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?
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?