What was he wrong about?

>>132816901
Everything.

File: 1439298618412.jpg (134KB, 433x480px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 433x480px

>>132816937
Do go on.

File: 1482304922993.png (208KB, 807x935px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 807x935px

>>132816937
FPBP

To understand Marx's retarded "ideology", you have to understand Karl Marx the pathetic manlet. You see, Karl was a lazy son of a bitch. He hated to do any kind of work and was a leach on society. He had very few friends in his life and nobody respected him, not even his own family. Of course the problem couldn't be Karl, nope, it had to be everyone else. In fact, he went one step further and blamed freedom itself for him being a lazy bum with zero aspirations. He then went on to transcribed some of his barely coherent droolings and future generations of lazy bums used it as an excuse to be a lazy bum.

File: 1488228096617.jpg (403KB, 1908x2000px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1908x2000px

>>132816937
fpbp

File: smugcunt.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>132817517
>HE WAS AN ABLEIST RACIST SEXIST MISOGYNIST JEW
Alright, but what was it that he was wrong about in his critique of political economy?

>>132817516
There's nothing more to say, my response is clear and doesn't require elaboration.

Everything.

>>132816901
Literally nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

>>132817786
Everything.

>>132817786
The burden of proof is on you, nu-male.

>>132816901
world-wide class war never happened

>>132817786
His critique is necessarily wrong, but he has no viable solution because his understanding of the world is shit. Anyone can tell you that business is cutthroat and always has been and that kind of sucks, don't need a fat Jew with terrible ideas for that.

File: Bl54mD4CMAAWB3d.jpg (18KB, 560x314px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 560x314px

>>132817942
My burden of proof is Marx' work, and I'm sitting here waiting for you virgins to explain what he was wrong about. Don't get me wrong, I'm a social conservative and propose the reinstating of my tribe's bourgeoisie by replacing the prominent (((chosenite))) tribe, but Marx was pretty spot on in his critique.

>>132818270
>My burden of proof is Marx' work,
That's not what burden of proof means, stupid faggot. It's your job to prove his assertions and predictions were correct. After you do that, you'll have to solve the economic calculation problem. Go ahead... You'll probably even get a reward by some effeminate hipster for being the first.

>>132816901
>What was he wrong about?
Literally thought labor was the only measure of economic value despite the fact that innovation severely changes the amount of labor required for a given product or procedure overnight. That was really quite stupid but then so was he.

File: 0007-1362957312951444.jpg (20KB, 250x243px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x243px

>>132816937
/thread

File: DD_VvEiWAAEpP1X.jpg large.jpg (47KB, 500x464px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x464px

>>132818058
Implication of this system's internal contradiction means that society will change inevitably, economically speaking which means that social institutions will follow too, as well. It's true that he didn't talk much about communism himself (It was mostly Engels' and the later 2nd international Kautskyists) but what was implied in his work is that the next step of society is the abolition of private property and commodity production for exchange, where property is now used for use-value instead of exchange. He also was able to explain all the crashes that have been going on under capitalism that no other economists could with his formula. Ever notice how first it was Keynesianism that answered for the economic crisis in 1930, and then neoliberalism in the 1970s and so on? These economists explained the economy from within, while Marx explained it from the outside.

Suffices to say, I think /pol/ is the wrong outlet for discourse because most people here are pathetic brainlets who don't read anything bar the occasional doujinshi and Ben Garrison comic. Have a good night you all.

>Stateless
The creation of a society that collectively governs how and whom owns the means of production is a state, at least funtionally.
>Classless
Humans naturally establish heirarchies, and are unable to have all needs met according to their ability or need. Those who are superior to others in some way do not deserve to be shackled, or their progress inhibited on the grounds of "equality". The proletariat are where they are in society because they are good for seldom else, resources will skate out of their hands again and again (Pareto Distribution).

File: gobekli.jpg (103KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x450px

>violence and religion are results of the alienation produced by the development of class society

Disproved by archeological discoveries that have shown that violence and religion predate the development of class society in the agricultural revolution

>industrialization will lead to great class polarization and revolution

Disproved by the subsequent history of the West. Industrialization didn't led to class polarization, but to the increase of the middle-class. If anything, the opposite has happened, the deindustrialization of the Western world since the 1970s has led to the shrinking of the middle-class and class polarization

>class conflict is the great motor of history, culture is superficial

Disproved by any serious analysis of history before and after Marx. World War I, for example, wouldn't have happened if this was true, and I'm not the one saying that, it's the Marxist theoriticians of the time, such as Karl Kautsky, that said it. That's why Cultural Marxism was developed, after all, to solve a question where even Marxists agreed that Marx was wrong

File: 1324396148322.jpg (11KB, 308x291px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 308x291px

>>132819306
so basically "this system is pretty bad the end" t. marx
And your solution is having a larger government control all aspects of society? You don't think what's happening in venezuela, north korea and cuba right now, and what happened in the soviet union was a warning to the future? And say if this great system somehow works, Do you honestly want to give up all your freedom for some sort of stable life in a stagnant society where there is no way to change your standing because everything is "fairly" shared amongst the population? Who would keep the economy running in a country where you are basically told the state will take care of you, where is the incentive to work and invent?

>>132816901
What Marx ultimately failed to realize is that power is inevitable. An economy and society where talent, wealth and resources were distributed evenly? Who would be in charge of ensuring that model was adhered to and that the bourgeois could not control the means of production? The only logical conclusion is a centralized body of power, one with more resources, manpower, guns, and wealth to oversee such a broad and ultimately oppressive undertaking.

See, the hard reality is this: at the end of the day there are always people with MORE. More wealth, land, guns, men, water, intelligence, talent, ambition, etc etc. No matter how you slice it, these people ultimately will rise above the masses, regardless of the system they find themselves in. The trouble is, in a Marxist system, there is no such thing as headroom. You're either at the top, or you're at the bottom. This may not be what Marx envisioned, but with the aforementioned philosophy holding true throughout all of history, this is the inevitable outcome of Marxism. Proof positive: any socialist/communist/marxist state. The purchasing power of a single person in their representative nation holds the same purchasing power of Switzerland or the United States, both very capitalist nations. Even if their GPP is higher, their buck doesn't go nearly as far. Instead, the power and wealth is controlled at the very top; functionally an oligarchy that is extremely susceptible to the winds of political change.

Marx did touch on one reality though: that Capitalism can just as easily run afoul of oligarchy. It is true that in a purely raw capitalist society (see: Somalia), power distribution is just as unequal as the most hardline Communist state. However, what he failed to realize is that capitalism can actually be complemented by solid legislation.
>cont

>>132816901
To begin with, grooming standards.

File: download (2).jpg (9KB, 350x264px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 350x264px

>>132816901

Everything to be honest. Do you really have to ask that question?

>>132820185
>cont
A good example would be the era of Standard Oil. Rockefeller was ruthlessly buying out competition and building a functional monopoly. This ironically stifled the free market. He wasn't violating any laws, of course, and graciously conceded and complied with the law once anti-monopoly legislation came into effect. You see, this is the beauty of a capitalist democracy (democracy being an important factor); the behavior of business and government can ultimately be heavily influenced by the voters. This is one of Marxisms greatest weaknesses; with no distribution of power among stratified income brackets, there is no ability for the common man to influence the Marxist party once they have a hold of all of the means of production. You must now comply with the state and it's outlook for the future and for business. In a capitalist democracy, however, the consumer ultimately drives that outlook and that future.

Further addressing the issue of wealth and power distribution, consider this: inequality is neither good nor bad. Marxism considers inequality a moral and ethical sin; however, it was always true even during the age of the Soviet Union that the poorest class of American STILL lived a quality of life greater than that of the average Soviet. How could this be? The truth is this: inequality in a Capitalist society does not bar those in lower brackets from headroom, in fact, just the opposite. In a capitalist economy, the poor are actively encouraged to succeed, because the product that they demand is: "upward mobility." Yes, upward mobility is a product, and a wonderful one at that. Unlike Communism which actively stifles headroom, Capitalism embraces such an outlook. There is money in making poor people succeed.
>cont

>>132816901

The separation between "proletariat" and "bourgoisie" is a lie in a modern capitalist society.

I grew up poorer than ghetto blacks do in northern canada. I had cloth diapers, not a lot of toys. I owned two bicycles from 3 to 18.

Through extremely hard work and education, I am now an executive at one of Canada's top 100 employers.

So I went from proletariat to upper class, because the opportunity exists to do so. I made myself a worthy investment for employers. Enough that they now grant me widespread decision making power over their business.

The only people "stuck" in being a proletariat are society's losers. The ones that simply didn't study, didn't work, just fucked around, ended up nowhere and now want to take what I've earned even though I started out worse off than they have ever lived.

File: chinese communism is best communism.png (107KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 644x598px

>>132816901
this guy nailed it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR_kcZX6mvo

>>132821903
>cont
Finally, Marx failed to ultimately understand human nature. He and his future advocates envisioned a world united by the proletariat; where pride and nationalist sentiment ultimately drove production and progress. This is an idealistic pipe dream; the musings of a man out of touch with what makes people tick. People NEED competition, for in competition there is mankind's greatest need: validation. Paltry medals from bureaucrats may be enough to satisfy some, but for the rest of humanity, we need to feel, to know, that our work is meaningful, that we aren't just another cog in the machine. This ambition is not only impossible with Marxism, it is actively uprooted. In a Marxist economy, you must play the role best suited to you, end of story.

There is no headroom, because headroom implies inequality (or more accurately, a challenge to the power of the state and the bureaucrats that run it). Surely, it is not difficult to see how this system is not only unethical, but detrimental to the progress of humanity. You will only entice so many engineers and specialists with the idea that their ideas and inventions will be glorious contributions to be used and coopted by the state. In the end, the majority of specialists will choose personal fame and wealth over glory for the state. This is not unethical; if it drives human progress and ultimately betters the human condition, then we can conclude that putting value and stock into human ambition, and fostering an environment of fair competition, is ethically and morally superior to putting stock into the will and whims of the State.

/end

>>132818270
exactly, Marx said at the end of is life"If im sure of something its im not marxist" he realize that is work been use by the bolchevick to make state capitalism.

>>132816901

Humanity as a real world entity.

GVreed is a survival instinct.

>>132820185
Quick edit:
>the purchasing power of a single person in their representative socialist/marxist nation does not hold the same purchasing power of Switzerland or the United States, both very capitalist nations.

Thank you for your consideration.

>>132816901
Being a jew
“Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.
This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....”
Mikhail Bakunin

>>132816901
He claimed capitalism would crumble and the opposite happened. Every communist country did eventually crumble or is crumbling

>>132816901
he was wrong that the luddites would rebel and take to the streets out of starvation and greed in order to overthrow the governments of the world.

turns out, in most of the developed world, people already have property. The already are the bourgeois.

File: 1498907163982.gif (64KB, 400x344px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 400x344px

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pal724SDQc

NEXT LEVEL!!!!

File: DATWMYUXsAEYbAA.jpg (49KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x600px

>>132822684
>and entire country of sociopaths

>>132816937
Blackdudesgoingooooohhhhh.gif

File: pepe rules the waves.jpg (177KB, 720x718px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 720x718px

>>132816901
Marx fucked modern society. At the time, sure, capitalism had many pitfalls with monopolies a such, but his "fix" (communism) had the same problems raised to a higher degree.

>"These monopolies are controlling exploiting MY goyim and causing war!"
>"Let me implement a system which further restricts who is in control, puts further limitations on the population, and requires a global conquest in order to function"

Not only is this fucking ideology meant for the ultimate form of control, but due to its opposition, communists had to use subversion tactics which have absolutely fucked our modern society in order to condition them for a system of total control. Fuck Marx, fuck his slave system, and fuck the people who continue to push for his "utopia".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqSV72VNnV0&t=152s

File: prc capitalist.jpg (56KB, 699x675px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 699x675px

>>132816937
kys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCtvMS2XjA
>>132822684
see pic

File: 1497923422636.jpg (85KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 600x360px

>>132817516
He thought that people would thrive and
progress once the stress of not being
totally sure of one's survival was removed.

Turns out the only reason people do
anything is to either survive or get a one
up on someone else.

To make an analogy, two people are
trying to make the best runner. One
group is trained by running away from
hungry dogs. The other is told that they
cannot lose the race and that the race may
not even happen so don't worry about it.

The ones who train with dogs are bit, they aren't happy,
and they probably hate their coach, but they
beat the other runners every time.

There will always be a loser in a race,
capitalism just allows those who want
to win to be able to win.

>>132816901
FPBP; leftypol and commies GTFO

[spoiler] actually his observations were correct but his conclusions are helicopter worthy [/spoiler]

>>132816937
fpbp

>>132816901
I'm just gonna leave this here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJzBo-LUBAw

File: Because.jpg (19KB, 320x240px)

19KB, 320x240px

>>132816901
The concept of equality as he described it humans by their very nature form hierarchies you see this in religion in hunter-gatherer tribes and in corporations some people are inherently better than others and the quote Frederick Nietzsche ''Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal.'' and since his whole ideology goes against one of the core principles of human behavior it's doomed not to work and this is coming from a National syndicalist.

he also plagiarized a Italian and a Austrian economist, (Austrian has in nationality not the economic School thought)

>>132816901

here's some reading material

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialism

>>132816901
Revolution in the first world

being a man

He was wrong about money. He borrow cash from Engels to support himself. Thus he establish a credit line. Therefore his entire philosophy collapses by this action.

File: Our Own Messiah.png (738KB, 1111x666px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 1111x666px

hiding the fact he was a ju