/lit/ - Literature

>>13544076
>my face when a /lit/tard googles "why marx was wrong", picks up a few buzzwords from a reddit thread, and then comes back to /lit/ and drops them randomly thinking it achieves anything

Will the western world ever stop being butthurt about his writings and integrate him in the canon?
It's honestly funny how we've absorbed prime weirdos like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer as just Another Western Genius, but Marx provokes endless rage every single day, non-stop.

*ends idealism*

What happened to the Capital Reading Group? Didn't even make it past chapter 1.
Is this the best /lit/ patricians can do?

>current year
>not dialectically overcoming the dead-ends of liberalism and conservatism to reach anti-identitarian Marxism
>not constructing a genuine political economy to get outside the cancer of meme culture politics
What's your excuse?

When did you realize that Marxism was the end point of philosophy?
Marx convincingly demonstrated that philosophical problems were resolved in the realm of social being and political praxis. Philosophy can only exist as a separate discipline if you abstract its subjects from their historical content in a fruitless search for essences, thus rendering them meaningless. The practice of philosophy reaches its climax in the conscious realization that it is basically class struggle in theory.

Hello, i am in dire need of guidance.

I've been reading Marx lately, as one of my exams revolve around Marxism (or well, one of the questions, and i chose Marxism. I can still change it tho) specifically The German Ideology, part 1, Idealism and Materialism + The Illusion of the Epoch.
The problem is, i understand close to zero of it.
My native language is not English, but this one course is in English, and the texts are all similar to this.
How do i understand this/actually read it? Atm. it's like i read it and then i just instantly forget what i read because it's written so advanced... Help

Classical Marxism is the most /lit/ political position.

Is there any better philosophy for making sense of the constantly-changing nature of the world and our place within it, than Dialectical Materialism? All the other alternatives seem like highly developed essentialism, which sound nice at first but are confronted by historical specificity and material relations.

What's the best Marxist literature to read after digesting Capital?

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion ,
religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-
consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won
through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no
abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of
man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion,
which is an inverted consciousness of the world , because they are an
inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its
encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual
point d’honneur , its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn
complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification.
It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human
essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against
religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world
whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of
real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the
sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and
the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up
their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a
condition that requires illusions . The criticism of religion is,
therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which
religion is the halo."

How is he wrong /lit/?