/lit/ - Literature

>>2466830
As if Marx wanted to have anything to do with a concept of "morality" diserving of that name.
Pretty sure Marx was all for the eventual abolition of the state. In fact he shares the same kind of liberalist utopism that you ascribe to Nietzsche (and ironically to Hayeck too it seems?). The real difference is that Marx has the sense to grasp that this has very little to do with "individualism", the ideology of which he (rightly) attributes to an economical need to separate "private affairs" from "public" ones. Since Marx's point of departure is largely an interpretation of idealism where the "labour" is more or less identified with that tendency which deploys human spirit (taken in an idealist sense), and that said forms of ideology simply alienate this tendency, liberation would really be about not having a reason in the first place to accrue individuated property rights, maintain abstracted notions of morality, ... over and against other people.

tl;dr: Wherever Nietzsche and Hayeck would take it, Marx takes it further by seeing through individualism. Therefore his utopian liberation penis is largest by far.

Did someone say "economists"?
1) Communism has nothing to do with planned economy.
2) Socialism (not communism) has been and is still being applied in Europe to develop welfare states. It is not a big secret that they work perfectly and that the only serious threat is the kind of crisis capitalism that has been fucking over everyone indiscriminately. Ok, so they may fail because "capitalism" is taking it with it down the gutter... Congratulations on "your side winning" I suppose? And its not even really happening in a free market environment in the first place, see Chomsky etc...
3) Do you realise communism has never actually been properly attempted?