/lit/ - Literature

>>11714491
Currently reading it. The fact that Marx advocates for the abolition not only of private property, but of the family, and states that these things don't exist to the proletariat class anyway is just blatantly untrue. He constantly resorts to the ad hoc bullshit "if you disagree with anything I say, it's because you are an evil oppressor wah!"
(No wonder many of the platforms he lists off at the end of section 2 could almost perfectly be copied and pasted into today's democrat party.)

The abolition of national boundaries, and the assertion that nation states only have utility insumuch as they serve the interests of the oppressor class is complete and total nonsense- one can see from our current application of his cultural ideals that the lines that divide nations are much more than invisible lines created to partition land arbitrarily to make the peasantry more readily subservient (though coming out of the colonial era, perhaps Marx can be spared this criticism a bit.)

The assertion that "bourgeoisie" revolutions always tend to appeal to the past, whereas his new brand of prole revolution will appeal to the "future" is an interesting one at least, given that it is true right wingers tend to view grand change as something that should be undertaken to return to some past greatness, keeping with the cyclicality of history, and left wingers generally find themselves motivated by a push towards a future that they imagine growing ever brighter with each facet of the old society they destroy.
That being said, it is an absolutely fucking idiotic approach that Marx takes to historiography. The gross oversimplification of human history (and human nature itself for that matter) into a struggle between oppressor vs. oppressed class is an idea that I don't think any of us will see vanish from public thought in our lifetimes, and this is perhaps Marx's most awful contribution to western, and certainly American, society left today.