[–] Tallest_Skil 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Proponents of an ideology have to support their own claims. Why is marxism good. Why is an ideology that is literally just secularized judaism–designed explicitly to enslave and genocide everyone on Earth except jews–a good ideology.

[–] d3r [S] ago  (edited ago)

I mean, most people don't really know in depth about an ideology they choose to believe in.

Equality, free education, etc. Don't sound bad on the surface but in arguments I need to have solid rationale for why it's bad and i don't presently know enough to refute an "intelligent" Marxist/supporter of communism.

Help would be great.

[–] Tallest_Skil 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Bring him here to articulate his individual arguments. We’ll be polite. Promise.

Alternatively, get him to outline it for you and then you can just repeat it here. We can utterly destroy the ideology, and then you’ll learn how to fight it so that you can help him get sorted out.

[–] FreeinTX ago 

Marxism, like all communism, is great ideally. However, when it falls short of the ideal, cause people are human and flawed, millions of people end up dead "for the greater good".

[–] Blood-is-Nature 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

An -ism is based on a contract of belief that those that want to control you are offering to trick you to consent control over your mind away to them by believing their lies. If you accept the contract; they can freely decide the terms and conditions about what the -ism means and you will be stuck in a conflict against those who don't believe it.

Those criminals who're in control over the contract use the conflict to control both sides (believers and non-believers) by keeping the conflict going through the utilization of contradictions to reason on both sides. That conflict represents total control, because it is based on a lie for both sides of the participants, which means the outcome of the entire conflict will always be negative; therefore predictable before it even started. What the topic is about is totally irrelevant for the outcome, so are the belief based assumptions of both sides of the participants.

As an example..."Hey, man, do you want to have some meat?"- "No, I don't eat meat, because I don't like it". Now imagine the same situation using vegetarianism. "No, I don't eat meat, because I'm a vegetarian". This person has just proclaimed his belief, and thereby branded everyone else that doesn't believe the same into a meat eater; his opposition. These two people are now in a conflict of belief, solely because one of them agreed to a contract of belief (vegetarianism) and the other accepted the position of the opposition by not believing in it. try to understand how easy it is for a (((3rd party))) to use a topic like eating preferences; slap an -ism onto it and create a conflict of interests with the offered contract of belief. Now look at how those in control exploited the conflict by making vegetarianism vs meat eating into a political agenda to cause divide, while making a profit from both sides of the conflict, but if you look at those who are fighting each other, you will notice that they only use vegetarianism and meat eating as an excuse to fight about who believes what.

That is the human weakness of selfishness that these parasites are systematically abusing to usurp this entire world from us. All religions, all -isms, and everything we believe in are designed tools of social engineering to divide our unity and create conflicts. Holding a belief is against the laws of nature, because this system is based on constant forward motion (life to death; beginning towards end), which demands adaptation to ever changing circumstances from us, while holding a belief represents the stagnation of comprehension towards motion. It restricts our minds to comprehend reality, and instead we uphold assumptions (lies) against the truth of nature.

[–] d3r [S] ago 

Beautiful, thanks.

[–] puggy 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Marxism is an economic theory that has no basis in human psychology. Marx created a fantasy where workers all hold hands together in harmony to make society prosperous and fair. If you have ever worked in any job, you know that people always compete for money, power and social status. Sometimes they will screw over a coworker just because they don't like their personality or looks. Thus Marxism never works out to be efficient or fair and eventually everyone ends up being poor and unhappy except the elite leaders. On the other hand, capitalism exploits the drive for money, power and status to reward those who can produce wealth making society richer for everyone. Yes, there will always be places where there is too much concentrated money and power (Amazon, Google, etc) but eventually those get broken up.

[–] d3r [S] ago 

Ok, this actually goes along with my wild theories, but not why you think. Thank you for your reply.

[–] FreeinTX ago 

The founder of the LA chapter and largest recipient of BLM donations stated that she's a "trained Marxist".

Just look at blm and you tell me what's wrong with Marxism.

[–] d3r [S] ago  (edited ago)

Yes, i get it. The point is these people aren't supporting a cause they feel is "evil" meaning they have a reason that obviously doesn't align with real world application.

What goes on in their mind?

Why is this question so fucking difficult? stop asking additional questions and just answer mine. Fuck.

[–] FreeinTX 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Fine. Marxism is bad because government takes what doesn't belong to them so that they can give it to the people that they think should have it. It's theft. Government theft. And just like any organized theft ring, there is a skim. This particular skim ends with, typically, millions of dead people.

[–] Bigdickedelf ago 

Because it leads to a totalitarian one world government ruled by the antichrist

[–] amonamoose ago 

Marxism is always a path that leads to dictatorial totalitarianism in the end. Communism and socialism are counter to human nature and natural law that cannot be sustained without the violent suppression of individualism and free will.

[–] d3r [S] ago 

Ok. Where can I read more in depth? Suggested authors. I don't think voat will give me a satisfactory answer and don't mind digging myself.

[–] amonamoose ago 

Well, the source material is a good start. Read The Communist Manifesto of Marx and see his insanity for yourself. If you are really serious about understanding this shit you will need to take a deep dive into Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, and Ludwig Von Misses to round out and counter Marx claims/arguments and wild assumptions about human nature, social contract theory, and governance. Plato's The Republic is almost a prerequisite before reading any of these men's works just so you have a baseline.

There is way more to political and social philosophy then the names I listed but if you read the original works produced by all the thinkers listed above you will have a strong foundation of understanding that is widely and well researched to follow up with.