Socialism is toxic to a healthy society because it punishes the success and rewards failure

how horrifying, we must stop this from happening

He literally looks like the all grown up version of the annoying kid who would challenge everyone to "debates" in high school.

He's not wrong about Cuba and there being a worldwide reduction in poverty.

I think this is an imperfect way of describing it. It sounds like you're trying to justify socialism in Capitalist terms.
The Marxist critique views the system of property ownership as inherently oppressive and a restriction of the freedom of the individual. It is unjust ownership of the means of production and of human beings. It's a relationship of power that remains uncontested by the mainstream ideology, in contrast to other relationships of power (racism, sexism, etc)
Marxism isn't the fight for "equality of wealth" it's a fight against the very concept of wealth in the first place. It's deconstructive to Capital as theory which is why Capitalists have such a hard time wrapping their minds around it.

See my first post.

Marxists predicted that capitalism should have destroyed the world 30 times over by now, the current situation contradicts the fundamentals of the marxist economic model, capitalism didn't collapse on itself.

Capitalist economists have made a ton of incorrect predictions.
We're not claiming that Marxism is a perfect ideology, it makes mistakes and works to correct itself.

but it has hundreds of times over, the accumulation of capital has allowed itself to form fail safes like austerity to ensure its demise is a slow and painful process.

When the collapse is always predicted to be just around the corner, there isn't much correction going on.

Government spending being down does not indicate a demise of capitalism.

Nonsensical argument. There is always room to refine an ideology.

funny joke there m8

actually it does, each time capitalism has undergone a reform the antagonisms it causes has come back ever stronger.

I will be honest I was actually. But because its how I would talk about Socialism outside the internet. But I do see your point now and I made an error in thinking of "equality of wealth" as Marxism.

I do believe I need a bit more time to sit down and think over more Marxist theory as I read some more books on my return to college in the following weeks. So I can have a deeper understanding about the very ideology I stand behind.

I will take "what is 2008?" for a million dollars

Except when you disagree with it, then it's back to "but marx never said that!"

Those antagonisms are far less severe then they were in 19th century industrial Britain, so no, your history machine does not work as you think it does.

The great majority of people have always been poor, so unless you mean that humanity is intrinsically failed, I find this a poor base to make such a judgement from.

Were they, because it seems to me that the third world is still being exploited and ravaged hundreds of years after its institution, while the first world is subsequently having its social reforms being rolled back thanks to crisis. The reason conditions were harsher in the first world when capitalism was implemented was because it was implemented as a new mode of production bringing new relations of production along with it.
hence why it's either socialism or barbarism

garbage. i dont think marx had all the ideas and neither does any modern marxist worth listening to. the dude was an antisemite ffs.

What do "Marxist" have to do with what Marx said? His theory of creative destruction is completely right?

...

The third world has seen a vast increase in wealth in the last few decades, the zero sum theory is so economically illiterate that even marxists should ditch it. The reason conditions were harsher in the first world is mostly because they lacked the technology we have now, not because of a switch from guild based manufacturing to industrial production, that's another lack of marxism, it completely ignores technology in it's historicism.

Yet "marx never said that!" is continuously invoked when marxists occupy themselves with matters that aren't strictly along the lines of marxian class, or rather, when people who aren't marxists themselves notice this.

im not responsible for the things my comrades might say, i dont control them or own them.
i would never say that, though im not sure i understand what youre saying. i absolutely believe cultural marxism is a real thing, developed to combat the cultural reinforcement of capitalist ideology.

And I was actually subscribed to this faggot for a while, but the second "muh iphones" was uttered, into the trash he went.

It seems like his gig over the past 3 years or so is to be a somewhat trendier version of Alex Jones, now that many people are tired of hearing about FEMA camps run by globalist eugenicists.

I'm guessing Alex must bleed users at a really high rate. It's no longer 2006, and there are dozens of news channels and hundreds of Youtube commentators who are more insightful than him even at his best. He's not even a good interviewer, as he constantly interrupts his guests and attempts to steer the narrative to something conspiratorial rather than systemic. And of course, never saying anything when Israel is brought up.

...

oy vey, shut it down !

If the smartphone is one of capitalism's greatest achievements then capitalism is shit.

The best part is that literally all the "wonders" of capitalism have been achieved by industrialization, and the ability to produce more and cheaper goods as a result of improving technologies. Every good thing about capitalism can basically be pinned on improved technologies, whereas all its negatives are a result of the system itself.

...

Also, iphones wouldn't exist without state funding and wasn't made in the free market sector

Are you the milo from 4chon who used to post about traps not being gay here?

Also computers wouldn't exist without the British government getting Alan Turing to build his machines to decode Enigma. The internet wouldn't exist without the U.S. army's comms programs.

The vast majority of genuinely game changing innovation either comes from governments or universities.

Someone had to make them financially attainable though

...

Which is actually more likely to happen under socialism, because it doesn't concern itself with profitability, only utility. A brilliant life saving technology could be developed under capitalism, but if the potential profit margins on it were too low then it would never see the light of day.

So basically the free market doesn't actually help innovation and can actually impede the implementation of new technology, especially if that new tech threatens established interests (see fossil fuels).

And what, the light bulb wouldn't exist without capitalism?

Do you even counterfactual?

MAYNE STREEM METEOR

We truly live in a fallen age.

literally where did you get that from?
Are you dumb or trolling?
Because it's true? You expect us to defend every word that every single person who ever owned a red flag ever said? Why?

You can either:
1)Go back go Holla Forums
2)Lurk moar
3)Read a book
You don't deserve a response.

youtube.com/watch?v=bPvHoxlY3UY

B T F O
T
F
O

...

LMAO
Literally what is the basis for historical materialism?
Could it be that the production relations we enter into in the course of doing the whole "civilization" thing are DETERMINED BY TECHNOLOGY? That the course of history, which we understand entirely as the advancement between various production paradigms, is guided by the nature, development and refinement of the productive forces?
Jesus christ, my dude.

Well gee, if you express overtly anti-Marxist positions and reject historical materialism, either insisting independent cultural change will alter the essential character of the material base, as the critical theorists, or asserting an "incredulity towards all meta-narratives," as the postmodernists, it kind of does preclude you from being a Marxist.
These positions are "Marx-inspired" the same way the George W. Bush administration was "Trotsky-inspired" and literally all modern western thought is "Hegel-inspired."
Make no mistake, the "post-Marxists" are extremely deserving of critique. I'm not defending them. But what you critique, when you critique them, is a belief system fundamentally incompatible with Marxism.

This.

Recall that capitalism survived the 20th century by plunging the entire world into war, twice. As its internal contradictions grow more and more acrimonious by the day, the bourgeoisie explores new and innovative styles of persecuting these contradictions in attempt to forestall their conclusions. Globalism and neoliberalism present devices of class rule that were simply neither feasible nor necessary for the bourgeois of Marx's day, not to mention the current scale and scope of rapid military interventionism in the four corners of the world. You could call it "unprecedented" for the time, but that misses the point about material development spurring the course of history. I wouldn't call it reasonable to expect a man of the 19th century to predict the exact course of development and precise nature of class antagonisms today, though Marx did have much to say about the contradiction between global, free-flowing capital and local, land-locked labor; between the capitalist system's international financiers and the borders of the nation-state they had grown up in and since outgrown. Its present form (immigration and outsourcing, and the extent to which they are abated by protectionism, a tactical choice) is one entirely understandable by recourse to Das Kapital.
"The capitalist order has not YET been destroyed wholesale" is NOT a counterexample to "the collapse of capitalism is historically necessary and inevitable."

Yes, and traps aren't gay.

Environmental destruction is part and parcel of industrialism. I'm not sure what societies have had the best luck in mitigating this and why, as global concern for the environment was much higher in 1990 than it was in 1890.

In fairness to all sides, economic prediction is really difficult. Nobody has a good track record there.

This is utter drivel. A cornerstone of Marx's historicism is technology, its evolution and its relationship to how humans produce themselves. The entire "switch from manufacture to the factory proper" from Chapter 17 of Das Kapital is quite literally, an examination of the technology developed during that time and how that affected production and DID lead to poor living conditions; this is a direct result of the technology. This is why Marx focuses on machinery heavily in Capital - what are you even saying?

What "zero sum theory"? Marx explicitly states in Capital it very much is in the interest of the Capitalist to increase the productive capacity for the commodities the worker requires to sustain himself, because the value of his labour falls.

Industrialisation isn't just having better technologies, dummy. It's also about capital accumulation and economic growth. And not just about accumulating capital, but accumulating the right capital.

Not only does capitalism generate superior incentives for better research, but it allows profit to be paid to savers, encouraging the deferred consumption which is completely necessary for economic advancement.

Marxists have only ever achieved industrialisation by forcing people to defer consumption, usually by starving peasants etc.

No. Just for productive researchers that use dubious science and to only venefit the profit motive. It is not profitable to cure people, just to manage their symptoms enough. Cuba figured out how to prevent HIV transmission from mother to child. Well that is just one less customer now.

...

People will buy a cure that prevents HIV transmission from mother to child, won't they?

They will invent it for that reason but it becomes adopted by other companies and eventually national productivity will be increased a a great deal.
Clearly advancements in productive methods do not remain isolated to the company that invented them

Why would companies be interested in dubious research which won't help them create things?

You're totally right, Marx could not into technology like at all

thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf

oh… oh wait that is fucking totally wrong, Marx was obsessed with machines

Cor blimey guv'nor, I for sure be glad that after watching that, I be knowin' me place now. You for certain be setting me on th' straight and narrow and no questions.

My comment was meant for this comment

...

Because it keeps getting bailed out by the peoples money.

The problem with capitalism is you eventually run out of other people's money.