Has anybody not named Max Stirner ever properly refuted Marx?

Marx greatly overestimated man selflessness. In a perfect world where egoism doesn't exist, communism would Have been possible.
Alas, it will forever be an utopia

>Marx greatly overestimated man selflessness.
I would argue that it is not lack of selflessness, but rather a tendency of humans to form hierarchies. In other words: classes.

Reality.

Tocqueville

Any intro to economics class.

>instead of editing this theory to apply it to anything other than a utopia i'm going to autistically try to make it a reality as soon as I possibly can uncompromisingly

the norks edited it and it works.

Marx's major mistakes were his idea of striking a mechanistic organizational structure instead of a organic organization, and his mistaken conception of the individual.

Stirner is definitely much more authentic.

The Manifesto and all works prior?

Marx was only 28-29 when he wrote that

This argument fails because human selfishness leads to the brutality of capitalism. Socialism, with its demands of worker control, limits the potential of humans to abuse others.

> Any intro to economics class.

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha god I hope you're not serious

Not at all, economists of today are so unconcerned with labor that they don't attempt to address Marx.

Right because working class mobs never hurt anyone, and certainly are not prone to short sighted, rash decisions

Also have you never heard of a demagogue?

>Stirner is definitely much more authentic.
I think you mean autistic.

Everyone who tried it.

It is. Just like Marx is their prophet.

We get it leftists are a cult yada yada say something original

>This again
Communism is just a bad idea. It doesn't account for too many human factors, and ignores the law of nature. It was doomed before it even started.

>Communism is just a bad idea

*good idea

>It doesn't account for too many human factors, and ignores the law of nature
I really dislike when people say such unspecific things, it's so uninspired.

> muh human nature
Communism works perfectly fine on local level of community, despite human nature arguably to be even more important here.

After almost a century of marxists being retards you can't say nothing original anymore about them. Calling a drooling idiot eating his own shit stupid might not be original but it defeinitly isn't any less true becouse of that.

So why it never worked on a large scale?

>After almost a century of marxists being retards

You mean the west being retards and funding retards in the third world to shit on nations trying to expand their own sovereignty but because of Trumann Doctrine we have to fund the other radical african warlord

Because there is no way to reasonable account for what people want to have and what people need to do on a large scale. Even capitalism, arguably fails to do that, despite using flawed empirical methods like market prices. Commies didn't even use that so they fail even harder as a result.

"Works"

Soviet Union collapsing, China going capitalist, North Korea changing into hell on earth and Cambodia into death camp was also fault of the west?

Yes, Reagan himself said that he defeated USSR.

Not all of them died of hunger. Yet.

If marx was right then socialist countries would simply outperform capitalist ones economically. They were supposed to be the next step in this "evolution". How could soviets lost a fight they were supposed to have every advantage in?

>Soviet Union collapsing

Worst thing that happened to Russia.

>China going capitalist

I don't even like the Soviets or China, especially after Deng. But please don't make me argue on behalf of China they clearly are not very capitalist

>Worst thing that happened to Russia.
Really? Not bolsheviks taking over? Not Stalin taking over? Not WWII? A dying system that could survive only on life support from satellite states finally collapsing on itself was the worst thing that happened there?

>Really? Not bolsheviks taking over? Not Stalin taking over? Not WWII?

The Tsars weren't perfect you know, they were pretty shit.

And yes, Russia has only managed to have more crime, more corruption, and more human trafficking, since the collapse of the Union. Particularly, directly after the collapse

>The Tsars weren't perfect you know, they were pretty shit.
They also weren't in power by that time. You, know, the february revolution?

Regardless

> How could soviets lost a fight they were supposed to have every advantage in?
They weren't really socialist as they weren't really products of evolution from capitalism. Marx wasn't really wrong here about benefits and such. Mostly Soviets was lying bastards that claimed ISIS level of messianism.

> Russia has only managed to have more crime, more corruption
The same could be said about Russian Revolution that arguably even killed more Russian that all the violence against them before it combined. The fall, while being pretty bad, wasn't that level of bad like WWII or especially Civil War.

Because Marxist Leninism is ass

>"perfect"
this is the arrogance I cannot stand.

Aristophanes refuted Marx over 2000 years before Marx was even born.

They dont attempt to address Marx in the same way most biologist dont address creationists

The newest evidences suggests that even the most primitive societies had hierarchies and some concept of property, there just wasn't enough power and stuff around for their to be much of a gap

profit doesn't tend to fall
the labor theory of value doesn't say anything of value (no pun intended)
people don't compare themselves to the people above them but to those next to them
radical environmentalism is wrong

Forgot anything?

> radical environmentalism is wrong
was it even part of marx?

Marx gave up on the commune for the common good meme. By the time he wrote capital, he was basically advocating for workers-own-the-means-of-production socialism, and admitted that the only way to make a for-the-common-good society was to create a society that could meet all of a person's needs without the need for labor-as-means-of-survival being the primary occupation of a person.

ebin

Eugen von Böhm Bawerk.

>In a perfect world where egoism doesn't exist

>'egoism'
>bad
At some point, have you ever considered that people doing their own things is not evil?
Using the loaded term egoism isn't going to work here. All I hear is "people aren't fusioned into some gnostic mystic union so that's very very awful".

It really doesn't. There is a reason why kibbutzim stopped the collectivist madness and became just independent farms.

muh youman naytur

How?

Everyone who has built a coherent system without even mentioning or knowing him.

Hegel

Spooks aren't inherently incoherent.

>was it even part of marx?

Implicitly, yes.

Hegel and Stirner.

Not an arguement

Jesus Christ

MUH
HOOMIN
NATURE
kill yourself man, bet you're an ancap

>human nature

>le homo economicus meme
Humans lived for the vast majority of their existence without capitalism. Hunters and gatherers were affluent societies sometimes without a concept of individual property at all. They even reject capitalist ideals when directly confronted with them (e.g. the Piraha in Brazil).

Research in evolutionary anthropology also points to selflessness being an innate trait in humans, while selfishness is not (e.g. see Tomasello, The Ultra-Social Animal).

>Hunters and gatherers were affluent societies

>hey dude I have a 6 squared meters tent and I ate a pigeon today, can't you believe how well off I am?

>piraha

I sure want to live like people who barely have an understanding of the past and future.

>communism was too good for this world
communism kills individuality and would be a dystopia even if it were possible

The reason communism failed is because capitalism worked, it's as simple as that.
In order for infrastructural change to occur there has to be negative feedback coming from the superstructures. (Marx knew this and claimed communism would be the next step in social evolution after capitalism fails, which is where he went wrong.) There was no negative feedback, because capitalism worked. In fact at the time Marx claimed capitalism was failing the transition from feudalism to capitalism wasn't even completed yet.

The people claiming that capitalism is failing usually fail to look at the whole of human society and instead cite individual examples. Human society is bigger and more complex than ever, life expectancy is higher than ever, quality of living is higher than ever.

The only way for communists to force their system on a large scale was to damage the establish infrastructure by killing a lot of their own population (and even then communism failed in direct competition with capitalism).

>muh opinion

>hunter gatherers achieved a communist utopia
proof?

Where did Hegel and Stirner counter Marx?

I'm not arguing the point, I just want to read what they wrote on the subject.

Are you saying capitalism hasn't made all world regions more like each other and people believe in the same idea of individualism and importance of money?

>capitalism works
Now there's a genuinely bold claim.

>Hunters and gatherers were affluent societies sometimes without a concept of individual property at all

The noble savage crap was debunked centuries ago you cringy brainwashed mongoloid

The United States

Yes. Anyone with a brain. Or history itself. Marx was a really dumb cunt, and every marxist is even worse than him.

Also
>leftypol
Get the fuck out. And don't come back.

I think every child who's first words are "Mine mine mine!" is a refutation of Marx.

>profit doesn't tend to fall

Just look around you senpai

Hey buddy, how about instead of abusing him you try to disprove him

The current state of America is a pretty big vindication of Marx

Yes Ludwig von mises

I do, still not falling.

America could literally be the opposite of what it is now and you marxists would still claim that it is a pretty big vindication of marx.

>b-b-but stirner
Reminder:
>Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. [...] His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other.
t. stirner
>we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals
t. engels

The profit in the actual economy is falling

thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-us-rate-of-profit-1948-2015/

t. david graeber

Enlighten me as to why, as people in this thread are saying, 'Human nature' is a meme

Marxism relies on 19th century idealism about man being a completely blank slate totally divorced from his biological urges and realities.

It is a meme in the sense that takes it as immutable. Nietzsche recognized how human nature changes through time with the proper historical consciousness. Any anthropologist can tell you how it is variable across space as well as time.

I pretty sure Thomas Sowell made a book destroying Max the person and his ideas.

>human nature
Pffft, dont you know me and my comrades would have no problem working 14hours a day at the factory. Human nature is a meme and people have never stole and were never corrupt under communist regime, it just doesn't happen.

Retards speak about their own culture as if it was human nature in every geographic and historical context, even though there are no universally common traits throughout history and geography.

>satirical post about what X ideology believes
>none of the claims in the post are what X ideology actually claims
Why do faggots do this?

Thomas Sowell doesn't count, he's in a higher league.

What satire, kiddo? Humans can easily be reprogrammed and become completely selfless so we can enjoy the fruits of communism.

>this is what libertarians actually believe

ebin

?

Question (not posed in a hostile way, just curious):
If, according to Marx, every divide in society is ultimately based on class - then isn't there a universal 'human condition' (eg humans are fundamentally similar irregardless of culture or geography)?