Has there ever been a more wrongheaded philosopher?

>you can't be against capitalism if you're not a Marxtard

What do you prefer to capitalism?

This.

I'm very class-conscious as well as a nationalist and I know that Marxism stands for globalist and Jewish elite domination.

National socialism (Rohm, not Hitler).

how do you get jewish elite domination in a classless money-less society

I want /pol/ to leave.

They can still stack the state/party apparatus with their tribal brethren.

They advocate for the dissolution of nations, cultures and religions, despite being highly ethnocentric, nepotistic and vengeful, all informed by Talmudic Marxist thought. It simply is a cover for international domination.

This.

Fantastic argument.

Do you have any actually reason to believe this other then Nazi propaganda?
/pol/ just says Jews when they have no argument.

By said classless moneyless society being utopian and distant future, meanwhile you get purged by the Jewish-majority communist party, and when they are done destroying the economy, they sell all state-owned monopolies to their oligarch Jewish cousins.

> They advocate for the dissolution of nations, cultures and religions, despite being highly ethnocentric, nepotistic and vengeful, all informed by Talmudic Marxist thought.

Palestine isn't a nation or culture though

I've come to my own conclusion on the subject after extensive research. Nothing to do with Nazi propaganda.

he was right in his criticism of capitalism and how it would ultimately turn against democratic interests. His proposed solution was bad though.

Ignore nazi propaganda and try to focus on things people wrote about Jews years before Hitler ever got to power. If anything, nazis ended antisemitism in Europe rather than started it.

>Adam Smith
>heavily influenced the foundations of Henry George, and many Georgist mathematical economics analysis, including Leon Walrus and Pareto
>Irving Fisher used Walrasian equations in his Mathematical Analysis in Value and Prices

Arguably the entirety of the neoclassical school of economics owes their success to Adam Smith and Henry George.

>neoclassical school
>success

Keynesianism is heavily influenced by neoclassical economics.

>Nothing to do with Nazi propaganda
> extensive research

sure thing faggot

We'll leave as soon as Reddit does.

What is my argument supposed to be? I come from a city with a shitton of Jews, I dated a Jew for 4 years, two very close friends are Jewish. So I know all that shit is bullshit

The reason Jews are disproportionately in professional and entertainment jobs is cultural. The same reason Pajeets and Asians are in those positions on the West Coast. They culturally have helicopter parents who push them to do certain jobs.

Also, from what I understand Marx takes an incredibly uninspired view of capitalism. There are much better forms of socialism, in my opinion.

Ones that even center around religion, as opposed to abstaining from it.

If you're an American then you aren't even worth debating, regardless of your Jew connections.

What's so hard to believe? It's just a fact that they were over-represented.

You're a shabbos goy.

Agreed. He made valuable observations about the world, but his utopian idea that the masses would eventually seize the means of production and create a classless society just seams silly and I don't understand what led him to believe that.

>Implying Marx was wrongheaded

When you get past the revolutionary theory he came up with a lot of good ideas. He expanded on Hegel pretty well and was right on the inevitability of capitalism's death by technology.

Do you really think Capitalism is forever?

Whites could learn and incorporate ideas from Jews instead of bashing them. Just sayin'.

>Do you really think Capitalism is forever?
Yes. What's the alternative?

How do you determine value and need?

Thus we have arrived at the following conclusions: Attempts at Communism have hitherto failed because:

They were based on an impetus of a religious character instead of considering a community simply as a means of economic consumption and production,

They isolated themselves from society,

They were imbued with an authoritarian spirit,

They were isolated instead of federated,

They required of their members so much labour as to leave them no leisure time, and

They were modelled on the form of the patriarchal family instead of having for an aim the fullest possible emancipation of the individual.

Communism, being an eminently economic institution, does not in any way prejudice the amount of liberty guaranteed to the individual, the initiator, the rebel against crystallising customs. It may be authoritarian, which necessarily leads to the death of the community, and it may be libertarian, which in the twelfth century even under the partial communism of the young cities of that age, led to the creation of a young civilisation full of vigour, a new springtide of Europe.

The only durable form of Communism, however, is one under which, seeing the close contact between fellow men it brings about, every effort would be made to extend the liberty of the individual in all directions.

Under such conditions, under the influence of this idea, the liberty of the individual, increased already by the amount of leisure secured to him, will be curtailed in no other way than occurs today by municipal gas, the house to house delivery of food by great stores, modern hotels, or by the fact that during working hours we work side by side with thousands of fellow labourers.

With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible. Without it, it necessarily becomes slavery and cannot exist.
Title: Communism and Anarchy
Author: Pëtr Kropotkin
Date: 1901
Topics: anarcho-communist, classical, history
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-communism-and-anarchy

Anarcho-pacifism (also pacifist anarchism or anarchist pacifism) is a tendency within anarchism that rejects the use of violence in the struggle for social change and the abolition of the state.[1][2] The main early influences were the thought of Henry David Thoreau[2] and Leo Tolstoy while later the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi gained importance.[1][2] Pacifist anarchism "appeared mostly in the Netherlands, Britain, and the United States, before and after the Second World War and has continued since then in the deep in the anarchist involvement in the protests against nuclear armament.".[3]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism

A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

>I have two Jewish friends so every evidence you can amass regarding the role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and communism in general, the Frankfurt School, pornography, the normalization of deviant sexual behavior, mass immigration, wars in the Middle East, and general subversion of the west is therefore invalid.

Shut up.

Yes we should, but it's not happening

What if it's our only chance?

answer please

...

only chance for what? survival?

if anti-white policy continues maybe whites will become racially conscious

Not him, but why the fuck does everyone hate America? Sure the education system fails to push a large percent of the population above amphibian intelligence, but the American intellectual elite is still relevant in learned discussions of today. I'm not insinuating that this person or belong to that party, but why does being American lead to immediate intellectual dismissal? I'm genuinely curious.

*this person or I
>inb4 this is why

What about the spicy meme that is Third Position?

Best ideology tbqh

>reactionary
Trying to clean this place up, Veeky Forums

>people who disagree with me should be banned.

Not really helping your case there friend.

>angry about the 'you wish you were me speech'
Fuck off moron. Everyone is single around me

Can't say there is one.

Marx is the biggest failure in history.

Nani?

Are you really surprised people don't like a dumbed down population prideful in their ignorance, terrible pop culture, NSA surveillance state, GMO and artificial food, Unjust war and drone strikes around the world, neoliberalism, Forced homosexuality and feminism, NGOs and CIA plunging nations into chaos and unipolarism?

>dumbed down population prideful in their ignorance, terrible pop culture
>GMO and artificial food
>Forced homosexuality and feminism

Why do you have to mix this retarded stuff in with your legitimate criticism?

Thats it's all stuff propagated by USA that people hate. Nothing retarded about exposing it,

Hey, the Ancient Greeks were all about that man love.

The ancient Greeks were awesome.

Therefore homosexuality is acceptable.

Also, drone strikes are hilarious and GMO is great.

I mean the first one is just an opinion. I mean Americans really aren't Significantly "stupider" than most other first world countries. And I mean some of our "pop culture" is bad but I don't really think you can claim its all bad.

Then you have GMO's which unironically have nothing wrong with them. I mean I guess you have some point about artificial food. But that really only affects America.

>Forced homosexuality and feminism
This one is like Alex Jones tier.

Third Position isn't reactionary, stop kvetching.

Hitler

>Advocates of Third Position politics typically present themselves as "beyond left and right", while syncretizing ideas from each end of the political spectrum, usually reactionary right-wing cultural views and radical left-wing economic views
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

Is in response to

>beyond left and right
People who think like this are retarded.
It's possible to be a combination. You're not special just because you like welfare and racial nationalism.

Agreed. I believe it's important to strive for a system that isn't so binary but for the moment I will side with you on that one.

The cultural improvements of the last century are arguably the most important thing that has happened in general at all. The improvements in technology generally leading to mass indolence and service based jobs.

No, they aren't retarded. You know why? Because left-right is a fucking meme. You can't be a combination of left or right because neither things exist or are definable.

I'm not saying there aren't definite patterns and that you couldn't lump certain ideals or views into a "left" or "right" category. But to act is though the left-right spectrum is be all, end all of political categorization is simply retarded.

Third Position don't call themselves that because they think they are special, they call themselves that because the average person operates under assumption that the left-right spectrum is a thing. And no act outside of what the average person understands is a death blow to any movement.

Pic is unrelated /pol/-bait for fun.

And acting outside of what the...*

Yeah we should learn and incorporate their ideas like ethno-religious supremacy and only looking out for our own.

>their ideas like ethno-religious supremacy
Whites have had those ideas since the 1700s, and far later in most parts of the western world. We need to go back to what we had until recently, not copy the Jewish model (of which the good parts we naturally had).

Very spot on.

It's the best ideology

Which wrong views?

Every problem attributable to Marx is observable in essentially all classical economy

Russeau may have been a psychopath.

youtube.com/watch?v=T_rI9ETu0gI

I guess that's what I was trying to say.

Depends. The general notion that rent is inherently something independent of the progress of society was parroted only by Henry George, the most Smithian of all 20th century economists.

The essential relationship between profit and wages was different for Ricardo, who viewed the progress of manufacturing technology and the resorting to of worse lands to be forces which initially worked against each other to maintain rent at a healthy equilibrium.

Unrelated, and not that guy, but what books should I read to have a basic knowledge of the history of economic thought? It's hard to evaluate what Marx was talking about when I know nothing about the context he was writing in, or economics in general.