Why are NATSOCS against Marxism?

Marxism is just another authoritarian government.

Created by a Jew.
200,000,000+ dead (so far).

at this point i would be down to compromise we get rid of capitalism install socialism and we can deport all non-whites, is that fair enough

The bourgeoisie are basically Jews. How is that different than NatSocs calling out international Jewery. Nazis came to power only to get cucked by the international Jew. Failing to address it as an international problem and focusing on nationalism is a losing strategy.

what bakunin said

Attached: bak.png (500x530, 34.68K)

Exactly this. According to Marx, an American factory worker has more in common with a Liberian cannibal or a Chinese rice farmer than another American who works in an office building because MUH CLASS STRUGGLE. This obvious bullshit has resulted in tremendous amounts of human suffering. Look at Cambodia and tell me leftism isn't completely retarded. Name any fascist who had people killed for wearing glasses.

Jews are the problem? But let's create a world government controlled by jews, because jewmocracy in usa is not enough, and we need a global nwo kike government?
Is this what they teach you in holohoax classes?

Because its wrong.
Wrong about a lot actually.
Some are put off by the fact Marx was jewish, but the bigger issues is definately his beliefe in the "labor theory of value" IE that labor is what creates value and thus the selling of products produced by others is "exploitation" as their labor created the whole of the value.
This theory however quickly falls apart when one realizes that a person can do a great number of things that are very labor intensive that create little or no value.
An Autistic child could work all day to build a bird house but it would still be worth alot less or even nothing compared to the bird house build by the guy who makes them for a living.
This is because there is demand for one product but not the other.
Ergo we can surpise that Demand is the necessary component for an object to have value showing that demand is what creates value
Not Labor.

Attached: thejewsbehindleftism.jpg (1000x600, 71.95K)

This is based and accurate as well.

Attached: hitleronclasswarfare.jpg (650x614, 72.81K)

He was a faggot freeloader, a beaner tier freeloader, and also a ((German)) aka the niggers of EVROPA

Marx generally made correct analysis and observations but had awful solutions.

Are you retarded? Did the point going completely over your head? Let me try again so your tiny eurofag brain can understand.
Even if you get rid of the Jew (bourgeoisie) in one nation, the International Jew will conspire against that nation. Ignoring the international element and solely focusing on one nation will not yield long term results. To fight the international Jew, there must be international opposition to the Jew.

RETARD ALERT

>The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.
>The simplest definition of socially necessary labour time is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity. This is an "average unit labour-cost", measured in working hours.
>If the average productivity is that of a worker who produces a commodity in one hour, while a less skilled worker produces the same commodity in four hours, then in these four hours the less skilled worker will have only contributed one hour's worth of value in terms of socially necessary labour time. Each hour worked by the unskilled worker will only produce a quarter of the social value produced by the average worker.

Let's get this straight. In (your) mind the problem is a marxist kike concept of (((bourgeoisie))))?

Not my kike LTVrino

A further objection is that Marx’s assertion that only labour can create surplus value is unsupported by any argument or analysis, and can be argued to be merely an artifact of the nature of his presentation. Any commodity can be picked to play a similar role. Consequently with equal justification one could set out a corn theory of value, arguing that corn has the unique power of creating more value than it costs.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

because their golemOs requires them to hate the other side even if they agree on everything

Attached: Moses_Hess.jpg (242x293, 17.87K)

/thread
FourthPBP

>RETARD ALERT
Kek alright well lets have it out then.
>The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.
So how does water in a stream get value?
Or are you seriously arguing that ONLY that which uses labor to produce can possibly have value??
>The simplest definition of socially necessary labour time is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity. This is an "average unit labour-cost", measured in working hours.
not for all resources and not for all items human beings value
People will pay to se a girls tits despite it requiring no work to manufacture.
This once again shows demand to be the necessary component for value
Not labor.
>If the average productivity is that of a worker who produces a commodity in one hour, while a less skilled worker produces the same commodity in four hours, then in these four hours the less skilled worker will have only contributed one hour's worth of value in terms of socially necessary labour time. Each hour worked by the unskilled worker will only produce a quarter of the social value produced by the average worker.
Again dude you're just reiterating the labor theory of value
Autistically asserting that ONLY labor and labor alone can create value
When the the observable fact is that there are a great many things in life, many of which have existed long before the advent of industrial capitalism, which people value and which people are willing to pay for that require absolutely no labor to produce.

Attached: bernieonguns.jpg (600x600, 48.19K)

Marxism = Internationalism (read: Semitic world supremacy) + Socialism

NatSoc = Nationalism (read: natural state of the world) + Socialism

but we can go even one step beyond that into truly based territory

NatCap = Nationalism + Capitalism

It's basically established fact that demand creates value, not labour.

Hitler took from Marx as well. It's cultural Marxism and Bolshevik Marxism that he hated which always leads to Gommunism, and Globalism orchestrated by the Godless, Materialist Yids. Go back to plebbit, faggot.

Europa Last Battles
archive.org/details/EUROPATheLastBattle

Attached: IMG_20191230_004720_809.jpg (1280x789, 124.4K)

The Khmer Rouge wasn't marxist, it was nationalist-agrarian.

NOOOO NOT THE HECKIN LABOUR THEORY OF VALURINOOOOO

Attached: 1234976236.png (640x846, 391.81K)

>Labor theory of value doesn’t hold up because an autistic retard takes forever to make a shitty birdhouse compared to a professional craftsman

Actually it does, here’s a very basic definition of the theory.

>Incoherent autistic screeching

I am glad to see posters like you, to be reminded how jewed america is, and that there is no hope, only destruction under the new kike nwo.

Heres what I think greek bro.

They both have the same idea. But Marx wanted a united world government and basically the federation from Star Trek but with more draconian measures.

His theory works only if you have a post scarcity society or a really small commune.

I honestly think marxist issues are mainly the fact that they have a planed government that can't react fast enough. You need market forces of supply and demand.

Now NATSOC is basically exactly what it says. It says Nations usually single ethnicity ones should take care of their own and it's about order, discipline and if necessary giving your life for the betterment of your fellow country man not just anyone.

This is why they collide. They're both autoritarian shit practices but ones focused on one group of people "a nation" while the other is focused on one class "worker" the aim of both is to create an entity where theres only this class.

>> calls arguments he doesnt like " autistic screeching"
>>Doesnt Adress the argument
>>Expects no one to notice.
You se dude this is why no one ever takes Marxists fucking seriously.

Too bad the wold right now work on MarCap Internationalism + Socalism

Attached: 1584129935843.png (686x526, 207.42K)

Because Marxists don't see things in a racial lense, but a class lense.

Every successful economy is class collaboration, not stupid hurr kill da rich.

In fact, the denial of race by Marxist proves that they are controlled opposition.

There’s no point. You clearly have a poor grasp on what Marxism is and no understanding of the labor theory of value. You have no interest in learning and only in parroting right wing talking points.

lmao

The labour theory of value is bollocks, value is subjective and Marx's theory is limited and does not apply to everything like supply and demand.

Because it is a religion masquerading as science.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness
Marxism is unfalsifiable by construction.

>pic
The Eternal Coomer

Stalin would have executed Marx just like he did Trotsky.

The only marxism that can be supported is Stalinism, because Stalinism actively suppresses the international marxism brand.

Dengists (i.e. modern China coomies) are also very good at oppressing Maoists.

>you're clearly not as brainwashed as I am; just read Marx bro, it works on my machine :)

Because his ideas aren't predicated on race loyalty, and therefore doomed to failure.

The labour theory of value doesn't accurately explain reality.
How can you explain the fact that people are willing to pay more for the Mona Lisa than for an entire suburbs worth of houses?
>Because "capitalism" has made them incorrectly perceive reality
And now we're back to unfalsifiability.
This also undermines the claim that marxism is a descriptive theory, since if it is telling people *how* they should be valuing things, it isn't describing, it's prescribing.

The cope of that is that Marx said his theory doesn't apply to art LOL

>There’s no point. You clearly have a poor grasp on what Marxism is and no understanding of the labor theory of value.
"To be fair you need very high IQ to understand the Subtle irony of Karl Marx's shitpost"
Cry me a river faggot.
If you understood the ideology your argument could not only well enough explain why i was wrong, but also demonstrate it by posting basic facts about the ideology and citations by Marx to debunk me.
I have read the manifesto and while its been a while i read Kapital to.
Marx fundimentally posits that labor is the driving force in the value of consumer goods despite the fact that many consumer goods require not labor whatsoever in order to produce.
It does not adequately Analyze or address the way the market actually functions.
And if you posit that "value" is something that exists REGARDLESS of the market, that it is some underlying inherent thing that comes into existence ONLY when labor is used to produce a thing, regardless of its price (as i have heard some Marxists do in online debates, erroneously making a differentiation between "prices" and "value" ) then you CANNOT claim to be viewing the world on an objective materialist basis.
But instead on a subjective Quasi essoteric basis due to your impracticable and inherently subjective view of "value"
>You have no interest in learning and only in parroting right wing talking points.
No sir, i have interest in BELIEVING in your world view.
I am more then happy to learn about it as i have found it to be one of best mechanisms by which to more easily debunk and mock it in debates.
If your ideology held any watter what so fucking ever you would have no issue making me look like fool and wouldnt waste your time explaining in detail why you dont have the balls to defend your own views.
Marxists are a fucking Joke.
And there is no subject which demonstrates this more purely then a Marxist in debate.

Attached: (((ClassTreason)))meme (2) (1) (1) (2) (1).jpg (1155x2000, 303.18K)

Class struggle destroys one country's society, and it ultimately benefits the richest 1% tied to the Communist Party while harming the 20% richest who have patriotic sentiments and have the know-how to operate large scale businesses.
Besides it's very easy to debunk Marx's value theory.

The labor theory of value is not a strictly marxist idea. It has roots in the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. You’re right in that it doesn’t apply to supply and demand. The theory is about value not about the prices if things. Value and price are not the same thing.

You're all wrong.

Distributism is the answer we are looking for here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

>what do you mean you're only going to pay me 50c for this macaroni necklace?! I spent 16 hours on it! I deserve more!
>t. Marx

There is also flaws in materialism, which are transferred onto everything downstream from it.
There is no non arbitrary definition of what is and is not "material".
>It's only physical objects
So a society's education level has no bearing on it's future evolution?
>It's every variable that affects a society's future evolution
So race, homogeneity, implicit knowledge, etc are forms of material wealth?

Marxists seem to be in some arbitrary middle zone, where they accept some abstract concepts such as education as valid forms of material wealth, yet reject others such as implicit knowledge, biological comparability, social entropy management, etc, claiming that the people who value them are just wrong in how they attribute value, despite reality showing us otherwise, and despite marxism claiming to be descriptive and not prescriptive.

Basically all of marxism is predicated on two incorrect assumptions:

1.
The entropy maximizing distribution under equal initial and systemic conditions, but allowing exchange, is uniform.
This is falsified by Maxwellian statistics, and was actually an incorrect assumption held by physicists about energy distribution in gasses up to the 20th century.

2.
The globally optimal distribution is always an attractive fixed point.
This is falsified by basically every single model in game theory, including the famous prisoner's dilemma.

Then marxism can't be a general theory of value, since we can observe that people value art from the fact that they willingly exchange other things marxists consider to have value for art, be that time, money, capital, etc.
If Marx himself is admitting to the lack of predictive validity then this is hardly cope.
If I had a supposedly general theory of physics it doesn't magically stop being wrong as a general theory just because I acknowledge that it doesn't correctly predict a bunch of physical phenomena.

Now you're trying to dissolve the blame so it doesn't fall entirely on your idol, Marx? Another idea for you, just abandon these stupid ideas. What's the meaning behind this struggle of yours to rush in the defense of the reprehensible?

Because it's all anti-white nonsense. Literally every single leftist policy is designed to hurt people like me, to rob me of freedom, my country, my money, etc.

Attached: eifgog885.jpg (1920x1134, 376.15K)

people confusing Labor Theory of Value as how much labor goes into producing a thing. Instead its how much labor one must expend in purchasing a thing.
Not that I consider LTV to be the ultimate theory of economic value, it definitely is insufficient on its own. But at least understand it correctly before critiquing it.

It's not. The "theory" specifically states and exemplifies the statement that the value of a thing ought to be defined by the labor suffered through the workers during THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE ITEM.