Prove me wrong.
>Predicted the rise of automation and the necessary deprivation of the people's labour
>Predicted creation of false desires in marketing
>Predicted periodical recessions
>Predicted that people would become increasingly shallow, adopting values only put into their minds by the ones holding Capital
Other urls found in this thread:
>didn't predict
>century of jewish domination
>ecological disaster
He didn't predict my birth either but that doesn't make him wrong on the points I've laid out.
my only beef with marx is that he is purest rabbi bloodline kike and I don't trust him. Otherwise influental guy.
Didn't he base his labor value, and other economic theories on, 'wealth of nations'
Which most communist say is a wrong?
I'll just assume you were right but, even if you are, none of that originated with Marx. You'd know that if you weren't a faggot though.
No, most commies hold that WoN was actually a left-leaning work and view it as a precursor to Marx. Though the LTV is viewed as Marxist it's really rooted in the classical economist's works.
Theres no ecological disaster you retard
>placing one hand in his jacket for his self-portrait
Hes a fucking Mason you tool. You really think he gives a fuck about your best interests? Communism is in full control of the elites, and it is and never will be nothing more than a tool of them to achieve a means to an end. The end being the complete dismantling of a certain government and culture so that they can rebuild the state in whichever way they want. Thats it. Once achieved, the Communist peasents that brought about their revolution will be killed off and purged. Thats why "true Communism" never has been and never will be tried- it was never meant to be.
That has nothing to do with what OP said,you sound mentally ill
now that you told me I am retarded, I realized it's all fake.
Could you explain Marx's labor value? I understand there is a difference between natural value vs labor value. But I'm still slightly confused.
Ok, now give proof of LVT.
Yes he did base it off of that. He viewed hos work capital as a continuation of Smith's work in a way, but mainly to prove the internal contradictions in the work that are overlooked (automation is an interesting one). Marx was more of an accelerationist during his time. He supported free trade in many nation's because he viewed capitalism as a necessary precursor to Communism. He also thought the only meaningful Communist revolution could occur in Europe (a bunch of failed ones did occur after WW1) because they were the most advance. He was of the illusion that some nation magically goes from rural to communist. This is what the ussr attempted to do and this is why it resulted in a ruthless form of capitalism. Any chance of a real communist revolution died after the failed revolutions in Europe after WW1. All other "Communist" revolution were essentially Nationalistic revolutions in underdeveloped countries. However, modern day "communist" refuse to accept this and try to convince themselves these state capitalist nations are the worker's paradise all the propaganda says they are. It's these same people who talk about Smith being dumb and "Socialism is a transition phase". They didn't read Marx, they just read the propaganda that the "Communist" nations put out.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
>>Predicted the rise of automation
Gonna need a citation on that one, chief.
>>Predicted periodical recessions
>look out a window
>wow guys he was a genius for looking out of a window
>>Predicted creation of false desires in marketing
No such thing as a false desire in marketing. If a company can manufacture a consumerbase, it makes them smart. I would still kill them all though.
>>Predicted that people would become increasingly shallow, adopting values only put into their minds by the ones holding Capital
But they were that way under the Soviet Union, so that's more to do with psychology and the argument over materialism vs spiritualism has been going on since the Greek Classical age.
Here's some things he didn't predict
>most people in normal environments care more about family, friends and nation than arbitrary control of factories
>the greatest enemy of the Communists in the 20th century was Working-class Nationalists, not the bourgeoisie.
>the leaders of all the major communist movements were all from Middle-class families
And the most important:
>PEOPLE DON'T ORGANICALLY DEVELOP "CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS", since class is an artificial tribal designation, where nation is not.
Marx was just a freemason chaosmonger. You can trust that such person will only utter lies and poison.
He predicted what his fellow chosenites will do in the future
>Communist
>calling others mentally
It is related to the OP, because Marxism is a pipe dream that will never be put in place because it was never meant to be. No matter how much you agree with it.
Marx' idea was that the only thing that could define the value of a commodity was the amount of "abstract" labor put into it. Abstract because you strip away all physical constraints on the labor force, eg. sewing, and turn it into some kind of esoteric absolute value unit.
I can't, the LTV is retarded to anyone with more than a single braincell
First, historical materialism is bullshit eurocentric pseduo-history.
Second, his analysis of the capitalist economy and its trajectory did not square with the Second Industrial Revolution. It went completely out the window with WW1, the creation of monopolies and the rise of state capitalism and social democracy. Pretty much ALL Neo-Marxist "thinkers" do is try and fit a round Marxist peg into a 20th century hole, and exactly NONE of them have convincingly succeeded.
Remember: If you find any similarity between Marx's "predictions" and what you see in current reality, that similarity is pure coincidence. Marx implied that the transition into Socialism will occur soon, i.e. in his lifetime or soon afterwards. That did not happen. The state stepped in to stop the collapse of the rate of profit and the "historical forces" that should have pushed the world into a new mode of production dissipated as the proletariat as a coherent social class slowly disappeared.
Be a leftie tard if you must, but stop clinging to Marx. He is obscuring your vision, not enlightening it.
Marx was a spook
>>Predicted the rise of automation and the necessary deprivation of the people's labour
Oy vey, I can’t leech off of the goyim’s Life Force™ if machines are doing everything for them!
Quickly, shut it down!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
He predicted communism would start your rich industrial countries and move to the poor countries, but it just happened in the poor countries and made us even worse in the long run.
Communism hasn't been tried
>>Predicted the rise of automation
Damn that must have been difficult
So he believed that people with something to lose are more prone to violent revolutions than people with nothing to lose?
Truly a genius, what a privileged mind.
he didn't predict any of those things. Other writers wrote about them sometimes 2k years before him.
Romans and other ancient civilisations had whole set of laws just to counter the false entice of consumerism.
Ah and as far as The People goes in his times, there were no more and no less shallow then they are now.
During his time the proletariat in the richest and most industrial countries had nothing to lose. Despite being in supposedly wealthy countries, their standards of living were objectively worse than those of rural peasant in supposedly "poor countries".
During the very late 19th century this trend begun to reverse and with by the 1920's this definitely was no true anymore. The proletariat definitely DID have things to lose by then.
We still live with the consequence of that transformation. Under late capitalism pretty much everyone in western societies is a petit bourgeois.
yeah right? 40 years before him being born the UK goverments cracks down on ludites that were destroying factory machines. Am sure no one ever wrote a thing about that. :D
how would you explain what was going on in Russia in the early XX century then. communists waged a 4 years guerilla war against Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Fins etc from all classes, including workers. And they started doing it not in the poorer imperial parts of the Russian empire or Syberia, no they started in Polish part of the empire, that was richer, had more factories and there for workers etc.
in his times automation was already a thing you moron
Also, late in his life Marx (i.e. the version of Marx most people are familiar with) did not believe "the revolution" had to be violent.
>Technology is gonna get better and do more stuff
>People are going to buy things they don't strictly need
>The economy is going to change in response to its enviroment
>People follow trends set by influencial people
WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED?
I don't know shit about the Russian Civil War but even the "most advanced" part of the Russian Empire were far behind places like Germany or England
Go ahead smart guy. Make an equivalent analysis for current society.
In fact what communists did in places like Warsaw or Lodz or Kielce, led to those places getting poor, because factories went bankrupt between 1905-7, and a lot of the production was moved to other parts of Russia. Only thing communists did achive is to litteraly kill christian democrats among workers and make the life worse for everyone else. Including workers.
He didn't predict recessions you stupid faggot. They're a typical part of the business cycle. Stop trying to justify a shitty and flawed philosophy
>Make an equivalent analysis for current society.
it will be one hundred ten, then never again
Am talking before the civil war. The first revolution that started 1905.
And yes the advance parts, like Poland were far behind... durning the civil war. Because A the front moved through that area 3 times, B whole branches of industry were wrecked by non stop strikes that started in 1905 and lasted more or less till 1909.
yeah this is a really irritating bullshit on see among both right futurists and left futurists
Everyone keep talking about about "TEH ROBOTS ARE COMING TO TAKE EUR JERBS" but when you look at the data capital/labor ratios have actually been stagnant since the 2008 crash.
On an even broader look, the global capital/labor ratio in manufacturing has been REVERSING for a couple of decades now. The robots aren't coming for your job - your job will be outsourced to whichever country has the most exploitative labor standards.
>invented capitalism (which has never been tried)
>Jobs are gonna change as technology is adopted by industries
>People will spend money on entertainment and novelties
>The value of currencies will fluctuate
>A person's decision-making will be influenced by the choice made by his peers
By commie standards I'm now a modern nostrodamus.
But the thing is nothing Marx wrote wasn't new.
All the 4 things mentioned by the other user that marx "discovered" you can find through out the history, among different writers of different civilisations.
fuck there are texts from 1k BC from Chinesse Wei writers that claim that a animal driven water mill is going to be the bane of sociaty, because people will have too much free time, and when people have free time they do dumb shit.
Stuff like anti machine sentiments were a thing in UK before Marx was born. Sociaty curbing the consumerism among people, with laws, you can find in ancient greece or rome, where they passed laws on what stuff you could wear, and how much stuff of certain things you could own, or if you could own them at all.
My point is that Marx was unique in that he was the first to really aggregate everything into one comprehensive theory/framework/narrative. He basically invented sociology.
>believed people were equal
>was totally BTFO by reality
Marx did no believe people were equal.
That was already all happening retard.
>Marx was the first person to study society
Holy fuck, you tankies get more pathetic every day.
kek
I'm not even a Marxist you presumptuous cunt
Yes he did. He believed that we wouldn't need rights once we achieved a natural state of equality. He believed that all of this talk of rights and whatnot was a consequence of Capitalism, not nature. He was totally wrong.
>state capitalist
An oxymoron which cannot exist. You cannot have capitalism without the existence of the possibility of complete private property. If the state owns/controls the vast majority of the means of production or all capital itself (with maybe a few exceptions) it cannot possibly be capitalism.
The closest thing I can imagine is Germany's social-economic system which heavily regulates and taxes the market under the pretense of welfare. No one could claim the Soviet Union or Maoist China to be anywhere near these major examples of "state-capitalism"
That depends on countries. What happens now is that workers, be it high grade specialists or menial workers are just getting drained from poorer countries to richer ones. So UK may keep a steady number of their anesthesiologist staff, but it is because countries like Czech or Poland are losing all the new MDs of theirs. To make matters worse, school in those countries are "free", so practicaly the polish or czech tax payer is paying for UK to have more doctors, and him having fewer.
And it is true for anyone starting with programers, doctors etc and ending with people working and meat processing factories.
He was right about some things, sure. Doesn't mean he was right about everything
Hey, if the clown shoe fits...
To add to that, Marx explicitly mocked the "utopian socialists" (usually French) that came before him for this childish view of "equality".
>He basically invented sociology.
the wut, that is a thing claimed only by supporters of marx. Every one knows that Comte and Durkheim, or even Webber added more to the sociology method the Marx. I mean what did he give sociology? dialectic and the fact that every sociology professor tries to invent his own language just to get grants and have stuff named after him?
Dude couldn't do a quality anayslis, and his ability to work on raw stastical data was lower then a grad students. I mean Marx claimed that the situation of workers in UK gets steadily worse, when it was not the case. Now if he claimed that knowing his math was wrong or not is a thing we will never know. But he was wrong on that.
predicted vs produced? Study Fatima faggot
At the same time claiming that the revolution is going to 100% happen in UK.
That's exactly what I just said - he thought agitations for equality as it is understood politically and economically were the throes of capitalism and that a natural equality would emerge in a classless society where all had an equal share in the ownership of production. In other words, his still had an ultimate concept of equality which is not reflected in reality.
you did not watch the video, did you?
>Yes he did.
Nigger, google before you post.
Critique of Gotha Programme is where he criticized (Jewish Nigger) Lassale's approach assuming people would be equal.
>The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
Yes, and it says exactly what I said. He called for the elimination of class distinctions - which is an egalitarian ideal whether he calls it one or not owing to the fact that class distinctions are a manifestation of natural inequality. Genetically high IQ people earn more and accomplish more than average retards. "Proletarian" is written in the DNA.
"Proletarian" and "Bourgeois" aren't just bywords for "poor" and "rich", retard. It's specific words relating to a person's relationship to the means of production: Proles work for wages, capitalists earn from their investments.
Fucking CEOs can be considered proletarians by some definitions.
>class distinctions are a manifestation of natural inequality.
Class distinctions of Capitalism are 300 years old. Natural inequality is not Capitalist inequality, and would be the Neolithic tribal hierarchy. Thus, destroying the Capitalist hierarchy is the way to restore natural social environment for humanity.
They're proxies for poor and rich and proxies for IQ - as has been demonstrated already at length elsewhere. You can create false distinctions all you want, but in the end they are manifestations of genetics.
There's nothing synthetic about forming hierarchies - that happens naturally and not just in humans.
>Genetically high IQ people earn more and accomplish more than average retards
Well, except that there are tremendous barriers and obstacles for talent in the gutter in Capitalism, and, vice versa.
That's just naive.
All I hear is "Blah Blah Blah, Gibs me money." "Blah Blah Blah"
There is nothing "synthetic" in anything, because humans are natural species.
However, humans did not evolve for technological environment, and there is a fundamental contradiction between the Capitalist environment and the Human nature, that drives society as a whole insane, to an inevitable crisis, and sometimes total collapse.
>russki
>pro-communist
Checks out. Why don't you starve out if you don't like capitalism so much ivanski?
Yes, and the fact that some can't overcome those obstacles whereas others can is just another manifestation of the natural inequality of man. People have to be tested for competency by some synthetic means because the alternative is letting a 60 IQ dirt farmer do brain surgery on real patients. Those barriers belong there; only a retarded Marxist would tear down Chesterton's fence because he is too ignorant to conceive of why it was placed there in the first place.
>Checks out.
Implying
Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself part of the high-IQ elite or the low-IQ underclass?
The people who are being "driven insane" would have died in a natural environment. It is only because we have eliminated natural eugenic effects owing to our overproduction that we now have to deal with an array of nutcases who live parasitically - the very kind of people the Marxists seek to reward.
So, by your very own logic, it is entirely irrelevant what kind of system it is, because talented people will overcome "eventually", no matter if it's capitalism, communism, or slave driving Empire.
> It is only because we have eliminated natural eugenic effects
Hm, so, than you aren't pro-Capitalist, but rather pro-Slavery I guess.
He is a kike.
I consider myself high IQ but not elite because I don't serve mammon and my interest in money is not unlimited. There is no Thing yet produced that I want so much I would put all of my effort towards obtaining it. To be honest, I think I would prefer to live a spartan life.
Yes, we are all slaves to our environment, but we only compound that by tying our fates together; that is to say, by chaining each of us one man to another and throwing us in the ocean where more than half of us cannot swim.
Didn't Marx also predict that any attempt at communism would fail, if it was build around one strong leader?
>I consider myself high IQ
funny how that always works
Sure, I imagine there are people who could survive a communist system as well - but they tend to be the same people who do well in a capitalist system. Hierarchy always reforms. In some sense it might be positive to switch to communism for a while just to kill off the dead weight.
>The people who are being "driven insane" would have died in a natural environment
It's not about "some" people, dumbass. The whole society is going to collapse, and everybody will be in pain and peril.
Let me put it this way: I am high IQ - but you phrased it as "consider" so I used the terminology you supplied. It's not a matter of my own personal consideration, though. I have been tested, I received scholarship offers for elite universities when I was not even a teenager. My parents did not tell me what my IQ was until much later because they knew it would make my siblings jealous.
>Sure, I imagine there are people who could survive a communist system as well - but they tend to be the same people who do well in a capitalist system.
While this is not quite true (that the path to success is same in communist and capitalist systems), your entire point is invalidated by this statement, is it not?
>Hierarchy always reforms.
Except, the new hierarchy is entirely different than the old one.
The results are the same because we adopted the welfare state as some kind of response to communism; so the differences aren't as stark as had we simply not participated in that game and let the losers die off - because we cannot help ourselves we instead redistribute our wealth voluntarily and to the extent that subhumans are on the verge of overwhelming the entire planet and killing the host.
right about some stuff yeah
well what did u expect him to say
"No I consider myself a retard because you're asking me a question where you've asked me to answer with one of two answer you provided."
Lmaaaao
Holy shit the 13 year old delusion of grandeur is out now.
Jealousy, anti-intellectualism is thy name.
oh sure, I'd love to join antifa :)