• Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    The joke is that Capitalism DOES NOT have a solution to homelessness because there is zero profit motive to solve it. And facts dont care about your feelngs, you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest. Capitalist Economists study Das Kapital because Marx was so fucking spot on.

    • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, that’s why there is no pure capitalist country anywhere.

      you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest.

      Why are you keep doing this? I said I don’t disagree with Marx. It’d be nice if communism can happen. Facts don’t care about your feelings either and all the shitty attemps of communism failed due to human being shitty. If you have to kill off people to keep the ideology, only to fail after about few decades, it has some reality problems.

      And again, I cannot stress this enough, can you please stop sounding like a 16 year old kid who just read few paragraphs of Marx going iamverysmart about it?

      • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The existence of state run social services and regulations does not mean a country is not fully capitalist if you’re using Marx’s understanding of what capitalism is. Additionally I think there is a misconception that communism depends on altruistic behavior. It really doesn’t.

    • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      No need to refute Marx, reality has already proven time and time again that communism doesn’t work in practice.

      Btw your argument only applies to “pure” capitalism, without any government interference. Homelessness is not really an issue in many European countries.

      • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You mean the reality where every 1st world nation on the planet did everything in their power to keep Communism from working. Bahahaha

        • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Didn’t take much to stop a system dreamed up by idealists and idiots from working. The very concept is flawed.

          • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Tell me you haven’t read Marx without telling me you haven’t read Marx.

            Seriously though, Marx is like the guy you go read if you want a ruthless critique of idealism. I’d go so far as to say it’s the reason his theories became so popular in the first place.

            • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who cared about Marx? He wrote a book. He didn’t lead a country. Nobody cares about theories when they don’t hold up in practice. And they never have.

              • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re right, nobody has ever cared about Marx. No communist revolutionaries anywhere have ever called themselves Marxists. If they did, then their projects must have surely collapsed by now. That’s because Marx was very clear that his political theories were not made to be adaptable or revisable based on new information and changing conditions. No, that would be far too scientific for someone we can agree was clearly an idealist.