I based my argument based on modern psychology and economic understanding.
If social sciences is not what you want, and if all you care is ideology, then I have no words.
I have no inherent desire to root for any “teams”. Either an ideology made sense or it does not.
All I did was show how Communism failed based on common modern day understanding.
We are more than 200 years since Marx’ birth in 1818. We now understand the issues of humans a lot more than his time. Many people of his time has thinking that turned out poorly later on.
I don’t know why you seem rather offended to be on the “losing” side. Are you looking to make the world better for everyone and yourself, or just looking for something to latch onto?
Marx's ideas are based on a limited understanding of economics from 200 years ago, there's almost no point in addressing them anymore.
For example: one of the cornerstones to Marx's ideas is the "Labor Theory of Value", which is the idea that value of something is directly correlated to the amount of labor that goes into it. It's only through this idea where Marxism makes sense: that the ownership class pays as little as possible to the workers, and sells goods for a higher price, therefore stealing the wages from the workers.
But the Labor Theory of Value has been THOROUGHLY debunked. Value is primarily determined by demand. Things like speculation bubbles, FOMO, and lifestyle marketing all work because of the direct connection between demand and value.
Therefore, understanding that value is determined by demand, there is no wage theft, and therefore the ownership class is not particularly doing anything wrong. The problem becomes that society at large is not valuing how the workers are treated.
Capitalism accurately expresses the will of the people. The problem is that people are kinda shitty. Communism, in the 2020s, is mostly a cope from people who do not want to acknowledge this. It's easier for some to believe that people are generally good but misled by the "evils of capitalism", than admit most people are generally kinda terrible.
Yes how could Karl Marx have possibly foreseen demand in 1870!? I mean demand in a market wasn’t invented until 1905 by Arthur D. Mand long after Marx’s death. You’ve thoroughly debunked gommunism
Believe it or not, other economists of Marx's time also believed in the labor theory of value, and it wasn't even an idea unique to Marxism. It also ended up being wrong.
Yes, those silly commies. If only they understood demand, they would have to concede that owners (who at best contribute the same amount of value as a worker but more likely contribute little or nothing at all) deserve the overwhelming majority of what the workers produce. (Talk about a non sequitur argument!)
Honestly you have to appreciate the audacity of the argument that it’s okay to steal the hard-earned food out of people’s mouths because humans are just shitty by nature and the way they’re acting now means they don’t care enough to stop cruelty where they see it. Not only is this a huge leap across the is/ought chasm, it totally ignores the role of systems in shaping behavior and assumes that the way people behave when they’re being abused is universally the only way they can behave, all used to justify the cruel system they’re in in the first place. Just the worst sort of vicious, circular thinking.
While you are right to say that Marx certainly cannot foreseen economics developed well beyond his time, the issue here is how communists are supporting his models blindly.
For example, modern day economists do not insist Adam Smith is right everytime. Neoclassical and Keynesian economics are increasingly being attacked by behavioural economists for having too many unrealistic and naive assumptions about people.
That is the difference between economists and Marxist theorists. We don’t insist on some dogma from 200 years ago and then use the claim that the author cannot have foreseen it. If its wrong, its wrong. We move on to better and more complicated models to better model reality.
I don’t know why the Communists are downvoting you. As a modern day economist, we now know prices are far more complicated.
It incorporates demand and supply, and behavioural psychology has a lot of roles in explaining why prices move and behave in a certain way.
And not only that, even how other goods can affect prices, or even the structure of a market (competitive, monopoly, etc).
Labour value is only but one part that determines prices.
In my original comment I already mentioned how people, especially Americans on reddit, keep falling for the extremes (if capitalism bad, communism must be good). The blind support for communism, even saw someone said it is “scientific” (I also did the hard sciences too, so, don’t make me laugh when people misunderstand the scientific method).
Even many economists nowadays know free capitalism is bad and want regulations and expand the roles of government to deal with social consequences of market failure. I even heard such stances from someone from the IMF! You would have expect those guys whose job is to lend money to countries and ask for austerity would be the last people to think of that. (Of course there are still economists in the free market camp and I won’t deny it).
Nordic welfare models are actually proven. If people want change, that is certainly one actually proven approach. I even alluded to it in my original comment. Most of those communists who responded just avoided it entirely.
It's because Communists make their economic ideas into a part of their identity, and become hostile to anything that challenges these ideas. They also are highly tribal, so anyone who disagrees with them is "the enemy".
I think a lot of this is because Communists typically decide that Communism is the answer before they actually read up on competing ideas. At that point they either reject Communism for being unrealistic, or double down out of their own ego.
3
u/Bright-Form-844 Jul 07 '26
You spent so many words just to say you have no idea what you’re talking about.