What did Marx get wrong?

Because they say they do?

Marxism: Envy and resentment posturing as virtue. Pathetic.

Everything, since it was speculation due to not having worked a day in his life and have zero empathy with actual workers.

Since you seem to be a communist looking for a "debate", let me end this right here. You, and your family members are going to die in death camps. There's no use having a discussion with a diseased animal that is going to be culled.

Everything

Thinking the working people would rise up and unite, I think he's be astonished at modern population control, it makes the opium of the masses look like codeine.

What specifically though

Nothing.

>“Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold.”

>"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money."

>"Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it."

>"The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination."

All quotes by Marx that would blow your average commie bootlicker's mind.

Attached: 09187341341347.gif (480x240, 2.57M)

Not looking to debate. There's just not many convincing criticisms of Marxism itself online.

Proletariat vs. bourgeoisie class warfare is going to take down the ruling class.

So you think the bourgeoisie would always win? Doesn't their power rely on workers not revolting?

Trying to scale a system which works well for families to a system with the size and complexity of a nation.

Lmao

Also, a socialist powerful centralized state will naturally wither away into stateless anarcho-utopian Real Communism™.

That sounds more like Kropotkin, right? Lower stage communism was just "to each according to his contribution".

Yeah I agree with you on that.

>So you think the bourgeoisie would always win?
No I think the elite will always win if the lower classes are squabbling among themselves.

This, sadly. The only successful socialist states were the ones that actively purged that intersectional nonsense, and once they stopped they collapsed.
Based, and it's not exclusive to Jews as well. Anyone who worships money dooms themselves and anyone who depends on them.

Internationalism.
Although it might not be "being wrong" but a sect leader tactic.
You know, like something so improvable or indemonstrable that you'll always have a copout.
Like "when the aliens come in their UFOs we will all go to the promise land" or "if we do this mass suicide (me last, ofc lol) we won't need all this money that we pooled here anymore".

You can't lobotomize the entire world into believing in your plan. And communism can't work without everybody being on the same page. Considering that one way or another you're being put in a disadvantage (if communism is right then capitalism gets ahead because they abuse workers, money and power. If capitalism is right then communism falls behind because of famine) you would need a world wide revolution to finally be able to impose the will of the workin class around the wold (although many gommies disagree here, many think that it can't be done globaly, it has to be step by step).
And, again, the moment one country starts schemming against you anything can fall apart.

Also, there's nothing more dangerous that being dependant on the lowest denominator of society.

That was an argument Marx made iirc. That people needed to fight as a class and not fuck around with nationalism, for examaple.

It has literally Never Been Tried™ and probably never will since state socialism is more effective governance.

What about Jews that don't worship money though?

>Expecting good replies on cuck/pol/

Mainly that, like most economists, he based his system on an idealised model that has little resemblance to the real world. In his case of course, it modelling everything through the lens of class dynamics. Now, obviously yeah - the relationship between those with capital & those without it is important. But human nature is simply more complicated than that, say biological hereditary for example? Or sex? Health?

The root of this lies in the pervasive modern belief in Tabula Rasa, that each individual is a "blank slate" fully formed by education & environment (which themselves are both infinitely malleable). Capitalists tacitly believe this too, "just try harder, tug those bootstraps". And that in turn is related to the nature of materialism as a worldview & the resulting view of man simply as an "economic" being, rather than more multifaceted and complex than that.

So basically, his failings are the failings of the whole post-enlightement worldview. I actually think there's a lot of value to learn from him, so long as you swallow it with a grain of salt.

I've gotten better replies than I was expecting honestly.

How should we look at the world then, to build our views from?

He was right about niggers.

What about them?

So what do you think should we done about state's collectively hurting people overall? Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

Wouldn't it be unfair to judge people based on a trait they themselves don't hold?

>That people needed to fight as a class
Yes. But his idea was the proletariat (lower/working class) needs to fight the bourgeoisie (middle class) because the bourgeoisie are enabling or supporting the elite/capitalists (upper/ruling class). But this ends up with nobody fighting the ruling class. It is the two lower classes fighting each other because the higher of the two is not ideologically pure enough for Marx, even though he was himself a member of the bourgeoisie.

Wouldn't the middle class be considered proletariat since they also live off wages?

This is a good point as well - the reality is that the more "successful" implementations have all wound up closer to outright NazBol or some other kind of Nationalist & quasi-Third Position system. So systems that attempt to solve the problems of Capitalism without such autistic focus exclusively on economics or class would be the way to go. NatSoc was successful for that reason - it was specifically intended to be flexible about economics. Corporations or landlords getting out of line? Sure, out the boot on them. But why not let small businesses & entrepreneurs flourish where it doesn't threaten the nation?

this

Don't care.
This is one of the huge failings of modern socialism, or any anti-capitalist political movement. No one goes after the rich, but are more than happy to chimp out on the street and burn down an insured Subway or loot a CVS lol.

Wouldn't it be better to address capitalism itself, rather than the symptoms of it over and over again?

Everything, the only thing he did remotely correct is describing what he saw, which any idiot can do. His solutions were not based upon reality merely theory and speculation that has been soundly disproven.

> Don't care
Is that not a flaw/inconsistency?

> This is one of the huge failings of modern socialism, or any anti-capitalist political movement. No one goes after the rich, but are more than happy to chimp out on the street and burn down an insured Subway or loot a CVS lol.
How would they go after the rich then?

What specifically do you think was wrong?

It's not just that it's more effective it's that like de-nuclearising it can't be done unilaterally or else you get fucked.

It's actually extremely rooted in the real world though, because class dynamics is what you use to analyse power in a society with economic classes. Thinking you can understand anything about the real world without understanding power is imbecilic.
Materialism is about understanding that people do things not because of some mysterious reasons, but because of material circumstances, for example women started having more casual sex in the 60s not because they suddenly turned into slags for no reason, but because the contraceptive pill was invented.
You don't even know what the words mean lmao.

oh look, the fucking hidden hand pose, wow you're so cool Marx with your lil' sekret club autism, get a fucking life you loser

>Is that not a flaw/inconsistency?
No.
>How would they go after the rich then?
Use your brain. I'll give you a hint destroying stuff that's insured and justifying militarized police isn't it.

Would you rather I just continue to be a communist and never question my views?

The state withering away is the most glaring example. The state is an end of itself so why would those in such a position willingly give up their power. If one spends more than 5 minutes thinking about it it wouldn't make sense to willingly give up power. Especially when no one would be left to enforce the doctrine of marxism.

How is that not an inconsistency?

And you're gonna have to help me out here. I don't see how a few people are gonna directly attack the bourgeoisie.

I'm surprised too haha.

>How to build our worldview
Well, through adherence to greater realism about humanity & human nature. Being dedicated to Truth with a capital T at all times. I'm a Fascist, and if I had to describe it in a sense it'd be dedication to Natural Law. Funnily enough, the insistence on absolute, objective truth existing & being knowable also leads to a more philosophically Idealist worldview (think Plato etc), as opposed to simple modernist materialism with "hurr durr everything is pointless atoms bouncing off each other, muh nihilism". I'd suggest reading some of the materials by Ironmarch for the best overview of it from a current perspective.

ritualypropaganda.com/2016/04/codex-magica-en-espanol-capitulo-iv-la.html

I don{t why this stuff is banned in english and anglo countries are the epicenter of masonery-satanic rituals.

>they suddenly turned into slags for no reason
Women have literally always been slags, and the reason they "suddenly" turned into them was a massive societal push for muh free love.

Attached: mano-de-jhabulon.jpg (590x321, 143.98K)

>get wrong
He lied
Lie after Lie
If you have an idea of what he is talking about you wouldn't stand a minute of it

this so true

>Would you rather I just continue to be a communist
My freedom is NON-NEGOTIABLE

You won't to take freedom away from people
prepare to DIE before you even tried
you sad SICK piece of shit

Pitting men vs men like every other system.

Checked and this, the elites rule precisely through divide and conquer by setting factions against each other. Division among the working class and the administrative class strengthens the true elite (which is less than 1%)

Not everything can be dealt with as an objective truth though. Who determines what the truth is? Also, I don't fuck with fascism, so, sorry man.

What specific ideas do you disagree with and why. Just saying "he was wrong and lied" doesn't explain why.

Not everyone is good. Sometimes that's what needs to be done.

THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO TAKE THE SOVIET UNION AND TRANSLATE THERE THE NWO FROM THE US BUT STALIN KILLED ALL OF THEM

.

Attached: trostsky.jpg (170x217, 26.47K)

>post about how proletarian vs bourgeois conflict is pointless and the ruling class is unaffected by it
>duhhhhhhhhhhhh how we gonna fite the bourgeois
pay attention faggot

Unless you have an actual answer, I'm just gonna assume you don't have one either.

>and the reason they "suddenly" turned into them was a massive societal push for muh free love.
which came after the contraceptive pill.

Based Stalin dabbing on rootless cosmopolitans.

Attached: 1480014537464.jpg (884x757, 77.86K)

He specifically says bourgeoisie does not mean the elite. Bourgeoisie support the elite (in Marx's view or in his rhetoric or what have you) by having some property or whatever and not being the poorest of the poor working man. So basically middle class. Marx's bourgeoisie vs. proletariat might have been relevant in his times but nowadays in the US at least while there are people working full time for minimum wage you also have a welfare underclass that doesn't necessarily work, meanwhile the "middle class" is taxed to the point of barely existing as a middle class.
they also live off wages?
I'm talking about professionals with college degrees (possibly with crazy student debt) or blue collar people but who make significantly more than minimum wage, or small business owners, so not necessarily people living on wages.

>You just don't know what the words mean
Sure I don't. Or, you're just assuming that I'm referring to "materialism" in that sense - see how confusing it is that Leftists take existing terms & repurpose them. Materialism was a term long before the Left cooped it.

And in that specific example, was the sole cause of them being slags the pill being available, or did something like the neurology of women (and men responding to them sexually) also play a role? The dialectical process there was between biology & a technical development, which then led to an economic change. Oh look, & already the world is more complex than just "muh class".