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

[Shidoen]

Literally between the whole political range of Marxism to Nazism. The main issue is who’s in charge of in placing that system instead of the system itself. Which is why all of it is pretty gay and won’t work.

 

[$80 Nude Haircut]

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.

This is just niggers crabs in a bucket shit. If you want to see firsthand how well this sort of thinking goes just read the history of Haiti. Nobody should humor chowderheads who believe the solution to any societal problem is just brainlessly killing off all the "haves." Even Uncle Adolf's Big Blade Bonanza didn't amount to that, it was way more targeted.

All you need to know about political theory is that average people don't give a shit about complicated political topics until it's affecting them and their families. Boomers didn't make a peep about the amoral things their government was doing (domestic & overseas) because they lived in an era of incredible prosperity. Millennials care about that shit because the average person's quality of life nowadays continues to dip while your government cares more about tricking you into applauding it alongside their bought-out comped cheerleaders than actually fixing anything. Human wants are pretty basic. Every social contract has to revolve around fulfilling those wants consistently over time unless you really enjoy the thought of being beheaded in the town square. Capitalism is pretty good at this (among other reasons) which is why it's caught on & stayed for so long. The Greeks and Romans figured this out millennia ago.

Marxism was never going to work because Marx believed that everything is directly related to capital. Production, labor, fiat currency, etc. Marx as a thinker refused to treat human nature as the inherent driving force in society it actually is & ignored those basic wants because he was a turbo autist. Marx's thoughts are a curiosity of his era that should have died with him. The only reason people still discuss them is because they think his theories were the catalyst of various major changes through a very caustic period of European history. The reality is any dumb theory that didn't solve anything yet convinced proles to fight each other could have fit into Marxism's shoes.

tl;dr - read Frédéric Bastiat. Reject socialist faggotry because all it ever amounts to is using "revolution" to shake up markets, erode institutions, liquidate populations, present opportunities & give evil kikes even more power.

 

[Bonesjones]

Just imagine if Marx was forced to do manual labor instead of being another stupid jew ruining the world.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

@Homophobic white dog You forgot the @ to make the notification.

The thing I don't understand is the endgame, you talked about people working near their homes but that's simply impossible without massively reducing the quality of life as factories and resources will always be in need for anything above medieval level (and even during that time you had people who basically left their families to engage in long range trade), as well as being suicidal considering you can't force everyone back to that level. The only way I can see it as working if there will be some industrial revolution that would automate and manage those specific tasks, but that might as well be like waiting for the messiah to come in your generation. Ironically it would mean that Communists should be the most ardent believers in Capitalism as it is the only way to have their utopia fulfilled.
And about the encroaching collapse, having a forest fire every couple of years to "clean the rot" is completely natural. No system survives in perpetuity and we can always improve the system for the next time rather than tear it all down.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

@Homophobic white dog You forgot the @ to make the notification.

The thing I don't understand is the endgame, you talked about people working near their homes but that's simply impossible without massively reducing the quality of life as factories and resources will always be in need

Resource extraction will not stop, I don't know why you would think it would.
Factories are an expression of separation of division of labor, those will progressively vanish, especially as we come up with increasingly miniaturised production facilities. We have 3D printers for increasingly complex goods, there's plenty more to get from there, with the right incentive. Overall, the direction is as much as possible made at home.

for anything above medieval level (and even during that time you had people who basically left their families to engage in long range trade), as well as being suicidal considering you can't force everyone back to that level.

Of course you can, how do you think we got to this point?
There was never a feasible opt out option, cars, phones, the internet, whatever, who can live without them, and who decided we have to live with them? Not making a critique of their existence either, just saying their use was essentially imposed. How do you get to work without a car? How do you contact your boss to tell him you're ill? How do you publish your curriculum vitae?
And how did you get to a point where you had a workplace to go to, miles from home, a boss to contact, a cv to publish? Your ancestors could've just remained in their little farm planting and eating peas for the rest of their lives, but no, they had to sell the farm and move to some civilised place. Who convinced them?

You either adapted or you lived like Ted, and the overwhelming majority of people can't be fucked living like him.
Technological development is more top down than you think, it's forced by changing the material infrastructure and needs of people, whether by force or pressure.
Incentives will be created, I mean who wants to live five days a week 8-9 hours a day slaving away for some asshole? The fact that people hate the wagie life is already a starting point.

The only way I can see it as working if there will be some industrial revolution that would automate and manage those specific tasks, but that might as well be like waiting for the messiah to come in your generation.

I don't expect miniaturisation to come within our lifetime, as long as this thing keeps existing. In a communist world, that's a different story, there's all the incentive for it.
Realistically some tasks will be automated, and some others will remain human. Cleaning the trash, at least from your backyard, or planting potatoes, here's something you want to do yourself. You want coal, you can use the machine to dig it out, and so on and so on. It's on a case to case basis, and even then voluntary. If you want to dig the coal out yourself, nobody's keeping you out of the mine, but otherwise we have the machine to do it for us. And try not to get in its way, by the way.

Ironically it would mean that Communists should be the most ardent believers in Capitalism as it is the only way to have their utopia fulfilled.

We are, if the country's backwards, or we wouldn't have turned capitalist every country we touched lol
The NEP itself was never framed as a construction of socialism by Lenin, but of capitalism, because for the nth time, communism emerges from capitalism. From the negation of capitalism (and really every class society that preceded it), but from capitalism nevertheless.

Also you don't know what a utopia is.

And about the encroaching collapse, having a forest fire every couple of years to "clean the rot" is completely natural. No system survives in perpetuity and we can always improve the system for the next time rather than tear it all down.

The forest fire is a world war every 20-50-100 years more or less, each one worse than the previous one.
We can have these to preserve this world, maybe at the cost of human extinction or, anyway, at least at the cost of a massive regression each time, or we can get rid of the conditions that make them necessary forever.

You said no system survives in perpetuity, that is exactly why this one has no future. You can only fix so much before you have to throw something away, and this thing's rotting at the foundations. Not because it's bad, but because at three centuries old it's ancient, even with all the paint jobs it received (fascism, socialdemocracy and assorted welfare states, neoliberalism, bug-eating civilisation soon, and so on).
What comes after communism, if something will come, God knows, and I don't care anyway.

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

I've always had a laugh at the dissolution of private property. Yeah, good luck convincing a species that's had property rights since the invention of written language "people can just use things and all of ~☆society☆~ owns it" isn't verbal diarrhea

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

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

The horseshoe theory applies to individualism vs collectivism as well.

Individualism, on the surface, is the idea that everyone is an individual with rights, and you respect other peoples' rights because of that.

However, extreme individualism repudiates that. All that matters is number one, and what others?

One of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder is a tendency to treat those around you as an extension of yourself, and becoming angry when they don't act as such.

Treating other people as an extension of yourself...that's actually a pretty collectivist pattern of thought.

It kind of explains why extreme individualists like Stirnerite Egoists reject concepts like property rights, human rights, or morality/ethics in general, dismissing them as mere "spooks" that serve no purpose other than to get in the way of what THEY want.

Marx hated Max Stirner's philosophy and tried (and failed) to debunk it at one point, but it's still interesting that most Stirnerites are some flavor of socialist or primitivist/misanthrope.

 

[Duke Nukem]

The biggest problem with communism is that even if the whole world was communist and the economic theories worked as intended, there will always be some form of inequality out there. Human society is actually dependent on inequality to some degree. After all, how many people are going to study to become engineers or brain surgeons when one's skills are studied for years and you still earn little more than a public school janitor? Another issue issue with communism is a lack of incentives. There's literally no reason to put in overtime or even work at all if you don't have anything you can buy with your money, constant shortages were a thing to begin with.

The irony of the countries that experimented with communism is that the red flag waving countries that survived have switched over to a capitalist/market economy largely and have done better overall, even if China especially is an authoritarian state.

And one of the biggest misconceptions in "the West" is the idea that "freedom" and "making money" are one and the same. This is not necessarily the case, China has a substantial number of billionaires and is possibly even worse than it was before Xi Jinping's ascension.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

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

This is the first I've head of this and I think it's right.

 

[Bonesjones]

Just ask Communists to explain how logistics works to you, it's an unending source of hilarity. They barely even know how history works. They externalize everything because they have no basis of knowledge.

"3d printers will replace industry! Just tell the computer to replicate your tea! Life is just like Star Trek! No, I have no idea that every waking moment of my life involves the efforts of thousands of unseen people to enable its function."

 

[BasedCentrist]

Everyone who advocates marxism is rich faggot who never worked a day in life, just like Marx.

 

[Slimy Time]

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.

Which is why almost every time its put into practice, there always ends up being a group of oligarchs keeping a tight grip on society through the use of secret police and military might that enforce all these communal policies while said group of oligarchs end up no better, most of the times far worse, than the rich dudes that they overthrew.

Just ask Communists to explain how logistics works to you, it's an unending source of hilarity. They barely even know how history works. They externalize everything because they have no basis of knowledge.

"3d printers will replace industry! Just tell the computer to replicate your tea! Life is just like Star Trek! No, I have no idea that every waking moment of my life involves the efforts of thousands of unseen people to enable its function."

The only place to me where a "communal" society might work is some kind of small mud hut village where everyone is grafting doing specific tasks. Bob here does the hunting because he's fit, Sally does the gardening because she's good, Dave cooks because he's capable and we all work together to keep this tiny village/commune working, because if we don't, we are fucked and people starve. Maybe no surprise any serious communist country ends up looking like a 3rd world shit hole with the vast majority staving (while coincidentally, the leaders, who are totally not the same as the rich guys we overthrew, get fat)

Anything larger and logistics throws that shit out the window. Doesn't work, never will.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Marxism is fundamentally based, which is why every succesful country applied some part of it and marx is still one of the most well read authors, especially among smart people (academic students).

 

[AgendaPoster]

I think Marx was onto something.
We could always use some expropriations of rich, faggy shitlibs. It's somewhat of an extraordinary coincidence that basically every rich dude is a liberal, maybe not fully progressive, but still a believer in the shitlib project.
The hard part is, who will get to do this fun task, and where will the resources and money go? That's to be discussed.

 

[Protistology]

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

I literally realized your point in high school. Are you a teenager?

The real problem with Marxism is that it's based off the epistemological assumptions of Sabbatean Kabbalah and thus Gnosticism. Subjectivism or post modernism as it's called today is civilization cancer.

 

[doodoocaca]

Marxism has two big problems:

1) Implementation. This is always violent revolution with reprisal over petty bullshit, stupid politics, unpersoning and history rewriting, and so on. Also killing farmers and having a famine or killing the educated and starving for skilled people and technical knowledge kinda sucks.

2) Stroking off to an ideal with no clear path to it from where we are now leads to #1 as people grasp at it but never get there since we're really just LARPing and saying "oh we'll actually achieve communism in 10 more years" and yet you never do. The USSR managed to build up a good safety net and enrich its people but the lurking dread of being controlled by The Party™ is going to make stability like holding a broomstick upside down in your palm. The moment you go lax on controlling it, it's all going to fall over and it's quickly too late to catch.

If you want to build a safety net in an actual democracy fucking do that, not all this other shit. Creating a dictatorship of the proletariat The Party™ and making people resist your attempts at mind control through violence and propaganda takes away from what good you might accomplish.

 

[Homoturk]

Thinking that the iron law of oligarchy can be sidestepped because "we said so"

 

[not william stenchever]

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

I have a similar belief; that the universe is a thing made by god to create itself. But it sounds like this guy got lost in his own autism.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

The only place to me where a "communal" society might work is some kind of small mud hut village where everyone is grafting doing specific tasks. Bob here does the hunting because he's fit, Sally does the gardening because she's good, Dave cooks because he's capable and we all work together to keep this tiny village/commune working, because if we don't, we are fucked and people starve.

And it still wouldn't be "communist" or "socialist" either because leftists have an irrational hatred for the mere concept of the division of labor.

 

[SwanSwanson]

With the way history has been going it was pretty much inevitable that an overly scientific altruistic ideology would've formed to counter the status quo. Marxism/leftism/whatever has three primary flaws:

Lack of God

God is the foundation of reality. Christianity has always held western civilization together, Marxism rejecting it has lead to so many deep moral failures for it's movement, for example, authoritarianism and mass killings.

Overly Scientific

Praxis(Meaning Practical application) does exist, the worldview is overly scientific and sees people as peices on a chessboard. We already have an idea on how social hierarchy is divided up, Bourgeois, proletariat and other terms are way too reductive as terms.

Focus on idpol and alienation

Another failure. Most people would be on board with this if trannies and hating "whiteness" wasn't the cornerstone of modern Marxism. This flaw is one that doesn't come from theory itself but was likely engineered after the Wallstreet protests.