Why does he appeal to weak people so much?

He's glorifying weakness like Christianity, but unlike it, doesn't ask his followers for any personal effort to overcome it.

nice projection

yes, we know

Attached: tDp4jmI.jpg (700x491, 80K)

His "genius criticisms" are hardly applicable to contemporary capitalism.

>treating philosophers like football teams

Attached: 1541565391254.png (384x406, 249K)

because communism supports the weak. you know besides killing them when they don't work.

Who's doing this here?

Commercial society begins with the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The modern progressive lacks a moral backbone, is only interested in perennial upheaval that is safe and is completely unwilling to level a critique of liberal society that strikes at its true excesses because they have been co-opted by it and benefit from it.

People who like football team Grug not like are weak
grug hate

Communism supports high-ranking communists tho.

Because weak people love to blame someone else for their misfortune.

Nice strawman, faggot.

yeah that always fucking bugged me, communism is too idealistic in assuming that the planners are going to consider themselves equals, it could very easily just cement the ruling class and turn the proletariat into permanent slaves. sometimes i wonder if that was his plan.

iphone socialists

Grug no faggot

Because owners literally exploit workers for their labour and that is undeniable. The workers do everything and the owners take everything. If you really think private ownership matters just do this simple thought experiment: Imagine a company without owners, workers get an equal share and get to vote in managers etc. Now imagine this same company without workers; it collapses.

Owners need workers; workers do not need owners.

because marxists and similar people are cucks
unlike chad bakunin

His critiques have only gotten more accurate along the rise of late-stage capitalism. Did you even read what he wrote, or are you just trolling?

>late-stage capitalism.
I have a feeling we're also going to have later-stage capitalism and very-late-stage capitalism etc.

>Imagine a company without owners, workers get an equal share and get to vote in managers
so do it nigga

What changed and which of his criticisms did it invalidate?

>It is a wonder that they are so comfortable decrying capitalism, but can never quite bring themselves to denounce consumerism.
I think you're talking about petty bourgeois larping student cucks, and in that case their class position speaks for itself when it comes to consumerim.

>Attempted applications of Marxism have failed to eliminate class
Yes, all one of them. It's kind of hard (read: impossible) to "eliminate class" in a decade in a single country devastated by war.

>and spawned a nomenklatura devoted to bureaucratized collectivism instead
I don't think this is attributable to an "attempted application of Marxism". This kind of thing was just what had been required, based on the economic and geopolitical circumstances, for Russia to catch up on industrialization. It would have happened no matter what.

this

This is assuming the workers work equally which is to ideal

uhh, because they're exploited or powerless or something.. come on you knew that next time make it funny.

Cliffites are turning into reactionaries now?

the real question is why can't people accept the obvious superiority of national socialism

Nigga we've been living "late-stage capitalism" for a century now.

This. What Marx and left-wing people fail to understand is that capitalism isn't a streamlined process, but a cyclical one. As long as there's resources, people willing to produce and people willing to consume, capitalism won't die.

>This much is evident: the cycle of interconnected turnovers embracing a number of years, in which capital is held fast by its fixed constituent part, furnishes a material basis for the periodic crises. During this cycle business undergoes successive periods of depression, medium activity, precipitancy, crisis.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch09.htm

>As long as there's resources, people willing to produce and people willing to consume, capitalism won't die.
yes, they just have to will hard enough

muh holohoax

Why does theft appeal to people hungry people so much?

Marx was the ideological equivalent of an unguarded loaf of bread. Left-leaning people are naturally inferior to right-leaning people. This is a genetic predilection. You cannot blame a cat for scratching a couch or a dog for shitting on a carpet, similarly you cannot blame a thief for adopting an ideology of theft.

Thankfully abortion and other eugenic policies have largely eliminated this trend in the Aryan races. Jews still need to be dealt with, but that is just a matter of time.

>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch09.htm
seems like you just haven't read any Marx, buddy!

late late latiest-stagiest capitalism

Attached: file.png (992x409, 670K)

Ur a retard

THIS. People are so fucking lazy and stupid it’s unbelievable.

Attached: 9649D52C-AA45-4A92-9C1D-F0D08103FAE3.gif (400x225, 1.88M)

The church of leftism is about staying at home and hoping someone else will do it for you.

How does that contradicts what the user said, though?

which didn't kill as many people as capitalism or communism, which killed with honest intent, which targeted not the weak or the strong but the degenerate.

Is it possible to be embarrassed by proxy? Anyone who reads Marx with the slightest rigor discovers he fundamentally misunderstands just about everything.

Attached: 1519917007910.png (817x443, 34K)

I'd say he appeals more to non-npc individuals. You can guess where you stand, op

This isn't the 60's anymore, buddy. You're the conformist NPC now.

>let me clean your shoes boss, so they'll look nice and clean
absolutely cucked

must be gotta do with Hitler being Rothschilds bitch

Those who can, do, those who can't, teach poli sci and indoctrinate aimless retards taking out loans to learn gibberish. It's just a reality of the world that people with real agency and creativity end up at the top while those without end up resentfully conspiring against them.

Attached: 1560214385518.jpg (600x600, 40K)

Ah yes, "weak people". Those teeming Eurasian masses of the forgotten and disregarded. Untold of millions without healthcare, basic security, and even the most meager satisfactions of fundamental needs. If communism and sovietism were wrong in the details, the single concerted attempt to provide for the whole of the human race is not to be underestimated. Not just the superwealthy and whoever they deem acceptable, everyone.

Perhaps you think some poor peasant in Kazakhstan weak. But I'm almost certain that they have survived worse than you.

Marx is a right wing philosopher by todays standards. most modern leftists either dismiss Marx as yet another dead white male or think of him vaguely as the probable inventor of gay space communism and someone who triggers the chuds.

Threadly reminder that it's more reasonable to kill communists than to try and reason with them.

Attached: 1518326138547.jpg (889x960, 160K)

>the single concerted attempt to provide for the whole of the human race is not to be underestimated. Not just the superwealthy and whoever they deem acceptable, everyone.
Imagine actually thinking this is what communism is about.

Neoliberalism is NPC I'd say

Because their conception of Marx is spoonfed by academics and blue checkmarks. Marx is nothing at all like what the woke left and woke right think he is.

Being a communist nowadays means buying a che guevara T-shirt and setting Marx's portrait as your avatar on social media platforms while liking "communist meme page no. 234" on Facebook and upvoting posts on r/latestagecapitalism.

Why does He appeal to weak people so much?

Attached: 1543160205912.jpg (640x360, 56K)

read neetche

For something to be capable of being contradicted, it needs to at least make modicum of sense first.

"kommunismus ist the gr8test poverty reduction scheme EVER, man" - carl marx probably

Are you really so blind you can't see that's what the OP is? He's never read Marxist theories or gone through a census of Marxist sympathizers.

Is OP wrong, though? You don't really see bro-tier guys defending communism. It's always the limp-wristed faggots like pic related.
Inb4 people start posting kekistanis.

Attached: file.jpg (1024x683, 143K)

But what said makes sense.

Attached: hasan.jpg (640x960, 74K)

>t. monty python

lmao

>Owners need workers; workers do not need owners.
Bullshit! Workers are drones who don't think about the future of the company. They wouldn't agree on getting equal share because one of them will work harder than others and will want a bigger share.

You will blame everything other than yourself for your miserable state. You trade your skill and work for the money. More skilled and hardworking you are, more valuable you are to the company.

Im laughing so hard because of how accurate that question is
Something about his fat face and hair and beard. Only a deranged could like it.

Posting a roach who works for a jewish owned media company who got his job through nepotism with his rich uncle.
>inb4 MUH /pol/
commiecucks never fail to make me laugh.

Attached: Cao Cao.gif (320x200, 1.9M)

t. Some guy who never read Marx or only read the manifesto

This again

Jesus christ get a job

Something that many so-called marxists didn't do either.

You 100% cannot bench press more than 15kg

It's too vague and empty to make sense. What is the evidence of Marx's failure to understand that capitalism "isn't a streamlined process, but a cyclical one"? What do "streamlined" and "cyclical" mea? Because I've already shown that Marx did understand capitalism as cyclical. It's hard not to understand it as such when you witness cyclical crises every (give or take) ten years. Moreover, it seems to me that these two properties are not contradictory, but I guess the point of making the statement so vague was that you're free move the goalpost at will once you get a concrete response. And lastly, is capitalism being "cyclical" rather than "streamlined" supposed to entail that it will never break down? Does being cyclical entail being infinite? Again, it seems to me the answer is no. So what the fuck is the point here exactly?

The second part is even more vague. There always have been and always will be "will to produce and consume", so what content does this provide here exactly? What we have remaining is "as long as there's resources, capitalism won't die". Now, is this supposed to be making sense? It is a well-formed English sentence, I'll give you that, but it's just another assertion that's too vague to have any content.