/lit/ - Literature

>>20554864
Obviously this is a bit of a meme, but I think there's something to the idea that at least philosophically Marxism and Jesus' message were quite similar. Yes, Marx funny reddit atheism. Yes, Jesus is not talking about the proletariat or the price mechanism of the British cotton industry. But there's something else going on here. Fundamentally, Jesus [the son of Panthera and the son of a legionary whore] is trying to make his followers realize that there is something essentially revolutionary about unified belief so as to raise the downtrodden from their lot. Sure, it's all slave morality cope, and is an inherently spiritual argument rather than a materialist one, but I see this only as semantical difference existing in two very different historical moments yet born from the same impetus: to enshrine liberty, and prevent injustice.

"The value of any commodity, [...] to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities"
Where's the lie though?

>noooooooo you can't work 1 hour a day and create the same amount of value as every other retard looking busy pounding sand from 9 to 5
Is this how he coped with being unable to start a business in the booming industrial era?

I really don't see any point in reading the deconstructionists et al, who as far as i know were reactionary to Marx and whose ideas were harmful, suspect, and unscientific. Would it be valid to end with Marx? Are there any real thinkers who come after him who are worth reading for actual knowledge and not just intellectual masturbation and telling other people that "I'm so smart because I've read Derrida and Foucault"? Also, if I am interested in reading the best and most influential works (not counting theologians like Aquinas or Augustine, or orators or essayists like Cicero or Bacon, or political writers like Machiavelli or Locke. Just pure philosophy here) is this a good enough list?:
>Plato, Aristotle, Descartes
>Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche
And should I be including Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Hegel, Heidegger, etc.? Thanks

How would he react seeing the consequences of his ideas?

Dude! You have false consciousness!

>>14830420
Das Kapital

Amazing book

So a god has snatched from me my all
In the curse and rack of Destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
Nothing but revenge is left to me!

On myself revenge I'll proudly wreak,
On that being, that enthroned Lord,
Make my strength a patchwork of what's weak,
Leave my better self without reward!

I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark-- superstitious dread,
For its Marshall--blackest agony.

Who looks on it with a healthy eye,
Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb;
Clutched by blind and chill Mortality
May his happiness prepare its tomb.

And the Almighty's lightning shall rebound
From that massive iron giant.
If he bring my walls and towers down,
Eternity shall raise them up, defiant.

>>12720205
sorry dude but /lit/ is a marxist board

Historical materialism, the idea that the dominant ideas in society are shaped by the material organisation of society, is pretty much correct. But he was wrong about communism.

Doesn't quantum physics disprove what he said?

>>11217908
>Division of labor is making even academics stupid.
He warned us.