Why are there so many retards who still follow the ideas of this man even though he was wrong about nearly everything?

throughout history the "natural order of things" has changed many times throughout history. the current natural order of things is capitalism, it used to be slavery, feudalism, etc. the only way anything ever changes is if people like Marx agitate against it

the idea of any objective "natural order of things" is complete bullshit

You're a dumb fuck, you're replying to a Greek and projecting American buzzwords onto him in a desperate attempt to prove yourself intellectually superior and expose hypocrisy that doesn't exist. I'm a worker myself and understand what's good for myself without a fat hymie telling me what to think, how about that simple fact you schmuck.

>what was he wrong about exactly
The main thing about his theory of Class Revolution relied on the idea that shit would only get worse for the working class.
While this may have seemed to be the case in the mid 19th century, progressive movements in the West greatly improved the working conditions and living conditions of the working class.
By the end of the 20th century, in the West, even among the bottom 5% of society, the working class had refrigeration, affordable food, and housing.

Marx was wrong, but he would have been right if his assumptions about Capitalism as a political system were true, namely that Capitalism led to monopolies which would oppress the working class. Of course monopolies are completely anti-capitalistic as it is anti-free market and competition.

what the fuck are you talking about

>niggerlonia
Checks out

>british
>white

Attached: max2.gif (490x490, 484K)

marxism is very appealing to the below-average IQ youngster, since it absolves them of responsibility for his/her own mediocrity.

Attached: didntwork.jpg (500x746, 89K)

>The main thing about his theory of Class Revolution relied on the idea that shit would only get worse for the working class.

Where exactly does he claim that?

> By the end of the 20th century, in the West, even among the bottom 5% of society, the working class had refrigeration, affordable food, and housing.

The reason why the top 10% of the world's population (core capitalist counties) are able to provide these things to its working class is because its sustained by exploiting the rest of 90% of world's population which don't have refrigerators, affordable food, or housing.

Actually, today, in the West, fewer and fewer people have these things and people's lifestyles sustained by debt.

Quick. List 5 main ideas of Marxism.

and how can i possibly believe that you understand what's good for yourself if you don't understand that my using an American buzzword doesn't mean i'm an American

>The main thing about his theory of Class Revolution relied on the idea that shit would only get worse for the working class.

The shit IS getting worse for the working class. How many people today are able to afford housing? healthcare? education? kids? have stable jobs? compared to, let's say, the 40s-70s?

The working people in most of the world are getting poorer and poorer (80% of the world lives in poverty). The reason why there was a relative boom in the west in the 40s-70s because of the ideological and economic competition from the USSR (eastern block).

capitalism does lead to monopolies, that's why in the early 20th century the government had to step in to break up monopolies like Standard Oil. and the present day economy has no shortage of monopolists who've had no serious competition for decades (e.g. Google, Amazon)

because the US and Co. were compelled to provide to its people what the people in the USSR had.

Leaf in this thread is retarded and probably 14

Please ignore

It’s getting worse for the working class because we’re drifting towards marxism

1. gib, as in give (take)
2. me, as in selfish
3. free, as in someone else pays
4. shit, as in shit products
5. nigga, as in low IQ

>Of course monopolies are completely anti-capitalistic as it is anti-free market and competition.

Monopolies are a natural part of capitalism because every capitalist (owner) always tries to capture as much market share (by undercutting competition for example) as possible because that's how you maximize profits (the goal of every capitalist).

"Free market" is a meaningless word because everyone defines it differently, and "free market" =/= capitalism. Capitalism is a system of ownership, not trade.

It was always a coverup to distract people from anarchists, distributists, "anti-semites"...

hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/the-soros-psyop-against-the-real-left/

Nice meme.

Very typical below-average IQ youngster's response.

all the progressive changes you mentioned were enacted because labor unions pressured the government to enact them. labor unions were heavily influenced by marxist ideas, many of them were literally led by marxists

thanks for letting us know in advance

Its because of free trade, immigration and the us dollar getting off the gold standard you idiot. its like youve never met an older slav, the ussr was hellish. I know a woman who had a root canal with no pain killer. The blyat medical bureacrat decided it wasnt necessary to give them to dentists. My polish teacher in highschool said he was amazed that everyone had cars and telephones. The soviet union was at least 20 years behind the west technologically at the most. The last commie holdouts are still living in an impoverished 1960s hell.

Labor unions were a response to appalling working conditions in the new industrial age.

Great marketing. Cool graphic design, songs, celebrity endorsements, edgy enough for the teen and young adult market without being so counterculture that they get persecuted by the state and society.

As a former 'commie' turned white-nationalist you'll have to forgive if a misuse a few times, it's been a while since I've read Marxist theory.

1) Alienation - highly specialized factory work divorces people from the sensation of producing value. (You make only part of something to satiate consumerism rather than make a whole something truly tangible)

2) Historical/Material Dialectics - Propose a thesis, which has an antithesis. The conflict of the two ideas produces an 'intermediate' synthesis. The Synthesis becomes a new thesis with a new antithesis. If Feudalism is a thesis, Communism is it's antithesis then Capitalism is a synthesis.

3) Class Conflict - Historically and contemporarily class distinctions have occurred, there is an 'Ownership Class' and a 'Producer Class'. The 'Ownership Class' controls the surplus value of the 'Producer Class'. The 'Ownership Class' typically does this by having control of the means by which the 'Producer Class' produces things. 'The Means of Production'.

4) Labour Theory of Value - The value of a good is determined by the work put into it's production. Marx argues that workers aren't given compensation equal to this value because the surplus value they produce is taken as profit for the Capitalist.

5) A Communist Society - Marx argued that after the Working Class seized the means of production there would be a transitional government known as the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' (we would call it Socialism or State Capitalism) in which the Working Class, acting as a class, would use their combined capital and surplus value to produce a society where class distinctions would cease as there would be no need for them as the means of production would produce enough capital to sustain society on their own or through the voluntary input of those seeking joy through work. The 'State' would wither away as it's purpose (in Marxist theory) was to uphold the conditions for the extraction of surplus value.

yes, appalling working conditions that no basically no one described and gave appropriate context to better than Marx

Everything was made in america back then and we still had them
Hitler was also a progressive(not in the modern perverted sense) and wanted better lives for his people. His way of doing things is better than both capitalism and communism which is why they both teamed up to destroy it.

To an extent Karl Marx was pro-imperialism as he believed that extending Capitalism through Western expansion would uplift people from slave societies and Feudalism. Making the world as a whole, closer to being Communist.

Karl Marx was very atheistic and anti-semetic despite his Jewish heritage. He saw many Jews as being oppressive members of the bourgeoisie.

Hitler started the war mate. the USSR and allies fought back because they didn't want to be taken over. no one gave a shit about Hitler's "way of doing things" in his own country

compare that with the Soviet Union, which was literally invaded by every major Western power after WWI in an effort to depose the Bolsheviks and their "way of doing things"

>the idea of any objective "natural order of things" is complete bullshit

What an astoniishingly arrogant assertion. Truly worthy of a transgender worshipping feminist leftist cunt.

t.kike

fine. the idea of any objective natural order of things in the context of how society should be organized, is bullshit

and don't worry Hans i assure you i don't worship transgenders, or anything actually

aww, run out of stupid ass talking points have you?

>Natural Order of society

What are your thoughts on genetic determinism?

can't say i have many thoughts on it at all mate, though i'm sure as a white nationalist you have completely reasonable and not at all ideologically motivated thoughts on the subject. enlighten me, please

It's a critique, not an instruction manual you kraut fag

A lot of words to say you're a retard.

White nationalism is literally babbies first collectivist theory. You'll grow out of it.

Cringe.

>Can't say I have many thoughts

To be honest, the idea of a Communist Society is still appealing to me. I just don't see how the state would wither away.

Hierarchy, whether political, social or even sexual (especially in communal societies) has existed in all human societies. Civilisations are extensions of nations, nations are extended tribes and tribes are extended families.

Within families there is hierarchy between father and son. Within tribes, you have youths and elders. In nations you much the same with masters and apprentices.

To me, the natural order of things is hierarchy. The question isn't about whether or there is a natural order, it's about how we should react to and impose the natural order of hierarchy for the benefit of all parties.

Because humans are pathetic, self absorbed, nihilistic losers on the whole,
Who can never bring themselves to admit they ARE NOT above nature.
They invent Gods like equality, or religion, or "goodness" to give transcendent meaning to their already inherently meaningful lives.
We are not Equal.
We are not Special.
And are lives have purpose through function regardless of if our emotionally feminine minds accept it or not.

Attached: Nietzsche.jpg (800x1202, 177K)

I agree, Communism is retarded, but Marx himself was very insightful.
Possibly. I don't think I would of ever become one if some non-white opportunists and their self-hating white lackeys constantly cried for my dispossession and disenfranchisement on the basis of my heritage whilst living in nations built by my kinsmen.

>What was he wrong about exactly?
The Idea that labor creates value comes to mind.
It doesnt.
Demand does.
The fundimental misunderstanding of this I suspect is why so many communist nations have had such issues with mismangement or resources over their attempts.

user, people don't read. They never have and they never will.

Attached: 1563544149988.jpg (660x574, 31K)

>Why do you believe this isn't the case?
Because economic classes are a product of capitalism.
The chief pervasive struggle throughout the whole of history has been between the genes of divergent organisms competing for resources.
Ergo why National Socialism is the only sound ideology in the face of the nature of life discovered through Darwinism.

Attached: adolfhitlerwithraven.jpg (494x350, 20K)

>The autistic ramblings of a mentally retarded hobo has caused more death and suffering to the human race than anything else in history
How the fuck.

>fine. the idea of any objective natural order of things in the context of how society should be organized, is bullshit

So parents shouldn't rule over children? Heterosexualiuty isn't the natural order of things? Males shouldn't rule society? Apparently noone told the communist countries, because males rule them all.

Not everything can be described as a "natural order". Is feudalism the natural order?

>He lived like a bourgeois
Absolutely not, but yeah his ideas were a cancer despite being good in intent

the idea that a ruling economic elite can be trusted to impose the natural order of hierarchy for the benefit of all parties rather than just themselves is a billion times more far fetched than any kind of socialist project

so you became a white nationalist because a tiny minority of people said some mean things about whites? that doesn't at all strike you as immature and childish?

This is factual. The idea that capitalism works because people are naturally selfish is ridiculous. It fails for that very reason.

Capitalism is a direct extension of the jungle, survival of the fittest, which is why it works the best. There is no better system if you are trying to reflect darwinism.

>economic classes are a product of capitalism
fuckin LOL. is that why the economic classes of slaveowners and slaves existed in slaveholding societies?

nazis say the darndest things

Lol some whiny fags said they'd kill all white people so I became a white nationalist to be contrarian. This is autism.

Why would you want to reflect darwinism?

Arguably, Feudalism is the natural order in a society of Feudal economic development within the geographic confines of Europe. European Feudalism is somewhat like Indian caste system and Roman Republicanism and Manorialism. There was a constant chain of senior and junior partners.

Feudalism was based on Germanic master and apprentice relationships between warlords and their warriors but extended from the governing of a war-band into the governing of the remnants of Roman Manorialism.

Young men without resources (warriors) would seek the guidance of an older man with resources (warlord), which is akin to a father-son relationship in a way.

Feudalism is the realization of human nature in a Romano-Germanic European environment.

OK.

Communism is a direct translation of Darwinism into a society, so there can be one. In pure Darwinism there cannot be a society.

They way muttland interprets capitalism is the same. I won't be part of either.

> There is no better system if you are trying to reflect darwinism.
Ehhhh
not really
Since Darwinism is based on survival of not just the strongest individuals but the strongest groups as well.
Under the state of nature, if some fat fuck has accumulated alot of resources through capitalism, he only has rights to it so long as no other stronger and younger individual or group and kill him and take his shit.
This doesnt mean that humans always did this under the state of nature.
But it is, was, and really always will be still on the table from an evoluiontary point of view.
This again further explains why multi ethnic states are complete horse shit.
Since it forces people who would naturally be inconflict to allow the resources of the land they conqured to be used by other peoples.
Equality isnt important, and its fine to trim the degenerate and inferior off your race as well, but humans evovled largely upon competing tribes.
Not merely competing individuals.
We know this by the existence of divisable races today.
>is that why the economic classes of slaveowners and slaves existed in slaveholding societies?
Well it really depends on how you define capitalism isnt it?
Marx catagorized it under industrial capitalism.
But i think a much more accurate time to define the begining of the system would be with the invention of standardized currency.
"Capital" if you will.
Putting the birth of capitalism around the time of the first human city states closely following. the agricultural revolution.

It's more to do with me being against actions that are against my interests such as mass immigration which leads to wage stagnation, an increase in crime and an over burdened welfare state.

>Not to mention, his main focus was on labor even though he never worked a day in his life.
Must have sold a shit tonne of books though.

Attached: 1513165891142.jpg (460x460, 41K)

Where's your utopia?

Hierarchy isn't benevolent, it's inescapable. Might as well try and make it good.

The problem with Marx and socislism is that it's ahead of its time. Communism will only ever work properly when automation technology reaches a point that the need for human labor to produce goods (especially essential goods) becomes so small as to be insignificant. Basically once we have robots doing most of the shit for us and everything becomes super efficient and we reach a state of post-scarcity, then communism is the next logical step. As has been shown any attempt before then will end in failure.

Mass immigration to the US is such an overblown topic I'm almost embarrassed that you fell for it.

Then show your flag you pathetic sorry-ass subhuman. Stop projecting your bullshit onto me and actually provide a valid point. There is nothing to argue against because you provide no argument, fuck off.

>his ideas were a cancer despite being good in intent.
He was right about what's wrong, but wrong about what's right.

This is my view. I am an evolutionary socialist. Eventually we will all be in a socialist state once technology becomes advanced enough. However, we should do all we can now to make this evolution as smooth as possible so that society doesn't collapse before then.

Violent revolution is too jarring in most cases. Instead we need to set ourselves up properly and should push the envelope as much as possible.

And we should drop all the fag and tranny bullshit as well. Fuck that. Socialism is primarily economic in nature. Fucking libs ruin everything.

I'm not American. And even then America has such a great deal of immigration that the Anglo-America or 'white' core that established the nation are going to be a ethnic minority in their own nation by 2050.

It's also a very critical issue because the majority of both legal and illegal immigrants in the US are on some form of government assistance and are a net finical burden on the US taxpayer.

>there would be a transitional government known as the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'
Which didn't happen. Instead it created an aristocratic class itself of bureaucrats.

>Feudalism is a thesis, Communism is it's antithesis
> The 'State' would wither away as it's purpose (in Marxist theory) was to uphold the conditions for the extraction of surplus value.
This is a lie. Communism became a form of feudalism naturally by the necessity to maintain a state for national defence purposes externally and internally - ie protection from the US and the maintenance of a society where weapons were removed from people to prevent each other using them to gain some power or authority over each other.

Essentially, communism mutated into the very thing it wanted to eliminate by consequence of the evolution of the memetic system.

Attached: 1545959407092.jpg (679x506, 204K)

Because it is like opium to the intelligentsia. An obscure social, economic and cultural program only they can properly understand and be trusted to implement. That promises to them and others the possibility of reworking man through economic theory to a kind of secularized, materialistic millennium where all ills are solved by more votes and more goods. One that is always one skilled redistribution or technological change away.

i gave you an argument, and you responded by accusing me of being an American and asserting without evidence that you know what's best for yourself

also hilarious that you're a Greek speaking English to me, but can't fathom the idea that a non-American would know an American term

even funnier than the nazi above who thinks that economic classes didn't exist before capitalism

Then we should make sure there's a strong culture already in place for them to uphold. They should be nativized, extensively. This shit is inevitable, dude. Don't lose sleep over it.

It's only overblown to you since your country elected a faggot that rolls out the red carpet for these savage shitskins and you people can't get enough of them. Holy fuck I can't stand you leafs, this site has made he hate Canadians so fucking much and made me realize you people are almost as worse as kikes.

Read some of my other comments. I'm a white-nationalist that used to be a commie. I was just listing off the things that originally drew me to the ideology.

Sounds like a personal problem, faggot. Trudeau is a retarded lib. But there is no immigration problem.

It could be argued that because we are competitive creatures at our core, there is no escaping it, so no matter which system you implement, the competitive tendencies of the jungle are likely to manifest. Capitalism simply continues to grant the most freedoms and least amount of conflicts, as it embraces nature.

For example, introduce a equal communist society. Despite everything being totally equal, class distinctions would grow, conflicts would develop. This is because at our core, we are not creatures which as equal, nor do we look at each other as equal. The whole system is ultimately doomed to fail because our nature has us pushing toward a capitalistic society.

Alternatively, you have authoritarian societies. These are destined to face revolution at every turn, as when you lock a man into a certain class, with no nonviolent way to compete or climb, the conflict between groups inevitably will become violent.

Capitalism is the path of least resistance. For any other system to be efficient in the long term, you would need a people which is able to rise above their animalistic tendencies. This obviously involves a great amount of self discipline and moral character, making it very hard for a society to be based on such a concept in its entirety. I like to call that sort of society heaven.

No, White Americans are being called racist for not wanting to speak Spanish in an English speaking country.

The sad truth is that America is going to become a second Brazil with the massive and raising amount of ethnic tension and the obscene cost of maintaining a 50% Latino population in a country where the average Latino is a net financial burden.

There will be entitlement, resentment and violence. White flight is very real in the States. And white Americans produce a disproportionately large amount of the American government's tax income. What happens when they leave the county in mass because it no longer resembles the place they called home?

>might as well try to make it good
and who the fuck is going to try to make it good for everyone? the people at the top of the hierarchy? i.e. the only people with the power to change anything, and who also have a vested interest in things remaining the way they are?

your assumption that economic class hierarchies are functionally equivalent to family/tribe hierarchies is fucking asinine

Capitalism rewards selfishness. This is not sustainable.

I am calling for a long Keynesian transition period to ween the masses off capitlalist anarchy and onto civilized society. A society that categorically punishes selfishness (wealth hoarding) is inevitable. I am not calling for the elimination of class, I am calling for the narrowing of class.

I know.

Retarded libs are saying that, not socialists. There should be more stamping out of immigrant culture, not fewer immigrants. I don't give a shit if the country is 95 percent brown as long as they think the same. Whites are disappearing, get over it. It's time for some new plans that involve heavy education programs. Capitalism will never achieve this. It is content with keeping the brownies as isolated and slum like as possible; they're cheaper if they don't think like real Americans.

Selfishness is sustainable. The large majority of people are selfish, doing everything for their personal gain. Most individuals wouldn't lift a finger were it not for their selfish interests. Selfishness makes the world go round.

You could attempt to narrow classes as much as you want, but you would simply be fighting the nature of man and such a system would break.

Any complex society requires leaders, representatives and delegates. This results in hierarchy. My family example was to show how the smallest and most important unit of human development has hierarchy within it.

The only people who can maintain a 'good' hierarchy are those who are constantly vigilant.
It would take less vigilance to guard a hierarchy based on human nature that the general population can appreciate than one which through stability an security out in pursuit of Utopian idealism and nonsense.

My apologies then.

It’s an ideology that appeals to people who are generally useless

If Lady Gaga and you paint the exact same painting using the same amount of labor, how is it that hers will sell for more?

Most people are selfish yes, but everything else you are saying is false.

How are you going to force everyone, everywhere to be your epitome of selflessness? Will everyone magically give up their ambitions, wants, and desires for a cloud-cuckoo utopia dreamed up by idiots who thought that man could be economically molded to perfection? No.