/lit/ - Literature

>>17683703
People don't like to read or look up big words. Your skill level is obviously higher than those you talk about, but I'm not sure why you would generalize like this unless this was a bait post.

>>17683703
Its not hard it’s just dry and he repeats himself way too much. It’s a slog.

>>17683703
Nobody says it's hard, everyone says the first 2/3 are shit, and they are right.
If you read it you would understand why.

>>17683703
He writes in a very dry way. It's written for its time. That's why I'm against saying "read capital". No one actually reads that.

>>17683740
it really is a quintessential mid wit post. if its genuine then the guy feels superior but is also too stupid to answer the fairly obvious question in the OP. if its not then this is just generic bait thread #9859859 and OP is no different than a retarded coomer getting his fix jerking off to trannies

>>17683798
>OP is no different than a retarded coomer getting his fix jerking off to trannies
Obsessed

>>17683703
You didn't even understand it if you say that it's an easy read, talk about brainlets lol.
(Marx redefines words per Hegel's dialectic method, but he doesn't explain his own definitions - like a crook he was. People who literally spend their lifetime "studying" him don't agree about his "true" meaning - and commies can say whatever the fuck they want (like calling USSR "state capitalism" for example) and always claim that it's a Marxist interpretation.

>>17683703
Why should I give a shit about what Marx said? His plans failed. Stirner correctly predicted that communism, socialism would lead to a despotism since it takes force to enforce it on the scale communists call for. I quite enjoy capitalism, even with its flaws, because the alternative is much worse.

>>17683703
You probably aren't reading it well. Read pic related after or side by side. Also listen to every Heinrich and Postone talk on youtube.
Also check out this article that goes over a lot of the misconceptions people have on Marx just so you don't project them
https://mronline.org/2017/11/17/150-years-of-capital-with-no-end-in-sight/

>>17683703
It’s boring.

>>17683867
You can not find objective meaning through a text. Every reading of a text is subject to human interpretation. By reading Marx the way you do; you just turn him into a bible sect. Honestly, you philosophy dweebs take yourselves too seriously. We need to start burning books so we can avoid the dogmatist that comes from it. That's what Zen masters did, and it worked pretty well.

>>17683878
everyone has their own interpretations, but some interpretations are better than others.

>>17683867
>Look mom, I posted it again!

>>17683905
that's a nice phone background

>>17683703
BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO TRY TO READ IT

UNLIKE MEIN KAUMPFFFF

>>17683850
>Stirner
a literal who, only known cause engels made him into a meme

>>17683922
na
egoists and marxists know him cuz they're usually not ignoramouses

>>17683703
i don't think anyone has claimed it is hard just a slog to get through

>>17683922
The guy who made Marx go into an autistic shitfit, and write an entire book just insulting Stirner, longer than his original work, against him. The guy who influenced Nietzsche, you know, the guy who has surpassed Marx by all marks.

>>17683878
>>17683893
Also to add on, a lot of the misconceptions people have of Marx come from people not even reading him and parroting what some other retard said about him. And not every interpretation weighs the same that's just silly. Michael Heinrich is probably the best reader of Marx alive today. He doesn't see Capital as a timeless text and puts it into the context and debates of Marx's time and also his own intellectual development and other texts he has written etc. Intellectual biographies have become more important (Heinrich is currently working on a multi-volume one for Marx) and the idea of the death of the author has become a meme.

>>17683946
>nd not every interpretation weighs the same that's just silly.
Its silly to assume that "weight" isn't anything other than an assertion, and not an objective metric. Marxists love playing these games by attempting to cloak their "materialism" as objective truth, but you only fall for it if you don't understand ontological questions.

>>17683942
>>17683928
cope, stirner is a meme

>>17683703
It's hard to read hundreds of pages from a low iq schizo. It's easier if you yourself are also low iq so there's that

>>17683703

>Be 16-24 year old, decide via online quiz or "vibes" that being a Marxist is going to be your entire personality
>Have not ever read anything that isn't Harry Potter or YA trash
>Constantly quibbling on Twitter about what "real socialism" is (whatever I want it to be), realise you don't have a coherent understanding yourself and realise you should address that
>Crack this tome open
>It's dry, long, and not the epic acab blm eat the rich motivational screed you thought it'd be
>Get together with the tens of thousands of people on Twitter who more or less followed the same path
>Agree that Marx is impenetrable and it's classist & ableist to demand Marxists actually read him, because lived experience is just as valid or whatever

>>17684704
THIS NIGGA SPITTING FAX

>>17683703
any amount of reading is apparently impenetrable for some part of the population

>>17684704
you act like not reading marx is a bad thing

>>17684704
god i hate women

>>17683836
>Marx redefines words per Hegel's dialectic method, but he doesn't explain his own definitions
There should be no need for him to define dialectical materialism since by the time you're reading Capital you should be more than adequately acquainted with it. You didn't just begin with Capital, did you anon?

>>17684704
I'm getting so close to blowing my money on an Asian whore.

Like most works of nonfiction, you can read the first chapter and basically understand the entire book. The other 900 pages are redundant.

tl;dr: Shit's fucked.

It ultimately feels like a complete waste of time.
>here is why capitalism is a bad system
Yes, and? We know. We're the ones telling you to stop importing immigrants to depress wages and keep people enslaved to it.
It's like the marxists refuse to accept that what they calssify as reactionary actually hates neoliberalism more than they do.

>>17685440

All you need to know about the "truth" in Marxism is its mainstream acceptance. If an ideology was truly damaging to the establishment or status quo in any way, it would not be taken seriously or allowed to be studied in academia. This is what lets you know that it's bullshit.

>>17685408
Not that anon but what should I begin with instead? I thought he explained DM in Capital

>>17685556
He's saying that the subject of Capital is DM, he just doesn't explicitly use that term. Start with Capital, it's pretty much Marx's only worthwhile work.