/lit/ - Literature

yes

>>18231625
Engles had the looks. Marx had the brains.

>>18231625
Both trash compared to Fichte and Hegel.

>>18231659
engles also had the money

>>18231682
And Marx had the spirit. They were meant to be together.
>tfw no Engles collaborator

>>18231625
>maid
>2 sisters
Engels win

>>18231625
Smartest couple on earth
>critized capitalism
>capitalized on the critic

>>18231625
But most of Marx's works exist thanks to Engels

>>18231671
Both are trash as compared to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

>>18231659
engles had a job

>>18232696
Both are trash compared to Heraclitus and the Buddha.

Marx = Deleuze
Engels = Guattari

>>18232714
Owning capital isn’t a job, mate. He had money.

>Marx
Actually schizo
>Engels
Low iq proto-libertarian

>>18231625
Marx called some jew a jewish nigger, so maybe.

>>18231625
>Marx and Engels
Cringe
>Stalin
Based

>Communists
Cringe
>Fascists
Based

>>18233062
>not being a post-Landian hyperfuturist chinese socialist with fascistic tendencies in current year

>>18233062
>current world superpower
vs
>failed ideology
roflmao

>>18231625
>Marx
Lazy NEET whore
>Engels
Rich simp who used his capitalist daddy's money to support Marx's NEET lifestyle

>>18233069
no marxist thinks china is communist lol..

>>18233069
>implying Han ethnonationalist state capitalism is socialist
"Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is as socialist as "National Socialism." Which is to say both are forms of fascism.

>>18233075
>CCP
>chinese COMMUNIST party
its right there anon

>>18233080
they say it so it must be true -_-

>>18231625
>Engels SJW
He is not if you read him. He even wrote literally that Capitalism was responsible for the destruction of patriarchy. Sure he is some kind of feminist, but it's the chad kind of feminist. Apparently he had success with women. So obviously free women benefited him more than traditional monogamous patriarchal monogamy.

>>18233101
Whoremongers are not based, they are just as bad as whores.

>>18233068
>>18233069
Cringe

>>18233106
Have sex incel.

I think it should be illegal and punishable by death to be a Communist in any organized fashion and think Marx was wrong but for some reason I can’t help but have respect for him

>>18233155
its because youre a loser that gets no pussy

>>18233145
I will, within the confines of a monogamous relationship that won't give me a dick-rotting venereal disease. Enjoy the clap.

>>18231625
nice eliteist Republic

>>18233177
Cope.

>>18233080
red fascists

>>18232754
This,Engels to Trotsky to Neo-Conservative pipeline is real

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm
>"The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.
Isn't this contradicting?

>>18233494
Stop making people think or read. they are not supposed to.

bump

>>18233494
So a thread just got deleted about marxism; I got the following response:

>You might want to read this - this clears it up,
>https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/marx-and-engels-were-not-egalitarians/

Here's what I was going to respond:

Thank you for the link.
I'm quoting from it:
>For example, if x and y are people then they can only be judged equal relative to particular criteria such as their height, how many shoes they own, or how much cake they have eaten.
>Therefore, one can only be in favour of equality along specific dimensions, such as equality of cake consumption, and never equality as an abstract ideal.
I'd argue that there are certain people who DON'T deserve cake in the first place, especially within an industrial society - where people are the most genetically unfit.
And in realistic terms, if Marx truly wanted a meritocratic system, what's to stop the ones who are better (in, at least, most respects) to control over the ones who are, let's say, less productive, so he can get more production out of them?
And then the last paragraph:
>If Marx was not an egalitarian in the strict sense of the term then what was he? The answer in short is a believer in human freedom and human development.
Which doesn't mean anything. He's just going with his distorted Hegelian perception, which I, as a sort of Spenglerian, reject.
This is not a critique against you; again I relish the link.