"Marxism is a good idea, it's THE HUMANS who are wrong."

One response I've seen from Marxists is that people do socially useful labor all the time for free, (childrearing, for example) so a communist society would just have to have a cultural shift from work as a means to an end, i.e. survival and wealth, to work as a source of personal pride and enjoyment.

t. Social Democrat

>

>HUMANS ARE SELFISH BEINGS

>We can give to charity

What did they mean by this?

>I've heard this argument many times, if not the exact quote.
You could pull any quote out of your arse and say you've heard it many times.
Second of all this thread still doesn't add anything, it's clear you want people to agree with you and nod heads, starting some anti-marxist circle-jerk.

Automated communism, just program machines to make shit, 3d printing etc

communism works based on common sense.
know how to grow food? grow it so you can eat and teach others so they can.

It's not that hard to understand.

Yeah mining at 40 degrees Celcius in a sulphur mine seems so fun and enjoyable. Why are commies so fucking retarded?

>communism works based on common sense.
Kek.
>People that risk huge amount of wealth are steañimg you because they dont give you all of what you produce in exchange of stability so when he goes bankrupt you dont end with millions of debt. The solution to this oppression is exterminating 30% of the population which is the ond with the highest education so a bunch of uneducated workers can choose how to run a bussiness. Also they will choose your wage but it isn't oppression as you own 0.01% of the means of production of the factory.

>more imaginary quotes

Just summing up the pile of shit that was Marx and Engels work

We all know you haven't read shit, /pol/tard. You know it too. Feel free to post the passages in which marx says those things though.
And the proper way to discuss is to quote the arguments of the person you are discussing with and give counterarguments. If you want to make up imaginary quotes and laugh at them in a hugbox you should go back to your containment board.

"""marxism has never been tried"""

all I can say is, you and whose army will achieve this?

That NatSoc is actually closer to natural human structure than "every man for himself" capitalism.

I've actually heard people say things along those lines...

kys

That's what anticommunists say

:') sieg heil

Robots

Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. You have no way to prove that the it's a common argument from communists though so I don't know why you bothered. But we all know that the idea that Marxists actively wish to change human nature is a popular anti-communist conservative meme. I might add this is in spite of the fact that Marx always described communism as impossible without popular support, emerging from increasingly harsh economic conditions.

Socialism won't work until Earth's societies are 100% post-scarcity.

/thread

no, they rarely employ the faculty of thinking. eapecially the ones that dont write in the book form.

People AGAINST Marxism use this argument. Marx says that it's BECAUSE of human nature that communism is inevitable, not in spite of it. Pick up a fucking book.

thats about time cruel depotism comes. and it all goes over and over again until the economy develops, after which they start mildly criticizing the past while also move towards the more intense but equally equally stupid jingoism.

This. Marxists are insane. However what more people I hope are realizing is that a good bulk of progressives are marxists. Especially the ones behind the movement.

They are quite literally enemies of the state teaching at our universities. This is their stronghold and they need to be wiped out.

youre right. but he says the same about capitalism, not to mention post revolution chaos and cluelessness, incompetence by leaders ands policy makers, dissatisfaction, anarchy, lawlessness, stagnating economy, and long and widespread suffering because of a very sudden departure from all old traditions, morals and ways of life. while constantly having to fight resourceful and evil reactionaries who might overturn all achievements gotten from much blood spilled and take it back to capitalism.

Why?

Autism Detected

>what if people become unhappy with there life where they do and contribute nothing?
I'm not a commie but I hate this stupid "but what if paradise sucks?" argument

>be user in jetsons-tier (although probably not marxist) future utopia
>Sitting on the sofa as my dishwashing fuckbot thing (as in an actual robot, that's not just a derogatory phrase for a wife) cleans the kitchen for me
>Suddenly, the (greatly misread) words of Sartre concerning radical freedom come to me
>Leap up out of my seat
>Throw that opressive machine out of my way
>Become the worker ant I've always wanted to be (or rather, the people who need workers have always wanted me to be)
>"If I'm not distracting myself with menial labor, what do I have to live for?"
>"This is the only way, there are literally no other options!"

Be a fucking painter or something, jesus christ. Claiming that there's something exceptionally fulfilling about being society's tool sounds pretty communist itself when you think about it.

Not the same guy, but leftists have a monopoly over intellectual discourse which effectively gives them the power to dictate reality. This is wrong in an infinite amount of ways.

What do you mean he says the same about capitalism? He says that communism is the inevitable synthesis of capitalism, and that no capitalist system will ever last. As for the rest of that, I'm not really gonna defend or contest it because I'm not entirely for or against Marxism, all I was doing is calling out OP's bullshit statement.

Then right wingers should get smarter.

>go to engineering school
>half the facilities are sponsored by government agencies or private corporations that want access to our students and research
>students working hard to get internships and co-ops with government and local law enforcement

Yeah man, it's worse than the 1960s in here. Our last lab was finding the optimum shape to put an american flag in before you burn it to maximize the heat energy generated.

>Not the same guy, but leftists have a monopoly over intellectual discourse

If by "leftists" you simply mean any of your political opposites, then sure. But if you're talking about actual Marxist communists then you're just deluding yourself.

econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

No, mob rule still dictates reality, as we've seen in the past election. Intellectual discourse still has the same power in society as it had 2500 years ago: the power to drink hemlock.

I agree. It's never a bad idea for anyone to try and improve their intellect. Some research has shown that conservatives and reactionaries aren't particularly drawn to the academic fields. The ones that do become academics have their voices drowned out most of the time.

Trickle down ideology. Where does the mob get it's views? Different places. I don't want some kike ivy league professor leading social science fields in a radical direction. Just look at that piece of shit Herbert Marcuse.

Marcuse is irrelevant everywhere except in your conspiracies.

I've had two really conservative professors that I can remember: one for freshman composition and one for intro to sociology, both women. The English composition instructor just wanted a return to traditional values with regards to marriage and the nuclear family, and she wanted Islam purged from the earth. The sociology professor fucking hated Marx: since conflict theory perspective was part of the course, she would mention what the conflict perspective on a topic was, and then spend 10 minutes talking about how it was wrong and stupid.

All my other professors have been either liberal in some way (a couple, like a sex-positive feminist author who taught mythology) or never gave me clues about their political beliefs (most of them). Interestingly enough, my chinese immigrant electrical theory teacher came into class the morning after the election wearing a MAGA hat, but other than that his class was politically neutral.

I meant everyone from progressive to libertarian socialists. That's why I simply said "leftists" instead of marxist communists.

I had a sociology professor who was a female afrikaner. She loved Marx.

>econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

Those numbers are still pretty scewed left when compared to national averages. When you include left leaning or progressive they get even more sewed. It is not unheard of for some department to have more socialists/communists than republicans.

w
h
y

So people like Noam Chomsky aren't influenced by guys like Marcuse? I doubt it. Leftism is a cognitive virus that spreads by way of vitriol. It shouldn't be tolerated.

he says the same about capitalism as in capitalism is the natural progression of human economies and happens automatically in societies without anyone consciously planning it and making it happen, but went furthur to assert that it will be overturned by workers revolution which he encourages. he also frequently takes care to remind that change is inevitable as humans by nature are never satisfied and there will always be conflicting views according to dualist materialism, so even communism is a transition phase, but he did believe itwas the way forward and advocated for speedy progress in that direction.

Donald Trump voters certainly did not get their views from fucking leftist academics.

>So people like Noam Chomsky aren't influenced by guys like Marcuse?
Are you kidding me? Chomsky is an analytical philosopher who thinks psychoanalisis is a pseudoscience and that postmodernism is obscurantist garbage. Marcuse is a postmodernist who applies psychoanalisis to everything. Not to mention Chomsky believes in a syndicalist direct democracy and hates soviets while marcuse is a vanguardist.
Wikipedia: "Among those who critiqued him from the left were Marxist-humanist Raya Dunayevskaya, fellow German emigre Paul Mattick, both of whom subjected One-Dimensional Man to a Marxist critique, and Noam Chomsky, who knew and liked Marcuse "but thought very little of his work."[16]"
I don't want to be a dick, but if you think chomsky is even slightly influenced by marcuse you know absolutely nothing about leftism, which explains why you believe in /pol/ conspiracies.

No, they got their views from a strong set of morals. An amalgamation of how to best run a high trust society. And they're right.

now we all know, well most of us anyway, there will always be the particular commies in particular locations, what the success of his ideologies meant. propositions are one thing, they maybe right or wrong, but history is the experiment and the results are wide open for anyone willing to see. maybe he didnt anticipate the power technological progress and things like liberalism and more importantly nationalism as the world wars suggested possessed, or undervalued the industrial revolutions power, or globalization, but he clearly would have different things to say had he possessed our power to watch the events in retrospect of which in many ways he was the most important propounder.

Other liberal genocidal ideas:

End Hunger

End Poverty

Save the Earth

I don't think you understand his dialectic. He says that capitalism is a transitory phase to communism, not some economic system independent of the progression of time.

>piece of shit

Why?

But but le jews

So... Trickle down leftist ideology DOESN'T dictate reality? Glad we're in agreement.

But what difference does that make to me? I'm a national socialist. I have only been on /pol/ once. I spend more time on Veeky Forums

If someone is left of Mussolini then I classify them as a piece of shit barring a few special exceptions.

your naviety or inability to understand amuses me. indeed capitalism is a transitory phase, according to karl marx, but so it communism. you accuse me of not understanding his dialectic but fail to notice that it is the very thing i employed to understand, and marx encouraged to understand, that communism too is a transition phase and it too is not independent of the progress of time as you so juicily put. so although i agree with you about capitalisms transitionary phase in marxist ideologies, i would like to point out similar fate of societies based on commues as marxists believe, and as demonstrated by russia and chinas post communist economies.

I'm the one who said "trickle down ideology". What I meant is that the prevalence of concepts relating to things like social theory and what not. I don't want to be the typical anti-social justice type but It's objectively true that leftist ideals have seeped into the general population. It's quite alarming to someone like myself.

You could become a national socialist that doesn't spout memes and propaganda without knowing what he's talking about for one thing. As i said, marcuse is irrelevant as fuck.

I never said communism was the end; I never even said I agree with it or that I believe it's inevitable. All I did was explain why OP's post was factually wrong about what Marxism says.

I guess I have some reading to do then.

Do you actually think SJWs have any fucking power in the world? A bunch of landwhales blogging about shit and "protesting" isn't going to affect political change. While leftist thought might be partially responsible for their creation, it's not accountable for them and it doesn't matter anyway because they will never change the world in a meaningful way.

indeed. you only failed to grasp it when i simply added that its BECAUSE of human nature that capitalism is inevitable. now its taking me countless replies but youre still failing to understand what you shouldnt have failed to understand in the first place. i hope you will get it, eventually.

I don't think they have power now. I'm worried about what the future will look like.

One thing that I think about, "end hunger" is that black people who aren't able to enter a high trust society.

So you have Africa's population quadrupling in the last 50 years because of white people making massive advancements in medicine and feeding them.

However, if white people disappear from Africa what happens? A lot more starvation again.

How do people who promote the idea of climate change also defend feeding Africa? If the #1 reason for the planet warming up is Co2, more people = more co2. So why are we not leaving Africa the fuck alone and instead feeding them and then importing Africans to the West?

What does that have anything to do with what I said though? It doesn't affect my point about OP being wrong at all.

They don't understand how politics work or about history or how the law is changed. They'll just keep shouting and nobody will listen. They're just a vocal minority who represent a very small part of the upcoming generation.

because we hold this truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal. forcibly starving new yorkers to death is essentially the same thing as not feeding africans, according yo the constitution of the united states. anything else is illegal and youre a criminal if you dont follow these laws. im sorry i had to say this because of the stupidity of your remarks. also, who is actually feeding the africans? i though they grow theor own crops amd only import some medicine for foreign exchange dollars.

Because no one who considers themselves even slightly humanistic would find letting millions of africans starve to death an acceptable solution to climate change. Not to mention it's fucking retarded because it just wouldn't work, africa's contribution to co emission is very minor (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions).

my first reply to you was with youre right. im glad touve understood that much after all this, IF you have. progress is being made and im positive youll eventually get there. good luck.

I just don't understand why you would bring up that capitalism was a previous transitory phase if it had nothing to do with my post or OP's.

you are a very young and stupid fellow and i shall stop wasting my time on someone who cannot even read. im aorry i dont have the time to make you literate. goodbye.

I really do hope you're right. For the sake of western civilization.

Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the American educational system selecting only for those who agree with them.

This perfectly innocent, absolutely apolitical question from UC Berkeley's graduate applications should ease your mind.