What made marxism fail during literally every application of it? Human nature?

What made marxism fail during literally every application of it? Human nature?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes.

it's just a stupid idea thats not worthy of being discussed tbqh

>ok, look my friends, The bourgeois have so much power that they oppress us, because we have less power
> So I have an idea
> Give me all the power to me, in the government
> The bourgeois? Yes, his power will be mine too.

> Later, the revolution of the "proletariat", becomes a circlejerk where 3 retards have more power than hell and kill everyone that does not like

I wonder why it will be ...

There has never been a communist country. No country has ever fully abolished the capitalist mode of production and established a socialist one. There have been dictatorships of the proletariat, where the proletariat have seized state power tho.

Inb4 a bunch of "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY" dumb fucks

Historical instantiations of communism not reflecting the platonic idea of communism aka real communism.

>Nobody can describe a socialist economy

This. It's litteral garbage which somehow became popular.

It's an untenable proposition. Marx was a philosopher, not a statesman. Having an interesting and compelling theory doesn't necessitate that the actual application of said theories will work. I mean, just think about the idea of a global communist fraternity without money or want for any basic needs. It's pure utopian nonsense and a lot of Marxists necessitate the successful application of his theories with this happening.

Are you fucking retarded?

>Human nature?
Basically right, but it is a very broad answer kind of like saying the big bang caused 9/11.

They have a very myopic view of the world where the amorphous blob of workers and communists will somehow just redistribute the wealth in a perfect benevolent utopian utilitarian manner. They treat capitalism like a keystone that if they remove will topple an entire structure. In reality the world is a bit more complicated than that, the revolutionaries go off and fight windmills and nothing really changes.

>Marx was a philosopher, not a statesman
We could use this line of thought to discount nearly every political thinker since Plato.
I suppose that is your intention, yes?

you can't inb4 your own topic retard. no true scotsman, your special snowflake definition doesn't matter to anything else but your fee fees. didn't click didn't read macro lol

Yes you can, and it would be accurate to describe the soviet system as a form of socialism, insofar as that is what they called it and even left wing critics did not dispute the term, with the exception of the cliffites and their state capitalism shtick.

It means he's an idealist lacking in pragmatic approach, thinkers like platoon merely describe and analyse the already existing system, Marx predict and idealise the upcoming future society, he was an utopian

*plato, autocorrect

>It means he's an idealist lacking in pragmatic approach
massacring croats sounds pretty pragmatic tbqh

>thinkers like plato merely describe and analyse the already existing system.
Oh, I wasn't aware that Plato's republic was actually a place. Was it near Thebes?

-Crafting anything worth enjoying is hard work.

-People get resentful when they see too many other people enjoying the fruits of their hard labor while they continue to slave away. (see Roman Empire and its fall- bread and circuses)

-Limitations in energy input per unit output mean that you'll always need someone to do work until you can achieve an "exponential" curve where "unlimited" (for practical purposes) energy is available through autonomous/near autonomous automation to produce any goods/services desired.

-This was not technologically possible given the knowledge base of mankind in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It illuminated the evident pattern in history of class struggle and revolution and made that central to the ideology of a civilization. Revolution was therefore pointless, as a true revolution would be against the revolution itself. Marxism attempts to articulate the intense, passionate aspects of human nature into a political school of thought, but it fails to account for the way in which people actually need struggle to progress. He tried to make the end of history, a universally equal class system, but no one wants that. Marxism literally defeats its own purpose.

When machines replace all the jobs making humans unable to compete, a communist utopia will be inevitable.

We have plenty of evidence to indicate that it is contrary to human nature.

How is not having a middle man between the guy who produces goods and services, and the consumer who uses them, contrary to human nature?

Because thats what Marxism is. Removing capitalists, meaning the people who don't produce goods or services, but rather provide others with the means to do so, and take a cut.
These "means to do so" shouldn't be held hostage in such a way. That is the entire point of Marxism, and it has zero fuck to do with human nature.

Such a simple concept, and so misunderstood.

We already more or less have a "communism" of software, music, and movies. Its called "pirating software".
People didn't stop making songs because the publisher no longer got paid.
In fact, I have more access to music than the biggest collector audiophile 30 years ago. On my phone.

...

...

How are the people who produce the organizational structures that allow those workers to produce way more than they could ever do on their own not valuable? Do you think that the need for that will just go away when you get rid of them? Do you think it is so easy that you could pay any old average worker to do it themselves, and they would succeed at acceptable rates?
Marxists vastly underestimate how hard it is to properly allocate capital and what type of people it takes to do that.

The problem with Marxism and democratic socialism is that the laborers don't own the business, they form unions and elect union bosses that are just as corruptable as politicians and CEOs.

>Literally every application of it

>What is 8 hour workday
>What is 5 day workweek
>What is minimum wage
>What are labor unions
>What are paid vacations
>What is free healthcare
>What is social welfare
>What is the abolition of child labor
>What is the defeat of Fascism in Europe
>What are collective bargaining agreements

Literally none of this stuff would've come about if not for Marxism

This

Knowing how and where to allocate resources is a necessary skill for a capitalist, and one that the labor force does not posses.

So, because technology has made the structure that formally distributed music obsolete, that is proof all of the existing resource distribution structures we have are unnecessary and can be done away with post-haste?

Marxism isn't about not having a boss to organize things.
It is about not having a land owner who takes 10% of the profit, because their grandfather drew Mickey Mouse, and thus all those hundred animators owe him a share.

You still elect someone to organize things. Their labor is productive, and they get rewarded for it.
The landowner's "labor" of owning the building is not productive. His owning of the building doesn't make the animators work better, or faster. Yet he still gets rent, reducing profit.

I am repeating myself, but this is super simple stuff. You add value - you get paid. You don't add value - you don't get paid.
Capitalism can basically be described as "rent" overall, according to Marxism. The capitalists are exactly the people who turn having money into having more money, without labor, so without adding value.
You get paid because you already were rich enough to have a building, not because you work. You don't create value, yet you get paid.

Read the work you criticize, please. 98% of people shitting on Marx have no idea what he is talking about, and often agree with him when I stealthily ask.

See >Read the work you criticize, please.

Distributors are fine when they CONTRIBUTE.
For example, if I am a musician and have a few demos, I need a studio to record. The studio doesn't add value, but charges rent.
However, then I can go to a publisher. The publisher does add value, because they market, promote, organize concerts and so on.

Of course nowadays you can self publish, but this only makes the old school publishers add move and more value, to be competitive with free self publishing platforms.

Only the trademark intellectual property dinosaurs are still shitty no-value-added middlemen who just charge money.
And honestly, everyone hates those, from fans to musicians and even other publishers.

The landowner provided labor with the building which is necessary in order for the labor to take place. The labor would not have taken place if it weren't for the capitalist, who somehow obtained the means of production, and rented it out to the workmen.

You also gloss over how they obtained their capital by saying "because they were already rich enough to own a building" but why were they rich? If he had saved up enough capital from his labor to purchase the building does he still own it for no good reason?

If a persons grandfather, after years of his own work, accumulates enough money to purchase that family a plot of land that is then maintained by each generation until it can eventually turn profitable, then why should that family not be rewarded?
They had to pay land taxes and upkeep on it the whole time. There is no guarantee that it would even be in usable condition if they hadn't.

It is many people's stated goal that they 'work so their children won't have to work as hard as them'. Is there something inherently wrong with that goal?
If someone is capable enough to actually implement that in a real way, where their family doesn't have to worry about wealth for several generations because of their foresight and actions, why do you think that should that not be?

>The capitalists are exactly the people who turn having money into having more money, without labor, so without adding value.

Allocating resources is labor. It is very intellectually demanding labor if you want to do it correctly.

So, access to recording equipment and the proper environment to record in has no value? Then why do you pay them?

No, the builders provided labor. The architect provided labor. The owner did not.
Had the builders and the architect had access to the means required for the building (which is the whole point) they wouldn't need him.
He only gets money, because he already had money.

I have to leave for home, so I don't have time for long posts, but the overall thing you are missing is that having money doesn't mean you create value.
Producing goods or performing services creates value, and should be rewarded with money.
Having money doesn't produce value, yet the easiest way to make money is to have money. You get more money without producing value, just because you already had money.
This is inevitably going to lead to 1% situations and economic crashes. It isn't desirable in the long term to reward people who don't do anything, just because they had been rewarded in the past for (presumably) having done something back then. Or their father. Or his. Or just war happened, ad they got rich that way.

The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. It was founded in the town of Mondragoe in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college. Its first product was paraffin heaters. It is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2014, it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge.[3] By 2015, 74,335 people were employed.

Mondragon cooperatives operate in accordance with Statement on the Co-operative Identity maintained by the International Co-operative Alliance.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

You are right, having money does not create value.
You can sit around with 3 million dollars in your safe and not a single dollar of value will be produced.
Properly investing money creates value.

>what made marxism fail
not real communism

Actually it is the people you invest in that create value. You gave them the means to produce that value, but they are the ones producing it.

Investing is the art of finding people who can create the most value, and paying them to do so, while taking a cut.

A nation built on the total state monopoly on production goes against too many economic incentives to remain self-sustaining in the long run.

What makes you think elimination of most human labour would lead to increased distribution of wealth?

what does any of that have to do with the abolition of capital?

I can play that game also.

It is the system you created that is making the value. The workers are necessary pieces of the system, but it is that system itself that is the thing that is the producer.

The system may require certain skillsets to keep it running, but that doesn't make those who have those skillsets the originators of the whole enterprise or in anyway responsible for it outside of their generally narrow contribution.

Investing is the art of generating the most value with your available resources, human or otherwise.