/lit/ - Literature

Origins of Virtue, at a stretch

>>18937977
>man invents fictional scenario and gets angry about it
I do that too. It's a psychiatric symptom btw

>>18937977
Critique of the Gotha Programme

>>18938706
I do this all the time bros, it's been getting a little better since I became self aware about it but I hate it, it's so bad. The worst part is it's usually about people I know. I imagine arguing with them while I'm driving and then soon I'm getting upset like it's real. Then I treat them differently because of it

>>18938706
>communism failing is a fictional scenario
anon, I...

And rightoids say leftists can't meme, wew

>>18937977
any book about the Khmer Rouge

>>18938746
>>18938916
>>18938708

>>18937977
>Education is pointless and human beings are all the same across time and environnement.
What a dumb picture.

>>18938706
>I do that too. It's a psychiatric symptom btw
Yeah, Marx had some sort of mental illness. Imagine thinking that having to work for a living is exploitation.

>>18938944
damn the last time i saw this shit meme was exactly 10 years ago

>>18939617
>Education is pointless and human beings are all the same across time and environnement.
Well, yes.

>>18939617
>>Education is pointless
unironically yes

>>18939924
>>18939981
>Yes, education is pointless!
They said, after reading a post and writing an answer.

>>18937977
Capital ch 1 section 4

>>18940452
education is superficial, you can't make a chimpanzee into a neuroscientist

>>18937977
not a commie but this is the stupidest fucking picture that only some uneducated pol fuck could have come up with

>>18940661
>not a commie but
>picture stupid!
One day you will learn about filenames and how to read them.

>>18940694
>l-lisenkoism is communism!
see>>18940661
Not even him btw

>>18940811
>>l-lisenkoism is communism
It literally was biological communism according to Lysenko himself and his supporters. Read a book, demented commie.

>>18940852
And what does Marx has to do with him, exactly? Why not use Lysenko face?
Because people would not recognize him and not "get" the meme?
Kys

>>18940925
He was the logical conclusion of Marxism

>>18940966
Marx was not a dogmatic person. He was to economics as what Nietzsche was to philosophy.

>>18940925
What does Lenin have to do with Marx? Stalin? Ho Chi Minh? Mao? Pol Pot? Xi Jinping, and every other dimwit in between? Lmao, the old commie backtrack-goalpostmove-backflip, well done anon -- well done. As though any of us need reminding that all of the many many things that were proclaimed communism, all of which failed, weren't real communism in any way, have nothing to do with it even! You've taught us all a lot here today.

God I love all these butthurts commies slithering in from the woodwork, ever gay insects to an eternal bait flame. Always eager to fight the good fight on our shared Mongolian e-basketweaving consortium.

>>18940661
It's stupid because Lysenkoism is stupid, because communism is stupid.

Marx himself knew Marxism didn't work. Leninism is a aberration.

>>18941086
>Marx himself knew Marxism
big if true

>>18937977
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/the-20-most-important-philosophers-of-all-time.html
Gonna keep posting this until you all learn Marx's gravitas.

>>18940505
Humans are basically chimpanzees without education. Education make neuroscientists however.

>>18941069

>>18940979
Marx was to economics as Samuel Shenton is to astronautics.

>>18937977
People don't voluntarily share with strangers (because that's stupid) and are careful to not work harder than their fellow workers (the other workers themselves will not let that to happen because that could lead to increasing production requirements for everybody - less qualified or weaker people would get destroyed by harder regime).
Communism must thus be sustained by terror and whip, you don't need no book to get the idea about how a slave plantation operates. Modern scenery of a "factory" or whatever doesn't change anything.

>>18942120
>People don't voluntarily share with strangers (because that's stupid)

>>18942033
Even if I were to take economics as seriously as the natural sciences, this would be way off the mark. A better comparison would be that Marx was a geocentrist, and not even during a time when geocentrism was considered bunk by most people.

>>18942149
That's the general rule, like "people don't commit suicide".
Commies don't share their IPhones with homeless.

>>18942120
>Communism must thus be sustained by terror and whip

>>18942165
I'd take 1 victim per year of 3 millions.

>>18942164
>That's the general rule, like "people don't commit suicide".

>>18942120
your mind on rand

>>18942193
Ok, I will explain that slowly for you.
"General rule" means that there are possible exceptions which are not sustainable at population level.

>>18942120
>Communism must thus be sustained by terror and whip, you don't need no book to get the idea about how a slave plantation operates
The cognitive dissonance in this one...

>>18942249
It's yours.
You may not be happy about current workers conditions (in some third world post-communist countries mind you - NOT in the developed capitalist countries) but communism is not an improvement. It's way worse, you are forced to work even harder and you can barely sustain your life. Life expectancy in communist countries is significantly shorter.

>>18942261
Was the transantlantic slave trade actually a communist enterprise? Please say so, I need a laugh.

>>18942231
>"General rule" means that there are possible exceptions which are not sustainable at population level

>>18942273
It wasn't, so what. The Soviet Bloc was and brought similar misery to the population.
Commies didn't "invent" anything, they could only recreate the most primitive production relations depended on sheer coercion.

>>18942281
I feel as though you were the type in school to get beaten up for being a snotty brat.

>>18942281
They were trading the fruits of their labor on free markets. That's profit incentive.

>>18942301
>I feel as though you were the type in school to get beaten up for being a snotty brat

>>18942231
>Let me redefine general rules for you.

>>18942308
Can you even talk, or you've stopped your "development" on cartoon level?

>>18942304
>What is C-M-C
>What is slavery

>>18942313
>Can you even talk, or you've stopped your "development" on cartoon level?

>>18942311
>I am not able to get the simplest message without looking into the dictionary.

>>18942323
Cartoon it is.
Nice commie face you've got. Somewhat typical I'd say though.

>>18942318
You tell me. I will correct your misconceptions if you show that you have same basic understanding of the concepts.

>>18942296
>Every death in a communist society is communism's fault
>every death in a capitalist society has nothing to do with capitalism.

>>18942346
spoken

>>18942324
>My 'rule' isn't applied in every case
>well that's ok, I'll just redefine what a 'rule' is so that it still maintains its legitimacy :^)

>>18942356
Did you share your computer with some homeless today already or not yet?

>>18942360
>Public Libraries? What are those, lol.

>>18942367
Do homeless people "share" their resources or they're trying to get by on their own as it's way more efficient after all?

>>18942367
I see - the "others" will "share" in commie land. Hopefully, with you.
You know, everybody is exactly that smart.

>>18942376
>Homeless shelters? What's with all the communism nowadays?

>>18942386
A developed capitalist country can afford those.

People don't voluntarily share with strangers (because that's stupid) and are careful to not work harder than their fellow workers (the other workers themselves will not let that to happen because that could lead to increasing production requirements for everybody - less qualified or weaker people would get destroyed by harder regime).
Communism must thus be sustained by terror and whip, you don't need no book to get the idea about how a slave plantation operates. Modern scenery of a "factory" or whatever doesn't change anything.

>>18942392
In communist countries, there are no homeless.

>>18942417
They had al the necessary provisions in gulags. Somewhat necessary anyways, nobody expected from them to live till their retirement.

>>18941069
>As though any of us need reminding that all of the many many things that were proclaimed communism, all of which failed
Ever heard of China?

>>18942607
Sure, they were the world leaders in getting rid of communism. 1978 it was, the whole domino started to tumble afterwards.

>>18942754
Nope https://www.ccdpch.com/dialectical-materialism-is-the-worldview-and-methodology-of-chinese-communists/

>>18942792
Chinese private enterprises are flooding the world with goods.
During communism they were not able feed themselves, let alone produce even basic home appliances for their own population.

>>18942828
They haven’t achieved communism, they are building communism through socialism. To do this it is necessary to build state industry and infrastructure through limited zones of free industry. The state monitors this and if they think a corporation is gaining too much power or undermining socialist values they will intervene. From Deng Xiaoping:
>We welcome foreign investment and advanced techniques. Management is also a technique. Will they undermine our socialism? Not likely, because the socialist sector is the mainstay of our economy. Our socialist economic base is so huge that it can absorb tens and hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of foreign funds without being shaken. Foreign investment will doubtless serve as a major supplement in the building of socialism in our country. And as things stand now, that supplement is indispensable. Naturally, some problems will arise in the wake of foreign investment. But its negative impact will be far less significant than the positive use we can make of it to accelerate our development. It may entail a slight risk, but not much.

>>18942929
If you agree on building communism through capitalism for the next 1000 years I think I would take it.

>>18937977
Animal farm

Communism, one of the least relevant idealogies in modern power dynamics, lives rent free in so many minds. Is this the power of American education?

>>18942953
This

>>18942955
>lives rent free in so many minds.
I'd say its the opposite. What used to be THE main dominating ideology in the world has since crumpled into a burning little wad of paper. It's been reduced to nothing more than a meme everybody laughs at, the starving never worked once ideology, eternally doomed to fail. It's hilarious to laugh at because only the most retarded people would ever step up to the plate to defend it.

>>18942947
It’s not capitalism, it’s socialism. In fact the US is quite socialistic too but it doesn’t have a positive goal it’s striving towards like China.

>>18943026
I would even say that they are less socialists then the West, they would laugh they arses off if suggested implementing some "welfare state" laws.
Nevertheless, socialism is only a superstructure, it can only survive as a parasitic being over the network of private enterprises (capitalism)

>>18937977
>>18938706
>>18939617

>>18943046
>they would laugh they arses off if suggested implementing some "welfare state" laws.
Agreed, Chinese socialism is far better
>Nevertheless, socialism is only a superstructure, it can only survive as a parasitic being over the network of private enterprises (capitalism)
Yea this is the point of Marxism, to sublate the capitalist mode of production into a more just socialist form.

>>18938944

Who's the other bearded guy?

>>18944635
Bakunin

>>18941069
>God I love all these butthurts commies slithering in from the woodwork, ever gay insects to an eternal bait flame. Always eager to fight the good fight on our shared Mongolian e-basketweaving consortium.
The truly hilarious thing is this thread had a fairly equal post-ip ratio yesterday. Today it's 3-1.

>>18939664
>Marx had some sort of mental illness. Imagine thinking that having to work for a living is exploitation.
what? did you get this from youtube? Marx was clear that having to work for a living is a law of nature:
>In a rational state of society every child whatever, from the age of 9 years, ought to become a productive labourer in the same way that no able-bodied adult person ought to be exempted from the general law of nature, viz.: to work in order to be able to eat, and work not only with the brain but with the hands too.

>>18942120
>People don't voluntarily share with strangers
share what? in communist society the product of labour is not private property, so it's nonsense to talk about sharing it

>>18942261
your "communist countries" are all capitalist.

>>18942296
>Commies didn't "invent" anything, they could only recreate the most primitive production relations depended
great, so you do understand that there was no new mode of production

>>18943226
>Wherever the class struggle is thrust aside as a distasteful, “crude” manifestation, the only basis still left to socialism will be a “true love of mankind” and empty phrases about “justice”.

good lord what a terrible image

>>18942929
dengists were a mistake

Reading through this thread made me agree with the re-education camps unironically.

>>18937977
Road to Serfdom

>>18942172
and here begins the same looping conversation, the same bug-brained utilitarian justifications for inhumane atrocities at the hands of multinational industries, all mass of human ethics and morality reduced to a brute numbers game regarding stacks of human bodies. every single innocent massacred by corporate death squads and CIA funded fascist paramilitaries is immanently justified and "for the greater good" as the gross death toll is (allegedly) smaller than mao's great leap forward. every single crime and genocide committed by capitalist powers is retroactively justified by the black book, and every crime and genocide to be committed in the future will be regarded as tragic, but ultimately necessary by raw, liberal utilitarian countenance.

i'd like to see any of you insects, fucking vermin, approach the victims of these atrocities and tell them, right to their faces, that they deserved it. their families deserved to be drone striked by CIA niggers in the name of capital, your wife deserved to be turned to charcoal in the flames of white phosphorus in the name of capital, your child deserved to be born a suffering depleted uranium irradiated mutant in the name of capital; all of this justified. all cruelty, all evil, all is JUSTIFIED as it simply isn't capitalism. i'd like to see one single liberal for just ONCE say what they actually believe.

>>18946238
holy. fucking. BASED
(except the n word)

>>18944721
Your post seems intelligent so I will tell you this. Most people in the west do not have a true understanding of communism let alone have they read any theory. Expecting the average person to understand communism is like expecting western academics to ever be right about China

>>18944721
that quote about productive labor is taken out of context and many marx scholars see it as a mistake marx made. read heinrich

>>18946250
Is there somewhere that most people understand communism? Pretty sure the average chinese person does not give a flying fuck about abstract commie theory

>>18946308
Average chinese person does not have to "care" about theory because you could argue they are living thought it. Experience is the best teacher and whatnot. However whats important to note is that communism a single way in which a state and its laws are structured. I think Vijay Prashad said it quite well communism is a process. There is debate on how to go about this process even within the CCP there are Leninist factions as well as pluralists and other groups. So allow to me to rephrase I don't think that most people in the West have knowledge on the basic tenets of Communism as a result of western states having control of the majority of ideological apparatuses

#FREEYB

>>18946373
COMMUNISM ISN'T A SINGLE WAY* i cant type

>>18946373
How does some guy in china who just works for a wage, or employs a couple people at his shop, 'live communism'?

>>18946373
Your description of communism sounds like a religion, because it is.

>>18946396
This is a rebuttal that I've heard a lot and I don't think it is incorrect. Ultimately depends on how you define the word religion since its used quite loosely today. I am of the opinion that the word religion necessitates some sort of belief in the supernatural. What are your thoughts?

>>18946387
This is a really good question that I will try to answer as aptly as possible. The same way in which you or me (assuming you live in the west) interact with many different things which are a result of capitalism, policy, the media, education, music, art etc. Is the same way a Chinese citizen experiences communism through those things. They are taught differently to us. Their state media shows them different things whether it be news or television. They also experience different policies. Bursaries and the full scholarships that the Chinese give to minority groups within China may not exist to the same extent within the west. These may not be the best examples but I hope you have understood my point.

>>18946454
A dearth of scholarship opportunities for minorities in the West is not a very good example lmao. But I do see what you're saying, the larger environment in which they exist is different, which filters down into your life in various ways.

>>18946250
if you're the retarded cheerleader for china then this applies to you as well, except that the average person has the advantage over you of not pretending to be a communist

>>18946280
>that quote about productive labor is taken out of context
do you mean to say that Marx actually did think that having to work in order to eat is exploitation and when he said that it is a law of nature that will persist in a communist society, he was actually saying the opposite?
>and many marx scholars see it as a mistake marx made
regardless if he did or not, it will never compare to the mistake the parents of "marx scholars" make by not using condoms
>read heinrich
how about don't
http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/heinrich.htm
https://www.angryworkers.org/2021/07/09/michael-heinrich-dont-believe-the-hype-how-his-form-analysis-reduces-the-working-class-to-an-economic-factor/
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/48535/1/MPRA_paper_48535.pdf
...

>>18946308
communist parties

>>18940505
even a genius needs education to be a neuroscientist

>>18946533
see>>18946373
"So allow to me to rephrase I don't think that most people in the West have knowledge on the basic tenets of Communism as a result of western states having control of the majority of ideological apparatuses"

>>18944721
>In a rational state of society every child whatever, from the age of 9 years, ought to become a productive labourer in the same way
Yes, and you think that's inherently exploitative - that people are paid wages to do that. Your stupidity would argue we should go back to bartering because wage labor "abstracts" real needs by giving people an easier way to trade commodities instead of being completely self sufficient.

>>18938746
USSR was a huge success story. You STILL are under the spell of cold war propaganda

>>18946650
>The USSR was huge success story
That's why it collapsed right

>>18942150
? He based every axiom he used on the most reputable economists of the day. The Ltov was only put forward in response to Capital.

>>18946654
>"collapse"
The administration was taken over by liberals who decided to coup the gov and give the state over to the Western powers. They then put a referendum on whether or not to liberalize the economy and government. The people decidedly voted it down

"Lmao anyway so we looted all the industry and fled the country leaving it a black hole of economic and social devestation"

USSR started its life at the same level of economic development as Brazil. A few years later they had completely industrialized the economy, defeated the Nazis, and then beat America to space.

Nobody believes that the USSR "collapsed" there was no economic or even political crisis. A group of wealthy elites stole the government and the wealth of the people to join the western billionaires. The vast majority of people who lived through communism have said every single year since the fall that it was better than Capitalism.

>>18946639
PAID WAGES
LOL
You are poor man. Assuming you have a job you only see a penance of the value your labor creates as decided by your overlord aka your boss. But sure you get a wage man. You can go buy some more of the things you need to live whilst others hoard more wealth than they could ever hope to spend. It is easier to fool an idiot than convince them they have been fooled. You're here defending a system that would have you replaced the second you stop producing value. Maybe you have dreams of one day having enough capital to come close to even a fraction of your overlords wealth. Maybe just work harder bro? Keep grinding and what not?

>>18937977
Its so funny to see these anticommunist threads over and over again, across boards. There is no left. It has been wholly defeated. We are living in a total capitalist victory. You are simply masturbating.

>>18946742
They have to feel that communism was worse so they can justify how shit this world is.

>>18946738
What system doesnt replace people that stop producing value? Do I get to slack off easier in commie world?

>>18946729
>The administration was taken over by liberals who decided to coup the gov and give the state over to the Western powers
Yeah dude, I win every single time, except when I lose, but tose don't Clint because ummmmmmmm, I had a bad day
>Beat America to space
Where IS the URSS flag on the Moon?
>"B-b-but my hecking doggerino on space!"

>>18942165
>comparing millions of dead victims of communism to a rogue company employee hiring a few people to kill 10 labor union workers in a 3rd world country

ngmi

>>18946914
Anticommunist interventions have mountains or bodies. The coke assassinations are just a hilariously transparent example of American deep state doing work for corporate interests.

>>18946742
There needs to be a social cost for being openly communist in the same way there's a social cost to being openly supportive of Nazism. We aren't there yet.

>>18946938
Nothing comes close to the body count of actual communism which is directly correlated with the ideology and those who tried to forward it.

Also your logic is twisted, that's like saying "there's mountains of bodies associated with anti-nazism so clearly the allies were no better than the nazis"

>>18946533
>do you mean to say that Marx actually did think that having to work in order to eat is exploitation?
no
>and when he said that it is a law of nature that will persist in a communist society, he was actually saying the opposite?
marx views that humans have to work to sustain themselves in every epoch of human society. however, this is not about individuals, it's about what society has to do. marx is clear in gothakritik that material incentives for work are a "bourgeois defect" of the lower phase. they are not ideologically communist
not reading all that cope against value-form theory btw

>>18946045
Hayek is a hack

>>18946729
Nazi Germany was deeply Christian. They even engraved "Gott Mit Uns" on every belt buckle in the military which means "God on our side"

>>18946959
Where do you live

>>18946738
>Assuming you have a job you only see a penance of the value
Your value is what you negotiate with your boss, and outside of that, your willingness to take risks. You're just doing this pious moralization of the worker for no good reason.
>Hoard more wealth
Lmfao, you're so stupid you think the rich just hold all their wealth in a bank somewhere. God, you socialists are cartoon characters.

>>18946738
ur so stupid u think bezos is just holding onto all his money at Chase Manhattan. You honestly believe some stupid shit like that.

>>18946742
China

>>18946729
>Coping and seething
Again, that's why the USSR collapsed - right?

>>18946759
The world would be a lot better if we could just pogrom and helicopter you fucking commies and socialists

>>18946738
>Work a few years
>Invest in crypto
>Become rich
>NVM there it goes 50% to 'taxes'
All governments feel the powerful individual. He who becomes his own overlord and forges his own wage shall not be allowed to exist.

>>18948376

>>18938706
>psychiatric
Pseudoscience, don't care

>>18946729
If a system of government can't protect itself from internal and external enemies then it's a failed system.

>>18948643
That's an incredibly naive way to look at the world. There are so many dead empires that we can learn incredibly valuable things from.

Losing a shadow war after 60 years of successful rule doesn't somehow imply that there is something within the economic system of Marxism that somehow implies any country that adopts it can't defend itself.

Regardless America is a dying empire itself. The Chinese have synthesized both into state owned capitalism and will slowly steam roll the Atlantic empire.

>>18948739
>Its naive to realize systems that can't defend themselves aren't worth pursuing
How fucking retarded can you be...
>60 years
>Successful
lol - that's nothing. That's beyond pathetic.
>will slowly steam roll the Atlantic empire.
Now this is cope.

do communists acknowledge that man creates and adheres to hierarchy by his nature, or do they really see it as entirely arbitrary?
seems unscientific if it is the latter

>>18948774
Communists want a hierarchy though - a workers' republic that subjugates the individual to a bureaucratic dictatorship

>>18948774
>do communists acknowledge that man creates and adheres to hierarchy by his nature
Nature is mutable and chaotic. When man devises “laws of nature” it is him arranging flux according to truth which is accessible to him via God. Therefore laws are not in nature (a satanic spinozist nation,) they come from man enforcing reason on the world. Man creates hierarchy because it is just and true.
>do they really see it as entirely arbitrary?
China is hierarchical, but their hierarchy is determined meritocraticly (assuredly some corruption is present, but it is fought against) while the US’s hierarchy is determined by how good of a financial criminal you are.

>>18948779
I dont think you know what the word hierarchy means

>>18948774
Marx never talks about hierarchy, he talks about class and access to means of production. If hierarchy is natural then it will also exist in communism.

Marx didn't hate hierarchy he thought capitalism 1. Was unstable 2. Siphoned all wealth from the workers to Capitalists by its very nature

>>18948973
he also believed wage labor is coercive

>>18938944
based post

>>18940852
Akin to modern Fauciism. Dismiss broadly established science for a pseudoscience that fits your agenda.

>>18948774
Ah, like the hierarchy based on meritocracy in capitalism- no wait most private wealth is inherited and circulates in closed "old boys" groups. Meritocracy is a myth.

>>18938706
It's a parable. You should know this, it's a literature board.

>>18946639
>Yes, and you think that's inherently exploitative
no, we don't think working is inherently exploitative
>Your stupidity would argue we should go back to bartering
no, you don't know what you're talking about. the relation of wage-labour doesn't disappear when the wage is paid in kind. in other words, the form under which private property is exchanged doesn't make a difference here. communism will lead to the abolition of private property and therefore to the abolition of exchange between producers, including bartering.

>>18946650
it was very successful in setting back the labour movement a hundred years. only now it starts recovering, and in the former Soviet satellites it will take yet some more time.

>>18947021
>marx is clear in gothakritik that material incentives for work are a "bourgeois defect" of the lower phase.
you're equivocating between natural incentives and social incentives. natural incentives will remain as a law of nature. social incentives will only persist in the lower phase of communism, as its defect. they will be gone in the higher phase, but that doesn't mean that people will be finally living your dream of a parasitic idle petty-bourgeois existence. it only means that they will have internalized the responsibilities as immediate members of society and will work out of their own volition, and not out of a social incentive still perceived as external.
this is why Marx writes that by that point "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want". and more importantly, this is what he writes that society will inscribe on its banners: "FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, to each according to his needs!"
I need you to really notice that it says "from each according to his ability", and not "from some people according to their ability, but as for those whose parasitic petty-bourgeois mindset had somehow magically persisted throughout the entire lower phase of communism -- they can choose to not work and to remain pathetic losers, if only they please".
>not reading all that cope against value-form theory btw
this is not a "cope against value-form" theory (except the middle link maybe, up to a point) but concrete and distinct criticisms clearly demonstrating that Heinrich is a flaming retard and an enemy of the working class.

>>18948774
>do communists acknowledge that man creates and adheres to hierarchy by his nature
yes https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

>>18949320
i really shouldn't respond to someone as bad faith as you, but "parasites" do not exist. it is a construct of class society's ideology, capitalism's most of all
>whose parasitic petty-bourgeois mindset had somehow magically persisted throughout the entire lower phase of communism -- they can choose to not work and to remain pathetic losers, if only they please".
your moralizing is the only pathetic thing here. btw i'm not petite bourgeois

>>18942360
private property is not personal property.
commies won't steal your toothbrush, you have nothing to worry about. Commies want to expropiate the means of production, not your house, not your car, not your dog.

>>18949320
fuckface i want YOU to really notice it says "to each according to his needs" and not "to those according to how i moralistically decide like an angelic arbiter who isn't a 'pathetic loser'". ignoring the entire point of marx's rant against bourgeois egalitarianism in gothakritik as abstracting people from what they are, since every "lazy" person in reality probably has things like undiagnosed mental illness etc. you sound like a republican. fucking vulgar workerist

>>18949320
>Engles On Authority
Good work, anarchists take note

>>18949320
also, tell me how i know you don't speak german

>>18949371
Psychiatry is fake. Nothing wrong with “workerism.” Work is good, make something of your life

>>18949401
i agree that psychiatry is fake, which is why i don't trust whatever institution that anon wants to set up to decide who is mentally "healthy" and who isn't in order to abstractly sort people into those two camps. i already get enough of that in capitalism
there is a lot wrong with workerism. marx uses seperate words for what we in english call alienated labor, i.e. work (arbeit) and unalienated labor (i forget what word, but it's not arbeit). hence me calling out that anon for not knowing german. "work" in the higher phase of communism would not be what you mean by work

>>18949427
>"work" in the higher phase of communism would not be what you mean by work
Ah ok I get your point

>>18949371
>fuckface i want YOU to really notice it says "to each according to his needs" and not "to those according to how i moralistically decide like an angelic arbiter who isn't a 'pathetic loser'"
what? obviously this is not even a question, since my point is precisely that such pathetic losers will not exist. they're entirely a product of capitalism, and by the higher stage of communism they'll be gone, together with all its other defects.
I've presented the hypothetical only because the limited petty-bourgeois horizon of such people always makes them project their pathetic existence straight into communism and get inevitably triggered by the thought of having to work. in reality this won't be a problem.
>you sound like a republican
I'll take that over sounding like a triggered leftist NEET

>>18949392
tell me how I know you have no actual point to make

>>18949427
he literally uses "Arbeit" in the Gothakritik fragment I quoted, you absolute pseud:
>nachdem die Arbeit nicht nur Mittel zum Leben, sondern selbst das erste Lebensbedürfnis geworden
read less academic hacks and more Marx

>>18937977
The Road to Wigan Pier shows even the harsh reality of getting there.

>>18949445
>he literally uses "Arbeit" in the Gothakritik fragment I quoted, you absolute pseud:
well he is being inconsistent with usage he uses in other texts, so seems those "academic hacks" are right as i noted in
to be clear what this means is that the MLs are right to say that abstract division of labor, the notion of having a "job", etc will remain in communism. you seem to not be a ML so i suspect you also don't think it means that. so the alternative, as far as i can tell, is to conclude marx is making a mistake here
>I'll take that over sounding like a triggered leftist NEET
>>18946280
i have severe behavioral quirks and they result in me feeling really low-energy a lot of the time. it's something i cannot help, and also something that is really hard for others to pick up on. my partner is the only one who understands why i'm like this, everyone else guilts me for being "lazy". therapists don't see it so they don't diagnose me properly, at most i can get a diagnosis for major depressive disorder. if it weren't for my mother i'd be scared shitless of starving in the streets. and i am for the future, after she becomes too old to work
now you have to understand. i see communism as emancipation for people like me. no more stigma for things i can't help. no more fear of spending half my life homeless. and what you are telling me is that me feeling like this is "petty bourgeois" and you are not promising a better future for people like me by describing us as "pathetic losers". it makes me not trust people like you, and feeling like i can't trust comrades is a painful feeling

>>18949445
>he literally uses "Arbeit" in the Gothakritik fragment I quoted, you absolute pseud:
well he is being inconsistent with usage he uses in other texts, so seems those "academic hacks" are right as i noted in >>18946280
to be clear what this means is that the MLs are right to say that abstract division of labor, the notion of having a "job", etc will remain in communism. you seem to not be a ML so i suspect you also don't think it means that. so the alternative, as far as i can tell, is to conclude marx is making a mistake here
>I'll take that over sounding like a triggered leftist NEET
i have severe behavioral quirks and they result in me feeling really low-energy a lot of the time. it's something i cannot help, and also something that is really hard for others to pick up on. my partner is the only one who understands why i'm like this, everyone else guilts me for being "lazy". therapists don't see it so they don't diagnose me properly, at most i can get a diagnosis for major depressive disorder. if it weren't for my mother i'd be scared shitless of starving in the streets. and i am for the future, after she becomes too old to work
now you have to understand. i see communism as emancipation for people like me. no more stigma for things i can't help. no more fear of spending half my life homeless. and what you are telling me is that me feeling like this is "petty bourgeois" and you are not promising a better future for people like me by describing us as "pathetic losers". it makes me not trust people like you, and feeling like i can't trust comrades is a painful feeling

>>18949594
by the way i'm not a neet, i'm a student. i struggle a lot with school due to this stuff

>>18942281

>posts a drawing as proof

>>18949445
>petty-bourgeois
In what way is that "petty-bourgeois"? Petty bourgs work, do they not? That's what sets them apart from proper bourgs. I would think NEETs are more lumpen.

>>18937977
Socialist Planning
Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution
Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation
Yawning Heights, Homo Sovieticus

>>18949647
NEETs can't be lumpen. NEETs are the only class that can be concerned with theory or revolutions. Proles don't have the time or the intelligence to care for either.
t. NEET

>>18949355
They expropriate the fruits of labor. They don't pay for labor services done for them.

>>18950042
>They expropriate the fruits of labor
no. capitalists do.

>>18950047
You do not exploit your barber when you pay what he wants for cutting you hair.
The employer in a free enterprise system doesn't exploit workers. He does in a slave, feudal or communist economy because they are not the independent, economic actors there.

>>18950067
>You do not exploit your barber when you pay what he wants for cutting you hair.
False equivalence. The barber in this situation owns the means of production: "scissors" in your situation.

Capitalism would be me owning all the scissors while the patron pays me for the service even though it's the barber who cuts hair while I own all the tools to cut the hair but don't actually do any of the hair cutting and pay the employee only a fraction of what he has produced for me.

>The employer in a free enterprise system doesn't exploit workers.
There is no such thing as the free market.
>He does in a slave, feudal or communist economy because they are not the independent, economic actors there.
The worker is a slave in the capitalist mode of production.

>>18937977
Human nature? Again?

>>18948211
is a capitalist country.

>>18950067
Barbershops are an interesting business model as the barber has a more one to one relationship with his labor and value generated. The majority of barbers earn commission, a common split is they earn about half of the money they generate, which sounds pretty good, until you realize that overhead for a barber shop is basically just rent and utilities, so that 50% cut taken by the owner turns out to be pretty fucking Jewish. The other common style of shop is that barber rent chairs for a weekly cost. Of course if a barber owns his shop and is the sole worker there no one's labor is being exploited.

>>18950083
>False equivalence. The barber in this situation owns the means of production: "scissors" in your situation.
If anything that would show that the workers are "entitled" to the smaller earnings since they don't bring the tools used for conducting the service. But it doesn't matter, they do the job, they negotiate the conditions.
>I own all the tools to cut the hair but don't actually do any of the hair cutting and pay the employee only a fraction of what he has produced for me.
Here we go again. You pay the employee what he wants to be paid or he goes away and your scissors rust and you lose generations worth collection of scissors.
Like in the client-barber scenario.

>>18950153
>If anything that would show that the workers are "entitled" to the smaller earnings since they don't bring the tools used for conducting the service. But it doesn't matter, they do the job, they negotiate the conditions.
They have no power in negotiations.
>Here we go again. You pay the employee what he wants to be paid
You pay the employee what YOU want to pay him. The employee has no power over their employer.

>>18949594
>well he is being inconsistent with usage he uses in other texts, so seems those "academic hacks"
different words can be used interchangeably without issue if it's clear what they refer to. it's only "inconsistency" in the eyes of academic pedants who build their pathetic careers out of creating problems where there aren't any. it's obvious from the context that Marx isn't talking about wage labour.
>to be clear what this means is that the MLs are right to say that abstract division of labor, the notion of having a "job",
no, that's not what it means. you're pulling this straight out of your ass, or out of some Marxologist's ass. that people will work doesn't necessitate that they will have careers or that they'll be incentivized in any way to limit themselves to a small set of tasks for life. Marx actually makes a nod to this in the first quote I provided >>18944721: "work in order to be able to eat, and work not only with the brain but with the hands too". it's a clear reference to the absence of the division of labour.
>i have severe behavioral quirks and they result in me feeling really low-energy a lot of the time.
keep overusing the internet then, that'll help
>i see communism as emancipation for people like me. no more stigma for things i can't help.
you somehow imagine that you'll persist in your state into a higher stage of communism, as if it weren't a product of the society you live in in the first place, but instead an expression of your personal essence. who sounds like a republican now?
>and you are not promising a better future for people like me
communism is the movement of the working class for its own emancipation. it's not a movement for the emancipation of idle NEETs from the terrifying prospect of having to work rather than post on Twitter all day.
>it makes me not trust people like you, and feeling like i can't trust comrades is a painful feeling
well, I'm sorry, but you'll have to face the reality of what communism is sooner or later. including the fact that it's better off without pb nuisances like yourself, who'll try to hitch their wagon to their movement and derail it.

>>18949615
yeah, and if you keep acting like this and only looking for excuses to not work, you'll become a NEET as soon as you graduate or drop out. if you're still a student, then at least you have some time to act. I don't think I have to explain that most NEETs start out as students and why that is.

>>18949647
>Petty bourgs work, do they not?
their children are the prime NEET material, because their parents can afford to feed and house them indefinitely, but at the same time they can't set them up for an easy life through money and connections.

>>18949767
>proles are dumb
a prime illustration of how alien and toxic to communism pb trash is

>>18950311
>pb trash
what?

>>18950311
>a prime illustration of how alien and toxic to communism pb trash is
how am I pb?

>>18950311
communists who rail against NEETs are idiots.

>>18950311
>ideology wants to free people from labor
>work bro work! shitty lp! become part of the system!
kys

what is the communist opinion on debt and interest?

landlords take out mortgages, purchase property with debt, then charge renters in excess of the payment on the debt and still maintain ownership of the property after the debt is paid in full

>>18950399
communists want to abolish private property, i.e factories. this would entail abolition of rentiers

>>18938737
what is this a sign of

>>18950672
You can easily build a house large enough to rent part of it to other people

>>18950311
>you somehow imagine that you'll persist in your state into a higher stage of communism, as if it weren't a product of the society you live in in the first place, but instead an expression of your personal essence.
lmao you think communism will abolish what we now call mental illness?
>no, that's not what it means. you're pulling this straight out of your ass, or out of some Marxologist's ass
you didn't understand my argument but regardless if you were as serious a reader of marx as you claim you would know of arbeit/tatigkeit distinction
>keep overusing the internet then, that'll help
we're both on 4chan dude, why do you think i use the internet more than you?
>communism is the movement of the working class for its own emancipation. it's not a movement for the emancipation of idle NEETs from the terrifying prospect of having to work rather than post on Twitter all day.
this actually shows you haven't talked to many working class people because in my experience (since i am working class) they seek out liesure time like crazy, more than any petty bourg, due to the soul-crushing wage labor they perform
>yeah, and if you keep acting like this and only looking for excuses to not work, you'll become a NEET as soon as you graduate or drop out.
they are not excuses. do you think working class people don't have (what we now call) mental illness?
>I don't think I have to explain that most NEETs start out as students and why that is.
no idea why students would have some special disposition. you know that marx referred to the "literary proleteriat" right?
also, as i read your post, i'm increaaingly unsure you know much about the PB. you don't seem to be aware that PBs have a tendency toward proletrroatization, otherwise you wouldn't talk of them as some sort of evil that's entiely foreign to communist movements
>well, I'm sorry, but you'll have to face the reality of what communism is sooner or later. including the fact that it's better off without pb nuisances like yourself, who'll try to hitch their wagon to their movement and derail it.
communism is from each according to his abilities, hence what we now call disabled people (such as myself, no matter how much you moralistically naysay) will not work as much as what we now call normal people. understand now, vulgar workerist?
i see now taking you seriously was a mistake, you are a huge poser

>>18950900
>proletrroatization
*proletarianization

>>18937977
how did this place get even stupider?

>>18950900
>increaaingly
*increasingly

>>18950311
>communism is the movement of the working class for its own emancipation.
Lmao, imagine believing some stupid shit like this. Communism is just alienation of the individual to a workers' dictatorship. I rather be a lazy NEET then some worthless worker pee. My value, as a human being, isn't determined by some dead kike. Its determined by own will and resolve.
>"Another example of the uninteresting is work, which passes for one’s lifework, for the human calling. This is the origin of the prejudice that one has to earn his bread, and that it is shameful to have bread without having worked a bit to get it: this is the pride of the wage. "

>>18950338
>how am I pb?
you express the interest of the petty-bourgeoisie regarding the worker's movement, i.e. that the workers not have an independent movement at all and that they joint the fight for the demands of other classes instead. translated into the pernicious opportunist language, this comes off exactly as: the workers can't emancipate themselves, they're too stupid and they don't have the time. hence they need direction from outside. on this Marx and Engels were clear:
>At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle-cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot cooperate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes.

>>18950344
you need to come up with a better cope than "your dumb lmao". try reading some Heinrich or something, like your friend

>>18950370
communism is not an ideology, but the movement of the working class. its goal is not freedom from labour -- which would be retarded, since people need to work in order to sustain their existence -- but the abolition of private appropriation of the products of labour, and hence of wage-labour, or value-creating labour. but not of labour as such.
>work bro work!
for a petty-bourgeois child this is obviously a question, but the proletarian doesn't have a choice. he has to let himself be exploited in order to live.
>become part of the system!
the "system" already accounts for people like NEETs or dumpster divers. the only way to really oppose it is through independent organization of the working class and active fight against capital. I don't care if you have the opportunity to be a lazy fuck and take advantage of it, I really don't. just don't pretend that has anything to do with communism, that's it.

>>18950399
>what is the communist opinion on debt and interest?
that's an extremely broad question, so I can only say that you should read part V of this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/

>>18950900
>lmao you think communism will abolish what we now call mental illness?
lmao you think mental well-being has nothing to do with living under capitalism? because if it does, then transporting yourself as you are to a communist society, keeping your mental state constant, is a worthless thought experiment.
>you didn't understand my argument. but regardless if you were as serious a reader of marx as you claim you would know of arbeit/tatigkeit distinction
was your argument based solely on the fact that the word "work" implies a division of labour, and you were so kind as to ignore all context and assume that I was actually using it in this way? if so, then you're trying to score cheap points on autistic academic minutiae, because you have no actual arguments to make.
a serious reader of Marx cares about the broad argument and about communism, not about exploiting terminological pedantry in order to undermine Marx's work and turn communism into its opposite.
>why do you think i use the internet more than you?
because I read your posts
>this actually shows you haven't talked to many working class people because in my experience (since i am working class) they seek out liesure time like crazy
how does that contradict me? obviously they want to work as little as necessary like everyone, but they would also immediately understand that the best way to do that is by eliminating useless labour and by having everyone do their fair share of the remaining work. just like Marx said. and this has nothing to do with any regard for NEETs or with pb fantasies about fully-automated space communism.
>they are not excuses. do you think working class people don't have (what we now call) mental illness?
99.9% of young people on social networks who talk like this are pb kids that never had a job and are looking for excuses. so I'll take my chances on this one
working class people don't have the luxury to not work in the first place. they work even when they have "low energy" all the time. if you really want to know, hearing about people like you probably makes their blood boil.
>no idea why students would have some special disposition.
people who tend to become NEETs will always choose to go to university instead of going directly to work, because that lets them extend the idle school life for a couple of years.
>communism is from each according to his abilities, hence what we now call disabled people... will not work as much
no fucking shit dude. the initial quote that got you triggered already said: "no ABLE-BODIED adult person ought to be exempted from the general law of nature, viz.: to work in order to be able to eat". does your mental disability include being illiterate? I can tell you're a pb loser just from the fact of how hard you ignored that just to find something to feel victimized and have a waste of time of a discussion about. ridiculous.

>>18951553
that's fantastic. remember your own words and stay away from communism.

>>18950344
>>18951604
and to be absolutely clear, I only "rail against NEETs" insofar as any given NEET tries to falsify Marxism in order to hitch his wagon to communism. otherwise I really couldn't care less.

>>18951604
mass movements are shit and retarded. lenin's revolutionary vanguard was the only think that came close to revolution and it was run by intelligentsia. I am blanquist.

>communism is not an ideology.
yes it fucking is don't get all "it's a science" shit yada yada on me it's a fucking ideology and marx was a crypto idealist and his "logic" is magical thinking.

marx was a fucking NEET. don't get all "he worked" on me, because he did not work a job the way you are telling me to work a job. I do the same work as marx, except I have no faith in mass movements and I never will. working class people are idiots and that is a fact of life.

>>18951636
>>18951639
i am not marxist anyway. all systemizers can suck my NEET cock.

If you think communism will ever get rid of mundane labor you are stupid. The best it can maybe offer is you wont have to work as much

>>18951639
>mass movements are shit and retarded. lenin's revolutionary vanguard was the only think that came close to revolution and it was run by intelligentsia.
the fact that a mass movement has a directing organ doesn't make it not a mass movement
>yes it fucking is don't get all "it's a science"
no, it's the movement of the working class, and apparently you don't get it at all.
>marx was a fucking NEET
he could be a martian for all I care, as long as he correctly grasped communism. which he clearly did, as demonstrated by how triggered leftist NEETs get by his words and by how they try to explain them away with "h-he surely made a mistake! or else Marx wasn't a serious reader of Marx!"

>>18951645
that's unironically great. just never become one if you have to end up like the other dude.

>>18951703
i don't want to be a Marxist. I use marx's analysis and economically I am a socialist, however he is not right about everything.


>how triggered leftist NEETs get by his words and by how they try to explain them away with "h-he surely made a mistake! or else Marx wasn't a serious reader of Marx!"
no i don't get triggered by marx I agree with him on many things.

>the fact that a mass movement has a directing organ doesn't make it not a mass movement
i prefer coups.

>>18951681
>The best it can maybe offer is you wont have to work as much
Totally opposite, their "economy" is so inefficient that you will have to work more while using more primitive tools.
btw, the Soviets did try to test the system in some benevolent incarnation near the end, it turned out that the workers just couldn't get anything fucking done when they got some relative freedom. The sentiment that "communism wasn't that bad" is a reminiscence of these last years where everybody was on a whole-years-long vacations, coincidentally spend in their "factories". Hunger did follow.

>>18942120
At least we got growth bro. And they can just engineer some revolutions, throw some baits and keep the machine going on.
Automation will be used to keep people at work, lmao.

>>18951611
>lmao you think mental well-being has nothing to do with living under capitalism?
of course i do dumbfuck, but i also think there are physiological components to it. i will feel like this in communism too
>was your argument...
try rereading it
>because I read your posts
honestly, you're the one coming off as a terminal leftypoler. you behave like them and throw around out-of-context marx quotes and are extremely resistant to the idea that marx might have contradicted himself especially in political polemics
>99.9% of young people on social networks who talk like this are pb kids that never had a job and are looking for excuses.
not true. desu i know of no social media leftists who aren't either students or something like walmart employees. there are pb radlibs but they tend not to be into anti-work or anything like that
>obviously they want to work as little as necessary like everyone,
this isn't true if work is life's prime want and everyone who avoids wage labor is a "pathetic loser" like you claim, no?
your mistake is that you're for some reason seeing the gothakritik proclamations as some sort of moralization of work, and applying this to the current state of affairs where work is alienating and worth avoiding even by marx's views. that's the only way you're able to call neets "pathetic losers", and the implication from that is that all the wage workers who dream of not having to work (of which there are plenty) are also "pathetic losers" and apparently petty bourgs
>idle school life
lol

>>18942376
Aren't the majority of homeless people mentally ill?

>>18942955
The pure Communist party never gets in the parliament in my ex-Communist nation, can't pass the basic threshold, never could. Same story in the majority of ex-Communist nations.

>>18951891
second post because character limit
>the initial quote that got you triggered already said:
actually before that it says "every child whatever". marx is being sloppy. we can easily show this if we apply his critique of egalitarianism to the quote:
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.
dividing people into two camps of "able-bodied" and "disabled" is bourgeois right, or at most one step away from it. it looks at people "from one side only" (i.e. whether they can contribute at all) and ignores everything else about them. marx literally says right there that different people will work different amounts, and he makes it clear he means this as a spectrum of ability, not a (bourgeois) discrete binary
>if you really want to know, hearing about people like you probably makes their blood boil.
interesting wording of "probably" and "their". you're giving away that you're not a prole. which, i want to remind you, i am btw
the reality is many of the people who have this attitude toward me are pb themselves. for examle my grandmother who grew up in titoism (i.e. market socialism, the pb system) or my brother who is a worker at microsoft so hardly a standard prole
whereas actual working class people i know, well sometimes they do and other times not. but the ones who do tend to be more reactionary, i.e. full of bourgeois ideology, which happens to include workerism. on the other hand for example my partner grew up without a fridge and i don't make their blood boil
btw i find it amusing how much more you're posting in this thread than me despite claiming i'm the terminally online one. anyway, back to leftypol with you, you projecting neet

>>18949427
Did you know that psychiatry was abused constantly in ex-Soviet Union and its satellites? It was a very useful tool of getting rid of antagonistic elements and political threats.

>>18951944
>examle
*example

>>18951891
>honestly, you're the one coming off as a terminal leftypoler. you behave like them and throw around out-of-context marx quotes and are extremely resistant to the idea that marx might have contradicted himself especially in political polemics
btw another sign is your eschewal of secondary sources, which is something they do a lot as well. anyone who has studied philosophy knows that relying aggressively on primary sources is dangerous because you will often get stuff wrong, marx is no exception. he is often pretty unclear
so, read heinrich, lazyass. instead of relying on your own secondary sources (your three links from earlier) to tell you he's wrong

Leftism doesn't work. Leftism is a disease. Leftists are mentally ill.

Stop paying attention to leftism, stop arguing with leftists. Just ignore them like the cattle they are.

>>18951604
>for a petty-bourgeois child this is obviously a question, but the proletarian doesn't have a choice. he has to let himself be exploited in order to live.
btw as a final note, this is a sign of your bourgeois moralism. liberals are all about moralizing "choice". the reality, as you seem to be somewhat aware of, is that people don't really have these choices. they are largely determined by their material circumstances
want to know why there are no wage laborers like me? because they fucking die. i already told you i fear becoming a mentally ill homeless person. so of course i'm going to hang on to neetdom (although i'm not a neet). and i would fucking hope communism precludes throwing mentally ill people onto the streets, but apparently that's too much
this is my final post btw, your bullshit has drained too much of my time

>>18938944
Anarchism is a fiction, and will always remain a fiction. Source: The Paris Commune, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Black Guard.

>>18952227
also CHAZ

>>18952227
Anarchism is nihilism. It has no objections besides destruction. Great examples of anarchism is the fall of the Soviet Empire - riots and massacres of Communist troops bringing to the ground
>"The North Americans ask them
selves: Do we need a king? and answer: He and his work aren't worth a cent to us. "

>>18952227
Anarchism is all about being in constant defiance to civilization. It doesn't share the metaphysical dogma of "progress" of sophists, or nor does it waste its time with the stupidity of political profligates. It treats life as an endless war, and an endless military campaign, of fights, events, defeats, and setbacks. The anarchist doesn't wish to herd humanity under a single, unchanging doctrine, but exploits humanity for is own enjoyment.

So many retards have turned anarchism into some sort of civil religion where its sole purpose is to pity the weak, and to "save them" from their own exploitation at the hands of the evil and wicked. Sorry to tell you this - an anarchist could not give a single fuck if you died, especially if you have no value to you. The normative assumption that the anarchist ought to have a duty to humanity, and to solve its problems, is much further to the truth than its ever been. The anarchist has no obligation to help niggers, trannies, or any of the sacred humanist beliefs you worthless commie, degenerates hold.

>>18952331
>y-yeah dude we'll always fail to build a proper society
>i-it's on purpose though h-haha!
That's pretty funny anon, post another one

>>18946650
>huge success story

As long as you ignore the death, suffering, starvation and corruption

>>18949032
Meds

>>18948739
While I do agree that the general person should not litter Duke Energy pollutes a fuck ton.

>>18952227
True, but probably not in the way you think.

>>18951891
>of course i do dumbfuck
then you're being incoherent for the reason I already explained
>try rereading it
try stating it openly instead of covering it in a layer of vagueness in an attempt to conceal the fact that your argument is weak and/or doesn't even address what I actually said
>throw around out-of-context marx quotes
what was the context that I failed to provide? be specific
>and are extremely resistant to the idea that marx might have contradicted himself
I'm only extremely resistant to the idea that he has contradicted himself here, because it's extremely obvious that he didn't and that the confusion is on your part. it's a kind of confusion typical for people who read bourgeois academic writings on Marx instead of Marx himself and who aren't interested in Marx because of immediate interest in communism, but only because they hope to find a vindication for petty-bourgeois socialism in his writings
>not true. desu i know of no social media leftists who aren't either students or something like walmart employees
by pb kids I also mean students. and there are actual high schoolers too. just spend 5 minutes on lefty twitter if you want confirmation.
>this isn't true if work is life's prime want and everyone who avoids wage labor is a "pathetic loser" like you claim, no?
where have I claimed that you illiterate imbecile? I quoted Marx saying that it will have become life's prime want by the higher stage of communism. as for pathetic losers, I assure you that I wasn't referring to workers who fight for less hours with the same pay because they want to spend more time with their families.
>>idle school life
>lol
"lol?" are you implying that the school and student life of a pb kid isn't one long vacation compared to working for a living as an adult?

>>18951944
>actually before that it says "every child whatever"
so what? it's clear what he meant. you're still trying to invent problems through semantic nitpicking, because you have no actual argument. this is pathetic.
>marx literally says right there that different people will work different amounts, and he makes it clear he means this as a spectrum of ability, not a (bourgeois) discrete binary
in my quote Marx simply said that people who are unable to work at all won't have to work. it doesn't at all preclude that some people will be able to work less than others.
this is such a ridiculous invented non-issue that I'm starting to question your sanity.
and you completely miss the point with your "bourgeois discrete binary". it's bourgeois law regardless of whether it's determined as a binary or a spectrum. the bourgeois law will disappear between the lower and higher stage simply because disabled and able-bodied people will self-regulate their labour and consumption instead of this having to be imposed on them from above.

>>18951944
>you're giving away that you're not a prole. which, i want to remind you, i am btw
that sounds very workerist comrade
>back to leftypol with you
how would I go to leftypol if I can barely handle how inane and pathetic the people are on /lit/. leftypol is on a whole another level
>you projecting neet
way to miss the point

>>18952155
>btw another sign is your eschewal of secondary sources
by secondary sources you mean falsifiers of Marx employed by bourgeois ideological institutions
>which is something they do a lot as well
don't they jerk off to Parenti, Cockshott and other lobotomized specimen?
>anyone who has studied philosophy knows that relying aggressively on primary sources is dangerous because you will often get stuff wrong, marx is no exception
you're assuming that the academia is some neutral arbiter of knowledge, not an organ of bourgeois ideology. Marx is very hard to get wrong provided that you read enough of him. he's however extremely easy to get wrong if you rely on bourgeois interpreters to do the thinking for you.

>>18952219
>btw as a final note, this is a sign of your bourgeois moralism. liberals are all about moralizing "choice".
how am I moralizing anything? I'm not talking about what's morally good or bad at all, just stating facts. you're continually inventing things.
>the reality, as you seem to be somewhat aware of, is that people don't really have these choices.
no, a pb kid who doesn't have to work in order to subsist clearly has more choice with this regard from a proletarian who will die if he doesn't work.
>your bullshit has drained too much of my time
my bullshit? this entire exchange is you getting triggered by ghosts of your own creation and then bringing up irrelevant semantics in order to not seem like you don't actually have any coherent complaint to make about what I or Marx say that wouldn't immediately oust you as a pb lib. please kindly fuck off far away from communism and stick with your philosophy hobbyism and other NEET activities.