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

[BiggerChungus]

It was never designed to work. It was solely meant to put corrupt people in nigh-unlimited power at the expense of all others.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

It took two pages for this thread to become an echo chamber, amazing.

 

[doodoocaca]

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.

While I agree to varying degrees with all three points, I want to thank you for bringing up the third, which is blindingly true and explains a lot.

Look up the occurrence of current buzzwords surrounding people of transcendence, the same old race shit, being gay, and whatnot, and see for yourself how there are many, many of these words spiking and staying highly used immediately after OWS. OWS was fucked in a COINTELPRO that derailed from going against the rich by separating everyone in terms of race, sex, troon-factor, insanity, or whatever, in a way that has completely poisoned the well for the foreseeable future. Now, it just keeps the proles fighting each other over who has victim-clout.

It's a textbook example of divide et impera and breathtakingly effective at that. The very protested banks now go rainbow every June (except in the middle east and asia!) and hire a few tokens to do nothing but get chump change.

Marxism being bought and sold by shitlibs is ironic and fucking hilarious, but also sad. Something borne from a desire (if misguided) to make a better world was instead turned into cope and pablum by rich assholes who want to look good and sell "looking good" to lib simps who won't even get crumbs of real wealth or power.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Because I'm a sperg, I gotta dissect this:

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.

Marxists wanted to remove ANYTHING that would get in the way of people's devotion to the communist agenda. Whether that be to the nuclear family, or to their specific country (nationalism, including civic nationalism), or religion.

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.

On the contrary, Marxism is a repudiation of the scientific method. If anything, it's basically a religion with a "sciency" looking label crudely slapped on it. There are many such dogmas that exist in the world today.

If it were truly scientific, it would be falsifiable, but socialists always have retarded excuses for why it didn't work in <insert country here>

On the other hand tho, it could be considered "scientific" in that its adherents insist on performing the same deadly experiment over and over and over again, but that puts it right in "mad scientist" territory. Scientists who are so autistic about their work that they wish to be unfettered by moral, ethical, or even common-sense concerns when undertaking experiments they should know for an absolute fact will end badly.

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.

Identity politics only came about out of frustration at the fact that communist revolutions did not happen organically in rich nations where capitalism was supposedly going to reach critical mass, but backwards shitholes in Asia and East Europe.

No, it did not come from the wallstreet protests, it was present as early as the 60s and 70s, as there were many organizations like the Weather Underground and SDS that held the same political beliefs (including hating "whiteness") as SJWs of the 2010s and 2020s hold.

It's not completely inaccurate to say that Karl Marx would have supported identity politics, he and Engles openly cheered on the US when they seized territory from Mexico, and said that entire races of people would die off in the worldwide communist revolution.

Marxism being bought and sold by shitlibs is ironic and fucking hilarious, but also sad. Something borne from a desire (if misguided) to make a better world was instead turned into cope and pablum by rich assholes who want to look good and sell "looking good" to lib simps who won't even get crumbs of real wealth or power.

The various hierarchies and systems that marxists disparagingly refer to as "capitalism" can not be overthrown permanently, the end result of socialism is always a brand of "capitalism" that is even less free and more oppressive than what they had before. State capitalism, woke capitalism. Anarchists in particular are just useful idiots for authoritarians who want to create power vacuums for them to fill. Whether said scheming authoritarian is communist or corporate is irrelevant.

Even anarcho-communism would end up with some fucked up variant of state capitalism, just where the means of production are controlled by the mob rather than the state.

The Anarcho-Statists of Spain

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

It took two pages for this thread to become an echo chamber, amazing.

Oh no, dislike of a horrible ideology invented by a lazy spoiled trust fund kid and implemented to great effect by murderous madmen across the globe. What an echo chamber.

When Marxism doesn't work in practice, it always retreats from the Bailey back into the Motte: bitching about modern society. Marxist arguments are always founded on bitching about common social disaffection because it's easy to complain about things that nobody likes. It then uses that bitching to propose: but it's only natural that we move from what we have now to an Elven forest world, where a combination of machines and magic bring fresh fruit and board games to our homes every day, where the mythril is unlimited, we play music and dance, and nobody wants to leave the commune village!

It's not where logic takes society. It's a childish fantasy that appeals to daydreaming erudite trust fund kids.

 

[BasedCentrist]

It took two pages for this thread to become an echo chamber, amazing.

Your average commie is a blue-haired faggot that attended college and now thinks he knows everything.
The same college where people believe that gender and race are constructs.
In reality all communist states have failed.
>but that's not real marxist wholesome gommunism!!!!!
Tons of communist "intellectuals" were shilling for Venezuela and went silent when shit hit the fan.
Basically, you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

 

[$80 Nude Haircut]

It took two pages for this thread to become an echo chamber, amazing.

It absolutely is an echo chamber but that's like getting mad because the thread voted not to eat cat shit.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

View attachment 3755895
Your average commie is a blue-haired faggot that attended college and now thinks he knows everything.
The same college where people believe that gender and race are constructs.
In reality all communist states have failed.
>but that's not real marxist wholesome gommunism!!!!!
Tons of communist "intellectuals" were shilling for Venezuela and went silent when shit hit the fan.
Basically, you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

Where I'm from, the average commie is either an actually working class person in some hard labor job, usually a boomer, or a trade student. We had the biggest communist party in Western Europe here in Italy, it accounts for something, we actually have a communist 'political culture' unlike your brain-dead liberal arts blue-haired college students.
It is actual need that has turned people communist here. In the US it's just edge and hatred for one's parents, who are usually the opposite of communists for good or worse.
I'm a commie because my dad is, this is unthinkable to an American.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Where I'm from, the average commie is either an actually working class person in some hard labor job, usually a boomer, or a trade student. We had the biggest communist party in Western Europe here in Italy, it accounts for something, we actually have a communist 'political culture' unlike your brain-dead liberal arts blue-haired college students.
It is actual need that has turned people communist here. In the US it's just edge and hatred for one's parents, who are usually the opposite of communists for good or worse.
I'm a commie because my dad is, this is unthinkable to an American.

That's great, but history shows that it never ends well no matter who carries it out. The fact that the vast majority of communists are rich, privileged hypocrites is just a convenient way for us to make fun of communists.

Especially since both Engles and Marx were incredibly privileged people, the former a business owner, the latter a leach off of his capitalist friend, and neglected his family.

Really, the only thing it proves is that extremist ideologies are attractive to desperate people, which is also true about nazism, islamism, etc. The thing that liberals fail to do is to think critically on WHY said political ideologies are increasingly attractive to such people, and actually address those concerns and issues, rather than sweeping it under the rug and dismissing anyone who brings it up as being evil. I have to admit, it's only recently that the right has been willing to address the negative aspects of capitalism, at least in America.

I don't actually think it's entirely due to greed or lust for power that they don't do this, I genuinely think it's pride, stupidity, and mental laziness more than anything else. It would be in their own self-interest to not earn the hatred of those they perceive to be beneath them, but realizing that would take humility AND a willingness to use whatever braincells they have.

Really, any working-class person wants to better his situation, but to find one who is a bona-fide communist is a rare thing indeed.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

Make up your mind, are all communists desperates or rich?

Also what fucking privilege, Marx lived stateless, without any country's citizenship, constantly in debt and chased by creditors, in a hovel, though in no small part because he was a chronic mismanager of money.
This is how the Prussian police described him and his home.

Marx is of middling height, 34 years old; despite his being in the prime of life, he is already turning grey. He is powerfully built, and his features distinctly remind one of Szemere [the Prime Minister of the short-lived Hungarian revolutionary government in 1848, who was a friend of Marx], but his complexion is darker and his hair and beard are quite black. The latter he does not shave; his large piercing fiery eyes have something demoniacally sinister about them. However, one can tell at the first glance that this is a man of genius and energy.

His intellectual superiority exercises an irresistible force on his surroundings. In his private life he is a highly disorderly, cynical human being and a bad manager. He lives the life of a gypsy, of an intellectual Bohemian, washing, combing, and changing his linen are things he does rarely. He likes to get drunk. He is often idle for days on end, but when he has work to do, he will work day and night with tireless endurance.

For him there is no such thing as a fixed time for sleeping and waking. He will often stay up the whole night and then lie down on the sofa, fully dressed, around midday and then sleep till evening, untroubled by the fact that the whole world comes and goes through his room.

His wife is the sister of the Prussian Minister, von Westphalen, a cultured and pleasant woman who has accustomed herself to this Bohemian existence out of love for her husband and now feels perfectly at home in such misery. She has two girls and one son; all three children are truly handsome and have the intelligent eyes of their father.

As a husband and a father, Marx is the gentlest and mildest of men in spite of his wild and restless character. Marx lives in one of the worst, and therefore one of the cheapest, quarters of London. He occupies two rooms. One of them looks out on the street — that is the salon. The bedroom is at the back.

There is not one clean and solid piece of furniture to be found in the whole apartment: everything is broken, tattered and torn; there is a thick coat of dust everywhere; everywhere, too, the greatest disorder.

In the middle of the salon stands a large old-fashioned table covered with oil cloth. On it lie his manuscripts, books and newspapers, then the children’s toys, his wife’s mending and patching, together with several cups with chipped rims, dirty spoons, knives, forks, lamps, an ink-pot, glasses, dutch clay pipes, tobacco ash — in a word everything is topsy turvy, and all on the same table. A rag-and-bone man would step back ashamed from such a remarkable collection.

When you enter Marx’s room, smoke and tobacco fumes make your eyes water so badly, that you think for a moment that you are groping about in a cave. Gradually your eyes become accustomed to the fog and you can make out a few objects. Everything is dirty and covered with dust. It is positively dangerous to sit down.

One chair has only three legs. On another chair, which happens to be whole, the children are playing at cooking. This one is offered to the visitor but the children’s cooking has not been wiped away: if you sit down, you risk a pair of trousers.

None of this embarrasses Marx or his wife. You are received in the friendliest of fashions; pipes and tobacco and whatever else there might happen to be are offered to you most cordially. Intellectually spirited and agreeable conversation makes amends for the domestic deficiencies, at least in part. One even grows accustomed to the company, and finds this circle interesting, even original. This is the true picture of the family life of the communist chief, Marx.

This is not how privileged people live, what he 'leeched' out of his friend was charity, basically.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

You have to understand the United States and Russia were very different countries. Before communism hit Russia the people were literally in a feudal state under Tsar rule. This was not so in the U.S.

Russia was never the land of opportunity.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

You have to understand the United States and Russia were very different countries. Before communism hit Russia the people were literally in a feudal state under Tsar rule. This was not so in the U.S.

Russia was never the land of opportunity.

Russia wasn't feudal, it was entering capitalism, just not quickly enough.
I really don't understand how any of this "Communists are desperates" or "Russia was a shithole" are supposed to be owns on communists or anything.

People who have something to lose, people who are well, don't have any reason to want a radically different socioeconomic order, if they're doing fine why would they want to change things? I don't expect someone who has a satisfying, six figures-paying job to be a communist, if he were, I'd definitely be at the very least suspicious of him.
But not everyone is doing well, and let's be honest here, for some people to do well, some others have to do worse. It's the people who are not doing well who are attracted to radicalism, and to me it confirms the point, it doesn't deny it.
What's radicalism, anyway?
The cretinous semi-professional anti-communist American who thinks he's going to be a Rockefeller any moment if he 'works hard enough' would be a 'radical' in a proletarian dictatorship for not wanting to live in that state of things, radicalism is relative.

 

[doodoocaca]

So who gets to bring up Lenin's 1921 NEP and NEPmen?

Oh I guess I just did.

 

[Crysocyan]

Where I'm from, the average commie is either an actually working class person in some hard labor job, usually a boomer, or a trade student. We had the biggest communist party in Western Europe here in Italy, it accounts for something, we actually have a communist 'political culture' unlike your brain-dead liberal arts blue-haired college students.
It is actual need that has turned people communist here. In the US it's just edge and hatred for one's parents, who are usually the opposite of communists for good or worse.
I'm a commie because my dad is, this is unthinkable to an American.

Apples do not fall far from trees which generated them. You being Italian; it is unsurprising. Communists have inextricably affixed basic Christian docrine to atheism and homosexualism.

 

[Homophobic white dog]

Apples do not fall far from trees which generated them. You being Italian; it is unsurprising. Communists have inextricably affixed basic Christian docrine to atheism and homosexualism.

What.

 

[soy_king]

@Tard Whisperer Again, that prediction is based on the dialectic of historical materialism and is essential to their fundamental theory of historical progression. Setting aside the fact that they're fundamentally wrong about primitive societies in that those societies maintain strict hierarchical structures, if your predictions of who will actually stage the communist revolutions is wrong because you're basing it on a faulty view of your main theory, your ideology/dogma is therefore fundamentally flawed.

 

[Meriasek]

A fundamental flaw is that the whole "productivity will be so high we'll barely need to work" thing is a very naive view. While some labor will be easily replaced by automation, some you simply can't replace like that, and productivity can't really be increased infinitely there, either. And then you have a class of engineers and scientists who will have to work full time to keep everything running, while everyone else gets all the free time in the world? Right, but of course there's also no money or too much wealth allowed, so all those engineers and scientists have to do it like Internet jannies and do it basically for free?
Dunno, I have a suspicion that this won't work out. Marx thought the steam engine was enough to usher the work-free paradise, and it didn't work out. Now people claim AI and robots are gonna make their workshy lifestyle possible, but it won't.

 

[jorgoth]

I think the real "failure" of Marxism is that it's designed to fail.

Let me explain.

The general outline of Marxism, as I understand it is

1. Capitalism
2. Centralized socialist economy
3. Hippie bullshit communist utopia

So we all know about the USSR, the Berlin Wall, the KGB, the Stasi, and the mega-military-superstate they built and maintained. In that context, you might wonder, how might a USSR-style super-state actually fucking LEAD to a hippie bullshit communist utopia? And the obvious answer is, (so obvious that (((intellectuals))) never consider it) it doesn't. It was never meant to. The dictatorship of the bureaucracy and professional revolutionary caste was always the real goal.