Alcoholism and drug addiction are just as you said, addictions. Nuclear proliferation is a good thing to protect against the US Empire, as we can see with the DPRK remaining. The fact that we have not adequately addressed climate change is because capital is at the driver’s seat, not humans. None of this discredits Marxism.
There is no such thing as a “political class.” Administrators were part of the rest of the working classes, receiving an income in the form of wages, without owning capital.
The fact that democracy exists does not mean every change is good.
Marx is not incorrect, all you’ve proven is a lack in understanding Marx.
What is an addiction other than acting against your self interest? Nuclear proliferation is objectively a bad thing for humanity as a whole. It is game theory (another concept not included with Marx’s archaic concepts) that causes nations to act against their interests by endangering us all with nuclear weapons.
capital is at the driver’s seat, not humans
Capital can’t make decisions, only humans.
There is no such thing as a "political class.
Another way that Marx fails. The president can own no capital (ex. Carter) but can command the largest army in the world and fire nuclear weapons as they choose. Actually ownership of capital is irrelevant. Control of capital is what matters. Power is what matters.
Addiction is not an intentional action against self-interest. People can know something is bad, but they seek it out anyways for the positives. This does not contradict Marxism whatsoever.
As far as nuclear proliferation is concerned, it is necessary in the context of the genocidal US Empire. Without nukes, you end up like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, bombarded and blockaded. With nukes, you survive, like the DPRK.
Capitalism is a control system. Capitalists do not have control over capitalism, capital does. It selects for profits and resources are allocated in a manner that best secures profits. Humans are not the masters of capital, capitalists are better described as priests of capital.
As for presidents, even if they own no direct capital, they derive their power from capitalists giving them legitimacy. They are representatives of that class in society that has dominance over the economy. Carter in your example has legitimacy as far as he acts in the interests of capitalists, he had no power over capital.
You again are proving, above all, that you do not understand Marxism, and therefore your critique rings extraordinarily hollow. How can you hope to critique that which you have never even tried to understand?
Alcoholism and drug addiction are just as you said, addictions. Nuclear proliferation is a good thing to protect against the US Empire, as we can see with the DPRK remaining. The fact that we have not adequately addressed climate change is because capital is at the driver’s seat, not humans. None of this discredits Marxism.
There is no such thing as a “political class.” Administrators were part of the rest of the working classes, receiving an income in the form of wages, without owning capital.
The fact that democracy exists does not mean every change is good.
Marx is not incorrect, all you’ve proven is a lack in understanding Marx.
What is an addiction other than acting against your self interest? Nuclear proliferation is objectively a bad thing for humanity as a whole. It is game theory (another concept not included with Marx’s archaic concepts) that causes nations to act against their interests by endangering us all with nuclear weapons.
Capital can’t make decisions, only humans.
Another way that Marx fails. The president can own no capital (ex. Carter) but can command the largest army in the world and fire nuclear weapons as they choose. Actually ownership of capital is irrelevant. Control of capital is what matters. Power is what matters.
Addiction is not an intentional action against self-interest. People can know something is bad, but they seek it out anyways for the positives. This does not contradict Marxism whatsoever.
As far as nuclear proliferation is concerned, it is necessary in the context of the genocidal US Empire. Without nukes, you end up like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, bombarded and blockaded. With nukes, you survive, like the DPRK.
Capitalism is a control system. Capitalists do not have control over capitalism, capital does. It selects for profits and resources are allocated in a manner that best secures profits. Humans are not the masters of capital, capitalists are better described as priests of capital.
As for presidents, even if they own no direct capital, they derive their power from capitalists giving them legitimacy. They are representatives of that class in society that has dominance over the economy. Carter in your example has legitimacy as far as he acts in the interests of capitalists, he had no power over capital.
You again are proving, above all, that you do not understand Marxism, and therefore your critique rings extraordinarily hollow. How can you hope to critique that which you have never even tried to understand?