Everything Marx theorized was based on the idea that capitalism would crumble

Why do you feel it needs to be defended, if you yourself cannot conjure up any reasonable refutation? If it's wrong it's wrong. Don't stick blindly to false beliefs just because you want them to be true

stop being a marxist fuckwad

By not being a Marxist, dummy.

you dont because marxism is gay lmao

By admitting that Marx was wrong about many things.

But if you really wanted to, and this, I think, is a fairly convincing argument, you could say that capitalism did crumble, but only slightly.

Capitalism hasn't really existed in Marx's sense for a very long time. What we've had is basically state capitalism. Virtually no western society has a true laissez faire market anymore.

And it also isn't true that everything Marx theorized was based on the idea that capitalism would crumble.

He made many observations and criticisms about the capitalism of his time.

I think people should stop arguing about Marx. Most people who do so, on both sides, have absolutely no fucking idea what they're talking about.

>would crumble
>would

Capititalism is ruin itself. Just one refraction away from the Platonic Form of Destruction.

>you can't define need

Yeah, what about enough food for you to not starve, a roof over your head, health coverage and education? Wouldn't tahat be a massive improvement for a big chunk of the global population?

I love how corporate shills always start thinking about who gets sport cars under communism while not keeping in mind that there are people literally starving as we speak. Sort your priorities out, my friend.

Nice definitions of common needs. I don't agree.

Oh shit, now what?

You are sent to a gulag or executed for being a reactionary idiot while the glorious proletariat builds communism.

Marx was a rear-view mirror thinker. Marx didn't understand the causality behind new technology. Read The Gutenberg Galaxy.

>capitalism would crumble

Where did he say this? He said capitalism had a cycle of crises, which is true. The state has stepped in many times to resuscitate capitalism i.e welfare state

Capitalism will continue for as long as the proles don't reach class consciousness

>now what?

Now people and children will die even if we can easily prevent it. I'd say that basic survival is a need, isn't it? Why shouldn't that be a good baseline? What are the arguments behind your disagreement?

Most third worlders have all that, or close enough. Famine is usually caused by natural phenomenon such as drought or incompetence on the part of the tin pot governments that run shitty third world countries. But you're begging the question, because you haven't told us we have a duty to help foreigners at great personal expense to ourselves.

Wouldn't it be just as cruel to dispossess millions of Americans and Europeans against their will as it to refuse to send aid to Africa or wherever it is you're so concerned about? I don't get how the problem of exploitative economic relations somehow calls for blatant theft of property, coercion, and realistically, murder. It's like you have a grudge against rich people and want them to suffer as much as that poor little black boy on the tv with flies in his eyes.

Personally I think you people are disgusting and ought to be tossed out of the nearest rotary wing aircraft.

*haven't told us why

Well what if I have a disabled child, and the state decides that my family is using up a disproportionate amount of medical resources so we're barred from any clinics or hospitals. Since my business has been "appropriated" I no longer have the private means to look after my son or daughter and she suffers immensely. What if the state decides that household pets are using up too much food, which is needed for starving Africans in an overpopulated regions, so we are ordered to turn in all our animals to the SPCA to be destroyed. I don't think you've fully thought out the human consequences of central planning.

Even if it all goes relatively well, the economic shock of rebooting the entire system like that would result in chaos, shortages, hoarding, and riots. I wish leftards would actually read history and try to look at it objectively.

>But you're begging the question, because you haven't told us we have a duty to help foreigners at great personal expense to ourselves.

Is there any argument you will accept? What about the dignity and value of human life? What about pure, unadulterated philantropy: some sort of love towards my fellow man that don't brings me to being okay with people starving only because they may be ''incompetent'' (really? you're fine with that?).
Also notice that I wasn't really proselitizing for state philantropy, I was just responding to a guy who tried to say that we can't define ''need'' in the sentence ''to each according to his need'': my point is that we can still define ''need'' in a very conservative, cautious way by simply equating them to the tools necessary for one's survival (mainly food, shelter, medicines and, hopefully, education). This does not look that crazy or uncontroversial to me.

>Wouldn't it be just as cruel to dispossess millions of Americans and Europeans against their will as it to refuse to send aid to Africa or wherever it is you're so concerned about?
Well, first of all we are not willing to do so even for our less fortunate (and, as you would put it, less competent) citizens.
Secondly, is every repossession equally cruel? Is stealing a apple from a starving hobo as bad as stealing 2000$ from a billionaire?
And what if with those 2000$ I could save a human life?
I'm not trying to make a theory out of anything, nor am I trying to show you how to perfectly define these mechanisms in a ideal society, rather I'm only trying to show you that the limits you're putting to statal intervention may be a bit too arbitrary: you're getting too melodramatic over very rich people losing a part of their wealth (while still remaining very rich).

>Personally I think you people are disgusting and ought to be tossed out of the nearest rotary wing aircraft.
To be so blind to empathy: your existence must feel so meaningless. I can feel your despair escaping the words you've written. I pity you.

>What about the dignity and value of human life?

It doesn't exist. I love my family and some of my countrymen, my empathy doesn't extend to the whole world.

>What about pure, unadulterated philantropy: some sort of love towards my fellow man

Do you love the BTK killer or Ted Bundy? They're your "fellow man" as well.

>Is stealing a apple from a starving hobo as bad as stealing 2000$ from a billionaire?

Stealing is always wrong. The immorality of a crime is not affected by the assets the victim possesses. Read Kant.

>you're getting too melodramatic over very rich people losing a part of their wealth (while still remaining very rich).

It's not going to go well. After the rich are fleeced the middle class will be next. It sets a bad precedent, if people think that any wealth they create could be "repossessed" by the government, they will be reluctant to work hard, or, better yet, they'll flee to safer countries. This will cause brain drain and capital flight.

>I pity you.

I don't think of you at all.

>It doesn't exist. I love my family and some of my countrymen, my empathy doesn't extend to the whole world.
This behaviour should be corrected.

>Do you love the BTK killer or Ted Bundy? They're your "fellow man" as well.
I don't see how my argument led you to believe that I think that there should be no law whatsoever, and that everyone should be just free of killing people. Should Ted Bundy discredit my love for everyone who is not a heinous criminal?

>Stealing is always wrong. The immorality of a crime is not affected by the assets the victim possesses. Read Kant.
So let me understand this: the value of human life does not exist but you know morality enough to put such rigid boundaries to it? Stealing is ALWAYS wrong? Coming up with counter-examples to this statement is trivial.
Read Nietzsche.

>This will cause brain drain and capital flight.

I'm not advocating for a rapid, traumatic change, in fact I'm not advocating for it at all, I'm just trying to dispell the meaningless criticism you guys are throwing around (which are, due to their naivety, more harmful to your causes rather than communism itself).

>I don't think of you at all.
You don't think at all.

you should start by actually reading marx because your greentext isn't true at all.

this

You'd correct that behaviour in special training camps wouldn't you? Next you'll be "correcting" his race you fucking Nazi.

Yeah, teaching empathy to people is cruel.

>

Commies never taught empathy to anyone, though. They prefered to teach their ideology

"My family and some of my countrymen are human, therefore the rest of the world is subhuman."

>Übermensch

Using serial killers as an argument: non sequitur, strawman.

Metaphysics of Morals contains the only explicit theoretical disucssion of the possibility of conflicting moral claims. Kant first defines the notion of a conflict of duties or obligations. He then explains why such conflicts are conceptually impossible. In a third step, he concedes that there can be conflicts on "grounds of obligation", although not of actual obligations. Fourthly, he concludes that in cases of conflict the stronger ground of obligation wins.

Classes by definition don't share the same economic or social status. To quote Mill, it's better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

>This behaviour should be corrected.

Oh, what are you going to do about it? You're not the boss of me, fuck off. Look here sport, it's very late where I live and I'm going to bed. If the thread is still up tomorrow I will demolish you and your gay little arguments. If not, I'm sure I'll recognize you by your unique blend of earnestness and stupidity in other threads. Ta-ta!

Good night, last man.

We will torture and abuse you until you feel empathy, damn it!

>>You don't think at all.
WEW

pff, people only go hungry in disgusting socialist dictatorships in africa or protectionist crony military dictatorships that can't sustain a production chain that would resist a drought.
Any minimally capitalist country can easily provide cheap food and shelter from the elements.
Meanwhile, murrican hobos are fat enough to burst.

Because it's blatantly not true. Yeah, Marx theorized capitalism as a system inherently unstable, and believed there would come one day where it would be superseded by another, it's rather ridiculous to assert that EVERYTHING he wrote necessarily implied the inevitability of the end of capitalism. I mean, how is the dialectical materialist mode of exposition that Marx took from Hegel and Feuerbach that he employed in writing and explaining Capital based around the idea that capitalism will inevitably collapse?

If someone is going to argue that, you have to tell them to qualify what they mean into particular points, then refute those points individually. You don't have to defend shit, THEY do, since you aren't asserting any thing to begin with, and they're the one presenting the argument.

Also, you have to remember that Marxism =/= Marx's system. Marxism is an intellectual movement tied towards Communism the political movement that is inspired and takes heavily from Marx that arose towards the end of Marx's life. A lot of what's in Marxism is tied towards the goals of Communism; however most of the intellectual work of Marxism isn't identical to Marx, but is rather inspired by him.

As, said, Marx didn't argue that everything was going to collapse immediately, but that capitalism, as a system, is defined by periods of collapse and reconstruction. It's "stability" results from its own instability.