/lit/ - Literature

>>16775311
>t. sheltered zoomer who lives in the comfortable bubble of his coddled 21st-century existence

>yfw you first thought deeply about welfare and charity from a perspective of class struggle and you realise you've been helping the enemy your entire life

>I'm a sharp serious dresser
>grow up you guys
>Mad Men
>Buckley Jr.

you're such a fucking cartoon you should have your own nickelodeon show

>>6334349
You know what's really fucking infuriating about that? Is that the identity/privilege politics people in the Left, who mostly belong to minorities or are women, always act like *we* who study capitalism, theory and labor organization but happen to be white men are some kind of outsiders who have to prove our "worth" to them.

There's this underlying assumption that if a guy is a self-proclaimed Leftist but he's privileged he should be expected to prove he's not "like the rest" by a strict observance of whatever bullshit rules they've just come up with and a constant weird quasi-Maoist self-criticism.

And in turn, the majority of these people are completely ignorant on everything that belongs to the left-wing tradition before the raise of intersectionality. And when I say completely, I mean *completely* - they have this irritating habit of never reading anything but just assuming they know what it says. And I spoke with older black and feminist activists who said exactly the same thing.

Yet somehow they expect to join and be able to dictate the rules just because they have a pussy card. And that desperate embracing of identity at the expense of everything else really seems to be causing it's harm now that I look at young left-wing movements and I have more chances of encountering something said by Beyonce, John Oliver or the Dalai Lama quote than Marx, Connolly or Kautsky.

>tfw STEM student and constantly surrounded by these people

>>6137804
>wealth disparity, digital age making many jobs useless and wages stagnated could be a recipe for meaningful reform
>people instead will probably be satisfied with another two terms of democrats

Let me use this thread to ask another question.

I know that the gap between theory and practice is one tough to bridge and there are many theories on that, but I'm curious about something regarding that subject.

Marx said somewhere in the manifesto about the expansion of the guilds as a precursor of private property and capitalism (or something like that, I don't remember that well)

That means, assumedly, that looking back he probably saw that development as a more important economic development than any of the criteria the people who lived to see this process judged "prosperity" by.

If that's the case, shouldn't marxists be more concerned about the development of technology and corporate arrangement that can maybe start seeding the way to socialism? They seem, instead, more worried about the "overall" economic development which I don't see point in. Capitalism can only lead to more capitalism.

>Hegel
>Wittgenstein
>Kant
>Nietzsche
...
...
...
>Satan

>>5163804
Understood, and I agree.
Thank you for clarifying.