Karl Marx Didn't Understand Human Nature And Communism is a Lie



all right everyone last night I was having fun antagonizing like the Twitter crowd with the hammer and sickle Zin their username and Karl Marx banners and stuff it's fun once in a while to get them going because you know they have a tendency to try to dogpile people because part of their mentality it's like the bash the fash hashtag resist sort of thing you know even if the person that they're attacking is not fascistic in any way is like am an artist or something they think libertarianism is just a different variety of fascism I don't know how they arrived at this conclusion because they themselves Alec oh yeah I'm a narc oh whatever I'm I'm an anarchist I'm an anarchic communist as though that's a thing whatever it's all very funny but I thought that I would talk to us about some of the problems with Karl Marx some of the things he got totally and objectively prove me wrong within the realm of maybe anthropological experience because if you've gone to the anthropology courses you've probably been forced to read some of Marx's ramblings most of which is it's pretty boring it's there honestly there's a lot of anthropological work that's boring anyway that's done that's not just his ideology makes it boring it's just in general it's kind of dry and academic not everyone's into that sort of writing maybe more the antiquated philosophy of a thousand years before that maybe a little bit more interesting to some people a little more theatrical and flower even you know sort of brutalist Karl Marx sense but the first problem is actually his foundational premise that is the theory that he developed into new communism not in essence stems in the primordial sense from the central foundation of primitive communism his theory essentially is hypothesis because it's not true and I'll go into why we know within anthropology we know for a fact that his primitive communism didn't exist it's not real the primitive man had elements of monarchism at times elements of nationalism certainly oligarchic structures and certainly theocracy you know slowly later on never anything communal in nature his foundational premise was the concept that communism could definitely work it's not utopian at all says Marx because it's not shrila mankind you know look at this this tribe here they have like you know no concept of ownership or so he thought now you've got to understand one thing here before we get into archeology and it's debasement of communism you have to understand one very very important thing here Karl Marx didn't travel out and do fieldwork and go visit primitive tribes according to his recollection he was an armchair anthropologist which meant that he read the stuff other people were doing for fieldwork what's the problem with that of course those other people may be totally wrong we talked about that same period of time in the moderns as the people on the left to do this all the time they said well that was it's all basically worthless because it was colonial mumbo jumbo it's it's you know the noble savage mythology and and projection and ethnocentrism and xenophobia and then you know all this other stuff and later on it seeps into the culture you were you Rudolf Schneider you read like occult significance of blood you're gonna get some of this stuff you know the theosophy and the spiritualist movement intertwined with anthropology for half a century Karl Marx though is really a product of his period of time he was an armchair erudite wannabe essentially who didn't actually go out and do anything he was studying things totally secondhand therefore he develops this theory based on secondhand and sometimes tertiary knowledge we now know that primitive communism is not real it did not exist primitive man was not communist if you look at some of the oldest remains they show too much sensuality to have been communistic in the anarchic sense which he's claiming is the natural offshoot of the natural primitive communism he claims existed anyway at the same time you also you definitely have a sense of family over you know collective community you have private ownership after fashion look at cattle Joya what's cattle Hoya it's the earliest recognisable town it doesn't have streets or anything they had like weird you know tongue tunnels and ramparts and hallways and shit this sort of went through people's homes it wasn't the most efficient structure maybe and it was rebuilt and apparently had population collapses five or six times before was finally abandoned at catal hoyuk we do see a communal structure in the sense that it is technically one solid structure but it's divided according to the ownership of different families different families had their own little honeycomb-like structures so I believe some had multiple rooms they had a primitive variant of theocracy you could say they certainly they had funerary remains that appear to have been repeatedly removed and and ritually used buried around their hurts and things like that these were kept separate they weren't all lumped together in one special room you could say a modern cemetery shows more communalism than the remains of cattle Jolla everyone sort of just buried together and we might have a family plot or something within the cemetery but in general it's just sort of it's not really arranged in that way at catal hoyuk though everyone had their own funerary remains separate from the others and you see it's like you look at gobekli tepe you look at archaeology you look at any of these structures communal society wouldn't have had any reason to build something like you see it gobekli tepe what would be the point essentially if you're if you're thinking in terms of the Antarctic what's the point of centralizing this apparent style of worship why wouldn't it be solely individualistic and or solely communal and rely upon no ownership at all certainly the people who built it didn't want some neighboring group of people to come and destroy it now did they it shows a collective ownership in that sense but it is still ownership I would say is almost to the concept of the nation-state defeats communism in and of itself just because it happened to develop but if you look back even ten thousand years you're looking at people who had some degree of sedentary society in some cases that was centered at least around the familial that is that they recognized self and not self which you wouldn't do in communalism and self isn't as in the family unit as well that apart from others even within your own tribe and those tribes then being organized into something you know akin to a small primitive tribalistic city-state we're talking of course some of these copper Age advancements so that's the first problem the second problem is pure biology and that's the humans are innately competitive on a biological level this is nothing more than evolution it's nothing more than evolutionary fact you almost have to suspend belief and everything Darwin wrote in order to be a communist it's actually very funny because they have that in common with people who like you know typically and on the right religious zealots like you know the more far-out trad Cohn or something like that it's almost the same story it's a denial of science of the more objective observable you know easily understood side evolution in the macro evolutionary sense is just an amalgamation of micro evolutions that are directional you know in some cases and if they fail to be properly directional which nappin by chance it can happen by all sorts of different effects then you'd usually have extinction or at the very least out competition the group is out bred or whatever that's what you have with in human societies too it's a brutal world we look at the world around us we're lulled into this false sense that it's stable it's peaceful it's not look at Hawaii right now this world is constantly a threat of like having a massive chunk explode in this world is constantly a threat of another megafauna extinction it's constantly a threat from all sorts of catastrophes from the moment you're born to the moment you're Donna you die you're competing with all other humans for things that humans need you're also competing to keep yourself from getting consumed by other life-forms when you die your own gut bacteria will revolt and because your immune system shuts down they'll start eating you from the inside out turn you into soup isn't that lovely no it's not it probably sounds quite morbid but it is reality that's how it works ultimately human beings have to be competitive it's innate part of that competition takes the form of amalgamation that's why states exist that's why the the arisal of globalism unfortunately I would say this is more or less inevitable it was inevitable that the concept would be dreamed up now I think that it's a step backwards and evolution and eventually is defeated because I think that that sort of supreme centrality actually becomes unstable I think if you break things into nations those nations have a lifespan to the globe itself would therefore have its own lifespan causing calamity may be a few centuries late be certainly a dark age indeed it'd be a little bit like yeah I'd be a little bit like Star Wars like the fall of the Empire at that point be a problem here's the thing though human beings will always compete if you were to develop a communal system let's say you instituted world communism you abolished all the nation states then people don't really have property that isn't they just sort of produce and then they you know each unto you know their labor or whatever the hell it was mark said that stupid quote basically from each according to his labor to each according to his need or something along those lines some bullshit but uh let's say you manage to do so okay you've gone back to a supposedly a primitive period what will happen is that the whole thing will replicate itself over again the nation-state will eventually be born some group by chance alone will be alienated from other groups skin ISM off and develop you know a more centralized state in order to out-compete everyone around it that'll force the others to do the same pretty soon you have the same problems that the communists see with maybe the world today and then you have number three and this is one that doesn't get discussed much it's easy it's low-hanging fruit to target primitive communism it's low-hanging fruit to talk about biological evolution but what comes from biological evolution cultural evolution taking off from the end of the last point here cultures evolve as well over time they are thus subject to competition as well the nation-state is simply in a the the concept of Nations is more innate and natural as an extension of human biology of evolution itself than the concept of its abolition it's actually natural its natural for man to slowly amalgamate tower structures and centralize things it's a problem than bureaucracy trust me there's a problem in the USSR's bureaucracy too thus over time things are either destroyed or they get reformed now if you don't continuously do that things become unstable again why globalism I think losses long-term this is a something that libertarians would point out it is biologically natural for that amalgamation to occur it's in balancing it it's at finding some sort of stability between the two extremes you know the ancap may not care if there's you know communist style anarchy which is the oddly enough there's some similarity I know you you have capitalism okay so it's an anarchic communist society with factories okay I don't see a huge difference other than more smog but alright the monarchist would say you have to find a balancing point between the two you have to find a point preferably that increases stability and efficiency see a little bit of bureaucracy a little bit of order and nation state creates massively better efficiency than having none at all that's why it arose it's an evolutionary advantage to amalgamate along those lines the tribalistic it doesn't really matter what the form of governance is that's a separate issue I have my own feelings on that but it's semi separate however as you advance along it becomes almost cancer like that is what was once an advantage has become a burden it's like with an evolution you thing turtles shell turtle shell gives it protection so what about having more shell it must be great wouldn't it but eventually the turtle can't move it's going to starve to death if a mutant arises it has a triple thick shell it may not actually be able to survive now you'd think if you were using the logic of certain groups of people you think well you know more shell is always better more shell more protection ah takes energy to make it it takes energy to field it you have to be able to actually have motility that's you know you've strangulated another aspect of your survival by fixating on one too much this is also by the way an argument against central planning because in central planning you can make that same basic mistake you've got to let some things play out on a private marketplace so those are just some thoughts about communism generally communists don't you know it's like some people are like well you platform you know the alt right but you never talked to leftists other than you know a che Goodman who they now consider to be far-right I guess uh they had something on there about him being an extremist the other day and I was like I was laughing my ass off I'm like the fuck are you talking about have you even listened to his work but uh yeah other than he swears a little bit more now because he's been alienated by the progressives who keep calling him names for daring to point out that the DNC has issues oddly enough on that the calm you probably one fault and most of them hate the Democratic Party do they're like oh you mean those Republicans with a D after their name yeah we hate them too and the very least they're consistent okay if they're more purist they're more consistent totally disagree with your worldview but at least you're not a hypocrite that's good I suppose well not a hypocrite on that anyway you know you know what I mean so yeah there's a little bit about communism wish I could debates of Communists that'd be funny then people would say I was platforming them I had a comment the other day to show how the paradigm is slowly grinding down and beginning to maybe turn a little bit now the other day I had somebody again comment say that I was like a long-haired hippie and I needed Jesus and stuff it's been a while actually mostly I get flack only from the left these days been a while since I managed to piss off the Evangel okon is this sort of a dying breed I guess you know we need more religious zealots in the country so that someone can try to troll me and provide me with entertainment I need more of it damn it I need some rage every day in order to keep myself going a man does not live on coffee alone that's about all peace out




Comments
  1. Marxist: You do not understand Marxism

    The problem is not if a person does or does not understand Marxism (which is a crack pot theory anyway). The problem is that Marxism does not take into consideration how human nature actually works. A Marxist once told me , that it is a dog eat dog world only because Capitalism makes it that way. I guess under Marxism, competition and self interest magically go away.

  2. Anyone remember the old movie called "The Wave"?
    Leftists in our universities play that plot out every single day…

  3. There has to be a system that is innate within humans that works. We can be in tribes can compete against nature but as you said, it will just adapt to become a nation or state. I would love to see a debate on this or somehow an argument in favor of having tribes and all that comes with it.

  4. Communism sounds good in theory but in reality it cannot work. Communism is a bunch of fucking lies. Nazis hated communism including Adolf Hitler. Primitive Communism didn’t exist in that society only hunters and gatherers society existed. Capitalism is the best system we got so far. National Socialism is different from Marxist socialism it’s a form of fascism a far-right for the Nazis. What society existed instead of Primitive Communism?

  5. Styx, he DID understand human nature. They don’t actually believe that Communism or Socialism will lead to everyone being happy. When are you going to realize that these ideologies are used by people that cannot compete in a meritocracy and so use ideology to wrest power from the gullible to rule over their betters.
    Here endeth the lesson.

  6. It's purpose is the transference of power to the state. It's a trick and not intended to work. The first step is the abolition of private property. No property equals no rights.

  7. 1. Primitive communism definitely DID exist. There is no evidence of property deeds among hunter-gathers or communal farmers.
    2. Humans are NOT innately competitive, biologically. They are innately COOPERATIVE in gathering resources, helping each other. They are weak, naked apes with no natural defenses except intelligence and strength in numbers. Any animal will resort to competition in crises of scarcity, but will also cooperate for mutual survival.
    3. As per Kropotkin, humans evolved to COOPERATE SOCIALLY in order to survive. Otherwise they'd all be eaten by lions (the physically stronger species).
    4. Capitalism is NOT a competitive system. It is a production process that BEGINS with a brief period of frenzied competition followed by the establishment of parasitic monopolies and a rentier class who thwart innovation and real competition. See Silicon Valley, globalized conglomerates, telecom, fossil fuels, and other "competitive" capitalists.

  8. I have seen the face of God in the patterns woven into his creations. Good is emergence, and though he is static, his whims are not, for through our trial and error he forms order and structure out of chaos. Cast aside the primitive layers of existence as outdated or unnecessary if you will, but when your perfect order fails to the very emergent forces you sought to control or suppress, you will know that God's will cannot be so easily displaced. Much better to build upon what has come before, forged and hardened by the trials of ancestors. Yes you might still err, but the foundations shall be firm. Cast aside traditions only for their failings, not for trends or fashion. In this way you shall conserve wisdoms without needing to again pay the price for learning them anew,. For though emergence (and thus God's will) requires change and adaptation, just as in biology, must mutations are detrimental to survival, it is the selection process that turns the rare success into the new normal. But culture can be copied more readily than created. Let the fools and futurists chase visions of what could or "should" be, and adopt their ways only if they have been proven. So does the corporation survive on the innovations of smaller companies it aquires. So do the conservatives embrace new social norms only after they are widespread. Yes, any reflective person will guide a certain portion of their actions by introspection and evidence, but no one can investigate all of life. We need defaults. We need heuristics. So let your default state be one of following the path well laid by trial and error, and raise your children not according to the whims of the day, but by those standards that have endured, for they reflect the more solid foundations upon which emergence has wrought us, and emergence is God's will.

  9. Somehow I missed this one. I didn’t follow through with academic degree. It was too narrow minded. Self taught is so much better . You learn more and try to learn from anthropological history. People never learn.

  10. If you debated a "communist" they would just turn and call it fascism and use the semantics dome to hold themselves up. Find one please a make a spectacle of them, it would be much entertaining.

  11. I tried to read the communist manifesto once and stopped after I read this really dull part where Marx went on and on about how many people were producing so many textile thingies from home…that personal property needs to be abolished. That was his solution to an economy changed by manufacturing. The guy was a fucking fool.

  12. met a communist party member in Germany once. Sold a flyer about their Ideology for 2€ to me. Made my Day XD

  13. His social theory is useful for hermeneutics but his social policies are useless,i am a law student and i can tell you from studying his writtings that his views on morality are useful.

  14. I was at the GDR museum in Berlin yesterday. In the gift shop is a machine that for 2 Euros gives you a Euro note with Marx on it. The note is valued at 0 Euros. Basically worthless, but a great representation of communism.

  15. Communism works on a small voluntary scale, but can't work large scale without authoritatiansm.

  16. Could you recommend some books on anthropology and perhaps linguistics? I appreciate your using those disciplines in your analyses. Thanks for your work.

  17. Family over collective community? dude without a collective community, no family, without a family, no community. A family in itself is a collective community. How people is buried have nothing to do with the collective way of life, nor even the opposite of it. Biological competition wtf? All this is the first few minutes.

  18. If Marxism actually worked, the lock and key would have not been needed, thus, it never would've been invented.

  19. Lol Styx. You prolly will never read thism but ah well…

    I saw a piece of vid from you a few times last year. It popped up in suggested. It didnt ring home.. dunno why.

    Then today i saw smth and kept at it. And the next. And the next. And i agree with most you say. Also noticed you have a bright mind, quick on your feet/words and analytically skillfull. So i kept watching more and more.

    Then i see this one. Nice one sir! Im far older than you are (58) and ive been trying to explain specific things you say here aswell for decades. So few people understand. It was nice to see someone else actually understands. Chapeau!
    The reason they dont understand these concepts is because most ppl (even with uni degrees) are locked up in their 'bubbles', be it political ideology, religion, etc. If you cannot let go, which also includes letting go of yourself (our morals are dear to us), you simply cannot grasp, what are basically easy concepts, once you have stepped away.
    So again Chapeau!

  20. So what you're saying is, a privileged punk regurgitates and/or extrapolates a bunch of BS while sitting around drinking and agonizing over the fact that pretty soon, dad's money is gonna run out and he might have to get a job, so he dreams up some "utopia", which subsequent generations of privileged punks suck up like mother's milk because they don't want to work either? I find it hard to believe.

  21. Back here for a re-cap

    Need more styx content!
    Love the channel, and the older, longer videos.. really great stuff

  22. Hermann Heinrich Gossen (1810-1858), a German economist, realized as early as 1854, that without a free market and the price signals that it provides, no centrally planned economy would know how much of anything to produce.
    The result was the Soviet Union, which could produce tanks and machine guns in abundance, but not lingerie.

  23. I recommend everyone to check out John David Ebert's YouTube channel. He talks about all of the ancient cultures and myths and mythology and just about everything really! He has a dry style similar to Styx so if you like Styx you might like him. Also, communism sucks
    That's about all. Peace out. 😛

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *