At 27 I'm starting to feel some sympathy with marxism...

>At the age I should be contributing to society, I would rather have society provide me with everything I need.

Fuck off.

Wrong image OP

It's current year, and people still believe this.

> muh human nature
This meme is literally used to defend all ideologies from communism to theism. I guess, that it is safe to assume that, while nobody understand a human nature in its sheer whole complexity, a statements about how capitalism *just* makes sense, are just blind to the sheer amount of conditioning that all of our society made to shape your mind in such way. It makes sense for you because you was born and risen under capitalism, but it would be that way for anyone outside of capitalistic system. No matter if you talk about success of capitalism or failure of a communistic regimes, there is more to that than a trivial explanations about reality of a human nature.

bullshit. assuming people look out for their own personal best interest is one of the safest assumptions economists can make.

marxists assume people are good, and that people will be happy if everyone has the same things. it's idiocy.

> At 27 I'm starting to feel some sympathy with marxism.

Once to get the promotion from Barista to manager that feeling will disappear.

Do people farm for fun? Do they work long hours in factories for fun? Do they perform surgeries or invent new tech or do any truly hard work for fun? No. motivation is necessary for so much and when motivation is eliminated for something people do not do that thing. There is no reason to waste your energy doing something you don't want to do if you'll get the same results doing nothing.

Of course, this is an idiocy because it comes from you. One of well known principles of Marxism is to each according to his needs. Not the same things for everyone, like in your crazy speculations.

Capitalism is what brings about the worst in humans and that pro-capitalists like to call "human nature". Capitalism is bad because it brings out the worst, no the best, of human nature.

Except capitalism isn't what brought that out in humanity. It's been a part of human nature since tribal society. If you make the best bow and arrows then you are rewarded with having that bow and those arrows. If you fish better than everyone else then you get more sustinence. I hope you don't actually buy into that tribal Communism slosh that Marx claims.

I'm not talking about keeping what you make, I'm talking about stealing and oppressing others.

There exist minority of people, that actually does all kind of hard work for fun. Actually, if you read, what some surgeons say, that is pretty addictive and thrilling job. The majority would prefer to just get their money without doing the job, so strictly speaking the capitalism also against real human nature and preferences, in the end.

If you agree to make something for someone else in return for currency to use on whatever you want then you aren't being robbed. It is ridiculous for you to claim someone is stealing from you.

Capitalism works because it exploits human nature to force us to be productive.

> people rewarded by their job, not by the money from capitalists
> somehow it isn't communism, but tribal capitalism

Yeah, and who decides that again? Who decides what YOU need?

Oh, yeah, the "non-existent state".

>citations from my asshole

Well it is perfectly in human nature to fight against exploitation. In that sense Marxism works too and it even succeeded in many revolutions.

You decide what you need. How it can me a more simpler than that?

Guys, bear with me.
Marxism makes some decent arguments.
So does capitalism.
You need to find a happy medium- where the state works for the people and supports the nation while still encouraging enterprise and maintaining private property.
A state where the national conscious is intact as intended- a defense against exterior erosion and abuse.
A state where innovation is encouraged but not at the sake of or for pure profit.
Two words anons.
National
Socialism.

Third Reich collapsed even faster than USSR. The National Socialism take worse from both systems while leaving all good behind.

>The Third Reich collapsed

I thought this was Veeky Forums and not /conjecture/.

>the worst

Can you explain your reasoning for stating this?

It's because you have a weak, impressionable child-like mind and are apparently poorly read.

It cease to exist because it lost war that it started. You can't blame its collapse on external problems.

Easiest most peaceful way to achieve worker's paradise

>end government regulation of business
>start a business following your communist principles
>it will be so great all the workers will leave their jobs and come work at the communist company

If you have objection to this at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that you just want the tyranny of free stuff

You keeping using the term collapsed when the term destroyed is correct. I always find people who use loaded terms incorrectly circumspect without transparent motives
>not external
>war on 2 fronts against superior numbers

Oh look it's another leftypol reddit commie neckbeard starting a thinly veiled pro commie thread

Go back to your containment board you cringy tard

>You need to catch up on Stirner and Nietzsche

The real solution to this thread.

It was their fault that they started two fronted war.

>predicted proletariat revolutions in developed countries
nope
>predicted benevolent dictatorship leading to an anarchist, rural, stateless world
nope
>predicted the communist movement achieving its goals within 100 years
nope

Are marxist neckbeards the ultimate cucks and useful idiots?

His is such a cesspool of economically illiterate.

Yes, of course. And they're the first ones killed when the real marxists come into power. Marxists like Leroy and Paco kill the intelligentsia, first.

>all value is created by workers

dropped

Do you truly think that Marx envisioned the global proletarian revolution beginning in a country where proletarians were the minority?

"The government should do stuff" is not a Marxist or socialist position

This IS our containment board

From the economic perspective some of Marx critiques need some updating, be sure to check out neo-marxist economic writers once you're finished with Marx

yeah, that's a stupid way of putting it

Marx actually argued that things like natural resources and raw materials are not valuable until they are processed, which is a function of labor. Therefore, the value is commensurate to the amount of labor necessary to create it.

I genuinely belive that communism is viable way of life after 100 years if our science develops as fast as it has done and non western world stops chimping out. Just look how 8/10 people work in service right now. But we need capitalism to get that far.

>But we need capitalism to get that far

That's a central tenet of Marxism

look at communists and ex-communists countries, look at them and laugh

Keep reading. if you keep learning economics, you'll eventually learn your way out of Marxian economics. Marxian economics is internally contradictory, empirically unvalidated, and philosophically poorly grounded.

> 27
> feeling sympathy with Marxism

It'll pass when you start owning property and realize that life is a zero sum game in which "redistribution of wealth" really just means "give the shit you worked for to people who didn't do shit to earn it".

Buy a house, become a capitalist overnight.

You'll be hard pressed to find a communist who thinks we should do just what the USSR and China did

> You'd be hard pressed to find a Communist over the age of 30.

ftfy

Yeah we need capitalism in science but communism in society.
reality is that most people today work at pointless jobs that can be easily replaced by robots but people need to earn money.
Todays real estate market is beyond fucked but i still agree with you. I dont want no retard living in my house.

>History is a containment board for a socio-economic system that has only been practiced for a century

Ha

>Yeah we need capitalism in science but communism in society.

>communism in society
>no bourgeoisie culture, no religion, etc.

Ha

Rent, medicine and nutrition is voluntary etc.

Go back to /lit, then get permabanned faggot.

It is if you meant for marxism to work with humans

I need 100 Lamborghinis. When are you going to deliver them?

>Marxism makes some decent arguments.

Not fucking one.

But Capital is a response to Stirner.

>i read the communist manifesto and am now an expert on communism

Do you really think he would end his life living off of the good graces of his in-laws, completely destitute and unemployable?

...

Which are you, a faggot or a communist? Both?Because those are the only people who would put those words in Reagan's mouth.

>put those words in Reagan's mouth
youtu.be/rJFcpRxju2g?t=97

Do you really think Marx's vision is in any way congruent with reality?

There is a big difference between worker owned businesses in a capitalist system and marxism, or even state socialism

Insofar as he called Russia the vanguard of the revolutionary movement, yeah he totally did.
Marx, in later letters, clarified his model was for western europe and nowhere else, communism could occur elsewhere by some machinations unknown to him.

>looking to the state

While I applaud you for Nietzche and Stirner, communism believes in the abolition of the state

>muh human nature

You first, stormfag

>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
This is literally a direct quote from Marx himself.

>start a business following your communist principles
>it will be so great all the workers will leave their jobs and come work at the communist company
Your words

He did understand human nature. He explicitly said in lower stage communism (socialism) inequality would be necessary. He said the only to change human nature so that you could have full communism was to achieve post-scarcity.

Marxism is a terrible system, read some economic books to help get you back into reality

Funny seeing these reactionary images from butthurt leftists using jew made propaganda which merely reinforces the National Socialist criticisms.

We don't want him either f.a.m.

They will still be exchanging money and goods in a market, and their wealth will reflect their companies success rather than their basic needs. If the company goes under their fortunes will too.

There would still by a representative government with laws and regulations like today.

In fact many employees already own parts of the company they work for, all this would be is that on a much more even and consistent scale.

So basically it's not real socialism unless it's the USSR to you, right?

But user that was state capitalism.

That isnt socialism, at least not by any normal definition. The people in general might own the means of production, but it would not be absolute as people would still buy and trade those means of production as their needs dictated. and they would still be competing with traditional firms.

The capitalists would not be abolished in that scenario, just defused

ur gay lol

Look, I responded to your post! That means I've disproven it!

>Not having an Austrian view of Macroeconomic relations, a neoclassical view of Microeconomics, and a Keynesian view of undoing all the damage retarded socialists have done to the US. e.g. Social Security

Keynesian to get us out of our mess, Austrian for a free and happy life.

>he fell for the capitalism is markets and socialism is planned economy meme

Socialist movements are, without exception, run by white males or jews.

If you think Stirner disproves Capital, I don't think you've read either.

I get that total abolition is the idea, but it never happens. You will not be responsible for the management of all services, you aren't constantly day in and day out going to be asked your opinion on the way things are done. What ever body exists that does this managing will be the state, and it will have power over you and everyone else but now it is "equal" across the board, except those at the helm of course. At unfortunately because human nature being what it is, that is where the psychopaths, the ambitious, and the desperate will gravitate towards.

I wasn't aware that the Soviet Union was only around for 28 years.

Well until the liberals took over

>I get that total abolition is the idea, but it never happens.
Real socialism hasn't even been attempted, much less real communism.

>You will not be responsible for the management of all services, you aren't constantly day in and day out going to be asked your opinion on the way things are done. What ever body exists that does this managing will be the state
There's that thing that deals with supply in demand in ancap and capitalism. It's called markets.

> it will have power over you and everyone else but now it is "equal" across the board
le gommunism is equality meme

>At unfortunately because human nature being what it is, that is where the psychopaths, the ambitious, and the desperate will gravitate towards.
In a communist society there isn't scarcity, so in general it usually doesn't matter what the fuck other people do. In a socialist state, they get rewarded for their contributions. So they might be ambitious or whatever, but that means they contribute to society and don't get rewarded when working against society. It means more of those win-win mutually beneficial arrangements found in capitalism, and fewer of those screw everyone else over arrangements found in capitalism.

>Real socialism hasn't even been attempted, much less real communism
I sometimes wonder if people who say this are aware of how much of a caricature it makes them sound like.

People were complaining that the USSR wasn't really socialist since they got started. Because they weren't.

I'm completely behind you on this. There has to be a reason it hasn't been successfully attempted yet, some fundamental flaw that makes it susceptible to totalitarianism. Pure Marxism is too ideal, it doesn't take negative human qualities into enough account.

The communist party seized power to bring about communism.
They failed at doing so.
Ergo communism was tried and failed.
Namely because it can't exist in a scarce universe without totalitarian rule to work against human nature, which then it no longer becomes communism.

Collectivism doesn't work.
See Pilgrims.

>Jew made media

Wew buddy, you sure showed me

Basically human nature itself needs to mature more before true a true classless, governmentless fee society can occur. We'll get there, we at least have the notion that we could or the idea wouldn't have occurred to us.