Why does Veeky Forums hate Marx so much?

Can't you admit he was right about some things?

Other urls found in this thread:

thezog.info/list-summaries/
prometheism.net/library/jewishsupremacism.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=x4obeqaxhRs
youtube.com/watch?v=K8EhJbA55TE
youtube.com/watch?v=oIuW-vNQsQI
greatseal.com/dollar/hawfdr.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The only things he actually was somewhat correct about is the social aspects of a capitalistic society.

People actually do get alienated when they work in a steel factory, and middle class/upper class people really do hate the poor.

Marxism is a science fiction retards took seriously.

It does not deserve to be called an economic theory where it can be compared with actual economic theories based in reality.

Sure we can. But when I point out that he's right about some things and wrong about others, I get accused of "not reading Marx" and "parroting what your econ teacher told you" and that you can't REALLY understand Marx without reading tons of post-Marx theoreticians.

I don't hate Marx, but the butthurt defensiveness of Marxists seems to equate disagreement with Marx with hating him.

I GET KNOCKED DOWN

Also it would probably be just another fringe ideology had the USSR never happened.

You've essentially just stated that you don't like it without saying why.

He was (mostly) right about his analysis of capitalism and in the context of the 19th century seizing the means of production and having factories work for the good of the society instead of factory owners probably made sense but in the context of the 21st century service sector employee what would seizing the means of production even mean? Stealing the computers and software suites that are used?

Because /pol/ types aren't smart enough to read Marx

Yea..
He was right about many things.
Capitalism is a fucking scam. It is destroying human spirit and replacing it with an anxiety about being inefficient.
But he says that capitalism will evolve into socialism and then communism, that communism is just a transitional form of capitalism, or Capitalism 3.0 .
What's more is that people actually unironically become communists, because they're a byproduct of the capitalist system. None of this shit would have happened if we stuck to a feudal system.

Capitalism, the state, democracy, utilitarianism and egalitarianism all go hand in hand.

Capitalism only works when a market contract is protected by force. This force, the state, will be bought off by special interest groups regardless of who runs the state. Democracy is a means by which the rich merchant class pay for clever campaigns and entrance the general public into voting for either disaster. The utilitarianism of the free market weeds out those of greater merit to the market system, generally those with greater skills; such mentality has led to immigration from poor countries on the basis that "Diversity is strength", but what they really mean is "We need them to work for us". Egalitarianism is just utilitarianism for the democratic masses, telling everyone that we're all equal so we can progressively attain more materials and more "things" which our merchant masters make us work for in perpetual anxiety of interest and debt.

What as he right about?

>Stealing the computers and software suites that are used?
Steal the phone calls!

Holy shit I'm going to start a movement now so maybe they finally stop calling me.

Marx was one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time, and probably the most consequential philosopher of the 19th century due to the massive practical implications of his writings.

Anybody who hates Marx or posts a /pol/ that suggests socialists are stupid has not read Marx. Posts like are a great example.

There are many reasons to disagree with Marx (the best put forward by Bakunin, Foucault, Sarte, Menger), but those reasons are rarely brought up by right-wing kids who use Veeky Forums.

>Marx was one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time,
>marxist kiddies actually believe this

Capitalism is a fundamentally unstable system, because its need for growth requires the creation of new markets. When capitalism becomes a driving force in politics, these creative efforts become hugely destructive.

In addition, the nature of capitalism causes wealth to accumulate. Dynamics of competition and inheritance cause capital to be held within fewer and fewer hands, creating a class of immensely powerful bankers and aristocrats whose influence undermines democratic government and may potentially destroy it.

Go ahead, tell me why you think Marx was stupid

>Why does Veeky Forums hate Marx so much?
>Can't you admit he was right about some things?
>Why does Veeky Forums hate Goebbels so much?
>Can't you admit he was right about some things?
>Why does Veeky Forums hate (insert mass murderer's scribe here) so much?
>Can't you admit he was right about some things?
Would you please fuck off to the appropriate century, it's the current year.

You best not be talking shit about Goebbels.

Labor theory of value

classcucks

>Dynamics of competition and inheritance cause capital to be held within fewer and fewer hands

The concept of property is itself what causes wealth to accumulate in fewer hands, because the more wealth you have, the easier it is to acquire more wealth.

The problem with your thesis is that there is an inherent dichotomy that you cannot avoid at play here.

Which is this:

Either you discuss ideas, compromise and do work, or you use violence.

Either we have a free market, or we have a master-slave relationship between employer and employee that uses violence.

Say what you want about capitalism, but you can't escape this dichotomy, regardless if you want to or not.

>using cuck
>using classcuck
pic related

Tell me what the labor theory of value means, and why you believe it's wrong.

me on the far left

Full Communism would avoid all of the problems you speak of, would it not? An economy managed by independent unions of workers based on production rather than profit would not fall into this trap

>Tell me what the labor theory of value means
Why? You can just google this stuff if you don't know user, I'm not gonna spoon feed you :^)

>why you believe it's wrong
You dig up two rocks. You hit one with a hammer and it turns out to be a rare earth mineral. Is it worth more than the second rock?

Identical value in use. The price of a rare substance for rarity alone is essential markup, and hugely determinant on how much one is willing to spend. Look at the diamond industry.

>You hit one with a hammer and it turns out to be a rare earth mineral.
If all rare earth minerals required such little labor on average to attain they wouldn't be very valuable now would they?

nice pun bro

>In addition, the nature of capitalism causes wealth to accumulate. Dynamics of competition and inheritance cause capital to be held within fewer and fewer hands,

Wealth generally only lasts 3 generations.

Because /pol/ fags on Veeky Forums only know Marx for his commie related shit, not his brilliant analyses of his contemporary history, especially Napoleon III.

[COLAPSE]

People hate Marx because he doesn't identify the people on this list who control all of the money in the world (probably because Karl Marx himself belongs to the same ethnic group as the people on this list):

thezog.info/list-summaries/

Also, if you want to know how the people on this list got to be where they are, start reading at page 12 in this book:

prometheism.net/library/jewishsupremacism.pdf

He understood what money is better than anyone before or since, but his alternative method of distribution of resources just doesn't work. Distribution needs to be as decentralized as possible in order for there to be maximum flexibility, and unfortunately we don't have something superior to money at this point (unless everyone became extremely altruistic Christians overnight and would give and provide whatever was asked for by anyone, and everyone would only ask for what they would personally use).

Look at the picture in my post here and see for yourself who the real "capitalists" are. Video related:

youtube.com/watch?v=x4obeqaxhRs

really, why are all rich people jewish?

>really, why are all rich people jewish?

You really need to start reading at page 12 in this book:

prometheism.net/library/jewishsupremacism.pdf

because it gives half the story (i.e. the Jewish side of the story) but leaves out the secret societies such as Skull & Bones and the Freemasons that the Jewish supremacists use to recruit their non-Jewish helper agents. In one of the US Presidential elections both Bush and Kerry were members of the pro-Jewish / pro-Zionist secret society Skull & Bones which was founded by Jewish exchange students who came to the USA from Germany, see:

youtube.com/watch?v=K8EhJbA55TE

Not all rich people are Jewish, many of these supre-rich people are non-Jewish people who are members of a secret society called Freemasons, this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=oIuW-vNQsQI

explains the origins of the Freemasons and how the gentile Freemasons work together with Zionists and Jewish Supremacists to control all banking and mass media in the world.

The symbol you see on the US Dollar which is an "all seeing eye inside a pyramid" is a Freemason symbol. President Roosevelt was a 32nd degree Freemason and he worked together with Freemasons and occult Jewish mystics to design the symbol that you see on the US Dollar bill, see link below:

greatseal.com/dollar/hawfdr.html

>im too scared and stupid to elaborate an opinion of mine i swallowed on pol

lame

I always just saw him as an asshole and was pretty indifferent, but you faggots flooding this board and desperately trying to shill him and turn Veeky Forums into the defacto commie board is fucking annoying

this

i actually agreed with him about the post scarcity meme but just saying he was wrong about most shit is enough to trigger marxists

There were Marxist parties in every single European country before 1917

Sure OP

Besides Skull & Bones and the Freemasons:

youtube.com/watch?v=K8EhJbA55TE

Another secret society that Zionist super-capitalists use to recruit helpers is the "Round Table Movement" which was founded by Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_movement

The Clinton family and Barack both have ties to the Round Table Movement secret society through their involvement in "The Council on Foreign Relations" or C.F.R. which is an organization created by the Round Table Movement with Rothschild funding to control U.S. Foreign Policy, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

It's interesting how Marxists stopped posting in this thread after the truth was revealed.

But there's nothing wrong with . The state, and the idea of property are derived from force. If you want the state to be democratized, then force must be democratized. This is the basis of the second amendment. If you want property to be democratized, if you follow egoist logic that property is what you can defend via force, then force must also be democratized. Consolidating force into a centralized state an army not of the people will result in a state of elites ruling over the people.

I mean, this is so uncontroversial, even your most die hard evangelical conservative Trump supporter will agree with it.

You think that's a bad thing? Are you Hillary Clinton?

Can you give me a page number in a book or article written by Karl Marx in which he says that?

Why don't you tell us what you think the labor theory of value means?

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

Even Hillary doesn't want to get rid of the 2nd. She just wants some gun control. If you go to Bernie "Comrade" Sanders, he was even less for gun control than Hillary.

Why should the working class be deprived of the ability to defend themselves?

my

Marx was right about almost everything to be honest. Once you read Marx it's very difficult to go back to seeing the world in any other way.

But I'm not optimistic about "socialism". Marx destroyed the illusion of solidarity between the powerful and the powerless. But every upheaval will just result in a new powerful, and a new powerless.

>Marx was right about almost everything to be honest

Can you post a simple enumerated list that lists ten things that Marx was right about with footnotes / citations to his writings?

Here is a more meme friendly version of that picture.

They shouldn't, and I never said they should. I said that this should be a point where even American conservatives should be able to agree with Marx, but if you say Marx said it, they'd probably turn against it.

What's changed is that warfare has become so asymmetric. Even if everyone had AK-47s, someone with the element of surprise could probably take down a few people with him, possibly dozens if he used a bomb. There's no more dueling culture, so when one party gets so mad they demand satisfaction, they'll just escalate and shoot the other person right then and there, and first strike means they can't retaliate. It used to not by quite so easy to kill other people. Imagine how ridiculous the Cold War would have been if every person had the ability to launch a nuke by themselves.

Its a quote of his I agree with user.

No, I don't support Hillary.

He was right about capitalism.
He wasn't right about what to do about it.

This. Of course on extremely small scales some luck and chance might see an individual occasionally use little labor to find or make something more valuable than the labor ordinarily puts out. Marx isn't denying this and it isn't the point. By large, if takes such little effort to find and produce a usuable rare earth metal then it isn't actually worth that much and necessarily isn't that rare/scarce.

Are you >implying Marxists (who actually know what they're are talking about at least) are opposed to gun rights?

>t. Marxist who would waste any faggot who tried to take my guns.

I'm still waiting for this:

>a simple enumerated list that lists ten things that Marx was right about with footnotes / citations to his writings?

I don't understand why the Marxists on Veeky Forums can't make infographics that have quotations and parts of authors writings in them like /pol/ does.

We all use open source commie linux not evil capitalist windows and apple and linux doesnt come with ms paint

You mean something like this?

Linux is pretty free market desu.

Really makes you think.

desu, I find the guy and Marxist history genuinely interesting. Giving his work an honest observation would greatly benefit a lot of the conservative and nationalist movements who are currently making strides in popularity, especially in the west where nationalism and conservatism were kind of dirty words in intellectual circles.

Although if I had to recommend one leftist book to those people, it would be ruled for radicals. But Marx is no joke, despite the one-dimensional and intellectually shallow nature most of his modern fans seem to present.

>like /pol/ does.

lmao

/pol/'s only sources are literal whos on Youtube and discredited revisionists

I used linux to code my own operating system, but seeing as communix was the product of my labor, I the laborer and fully entitled to it since I produced it with my own labor only using linux as the means of production. Since it is the product of my own labor I am free to do with it as I will and not share it on sourceforge, because I owe none of the product of my labor to the capitalists who claims I used their linux capital to make it, that would be capitalist exploitation so say they're owed a portion of the product of my labor just because they provided the means of production.

Do you think they should adopt the tactics in rules for radicals?

>Marx history intersting

I would agree so too. I'm not a marxist. Hell I work in finance, but I realize Marx was right about the motivations of the Capitalists (it has nothing to do with being nice to their workers) and if it were legal to enslave workers they would do so.

But its not so we don't have to worry about that...

Marx was wrong about technological and efficiency progress. Even most modern people are blind to progress.

Everyone including Marx saw the world that increases linearly which means things 25-50 years would be pretty much similar to what is happening now.

Instead of workers getting poorer. Technology improved exponentially and things got cheaper and better and then the factory workers could afford such things with their earning.

However, currently we are running into the end of that model. The people who own capital are spending billions on replacing labor with automation. Capitalism will break down eventually once enough low skilled labor has been replaced by self checkouts, self driving cars, and stores that have robots that stock their own shelves.

It won't be a problem for the well educated (for a while) but things will increase exponentially and the difference between having a job and being replaced by a robot will keep shrinking year by year.

Eventually we will have 50% unemployment which will either result in Marxism, Feudalism, or Fascism were the unemployed are put in sterilization camps guarded by robots.

Now such a scenario isn't tomorrow but rather 25-50 years, but I would hope that we have something like universal basic income when I retire so that I'm not forced in a camp guarded by robots.

Marx thinks history is linear which it isn't. Just because feudalism was replaced by capitalism doesn't mean something will replace capitalism. I can definitely see how capitalism could rise out of feudalism but not how communism could rise out of capitalism.

Post scarcity probably will happen. However it is very unlikely that communism will rise from the ashes and it will probably just be a reset button or the end of humanity.

This is why I'm getting a STEM degree. I hope to save up enough capital to own a robot plantation of my own to leave for my children, in case the socialists fail and we end up with techno-feudalism or capital-eugenics where laborers with no capital are sterilized and/or killed. It will be a scary thing when the demand for human labor drops to below the cost of living, even when humans resort to eating soylent green. At some point it's going to just be cheaper to build a robot slave or thinking computer than hire a human. Some might argue universal income fixes this buy subsidizing human labor. But the robot owners are going to complain about the taxes and say it is unsustainable and not ecological to have a growing population that only consumes, and say people who live off the universal income should follow the one child policy to reduce tax burden, and that ownership of robots is proof of pulling one's own weight in society, slowly euthanizing the working class with no capital.

Once we reach post-scarcity, capitalism can't function anymore. What system will replace it is hard to say but with our current understanding it'll most likely be similar to communism.

>What system will replace it is hard to say but with our current understanding it'll most likely be similar to communism.
Like communism for the people that own capital. Workers will have no right to claim any of the benefits of this new society if they keep believing in the property spook. They won't be able to trade their labor, because their labor isn't useful, and they will have no capital to employ themselves.

>This is why I'm getting a STEM degree.
if you think you'll be able to one day afford your own robo fiefdom on a 9-5 engineer's salary i have bad news for you m8

How will Communism, an ideology that couldn't even be established in our docile world, be established in super chaotic post scarcity world where capitalism just collapsed?

>if you think you'll be able to one day afford your own robo fiefdom on a 9-5 engineer's
I'm actually in tech, so I'm gambling that I'll be part of one of those start-ups that explodes and rakes in billions. At the very least I can work on designing and maintaining robots and thinking machines and will probably not be the first to go. And I'm hoping even if I don't make it big, I'll be able to have a small robot plantation that's enough to sustain my children and accumulate capital.

>be established in super chaotic post scarcity world where capitalism just collapsed?
Isn't chaos the prime environment for revolution?

>super chaotic post scarcity
please explain how post scarcity would result in a state of chaos. would people realize they more or less have everything they want and then just start killing each other for the fuck of it?

Robots will enforce the peace.

Protecting the people or putting them into camps for sterilization...

One way or another...

Capitalism collapsing just means what we understand as capitalism won't exist anymore. It doesn't mean the apocalypse.

Yes, more Marxist infographics please!

Your cartoon was racist because it implies that dark skinned people are unwilling to provide citations for claims they make in their writing (which is something that I can tell you is untrue). Saying that dark skinned people don't want to provide citations is the same thing as accusing them of being lazy or less intelligent, which is why I'm calling that cartoon out as being racist.

>economic system dictates the entire system unidirectionally
>the state should make sure no entity gets too powerful over society
>reached new levels of whig history

He indeed brought up faults in capitalism, but so have many other thinkers whom have given much better corrective actions to take.
I honestly think at this point in time, he is purely a meme better understood in the context of failed political ideologues rather than a genuine alternative to the modern social system.

>corrective actions to take.
t. someone who hasnt read marx and thinks leninism is marxism

If you don't think Marx is seriously implying steps that should be taken then it is you who hasn't read Marx.

>implying

>Can't you admit he was right about some things?
Like what?

>well regarded by friends and family to be a drunkard and bad with money
>writes whiny book about capitalism
100 years later
>whiny kids from wealthy families think college should be free because they dont understand that taking a useless major is a waste of money and their parents refuse to pay for it.
>they actually think that Marx had good ideas or predictions about the future
Still waiting on that working class worldwide revolt turning the world into a classless utopia where everyone is happy he said would happen "soon" in Das Kapital.

I find it disappointing but predictable that apologist for Marx point to inherit problems with statism and not capitalism. Income inequality, the perpetual growth of government, the instability of markets are symptoms of imperfect perception not the mechanism that seek to measure behavior. Specifically the general idea that instability can only be averted by a monopoly on coercion.

What should we read? Post some links.

>Never ran a company
Does a historian have to travel back in time to write history?

>Never held political office
Most European countries openly persecuted Marxists at the time. Even in "liberal, democratic" Britain the police would keep a close watch on Marx's whereabouts throughout his life.

>Never oversaw any accounts
He did have to manage money in order to maintain newspapers, which brings us to...
>Never even held a job
He was an editor and journalist. He contributed nearly 500 articles to the New-York Tribune, one of the most important American newspapers at the time. Besides this he also helped in organizing the affairs of the International Workingmen's Association.

>his friend Friedrich Engles, the son of a wealthy factory owner
Besides the typo (Engels, not "Engles"), I fail to see the relevance. Engels corresponded with Marx every other day, they worked out Marxist theory and what books and articles Marx was to write. Engels was with Marx almost from the start of their careers as revolutionaries.

If Marx should be ignored because he didn't run a company, then using the same silly logic every anti-communist should zealously read whatever Engels wrote since he must have been a glorious economist by virtue of being the son of a capitalist and running a factory at one point.

>Besides the typo (Engels, not "Engles"), I fail to see the relevance.
The relevance is he got an inside look on how capitalists made money, something kept secret from the working class.

He's probably referring to the communist manifesto and thinks leftism=statism, which I've seen people on Veeky Forums post before because some people are just stupid and probably doesn't know what Luxemburgism is.

[COLAPSE]

The simple answer is because Americans are brainwashed by Cold War rhetorics.

Can someone explain why people are mad for the Jews being over represented in business, but also mad about the very same claims of white males to be over represented in science, gaming, etc? Like the first is somehow more legit than the second.

Because white people are the majority in English speaking counties so there's more of them to complain about non-whites.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

Such as [C O L A P S E]

Ideology is currently such a Marxist term it's incredible that you use it to describe Marxism. For Marxists, Marxism is used to expose ideology.

Nah. [Collapse] is Occam's Razor in action.