17 November, 2014

Anything Based on Marxism is a Fraud

Posted by Socrates in communism, communism-as-Jewish, Cuba, Cultural Marxism, feminism, Jewish lies, jewish scam artists, Karl Marx, leftism, leftists, liberalism, Marxism, socialism, Socrates, Soviet Union, White ideology, White philosophy, White thought at 10:46 pm | Permanent Link

(Above: Karl Marx, the Jewish witch-doctor who wrecked half the world)

Marxism was bogus. So anything based upon Marxism (e.g., Cultural Marxism, Socialism, Feminism) is also bogus. Marxism promised that, once the state finally withered away, all the citizens would live together in peace and happiness. But that was all bullshit, because states don’t wither away. They only get bigger. Cuba couldn’t make communism work even on an island without massive Soviet aid. Leftism, the whole of it, is a gold-plated turd called “legit” by millions of morons.

  1. Similar posts:

  2. 01/28/19 White Philosophy for Newbies: Marxism and Cultural Marxism: They Aren’t Supposed to Work, or, the-Antidote-as-Poison 74% similar
  3. 02/25/15 Liberals Are Obsessed with Human Equality… 63% similar
  4. 08/02/20 A Question for Marxists and Leftists About Communism/Marxism 56% similar
  5. 06/25/20 White Philosophy: Insurrection 2020 is Being Waged via a Fraudulent, Deadly Ideology (i.e., Marxism) 53% similar
  6. 11/21/19 Only White People Are Pathological. Everyone Else Is Normal. Why Is That? 51% similar
  7. 11 Responses to “Anything Based on Marxism is a Fraud”

    1. CW-2 Says:

      For Karl Marx in his personal life ‘work’ was a for letter word. The ‘great’ advocate of the working man was a layabout who never did an honest days’ work in his entire life.

    2. Tim McGreen Says:

      I don’t know if Marx himself would have approved of all the weird, sick degeneracy that has been perpetrated in his name, including Cultural Marxism. I think in many ways Marx was a rather respectable 19th century bourgeois and probably would have been just as appalled at “same sex marriage” and court-ordered school desegregation as any of us WNs are. I don’t what Marx’s views on Zionism were but Lenin, one of his most enthusiastic disciples, did not support it.

    3. Vive_Caucasian Says:

      Meanwhile on the domestic front in the war against Whites:


      Side note, I’ve witnessed a few Negros, male and female, target White women for aggression on Los Angeles’s metro system. If LA’s metro is a representative sample of current American demographics, then this country will be dead within a decade.

    4. fd Says:

      Eerie connections: Marx was born in Prussia — Marxism originated in Germany — His brand of communism originated in Germany — Communism destroyed Germany — Marx praised Lincoln in personal letters — Lincoln used Prussian soldiers from the kingdom that Marx was born. Communism took hold in the North in the 20th century.

      Was Marx a monster who believed in monstrous fratricidal wars in America and Europe to spread his ideas? Maybe I could chase him down in an H.G. Wells time machine and ask.

      The people who followed on the heels of Marx may have used his ideas for personal gain.

    5. Socrates Says:

      Tim McGreen Says: I don’t know if Marx himself would have approved of all the weird, sick degeneracy that has been perpetrated in his name, including Cultural Marxism. I think in many ways Marx was a rather respectable 19th century bourgeois and probably would have been just as appalled at “same sex marriage” and court-ordered school desegregation as any of us WNs are.

      Tim, who are you, really? Half the time, you sound like an anti.

    6. Sean Gruber Says:

      Marx said he was motivated by the “ideals” of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood. The non-negotiable part of his passion was the Equality part; in his thinking, it made possible the other two parts or at least supported them. He was a leveler at heart.

      The “scientific” part of Marxism, aside from all the footnotes and research he did (some of which has been shown to be fraudulent) was his labor theory of value. Everything “scientific” in Marxism comes out of his labor theory of value. But anyone with any common sense can see through that theory after a few minutes of reflection. The theory is best explained by a simple example. Say you’re a rural self-employed guy who makes some product and you make $10 for every unit you sell. Now a Capitalist comes along; he owns a factory that makes the same product, and he offers you a job paying $15 for every unit you make. The reason he can pay you so much is that he has figured out a way to get $35 for each unit. Now Marx’s labor theory of value says that the Capitalist is ripping you off. The units are “really worth” $35 each, but he is only giving you $15 each. (The $20 difference Marx calls the “surplus.”) In fairness, Marx says, you should get the whole $35 per unit because you made the unit. The fact that the Capitalist is pocketing $20 means that he is “exploiting” you. But now think about it. You couldn’t get $35 per unit on your own. You could only get $10 per unit. By going to work for him, you get $15 per unit, a better deal. The $20 the Capitalist keeps is his payment. He didn’t make the product, you did (with his tools). But because he’s a better salesman and better organizer, he boosted your return on your labor. The $20 difference between what he sells a unit for and what you are paid for it is like a fee that you pay him to boost your productive value more than you could. (It’s also how he stays in business in the first place: he can’t work for free, either.) (Economic activity is a form of cooperation, not war, although workers may have to organize to ensure that the spread is within a reasonable bound which is good for all parties.)

      Believe it or not, Marx’s labor theory of value, or theory of “exploitation” (and all the pilpul about it that fills thousands of fat volumes in libraries all over the globe) is the oh-so-“scientific” excuse for killing millions of people under communism. It’s the core rationalization for the mountains of corpses the commies piled up in the 20th Century. And it is SHEER HORSE SHIT (see explanation above).

      Marx’s fame rests almost completely on those two things–his passion for equality, and his labor theory of value. He was, in short, a jew charlatan who was poison to the world, as the jew always is.

    7. fd Says:

      The Federal government did more to preserve Marxism/communism in the 20th century (WW2) than any country.

      Capitalism is over-rated. It’s laced with heavy taxes and punitive tariffs. Hitler called it Jewish Democratic Capitalism. Barter is ‘free trade.’ Capitalists are repulsed by free trade. The money powers have no tolerance for an economy that can’t be exploited.

    8. Socrates Says:

      Sean Gruber:

      Yes, Marx was full of crap. Consider this: let’s say that I run into the trunk of an apple tree with my pickup truck. As a result, hundreds of ripe apples fall into the bed of my truck. Now, I can drive those apples to a grocer and sell them to him for, maybe, $10 or even $15 dollars.

      But, according to Karl Marx, those apples are worth nothing. Zero. Why? Because there was no labor involved in my actions. Only labor produces a value on a product. No labor? Then no value.

    9. Tim McGreen Says:

      Socrates, I am only interested in trying to understand who the historical Karl Marx was, I am not attempting to “rehabilitate” him. And I don’t think we shall learn very much about this man if we subject him to endless calumny and caricaturizations.

      Did you know Marx’s youngest daughter Eleanor was famous for providing the first English translation of Flaubert’s Madame Bovary? Marx also gave Eleanor the responsibility of translating his famous Das Kapital into English.

      It would seem he was a good father to his children and a good husband. Eleanor reciprocated by taking care of him during his final years. Does mentioning these facts mean that I approve of Marx’s theories on class struggle and the ownership of the means of production? I hardly think so.

    10. Stronza Says:

      Sean: First, I understand you are just trying to explain Marx’s labor theory of value.

      So, about that widget factory in your example above:

      If $$$ is the only consideration, then the capitalist and his factory are the way to go and, indeed, capitalism is good. If however the self-employed maker of the product (who was making only $10 a pop) rather likes the idea of working for and by himself on his rural property, with the kids helping out, that muddies the waters a bit, doesn’t it. Maybe the extra $5 profit on each widget doesn’t compensate for having to march to the factory every day and kowtow to his betters.

      In theory, those of us who make and sell things should be able to have a nice clear choice and so should buyers. But the presence of all those capitalists and their every-expanding factories makes it difficult for small entrepreneurs. Yes, yes, I hear about how automation & assembly line made it possible for everyone to have a car and ultimately all the comforts and stuff we take for granted today. And what did that lead to? Crass materialism, consumerism, overpopulation, degradation of nature and on & on. And so here we are. Getting everything we want is not always a good thing.

      We’ve reached the point of the greedy wife in the German tale of The Fisherman and the Flounder.

    11. fd Says:

      Marketing is buying and selling. Criminal economists desire complexity to exploit what should be free trade. Marxism, capitalism, barter, whatever. What’s in a name? Production facilities buy and sell, distribution centers buy and sell, retail and wholesale stores buy and sell. Pick your own cotton and sell for cash. :)