Marx was Right; Marx was Wrong

Karl Marx stated in his book, Capital, that the inherent contradictions in the Capitalist system were the seeds of its own destruction.  How right he was.

Love him or loath him, Karl Marx has certainly made an impact upon the world we live in.  His Scientific Socialism and Dialectical Materialism have forced their way beyond the confines of theoretical ideology to become a part of everyday life; even moreso Cultural Marxism (aka Political Correctness) has become synonymous with mainstream politics.  The successful infiltration of Marxist ideology into the Judaised European territories is beyond doubt.

Marx argued that Capitalism is an unstable system which will collapse from within.  At its very essence, the Capitalist system is built on the maximisation of profits with the minimisation of costs.  The proof of this can be seen in the mass production of poor quality goods, using either slave labour, or mechanised processes with minimal human involvement.  The result is a mass of goods pushed on an impoverished population which cannot afford them, thus forcing a further reduction in quality to allow for prices to fall in an attempt to sell the vast surplus of sub-standard products.  Inevitably, goods become increasingly poor and the consumers become increasingly less able to buy them, thus prompting the crisis in capitalism and the collapse of the system.  Can anyone experiencing the reality of £/$/€ shops spreading across our lands whilst unemployment grows, doubt that Marx was right on this issue?

Marx may have been 100% right in identifying the problem, and even in predicting the manner of the implosion of the Capitalist System, but he was 100% wrong when he described his vision of the Marxist post-Capitalist system as a solution which was beneficial to humanity.

Marx argued for the primacy of economics over all other factors.  There are those who would argue that Marx's vision has never been realised, and that the regimes in the USSR and Communist China never advanced beyond the Private Capitalist system they claimed to overturn, and were in fact State Capitalist.  This argument borders on the religious and is held as a Faith in Marxism, rather than an adherence to ideology.  The argument is fundamentally flawed:  The failure to see beyond pure materialism leads to the inevitable substitution of bureaucratic State despots in place of private despots.  This could well be called an inherent contradiction of communism, which condemns the post-Capitalist Marxist State to be governed by the same factors it purports to stand against.

How is it that Marx could be so right when it came to exposing the inbuilt failings of Capitalism, but so wrong in the solutions he offered?  How?  Because Marxism is not a solution to Capitalism, but a continuation of it.  It is not designed to take power from the ruling class and give it to the people, but in reality it ensures that the hidden rulers are protected from the people and that their power is strengthened, rather than diminished.  In exactly the same manner as 'representative democracy' is a front, so Marxism transfers power in theory, but in practice the Establishment prevails.

The epithet 'property is theft' is used to dæmonise private ownership.  The application of the slogan can be seen in the Killing Fields Cambodia, the mass murder of the Kulaks in the USSR, or in any country where the Talmudic ideology of Marxism has been implemented to the full.  Marx was in the pay of the Internationalist Establishment.  Beyond the rhetoric of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, the ideology of Marxism enshrined the reverse.  In true mafioso fashion, the abolition of private property serves only to eliminate all competition and to consolidate wealth, and property in the hands of the ruling power.  Marxism doesn't seek to eliminate theft, but to enforce the theft of all property.

The economic powerhouse of Communist China thrives on the exploitation of the working class, as can be seen in the suicides of Chinese factory workers as the only way to escape the servitude of the Workers' Paradise.  So long as Mammon is god, there can be no higher ideal than production and consumption, and so humanity will suffer.  The oft-mentioned 'New World Order' is materialism in practice, regardless of whether it goes by the Capitalist or Communist label.

If Marx had been sincere, and not simply pushing Talmudism onto the disaffected Goyim, he would have argued for the redistribution of property as a means to thwart the exploitation of the workers by unscrupulous financial parasites.  He argued for the opposite as his real purpose was to create a facade of freedom behind which the exploitation could be moved from a local level to a global one of absolute control.

The solution to Capitalism is Distributism, not Communism, which in any case is Capitalism by another name, but that is for examination elsewhere.  Marx was right in his description of the failings of mass finance-driven capitalism.  What he failed to mention was that his solution was an even more tyrannical stage in the Freemasonic-Talmudic march to the total enslavement of the Goyim as non-human materialistic serfs.