Why Marxism is Fundamentally Flawed, But Not for the Reasons You Think

[soy_king]

I've been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions Podcast lately, and it reminded me of something I've thought long ago after struggling through Das Kapital: Marx's belief in how the Dictatorship of the Proletariat could be achieved is completely wrong.

Marxist theory states that Communism is the natural endpoint for human economic development, and that it can only be achieved in countries where there have been successful Boyrgeois Capitalist Revolutions (e.g., UK, US, France, Germany). However, there has been not one case where a successful bourgeois capitalist Revolution has been overthrown by a subsequent communist revolution. In fact, the only places where communist Revolutions have been successful are either places where pre-bourgeois capitalist systems are still in place or in nations Marx refers to as Asiatic societies, which he states are fundamentally incapable of creating the proletarian consciousness required for a successful communist revolution.. If anything, Lenins adoption of Marxist theory to apply to Russian circumstances and Maos later adoption of Marxist theory to apply to Chinese circumstances represent an inherent repudiation of the underlying tenets of Marxist theory.

What are other non obvious reasons Marxist theory (not economic analysis) is utter crap?

 

[Chongqing]

Maos later adoption of Marxist theory to apply to Chinese circumstances represent an inherent repudiation of the underlying tenets of Marxist theory.

That's actually true, and it's even more true now.

I don't have a lot to add. Interesting idea.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

I don't think Marx is worth dismissing out of hand but it's always been funny to me how the 19th century was notoriously rife with furiously masturbating crackpot intellectuals with massively overblown pet theories developed over dozens of private opium sessions, who were only given an air of legitimacy because of the upper class' need to put on airs of worldliness and erudition, but despite the standard set by all of those retards, the guy who thinks he can explain the entire written and unwritten history of human societal development by boiling it down to rich people vs people being mad at rich people - during the conclusion and aftermath of the industrial revolution no less, when income inequality was one of the starkest issues of the day - is the one guy who's definitely right.

fun (unrelated) fact: another famous 19th century intellectual, Charles Babbage (the guy credited with inventing the concept of a programmable computer), believed earth was a giant computer preprogrammed by God to autonomously execute certain miraculous functions, such as the spontaneous creation of new species, so God wouldn't have to bother with descending from heaven for manual miraculous intervention

 

[Tard Whisperer]

If anything, Lenins adoption of Marxist theory to apply to Russian circumstances and Maos later adoption of Marxist theory to apply to Chinese circumstances represent an inherent repudiation of the underlying tenets of Marxist theory.

Not according to Lenin and Mao. retarded claim as if building on a theory means you reject that theory. is every philosopher or theorist who ever added to another theorists' ideas therefore repudiating them?

 

[Blasterisk]

Marx's theory is great. Shoot rich people, take their shinies, install yourself as king. (Or better, have other people do it for you.)

Marx's application killed/is killing hundreds of millions of people.

 

[soy_king]

Not according to Lenin and Mao. retarded claim as if building on a theory means you reject that theory. is every philosopher or theorist who ever added to another theorists' ideas therefore repudiating them?

except that they're building on what is the central argument of that philosophy. it's equivalent to saying that a later religious scholar who says that Christ actually taught the exact opposite of his teachings and was actually wrong is still a Christian.

 

[Not Really Here]

The theory is fundamentally broken because it assumes all humans have the same innate personality type, and are only programmed into cultural rolls.
In the real world, some are sheep, some are leaders, and some are so deranged they only care about power, or the ability to cause others actual pain.

 

[The Blue Morpho]

Marxism is a religion. No, not just in superficial ways like having a bunch of fanatics and pseudo-holy texts like Kapital or the Communist Manifesto (which, incidentally, was originally titled the Communist Confession of Faith before Engel's recommended Marx change it.) Marxism is a mutation of Hegelianism. Hegelianism is a fucked up combination of Kantian philosophy with elements of hermeticism and gnosticism thrown in because Hegel was literally an alchemist. Hegel called his philosophy science and so did Marx even though neither one is even remotely scientific. They have cosmologies, ontologies, theories of being, theories of man, sin and gods.

All Marx did was substitute the Christian god and all of Hegel's weird shit about spirits and replace it with things that are nominally (but not really) secular and materialistic. The god for Marxism is Socialist Man at the end of history, looking back on us in judgement. The end of history already exists because communism is inevitable, and if we don't hasten its coming we will be judged harshly as being a retrograde reactionary who is on the wrong side of it. This is almost like a human version of Roko's Basilisk.

Continental Philosophy has been a disaster for the human species.

 

[The best and greatest]

The theory is fundamentally broken because it assumes all humans have the same innate personality type, and are only programmed into cultural rolls.
In the real world, some are sheep, some are leaders, and some are so deranged they only care about power, or the ability to cause others actual pain.

More fundamentally I'd say the crippling flaw in Marxism is the same flaw in all forms of utopianism: It depends on the people who make up society behaving in morally utopian ways.

This is what modern commies always fail to understand. The problem begins and ends with them alone. You can't game society into utopia through the enacting of laws of policies. A society filled with capricious, petty and selfish morons is doomed to iniquity and suffering no matter what laws you write up.

 

[Imperial Citizen]

One of the biggest issues is the idea that the Communist revolution is inevitable. So every generation of communists think that their time has the conditions to start the revolution. Every single economic downturn is perceived as a prophetic signal of the End Times and yet, life goes on.

 

[Chilson]

The theory is fundamentally broken because it assumes all humans have the same innate personality type, and are only programmed into cultural rolls.
In the real world, some are sheep, some are leaders, and some are so deranged they only care about power, or the ability to cause others actual pain.

Its fundamentally broken because it assumes humans are wholly altruistic at thier fundamentally level, which is simply not true.

It ignores that humans are fundamentally selfish creatures (like every other animal on the planet) and will always work for what they believe is thier own benefit.

The best systems take advantage of this for the good of everyone involved. while commies create the worst systems that NEED to suppress this impulse violently in order to "work" because of the mistaken assumption of base altruism being the default state of humans that is "corrupted" by societal/economic systems.

Ironically, this makes communism one of the most insanely selfish systems of governance.

 

[Jewthulhu]

I noticed the same thing. I guess a few other observations I've had were that most non-communist industrialized nations are already post-industrialization, and the initial revolutions never successfully globalized like Marx predicted. His dialectical theory is also just wrong in general. He's retroactively applying a modern concept of class struggle on history and saying that was the major driving force, ignoring the complex factors that actually drove historical change and the inconsistencies in his neat, linear view of things.

All that is ignoring his shit understanding of economics and the issues with his end stage socialist utopia in general.

 

[Tard Whisperer]

except that they're building on what is the central argument of that philosophy. it's equivalent to saying that a later religious scholar who says that Christ actually taught the exact opposite of his teachings and was actually wrong is still a Christian.

that is not the central argument of Marxism, that is a prediction Marx and Engels made based on their theory. the central theory of Marxism is dialectical and historical materialism, it's the way of understanding human society and history as based in economic mode of productions resulting in contradictions which result in the overthrow of that mode of production for one capable of producing more, and the idea that political structures and ideology arise based on the productive basis of society. Marx did predict that revolutions would start in the advanced capitalist societies, but that is a tiny aspect of his work and not the theoretical basis. not to be preachy about muh politics but your post seemed like you're interested in the topic.

Its fundamentally broken because it assumes humans are wholly altruistic at thier fundamentally level, which is simply not true.

It ignores that humans are fundamentally selfish creatures (like every other animal on the planet) and will always work for what they believe is thier own benefit.

The best systems take advantage of this for the good of everyone involved. while commies create the worst systems that NEED to suppress this impulse violently in order to "work" because of the mistaken assumption of base altruism being the default state of humans that is "corrupted" by societal/economic systems.

Ironically, this makes communism one of the most insanely selfish systems of governance.

this is the opposite of what Marx says. Marx says that society is driven by the productive needs of society and that concepts like altruism arise from the structures society develops around production. the idea that eventually in communism there would be no money or state is not because those things are some sort of corrupting force, but that they would no longer be needed when we have created such a productive society that no longer needs money or a state.

good sum of actual primary theoretical contribution of Marx:

"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or – what is but a legal expression for the same thing – with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 269-70.)

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It might be purposely vague but the whole workers owning the means of production is completely socially improbable.
If you go with the country owning everything then it's just aristocracy with extra steps.
If it's workers owning their factories then you'd have massive wealth disparity because not all workplaces are equal.
And that's disregarding the problem that workers will naturally want to reduce their workload, or that some places are codependent on others keep working.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

It might be purposely vague but the whole workers owning the means of production is completely socially improbable.
If you go with the country owning everything then it's just aristocracy with extra steps.
If it's workers owning their factories then you'd have massive wealth disparity because not all workplaces are equal.
And that's disregarding the problem that workers will naturally want to reduce their workload, or that some places are codependent on others keep working.

There is no "workers owning of the means of production", that's a huge misunderstanding. The proletarian dictatorship socialises property, that is it seizes it from the firms and incrementally hands to society as a whole, first to the proletarian dictatorship (essentially nationalising it) but as class (including the proletariat that owns the state) progressively ceases to be and the state with it, what remains is society at large to own it. And since society is material and observable but also abstract and unquantifiable, not a formal entity like a state or a firm, "social property" basically ends up being another word for no property at all, the same way a cow doesn't conceive as its own or anybody's the grass it's eating. In a way, it's a return to nature.
There's no such thing as workers owning their individual factories or whatever, you'd just end up with a slew of competing cooperatives that would just repeat what we have but without bosses (as if we have them today anyway. Companies are increasingly less private as in owned by a single person and ever more depersonalised. Random example, the stockholder company. The category of "boss" is an increasingly obsolete one even within our own capitalist world), keeping markets, competition, wages and so on. This isn't what the communist means.

Reducing the workload is part of the process especially as individual and collective productivity increases thanks to advances in engineering, there hasn't been a communist that hasn't proposed shortening working hours, and not because he's promoting laziness.
On average, roughly half of what an employee produces is for his subsistence and is represented by his wage, but the other half is for the firm's own needs between profits, spending for upkeep and so on, thus taken from the employee and unretributed or the firm becomes insolvent, this form of alienation is necessary in our world. Wage Labour and Capital, a little gem you can finish in about a hour or so, explains how wage labour works.
But when wage labour takes the way of the dinosaur, leaving history just as it entered it three centuries ago, then the proletarian category ceases to be, and as the market disappears and society starts following a productive plan, then people start working only for as long as they individually need to, without extra unretributed time. It's hard to quantify exactly by how much the workload would be reduced, but as people end up working only for as much as they need to and not further, elimininating wage labour, it's inevitable that it does, and it's probably inevitable that the worplace itself disappears, though of course not labor itself. After all, would you consider the kitchen you're using to cook, or the bed you're making, a workplace?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

There is no "workers owning of the means of production", that's a huge misunderstanding. The proletarian dictatorship socialises property, that is it seizes it from the firms and incrementally hands to society as a whole, first to the proletarian dictatorship (essentially nationalising it) but as class (including the proletariat that owns the state) progressively ceases to be and the state with it, what remains is society at large to own it. And since society is material and observable but also abstract and unquantifiable, not a formal entity like a state or a firm, "social property" basically ends up being another word for no property at all, the same way a cow doesn't conceive as its own or anybody's the grass it's eating. In a way, it's a return to nature.
There's no such thing as workers owning their individual factories or whatever, you'd just end up with a slew of competing cooperatives that would just repeat what we have but without bosses (as if we have them today anyway. Companies are increasingly less private as in owned by a single person and ever more depersonalised. Random example, the stockholder company. The category of "boss" is an increasingly obsolete one even within our own capitalist world), keeping markets, competition, wages and so on. This isn't what the communist means.

Reducing the workload is part of the process especially as individual and collective productivity increases thanks to advances in engineering, there hasn't been a communist that hasn't proposed shortening working hours, and not because he's promoting laziness.
On average, roughly half of what an employee produces is for his subsistence and is represented by his wage, but the other half is for the firm's own needs between profits, spending for upkeep and so on, thus taken from the employee and unretributed or the firm becomes insolvent, this form of alienation is necessary in our world. Wage Labour and Capital, a little gem you can finish in about a hour or so, explains how wage labour works.
But when wage labour takes the way of the dinosaur, leaving history just as it entered it three centuries ago, then the proletarian category ceases to be, and as the market disappears and society starts following a productive plan, then people start working only for as long as they individually need to, without extra unretributed time. It's hard to quantify exactly by how much the workload would be reduced, but as people end up working only for as much as they need to and not further, elimininating wage labour, it's inevitable that it does, and it's probably inevitable that the worplace itself disappears, though of course not labor itself. After all, would you consider the kitchen you're using to cook, or the bed you're making, a workplace?

If I understand you correctly, the argument is then simply incorrect due to working on the assumptions that:
1. Real work time should be a fraction of what it is to be due to greed. This is not always the case and in some ways impossible due to cases like long commute.
2. People who would like to work for society or personal sake. Dangerous hard work like construction will never have people lining up to join and people will always prefer cushy office jobs over field work.

The whole thing rests on some utopian luxurious gay space communism idea, that is not only unproven, but so far INVERTED since modern AI can make better art than 99.99% of the population in zero time, but robotics might be decades away from being usable for large projects.

Also the idea that wage slavery is new is absolutely retarded. From the dawn of human society we have worked for some master out of necessity, the fact that nowdays they won't flay you alive for not working and even allow you to have disposable income for private use and choice should be seen as an objective improvement.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

If I understand you correctly, the argument is then simply incorrect due to working on the assumptions that:
1. Real work time should be a fraction of what it is to be due to greed. This is not always the case and in some ways impossible due to cases like long commute.

It isn't "greed", nobody makes such a moralistic argument (or should make, the sad reality is so many 'communists' are so ill-informed they do make this argument), it's that it has to be like this in our world. Like I said, the unretributed part of your labour has to be unretributed for the firm's survival, it doesn't depend on the firm or the boss. The unretributed time you spend for it is profit that's invested in expansion of business, acquisition of new machinery, money meant for upkeep, and so on, everything needed for the firm's survival. And in a situation in which wage labour survives, then no matter how much you cut working hours, part of them will still be unretributed, which would just create a vicious circle until nobody will work anymore, and nobody, well, would get shit done anymore.
So, you don't simply cut working hours, though communism would realistically have shorter working hours and integrated in your own life rather than separate from it (which by the way makes moot the whole concept of 'commuting to work', your work is at home, or around it), you eliminate wage labour, which would only tangentially result in shorter working hours. Because by eliminating wage labour, you eliminate the conditions that make part of your labour time unretributed, and thus unnecessary to you.

2. People who would like to work for society or personal sake. Dangerous hard work like construction will never have people lining up to join and people will always prefer cushy office jobs over field work.

You work for yourself, 'society' is something unquantifiable, just a collection of individuals. "Society" is just another word for, essentially, yourself. Your bed, your food, your fence, and why not, your home.
Office jobs would largely disappear, they're useless, and besides they're a manifestation of a division of labour in intellectual and physical one, which would disappear.
You would "fish in the morning, hunt in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening and criticise at night, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic" (-cit.) as Saint Karl said, you would be anything you need to be on the spot or in advance for the need to come, and being working hours shorter, you wouldn't lack the time needed to learn how to do it either.
But, because everyone works for himself and everyone is part of something real but unquantifiable known as 'society', something made of individuals, then individual work for your own sake and for those immediately around you has an inherently social character.
The misunderstanding appears to be semantic in nature, but that's fine and that's our fault, communists have a terrible habit of calling things counter-intuitively.

The whole thing rests on some utopian luxurious gay space communism idea, that is not only unproven, but so far INVERTED since modern AI can make better art than 99.99% of the population in zero time, but robotics might be decades away from being usable for large projects.

No, it doesn't. Really, we've had the material means to pull this off for at least the last five decades, at least the immediate basics of it, and at this point it isn't even a matter of inventing new shit, but reorienting what we have to different uses. I can actually tell you that in many, many aspects, a communist world would be a lower tech one than the one we have at the moment.

Also the idea that wage slavery is new is absolutely retarded. From the dawn of human society we have worked for some master out of necessity, the fact that nowdays they won't flay you alive for not working and even allow you to have disposable income for private use and choice should be seen as an objective improvement.

We have always worked for some master, what changed are the particulars of it. A slave would work for his master in return for food and shelter, a peasant would work the feudal lord's land (which he would otherwise treat as basically his own, to the point of living on it) by paying rent to him in the form of a part of his harvest, and now we rent our labour-force in return for a wage.
The constant throughout all this is the removal from a labourer of the products of his own labour, hence the slave works for nothing, the peasant loses half his harvest, and the wage labourer, well, at least half of his labour time which goes unretributed.

That this is a "better" arrangement is an idealistic statement and above all a subjective one, I can easily make the case that, since the peasant treated the land as his own and his own labour was far more for his own sake than the modern wage labourer by virtue of, well, not having to move out of his home to work, the peasant was far better off than we are. Work was life until the Industrial Revolution, inseparable from it, while since the Industrial Revolution our life has been split in two (easily three) parts, a third for ourselves, a third for sleep, and a third, distant from our home, in some dumbass miserable factory or office or whatever, for someone else. Anyway, I don't want to argue on mere opinions.

All this misses the key point, which is that wage labour itself is unsustainable and abolishing itself as we speak. As automation continues in this world, men are increasingly pushed out of productive jobs, their labour is worth less and less (not in terms of prices/exchange value, nota bene, or not just in those terms) and so is the product of their labour, both in Marxist conceptions of value and in more mundane conceptions of prices.
In the end, we end up in a condition in which men have no reason to work for a wage anymore because they're unemployable compared to machines, and they have no reason to even buy or sell shit anymore since advances in engineering have allowed it to be produced for less than nothing. Still, this persists somehow with charades like desk jobs, why? Because the system has to perpetuate itself even after outmoding itself, we end up with a conflict between desired relations of labour on one hand and material conditions which prevent their proper execution on the other.
Dude, the other systems ended because they had to end, because they couldn't keep up with technological advances and new relations of labour anymore, that this thing dies as well is nothing exceptional, and not a big deal, nothing lasts or should last forever.
Actually, this isn't up to anyone's opinion or policy anymore, this thing is already a walking corpse, a zombie, and it doesn't even know it's dead yet. The communists are just saying it's already dead and that there's no point in keeping up the pretense anymore.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

@Homophobic white dog

It isn't "greed", nobody makes such a moralistic argument (or should make, the sad reality is so many 'communists' are so ill-informed they do make this argument), it's that it has to be like this in our world. Like I said, the unretributed part of your labour has to be unretributed for the firm's survival, it doesn't depend on the firm or the boss. The unretributed time you spend for it is profit that's invested in expansion of business, acquisition of new machinery, money meant for upkeep, and so on, everything needed for the firm's survival. And in a situation in which wage labour survives, then no matter how much you cut working hours, part of them will still be unretributed, which would just create a vicious circle until nobody will work anymore, and nobody, well, would get shit done anymore.
So, you don't simply cut working hours, though communism would realistically have shorter working hours and integrated in your own life rather than separate from it (which by the way makes moot the whole concept of 'commuting to work', your work is at home, or around it), you eliminate wage labour, which would only tangentially result in shorter working hours. Because by eliminating wage labour, you eliminate the conditions that make part of your labour time unretributed, and thus unnecessary to you.

Some jobs don't have unretributed time, such as picking up trash (that again, who would do it considering it's incredibly important?), and a firm not spending money on improving itself will always lead to decay in moral and efficiency as the equipment rots away and people get bored of doing the same shit every day. More over, if your firm engages in trade then it will be extinct by a firm that will constantly improve itself.

You work for yourself, 'society' is something unquantifiable, just a collection of individuals. "Society" is just another word for, essentially, yourself. Your bed, your food, your fence, and why not, your home.
Office jobs would largely disappear, they're useless, and besides they're a manifestation of a division of labour in intellectual and physical one, which would disappear.
You would "fish in the morning, hunt in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening and criticise at night, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic" (-cit.) as Saint Karl said, you would be anything you need to be on the spot or in advance for the need to come, and being working hours shorter, you wouldn't lack the time needed to learn how to do it either.
But, because everyone works for himself and everyone is part of something real but unquantifiable known as 'society', something made of individuals, then individual work for your own sake and for those immediately around you has an inherently social character.
The misunderstanding appears to be semantic in nature, but that's fine and that's our fault, communists have a terrible habit of calling things counter-intuitively.

Unless you massively reduce the population, having each person hunt will end up destroying the wildlife. But worse than that everything needed for the activities you described will necessitate some people engaging in back breaking labour and a bureaucrat sorting things out so everyone will get fishing rod and a gun.

No, it doesn't. Really, we've had the material means to pull this off for at least the last five decades, at least the immediate basics of it, and at this point it isn't even a matter of inventing new shit, but reorienting what we have to different uses. I can actually tell you that in many, many aspects, a communist world would be a lower tech one than the one we have at the moment.

That's extremely hypocritical as the only reasons we could have the material to pull it off the last 5 decades is due to advancements made due to wage labour, and the abolishment of wage labour will immediately halt those advances leading to a lack of material (ie, who will bring you your Nitrogen for your fields?).

All this misses the key point, which is that wage labour itself is unsustainable and abolishing itself as we speak. As automation continues in this world, men are increasingly pushed out of productive jobs, their labour is worth less and less (not in terms of prices/exchange value, nota bene, or not just in those terms) and so is the product of their labour, both in Marxist conceptions of value and in more mundane conceptions of prices.
In the end, we end up in a condition in which men have no reason to work for a wage anymore because they're unemployable compared to machines, and they have no reason to even buy or sell shit anymore since advances in engineering have allowed it to be produced for less than nothing. Still, this persists somehow with charades like desk jobs, why? Because the system has to perpetuate itself even after outmoding itself, we end up with a conflict between desired relations of labour on one hand and material conditions which prevent their proper execution on the other.

Automation is not pushing people out of productive jobs, but the exporting of those jobs to legit third world slaves. For the foreseeable future the automation will not be on the level where we can just cruise on auto pilot. Also why is wage labour unsustainable?

Dude, the other systems ended because they had to end, because they couldn't keep up with technological advances and new relations of labour anymore, that this thing dies as well is nothing exceptional, and not a big deal, nothing lasts or should last forever.
Actually, this isn't up to anyone's opinion or policy anymore, this thing is already a walking corpse, a zombie, and it doesn't even know it's dead yet. The communists are just saying it's already dead and that there's no point in keeping up the pretense anymore.

The current corporate oligarchy is a shambling corpse, and globohomo might as well, but any attempt of making "socialist" workspaces has ended in abject failure so the only way forward is either tyrrany or back to sane sized firms competing with weak government.

But the one point that I want to stress out is that the whole "return to monke" meme is delusional. Going back into each person having his own plot of land means we're back to being entirely dependent on external factors not killing our entire family (be it the weather, diseases or manmade). It will naturally end in those willing to use violence taking over everyone else and then making them slaves, repeating on the cycle from the start.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

As I've mentioned before, one of Marx's biggest mistakes was boiling down all conflicts in history to materialistic matters.

This is something that neo-marxists actually understand better than old leftists or leftypol types, even if it's only slightly: Culture matters. Nationalism matters. You cannot simply boil things down to haves vs have nots.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

wtfNeedSignUp​

Some jobs don't have unretributed time, such as picking up trash (that again, who would do it considering it's incredibly important?), and a firm not spending money on improving itself will always lead to decay in moral and efficiency as the equipment rots away and people get bored of doing the same shit every day. More over, if your firm engages in trade then it will be extinct by a firm that will constantly improve itself.

Lots of jobs don't have unretributed time (or at least not as observable as the wagie ones), especially if you're self-employed, but I never said my take applied to every job. At most I can say that as individual and small time property vanishes, everyone is destined to be a wagie, which means destined to fit in my analysis.
Yes, dude, that's what I'm talking about when it comes to firms spending money, they have to, which makes the whole process necessary in this world.
It isn't as if I'm saying "Oh, please, sir, can you please stop paying people wages and producing for profit?". No, the firm would fucking shut down and be bought by some other firm. Within capitalism, the firm has to work like this.
It's in communism that the firm ceases to be.

Unless you massively reduce the population, having each person hunt will end up destroying the wildlife.

That was an example, the basic point is everyone would be everything.

and a bureaucrat sorting things out so everyone will get fishing rod and a gun.

That is the point. Sounds good to me.

That's extremely hypocritical as the only reasons we could have the material to pull it off the last 5 decades is due to advancements made due to wage labour, and the abolishment of wage labour will immediately halt those advances leading to a lack of material (ie, who will bring you your Nitrogen for your fields?).

Technological advancement happens every time under every system, I don't know where's the hypocrisy, that's like saying medieval peasants were hypocrites for using iron tools that people came up with when slavery was a thing, and I don't know what made you think we wouldn't be producing any more fertiliser. None of what you said follows.

Automation is not pushing people out of productive jobs, but the exporting of those jobs to legit third world slaves.

There's very few actual slaves in the Third World, what you're talking about are shit wages and shit living conditions, which guess what is how people here used to live. Yes, including the child labor. This is how countries industrialise. No, it's never pleasant.

Also why is wage labour unsustainable?

I explained how, refer to my previous post. An addendum to it: outsourcing as a mean of lowering labour costs is really just as effective relative to my argument as automation, really the point is that the cost of labor (and of every commodity produced by it) is destined to fall to literal zero, and when that happens, wage labour ceases to exist.
Even the profits of firms are falling to zero, and what usually gives a temporary boost is a destruction of commodities and labour (see: human lives), something like a war of a fake pandemic.
It's the progressive self-erasure of value, of labour, of commodities, of profits and communism is nothing else but a society where value is absent, where shit quite literally happens for free. Then it's only a matter of recognising this by acting accordingly and moving on, or staying fossilised in this system.

The current corporate oligarchy is a shambling corpse, and globohomo might as well, but any attempt of making "socialist" workspaces has ended in abject failure so the only way forward is either tyrrany or back to sane sized firms competing with weak government.

The oligarchy is a natural outcome of capitalism, fish eats fish, the small companies eat each other and then are eaten by the bigger ones, this is how you end up with monopolies, who then destroy all property aside from their own with trusts and a state in their pocket.
And if you need a state to break them up every time to return to your idyllic and frankly cretinous lemonade stands, I have bad news about the 'effectiveness' of your system. Now THAT is repeating cycles.
"Socialist workplaces" don't exist and literally can't exist, it's a basic contradiction. All the countries with those red flags were establishing capitalism, which isn't bad per se since this thing is supposed to come out of it. At most I can complain that they were calling capitalism something else, but I'm pretty sure wage labour existed and exists in those places. I don't know how else they would be running.
In those countries, "socialism" is the founding myth as much as "democracy" or "republicanism" are in the Western world, but it's just window dressing, it's plutocracy every single time everywhere.

@Aero the Alcoholic Bat never did that, he said that the material contradiction is the primary one, but in reality culture has its importance. Culture is the superstructure that ideologically justified the base, and often the form of the base itself is influenced by culture and ideology, though of course not the substance of it.
That a society's dominating ideology is the ruling class's ideology is Marxism 101.