If you are unable to support yourself, when hillbillies in the woods and wild animals can do it, your opinion on anything means dick. Anything else?

But he was an intellectual though.

I can say this about chimpanzees and road lizards.

But you sit in your moms basement jerking off to obese transexual midgets though while wearing your moms panties.

I have no mom. I was never born. I was always here. Prove me wrong.

You're a walrus spooning spaktardicus.

Perhaps, but that just gives your mommy and me something in common.

The US economy hit it's height by molesting third world countries for their resources.

Citation needed.

Second of all the opposite of what you say is true, humans naturally live in tribes and villages where they share resources and have no concept of money.

Not really. Even in tribes people trade and have chiefs who have authority and more peyote and squaws.

All of this shit was socially constructed and made up as we went along.

Everything has always been "socially constructed", including Communism and Socialism.

Tribes were more like families. Once you squash 10 million people into one city, a community garden doesn't work anymore.

[Capitalism] was, in his day, still getting going, and Marx was one of its most intelligent and perceptive critics.

ROFLMAO

Because he was supported all his life, first by his family, and then by Engles, he completely missed the internal motivations and machinations that drive capitalism. As a result, his criticisms completely missed the mark.

Alienation of Labor - Part of Marx' misunderstanding is that he conflated capitalism with industrialism, which is a pretty clear indication that he did not understand either one.

The drive "to see ourselves in our work" is some of the impetus to innovate, to reinvest, and to expand our circumstances. If everybody's jobs were more than just the bottom layers of Maslow's hierarchy, then people would not stretch themselves to self-actualize, and they would just hang out making chairs etc. over and over again.

Insecure Work - Work has ALWAYS been insecure. Farmers have always been at the mercy of the weather.

Builders have ALWAYS been at the mercy of whether anybody was going to pay to have something built, etc..

Tradesmen have ALWAYS had insecure sources of materials and customers.

Overall, there is more security in work under capitalism because there is an ever-increasing range of jobs. Sure, workers may have to adapt, but there is an ever-increasing range of opportunities to adapt to. Even in the 19th century, people had the freedom to change jobs, change locations, innovate, and adapt.

Insecurity helps to drive the innovation and encourage the entrepreneurism that is the core of free market capitalism. The free market means that when one thing does not work out, we are free to try something else. We try new things because we often must do so in order to survive and feed our families.

That freedom is the basis of the increased overall security provided by capitalism over feudalism, etc..

Much of this is because capitalism universally depends on people freely engaging in mutually beneficial transactions. More than in any other system, capitalism REQUIRES us to benefit others in order to benefit ourselves.

Instability in the capitalist system - This is just another way to say it is dynamic. Again, that is how current economic growth and technological development lead into subsequent growth and development.

ALL of life is like that. In fact, it is instability that is at the core of biological life, not only evolutionarily, but even at the cellular level. A stable system is inert, dead. Economics are no different.

Income inequality - This is standard for all economic systems (communism/ socialism, capitalism, feudalism) and has nothing particularly to do with capitalism.

Even so, capitalism mitigates this most effectively by virtue of greater mobility of class and economic circumstance. For example, the richest people in the US did not start out rich (Bezos, Gates, Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie) but through capitalist enterprise changed their circumstances. Through participating in capitalism, people ROUTINELY go from being poor to rich or middle class (as well as downward migrations) in the course of our lives.

All the while, the standard for what counts as poor is constantly being raised. EVERYBODY is economically better off, decade by decade in capitalist nations.

Capitalism is bad for capitalists - Marx looked at wealthy capitalist jerks and thought they were jerks because they were capitalist, and wealthy because they were jerks.

He make the ridiculously illogical error of thinking poverty or victimhood implies virtue, and economic success implies villainy.

Had he ever had a job, he would have known that jerks are everywhere, not just at the top end of the income spectrum, and not just in capitalist societies.

Had he ever owned a business, he would have understood the optimism that is at the heart of risking an investment in a new enterprise.

As much to the point, he would have known that capitalism, and the opportunities to build personal wealth independently, was in large part what freed people to marry for love, not merely for money or consolidation of family power.

Look around the world, and you will notice that the more economically (capitalistically) developed a nation is, the less common are arranged marriages.

The most thorough critic of capitalism in academic history

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Too funny