/lit/ - Literature

>>10720429

You already know, anon. You just have to remember.
Think about the song, blessed man. What does it remind you of? What does it sound like?

>>10714114

Why do you say that in the strict sense it is true? I do believe that the production and distribution of material goods is important, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is the sole motor of history.

I mean, if that is the case, the fact that people are born with different abilities and capable of doing different things has no role at all in the development of the human species. It makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint nor from a philosophical one.

Moreover, it seems to me that it is an abhorrent and demeaning vision of human beings in general, to claim that our history only aims at a fair distribution of material goods. It is like saying that the existence of human consciousness in the universe, with all its complexity and sensibility for beauty, is there only as a machine to satisfy the material needs of the body - and that this necessity for satisfaction ends up being the sole factor of change and development in human history.

Moreover, current life in developed countries shows that a human being whose material needs are fully satisfied can still experience unhappiness. Shouldn't this make us re-think the idea that history develops solely from material needs?

Do self-proclaimed communists embrace this vision of history or are most of them just attracted by the idea of a fair distribution of goods? Because it seems to me that if that idea follows from a flawed philosophical background, one should doubt its validity, and maybe re-think it.

>>10703759