Did Marx get anything right?

>Marx predicted communist revolutionary takeover can take place ONLY in an industrialized, developed nation like Germany or England due to organized working class
In reality it happened in agricultural backwards shitholes of Russia, China and Cambodia. In industrialized countries like East Germany it was imported by invading foreign armies, not created by the local proletarians.

>Marx argued class inequality exists because of wage alienation and surplus value created by the bourgeoise because workers aren't owning the production means
In reality co-ops with worker ownership already exist and their workers aren't any richer than private employees.

>Marx argued socialist dictatorship of the proletariat will eventually do away with the state and we'll reach communism
In reality it morphed into vanguardism and eventually reverted back to capitalism.

>Marx argued that industrialization in capitalist society will result in more and more inequality
In reality industrialization was erasing inequality and it was the post-industrial society that created more inequality.

How can anyone take this retard seriously still?

Engel's version of communism required it in the long run, but in reality the only way to even get communism off the ground is through Leninism.

Not really, Proudhon and Marx fucking hated eachother

Leninism got Stalinism off the ground. Communism is a failure and cancerous impossibility.

Nice fanfic edgelord

>Communism is a failure and cancerous impossibility.
Isn't Stirner's egoism a form of communism? Or at least something kind of like it?

Don't forget based Bakunin.

Stirner is a far more anarchist than he is communist, and even then not really

Not really no.

Dialectics is an intellectual dead end, it's bullshit.

The Spooky must fear the Stirner

Stirner is all about "DUDE DO WHATEVER YOU WANT LMAO!" as opposed to gommunism which is a hiveminded totalitarian government.

The problem with the shitholes of russia china and cambodia are that they ignored marx's point that communism can only take place in germany or england due to the infrastructure and presence of labour movements.

If we put it simply communism was a natural progression, an inevitability that feudalism, capitalism and socialism would ultimately lead to. Sort of a natural evolution of society over time, Marx however only considered Britain and Germany to be advanced enough to even begin considering the socialist route, the final step before true communist utopia.

many of the mensheviks were aware that the country was backwards and needed to go through these stages before revolution could truly be achieved but the Bolsheviks being as they were insisted on immediate revolution at whatever cost.

The end result as we see was forced collectivisation amongst over stereotypical negatives of the USSR. Many policies enacted were to hurry the USSR along the road from feudal/imperial society straight to Communism.

I dislike communists but this is mostly what is meant when you hear people whine about
>Communism has never been tried really!

It's not that it was never tried, it's that those who tried it weren't following the vague blueprint Marx theorised is necessary, instead trying to force change at devastating cost to the social, natural and cultural aspects of the countries they were tried in.

As lovely as Eastern Europe is (One of my favourite places to visit as a British man) The scars of WW2 and Communist rule can be seen pretty clearly in many Bloc cities being very similar to each other with little local identity.

Why do ancoms seem to claim Stirner? Communist anarchism seems to be based on "the greater good", they believe a communist society is a "moral" and "humane" one, while Striner's is based on self interest.

Marx's biggest flaw was not outlining an axiological framework through which the means of production could follow and appropriately allocate resources toward. Capitalism already does this and it isn't particularly good, but it is functional. A million Marxists (including Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and so on) have proposed (and in the names referenced previously, implemented) solutions to this problem which I won't go into, but, in my view, this is probably Communism's fatal flaw. Without this fact, most socio-economic systems crumble, not just Communism.

Did you know that Engels trained Marx to shit in a box and that Engels would feed Karl his dried shit daily?

Edgy memes

>they ignored
If historical materialism was a real thing they wouldn't ever even ponder installing communism.

I would also like to add that though i do not think Marx was correct I do understand his thinking with communism being the natural progression of things, as with most writers he is speaking with his current perception of the world without the technology we have access to today. I believe that marx communist Utopia can be more or less likened to a singularity of human culture, something we see today with the media pushing agendas and so on. Marx however did not foresee that inclusiveness, multiculturalism and so on itself would become adopted by capitalism and commercialised as we can see today with the Star Wars franchise amongst others to name but one im sure you can think of more without me needing to prompt it.

I understand your point and im just playing devils advocate here, but i believe that many of those trying to install communism believed that the time is now so to speak.

Contemporarily they obviously wouldn't see themselves as being as backward as they were compared to England and German though as I mentioned many did and argued against extreme revolution, Lenin for example recognised that it was too early to transition to communism hence the New Economic Plan which was basically an admittance that they would have to rely on capitalism to fuel the transition to communism.

While it is pretty strange for them to claim him, its not that unusual for people to claim Stirner for themselves. Ive seen ancaps try to take ideas from him as well. Basically everyone wants a piece of him but not all of his ideas.

So basically, ancoms like Stirner's stance on private property, but hate his "self-interest/greed/everything is mine if I can physically take it/morality is a spook" stuff? So they simply ignore and disregard it. Ancaps do the same except reverse (and with less edge because muh nap)

Feel like I'm reading a verbose version of my uncle

>only considered Britain and Germany to be advanced enough to even begin considering the socialist route, the final step before true communist utopia.

Why wasn't France thrown in there?

Read The Scientific Status of The LTV

So one time while Engels was fucking Karl Marx's boipussy he came in Karls ass and made him shit out the mix of shit and cum in a glass. He told him that the mixture in the cup was the product of his labor and he should enjoy it. Karl slurped down the glass full of joy and pride for the beautiful thing he created :)

France was pretty fucked in the 19th century

Granted I know more about German, British, and American 19th century history, but how the fuck does a country with a world spanning colonial empire be fucked?

All his criticisms of capitalism have come true tbqh but he failed to predict what would replace it as the next economic epoch (i.e. communism) which was his fatal flaw as it is this prediction that provided the "intellectual base plate" for the shitty forms of communism we saw in the 20th century which allows for capitalism to be seen in a more positive light.
Marxism remains the paragon of critiquing Capitalism highlighting its vices and almost prophetically predicting the issues we have in the modern economic world.

Marxism was correct.
Communism wasn't.

To holey reject Marx as a "ebin gommie" who is all about gib me dats like is to effectively blind yourself to the most thorough critique of capitalism and fall for the end of history meme.

They were the pariahs of Europe because of the whole Napolean thing, and then had a series of republican revolutions that went no where, also Marx's German autism about the French probably precluded their inclusion as well

Did you know karl marx died of an infection when his stretched out anus prolapsed due to the constant buggering by engels

The French haven't had a stable population since the 1700s. The Seven Years War fucked them up and they never really recovered.

Actually his diagnosis was pretty awful, for instance he glosses over internal power structures such as might be found within the communist party. Lenin had to be ruthless or he'd end up like Kerensky, Marx ignores this baseline "rule by the strongest" element of "species-being".

To have made such a glaring mistake he must not have taken an impartial approach to gathering information or painstaking care not to leap to conclusions in his analysis as a medical researcher might.

>rule by the strongest" element of "species-being".
Muh human nature

Karl Marx would keep jars and bottles of his feces and urine in his living quarters. He wouldnt let Engels take them from him since they were created by Marx and he had extreme pride over all the refuse he had collected over the decades.
They say that Karl would inhale the fumes of his fermented waste in order to visualize a perfect society

France industrial capacity was mostly localised to the north eastern region bordering where belgium is now. As well as this as some other anons have mentioned since the french revolution the nation was divided and was seen as a belligerent nation with a divided populace.

Britain was seen as a sterile test environment by Marx and Engels hence why their work concerned the effects on the British working class so much, with it's typical little englander mentality and being socially separated from the rest of Europe it was considered to be where communism could naturally develop along with it's government system being more open to change (in principle if not practice).

The human nature argument is simplistic but also rings true mostly.

It's not that humans are naturally greedy or power mongering it's that naturally we are social animals and are more inclined to fit in and follow what is the consensus. This of course means usually that particularly strong willed and ambitious minded individuals can trick the gullible majority into following them, even if it's against their own self interest individually.

>communists are immune to the same corruption that afflicts everything else
even if you genuinely want to do good you can still become detached from reality and fall prey to wishful thinking without realizing it, so yes "muh human nature"

>Did Marx get anything right?

Only this lmao

>All his criticisms of capitalism have come true tbqh

No it hasn't. Marx said the development of industrial capitalism would led to class polarization, while the opposite happened.

>but class polarization is increasing in the West since the 1970s

Yes, but that is a result of deindustrialization, which again proves Marx was wrong.

The only thing Marx was right about is that capitalism dissolves traditional institutions and ways of life, which is something many Marxists (and conservative anti-communists) don't really understand.

He was right that capitalism will be it's own gravedigger.

Rothbard was a working class Jew, no idea where that "incredibly wealthy family" nonsense is coming from. Also, regardless of your opinion of the man, you're deluded if you think he was in with the establishment.

>working class Jew

Nice Oxymoron. Ancaps deserve the same treat as the commies

>Marxism remains the paragon of critiquing Capitalism highlighting its vices and almost prophetically predicting the issues we have in the modern economic world.

It's not difficult to critique capitalism and nit pick at the imperfections of a system. But it's always been the prerogative of children and halfwits to point out that the emperor has no clothes but the emperor is still the emperor and the halfwit still a halfwit.

He was one of the first to fully describe and criticize capitalism and modern systems of finance.

This.

Proudhon beat him by almost a decade, Marx is just a neetbux whiner coming late to the party

Yeah, it's reasonable to obey someone else for as long as it's advantageous to you, as long as you are aware that you are your own ultimate authority. Obeying and disobeying are both reasonable courses of action if you believe that you are doing it, whatever it is, for yourself.

marx was triggered by nappy the third

The World of Stirner (a.k.a. reality):

You can take stuff from other people as long as you are willing and able -» happy commies, sad ancaps.

You don't have to share your stuff with other people as long as you are willing and able to secure your stuff -» happy ancaps, sad commies.

It's Stirner's world, we're just living in it. The fact that left and right cannot see the ramifications of egoism all around them is testament to how blinding this dichotomy is in the first place.

They will see in Stirner whatever they want to see in Stirner. But Stirner is simply Stirner, and he will not be placed so easily into the mold. The more people try to fit Stirner into their mold, in fact, the more they serve to prove Stirner right...

He saw the problems, but his solutions were terrible.

His solutions were terrible because he spent all his time raging about capitalism and St Max he put no effort into what could come after.

no

/thread

Only end game communism

...

Marx got the labor theory of value right. That's about it.

and many economists since then have rendered that notion to take a back seat. Not by contradicting it but by adding clauses to it.

It's analogous to developments in the scientific field of physics; Marx expanded upon the works of Adam Smith by contributing the labor theory of value in the same way that Einstein expanded upon the works of Isaac newton by contributing the theory of relativity

since Marx and Einstein were in their prime, there have been a substantial number of developments in the respective fields of Economics (Austrian economics, Keynesian Economics, Chicago economics, monetarism and behavioral economics to name a few) and Physics (Quantum mechanics, the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, String Theory, quantum loop gravity, etc)

Ironically, to insist reverting to the less developed theories of Marx actually means Marxists are a type of conservatives.

Historically, communism was effectively synonymous with anarchism. Anarchists were people who wanted communism (which was defined as a stateless society where all capital was owned collectively and equally and therefore, no one had power to control anyone else, aka anarchism) without going through Marx's transitional states (dictatorship of the proletariat).

Marx didn't contribute the LTV, Smith did. Marx just interpreted its consequences and effects differently.

Politically extremely divided and a fucking mess, had basically been a revolving door between monarchist and republican government for most of the 19th century, and to top it off they had the Paris socialist commune in 1870 getting curbstomped
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

Marx is just someone that read Adam Smith and misunderstood it.

Otto von Bismark, the farther of the German state and the modern welfare state. He had the correct idea on how to cure the negative impacts of capitalism.

>to reach a classless, moneyless and stateless society we need first instaurate an authoritarian but somehow democratic centralization of the all the means of production. trust me I'm the economist here.

Yes, very compatible indeed user.

Marx was third cousins with his Rothschild contemporaries and married into one of the most powerful aristocratic houses in Europe (von westphalia). The man is a charlatan to the highest degree.

Woops I meant von Westphalen. The image of dirt poor Marx being funded by playboy Engels is a complete lie, he was funded by many great industrialists of his day including his father in law. And of course the only way he could've of married nobility is because they were both Jewish.

Because there's a long intellectual history, starting with Socrates and including Stirner himself that claims self interest and ethical behavior are not only compatible, but functionally synonyms. The problem with unethical people isn't that they have their own self interest at heart, but they act against their own self interest (and frequently therefor, everyone else's) usually due to being fucking morons, or because of spooks.

Didn't they get exiled or some shit like that?

Yes, actually.
Near the end of his life he seemed to understand that the working class isn't getting poorer. Or was it Bernstein? But he did become less radical near the end. He was still wrong thinking that communism will be the next step in the evolution and marxism forever lost the working class.

Is this real? I thought Marx was Jewish.

Jews are some of the biggest anti-semites around

Jews love to self deprecate. But it's an insider thing meant for the other jews not the filthy goyim.

There are plenty of self-hating Jews out there. And like said: some of them are the biggest anti-semites out there

He was at least partially right about alienation IMO.

>this is what anti white SJWs actually believe