Was he ever wrong?

It wasn't wrong when he lived. Even if it wasn't true for the past 100 years, doesn't mean that it won't be the case in the future. And it really seems like things are going to shit slowly but surely. Neo-Liberalism is the final step to achieving this degradation of living standards. It can, however, be reversed (momentarily) by implementing other policies.

Except living standards especially in the US continue to plummet.

What about human nature, ever think of that?

You're being ridiculous.

Wages have stagnated, sure, but the amount of food, quality of medical care, abundance of entertainment, access to new technology, etc. is unparalleled in human history.

That's entirely possible.

I guess it would be premature to call him "wrong" already. We'll see when capitalism is a relic of the past how closely it conformed to his analysis, I suppose.

It's a shame all those fives were wasted on someone being empirically wrong

He wrote von Mises tier pseudoscience. A few elements proved to be prescient, same with Hayek and Mises.
All wrote trash ideologies that deserve to belong in the past.

Don't think much of the concept of 'anarchy of production'. I think the spontaneity of free enterprise is a good thing.

Marx did nothing wrong tbh

That is as much to do with the peculiarities of American politics and as anything. Counter to that is the privilige the US has of being the global hegemon. Marx said nothing about either issue, so its silly to bring it into the discussion as relevant.
Marx made such broad generalised predictions that they're pretty unimpressive, kind of "Islam will rule the world" tier it's not like Kalecki who predicted the 1970s in detail.

Marx really underestimates his enemies. He didn't forsee the ability of capitalism to adapt and co-opt workers nor did he see the rise of right wing corporatist ideologies like Fascism. Both developments took a great deal of wind out of leftist sails so to speak.

A revolution did happen in his time, and it was a revolution without any of his influence and yet one that happened as predicted. It was called the communard uprising.

He didn't. For Marx, capitalism machinically raises standards of living by its very design:
(Marx, Communist Manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians)

The question then was always: at what cost, and how. In times of capital's great systemic crises, wars were started to avert complete collapse or the rising influence of working class action against capitalism. Standards of living will always be relative, and the true horror is always the fact that the insatiable beast of capital never has enough, and in such times the good of the commons are sacrificed in order to do its bidding, and one bourgeois faction goes after the other while distracting the workers from their universality as workers.

Capitalism is still fairly young. It hasn't run into major environmental issues or scarcity issues yet. Expansion of capital is therefore still possible in western countries. Looking at other countries it becomes clear that external factors which decrease growth lead to a worse standard of living. Venezuela is a current example of this. Embargo and poor management of resources have hampered growth, leading to worse living conditions. The iron rule of wages is connected to a society's ability to innovate technology or import cheap resources from other countries. The west has had the muh privilege of a strong capitalist class able to exploit foreign countries. While technology has grown at a rate no one expected. Cheap import and innovation have kept the rule at bay. Once this lessens it will kick in. The only question is how long they can keep it up.

Found the Keynesian. At least you're not brain-dead.

I'm not a Keynesian, I just respect him more for at least attempting to use the scientific method, even if economics is still too politicised and thus nowhere close to using the same rigour and objectivity as real sciences.

Marx subtitled Capital "A Critique of Political Economy." One of his goals was to show how all the ideas of economists were totally self-contradictory and retarded, thus demonstrating economics to be a fake science.

Well, yeah it certainly was at that time.

Yes, obviously, and often. Who wasn't?

He didn't write "Logic" to explain his dialectical method, leaving the space for later false reinterpretations.

did he reject the potential of ideas, myth and culture to affect history? or is that just something his followers do and wrongly ascribe to him?

The only thing I dislike with Marx is that he was a Jew. Everything else is ok I guess.

Yes, the 'lumpenproletariat' does not, and has never existed. Every proletarian has revolutionary potential, by the very nature of their class.

cnbc.com/2017/03/02/growth-in-uk-living-standards-hits-60-year-low-two-year-wage-freeze-expected-ifs.html

thestreet.com/story/11480568/1/us-standard-of-living-has-fallen-more-than-50-opinion.html

Since you seemed like a dummy, here's some links.>>1655555

wtf, I love Marx now…

take it back

Ironically he looks like a mix of arab/white

lol wat

He does look like a white/non-white mutt though.

He was very impressed with the capability of the bourgeoisie.
And yet he still could never really get a grasp on just how good they would get at manipulating the proletariat. I don't blame him for not having a crystal ball though.

kek hate us

For all the memes about how lolbertarianism is a religion and their prophet Ron Paul or whoever, leftards are a thousand times worse.

Yui was right.

Tell us what he was wrong about and give us some evidence then faggot

Go choke on a dick you faggot cultist worshipper

...

Lol yeah I'm going to waste my time on an anonymous image. Why don't you share your own thoughts (if you even have any) on Marx's shortcomings? Is it maybe because you just don't like and/or don't understand his work at all?

I dunno. I think Stirner had some good points against Marx from the far-left standard.

Some others have argued quite well that class warfare isn't real, it has to be manufactured and indoctrinated into people.

Traditionalists like Evola argue that capitalism and communism aren't really very different and both are ideologies that alienate man from the fundamentals that matter in life. Etc.

k.

huh? who are you quoting.

Evola: the original porky idpol retard.

lol

capitalism isn't materialistic?

if you were an actual leftcom you'd know that's bullshit

It's technically Marxian but I didn't care enough at the time.

'Marxian economics' isn't a thing my dude

Capitalism is riddled with idealism my dude

So the singularity will be amazing and great if the bourgeoisie run the show? This author is using their personal incredulity to explain their obvious straw-man.

Asiatic mode of production.

largely riddled with materialism, striving for perpetual consumption, profit/money, perpetual material growth, technocratic domination, physical comfort + hedonism. It doesn't really believe in a homeostasis state its striving for it just constantly seeks to overcome obstacles that get in the way of profit/consumption…

That's not what's meant by materialism, liberal. Stick to music production and for the sake of pic related make sure it's not jazz.

philosophical materialism =/= the colloquial use of materialism you illiterate boob.

read the german ideology

So you think capitalism is idealistic in the sense of positing a non-material world and/or non-material purposes? Because philosophical idealism is very specific and neither capitalism nor communism are idealistic in that sense; they are equally 1 dimensional, going fully horizontal in the relative plane, with no vertical component in themselves.

How is the distinction made between bourgeois economic theory and those of Marx?

capitalist ideology views freedom to own property as the ultimate expression of liberal idealism.

that's a materialistic relation, man relating to tangible objects. And the relationship is maintained by some threat of force, which is also material in nature…

That's not what philosophical idealism means, that's a political aspiration. You can't say Capitalism is idealistic because owning property is seen as a right or "freedom"… We are still very much entrenched in the material realm and talking about material relations.

Yeah I can. Property is a spook.

Look at the assumptions of the liberals from their legal equality to to adherence to muh rights and NAP.

Well then worrying about who "owns the means of production" is also a spook.

the concept of ownership is a liberal spook, the concept of use is not

When socialists use the term "ownership" of the means of production, they're usually referring to it's purely mechanical definition IE being able to use it freely and unhindered. Not legal ownership.

Failure to forsee the future of his movement becoming common among neckbeards, edgelords, and betas

Radical ideals always infect the intelligentsia and outcasted fringes of society before moving in as mainstream thought.

lel

This "radical ideal" WAS mainstream at some point, and became popular among fringe subhumans only long after Stalinism et al happened

Class is a spook. Nothing personnel, kiddo.

You dummy

everything

You realize that this is all ahistorical and ideological gibberish, right?

Straffa's "Production of commodities by means of commodities" was brutal critique to both bourgeois and marxist economics

the actual answer is obviously that technology came from the artificial superintelligent machine god acting through time, setting the forces of technological development in motion in order to bring himself into existence

I was right about every thing happening today

Not only did he live through multiple revolutions, he even participated.

0ch.org/0040/res/3770.html

It's an edit of a right-wing comic that used the term.

It still is.

Even moreso now that they've retreated into an insular circlejerk ever since the publication of Capital.