/lit/ - Literature

>>22977673
>Hope this helps!

FWIW Richard Wright constantly deprecated his own writing, but had one of the best critiques of Marxism.

>One afternoon Comrade Grimm and I sneaked into the club's headquarters and opened Young's luggage. What we saw puzzled us. First of all, there was a scroll of paper twenty yards long-one page pasted to another-which had drawings depicting the history of the human race from a Marxist point of view. The first page read: "A Pictorial Record Of Man's Economic Progress."
>"This is terribly ambitious," I said.
>"He's very studious," Grimm said.

>There were long dissertations written in long-hand; some were political and others dealt with the history of art. Finally we found a letter with a Detroit return address and I promptly wrote asking news of our esteemed member. A few days later a letter came which said in part :

Dear Sir: In reply to your letter, we beg to inform you that Mr. Young who was a patient in our
Institution and who escaped from our custody a few months ago, has been apprehended and returned to this institution for mental treatment.

>I was thunderstruck. Was this true? Undoubtedly it was. Then what kind of club did we run that a lunatic could step into it and help run it? Were we all so mad that we could not detect a madman when we saw one?

Why every person that reads marxist literature become like pic related?

AntiRevisionist Marxist-Leninist

>>13283348
Is OP wrong, though? You don't really see bro-tier guys defending communism. It's always the limp-wristed faggots like pic related.
Inb4 people start posting kekistanis.

>>13242388
sure, sure.

>>10683282
>Nothing. Everything. Right-wingers are enemies of humanity and deserve death.

>>10298232
>marxists
kys faggot

>>10286709
>why do I know what Hezbollah is, much less have an opinion on it? [Extremely favorable, if you were curious]
>t.

>>9917937
>neo-nazi
>pretending to be a sophisticated user of language

>>9355886

>You complain about others imposing obligation onto you.Yet, this is exactly what you're doing when you're asserting your ownership claims.

i'm not 'imposing' anything on anyone by offering someone money to chop wood. they can take it or leave it.

look up 'imposition' in the dictionary.

>ownership """claims"""

there is no claim. you own something or you don't.

>All economic rules, including rules that create private property ownership, contract laws, and so on, impose background constraints on the universe of choices individuals can make.

'i'm being constrained because people aren't serving me for free and giving me what i want and i can't just rob people without consequences.'

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>All forms of rights only have meaning insofar as they impose limits on the freedom of others. The point of a right, after all, is to restrain the actions of others so as to give the right-holder a specific realm of action.

right's are negative. you're complaining that you're not free because you don't have the freedom to murder me without legal consequence.

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>As is often the case with people of your mindset, you will probably say that you "merely" impose negative obligations on others and that only positive obligations are bad (another notion I disagree with btw.)

you disagree with 'mere impositions' of 'not being allowed to steal and murder'?

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>However, even if we pretended that there is a morally relevant difference between positive and negative obligations, it ones again works both ways. Others could just as well say that they are asking nothing more of you than to refrain from interfering when they attempt to use the resources in question.

you ignore the fact that the money is mine, and pretend as though I'M imposing on YOU because i asked if you wanted some money in exchange for chopping wood, and you respond by 'why am i not free to murder you and take it?'

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>Not to mention that you're only able to own anything at all thanks to positive obligations that fulfil Locke's proviso. Otherwise, the entire globe would be fully owned by a handful of people, leaving nothing left for you.

ownership existed before (philosophy X). everyone knows what it means. again, you imply that i'm imposing on you by not letting you take my computer.

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>They have a reason to. That's why politics exist, honey.

are you implying that no one is without sufficient reasons to care about everything? are you implying that the awareness of politics is somehow in conflict with me not caring about a stranger in any way comparable with caring about my mother?

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>honey

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>>9168812
>cringe
Right, comrade!

Who else here remembers /thatguy/ who made a bunch of sockpuppet posts on /pol/ about 'hegelian dialectics' and then paraded it around on here as an example of /pol/ being retarded?

That (((redpiller))) is shitting up this board more than anyone else because he believes his single handed attempt at 'meme warfare' will change anyones mind (whereas in reality it's just obnoxious).

Anyways to keep it /lit/-related let's talk about his #Alt-Woke manifesto and the implications of Xenofeminism on this board and beyond! What implications might it have for his home country of reddit if it caught on?

>>8802396

Why are we so much smarter than those dummies over at /pol/?

>>7898748

>>7005119

you marxists have a containment board, it's called reddit

>>6993479
do you think /pol/ would hold this guy up as the face of your lot?

>>6819804
as opposed to the opposite side of your hyperbolic extremist fence, who are all rational, well-adjusted individuals.

>>6790026
Thanks for the advice, O brave vanguard of the Revolution. Will you sign this picture for me?

>>6396248
*tips beret

>>6090600
they were

>>5244566
>what a commie basterd

Welcome to /lit/