/lit/ - Literature

>>17737211
>progressivism

>>17613365
>Reifag destroyed
My work here is done.

>>17582012
(You)

>>17572244
(You)

>>17544883
>Gulags are just prisons, every society had prisons. Even solzhenitsyn got cancer treatment when he was in the gulag. It might be easy to find it barbaric from the privilege of living in a developed western nation, but you got to remember that Russia was an agrarian shithole before they became a highly industrialized world power under socialism.
Untrue, Russia had a massive industry by the first world war already. Look up their production figures on war materiel in comparison to France, for example.
>>17544918
He's literally a communist, retard, he does not write "anti-communist propaganda". The reason I am calling you a leftoid is because leftoids often do this thing with Orwell which is to not learn the first thing about him at all, then to call him a reactionary or an anti-communist when he was nothing of the like.
>>17544929
>he didn't. his entire worldview denies the possibility of this. pic rel quote isn't just something he threw out there, it's an integral part of his worldview. he said this because he denied the dichotomy between social knowledge and acting. that's a profoundly anti-objective view.
It is an integral part of his worldview, but it has absolutely no bearing on Marxist objectivity or lack thereof. If you believe otherwise, you will have to prove it. I also fail to see where at all Marx would be "denying the dichotomy between social knowledge and acting". Obviously, according to the Marxist concepts of "base and superstructure", social "knowledge" associated with the superstructure is in fact the action and product of the ruling class. Marx, however, was not a ruler. He conceived of himself as a scientist and his goal was to formulate an objective and complete science. That this science had obvious implications about action affects the genuine nature of his approach not in the least.
>it wasn't. "scientific socialism" was supposed to oppose his own to that of those who analyzed the flaws of capitalism and tried to derive a more moral system. this attitude of the "utopians" is more objective than marxism, because the "utopians" did not the deny the objectivity of knowledge and analysis as it is done in marx.
He opposed "scientific socialism" to revolutionary idealism, sloganeering etc. Marxism lays claim to objective knowledge, it does not deny objective knowledge at all. Dialectical materialism is posited as the ultimate truth.
>utterly confused, garbage entirely unscientific idea.
It was neither confused nor garbage nor even unscientific. It was a good attempt. It is still wrong, of course, but it was certainly a rigorous formulation of history.
>you're not very bright.
pic rel

>>17319656
>legitimate sources of authority
holy fuck, imagine being (You)

>>17199138

>>17094309
>"biology always wins. even if you manage trick your brain into not caring for women, you will go crazy and become a pedophile like catholic priests."

>>16985324
>"The God Delusion by Dawkins, obviously. Don't tell me you seriously believe this spiritual mumbo-jumbo, anon?"

>>16968453
>"those are pretty embarrassing exceptions unless you're like 15"

>>16881025
"Introduction to Beauty" by Roger Scruton.

>you can’t disprove a negative