift, and even then it's debatable how that'd worth. But at least I have to appreciate you know how the system works, so good luck with Trump.
How come every notable marxist scholar is economically illiterate?
Marx - studied sociology and law
Horkheimer - sociologist
Habermas - sociologist
Adorno - sociologist
Wallerstein - sociologist
Žižek - sociologist
Kagarlitsky - sociologist
And list isn't even full(all others were also majoring philosophy/sociology).
Do you really think people will fall for your "give money to the poor and it will work" meme?
>marxist scum went full whataboutism
Alright, how are the people you mentioned economically illiterate and who did you consider economically literate, to make the comparison? Can you answer that faggot? No, because you're a smug-anime-posting bitch, that knows next to nothing.
>S-socialism and communism work!
>Nobody's tried the right version!
Yes, all of these countries have simply done it wrong.
Your version is special. You know what you're doing. They were all wrong.
Ignorant and stupid. The point of this thread was to talk about Capitalism, not Socialism nor Communism. All of the countries you mentioned, some of which made sincere efforts for socialism that shouldn't be underestimated, couldn't help but be "state capitalist" that is, have their whole nation run as a sole business. That isn't to say "socialism hasn't been tried". It was tried. Multiple times. But you misunderstand socialism if you expect a utopia.
Didn't Marxists really think that the great recession was the demise of capitalism? I got that from Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen R. C. Hicks. He said that the great recession was like the complete demoralization of socialists and Marxists because they had predicted that it was the end of capitalism but of course it did not turn out that way.
Anyway I don't know why I should trust the people that have tried and failed at every single attempt to destroy capitalism. Even going as far as to question and debase the biological genesis of humanity (http://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun) as a means to destroy their boogie man. Leftists always fail in economics and no one should trust them desu.
Convince you of what? That sociologists can know economics better than certain failed economists? That Marxist economists do exist? Wikipedia can tell you that much, bruh. Thanks for your "interest".
I have no idea who any of those people are, maybe you should e-mail them and ask for your money back if you bought their books. The fact that some retarded intellectual can make a pseudo-marxist argument about why his cat farted, doesn't discredit the original theory. People are creative; also writers have to write.
>this sucks at a collective level
>therefore lets make it also suck at the individual level
Something is bound to fail when it has unrealistic goals. Lenin was just a usurper of power and Stalin was a pragmatic guy with too much power on his hands, a starving people and a World War. He did rather well, not as a communist, but as a leader.
choose wisely now, you may only choose one
the sun is green prove me wrong :^)
Are you mocking me for what you're doing? As a humanity-loving Nazi go cry over thev ictims of communism. Especially the gooks and other 'subhumans'. And then come here and post your Holocaust denial infographs. Such is the life of the mentally challenged.
>everyone on pol is a nazi
100% capitalist here, sorry karl marx couldn't save you from real life B^)
>Implying there's anything wrong with centralization.
Beware the wiles of Moloch!
Capitalism is a grand and powerful tool, but nothing more than a blind idiot god when left to it's own devices.
I used to think it was corruption, but it's more of a system requirement. What is the President to do? Let them fail? They have taken the economy captive.
Centralization isn't corporatism necessary. Business could concentrate outside the government, too, like it did in the end of the 1800's in America. It's just a natural effect; even socialist countries obey(ed) that law. That's why I'm bringing it here as a universal fact. It's not that there is an evil elite of 1%ers, or all politicians are corrupt, it's that the system works this way, until it transforms itself yet into another form, which we cannot foresee.
Think of the premise of making Americs great again. Cheesiness aside, is it possible? Is it simply a matter of will and charisma? Of being more energetic than Obama? I think it has to do more, for every country that is, on where they play on the global scheme of things. The modern of China seems to be the future of Capitalism, not the model of Europe, or the United States.