/lit/ - Literature

>>19044834
Marx is very good I think. Materialism is stupid and I'm not sure even if Marx believed it.

>>19044834

>>19044842
Try slamming your head against the wall
Let us know if it’s an illusion

>>19044858
This is obviously not what I mean.

>>19044865
Why is materialism 'stupid', anon?

Book of Revelation

>>19044880
It is stupid because everything is subjective.

>>19044880
>>19044890
Do you want to argue with me???????

>>19044852
Were is the science here?

>>19044852
post nose

>>19044834
It's been a while but I don't think Marx says a thing about communism in this., so this post hardly works as a zinger. He does describe the DOTP but nothing in it is outlandish, e.g. compulsory education is pretty standard these days, and there have been DOTPs by now - starting with the Paris Commune.
Of course yoou don't even know any of this nuance probably, you likely have some Peterson-tier understanding thinking that this is Marx's main work or something.

>>19045456
>yoou
*you

>>19045006
How do you think the advanced alien parted the Red Sea, resurrected the dead or made water into wine? Magic?
>>19045315

>>19045456
>I don't think Marx says a thing about communism in this
he does? it is an extremely succinct explanation of communist politics

>>19045589
Communism as in communist society.

>>19045596
communism is the real movement to abolish the present state of things

>>19045598
No. Communism now means miscegenation.

>>19045715
hmm

>>19044842
If you believe in mysticism, you open the door to believing literally anything imaginable. Materialism is, in the most technical sense, the most based.

>>19045598
That is one meaning of communism, that Marx barely uses outside of The German Ideology. Another is a mode of production.

>>19046126
Ok but materialism is just science, then. I mean it was supposed to be. The entire world is subjective to the observer. You know what science is, it's another religion.

>>19045456
>>19045596
>It's been a while but I don't think Marx says a thing about communism in this
you really need to reread it then. some examples:
>In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer. In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
or
>And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also.
or
>Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
or
>[The bourgeois] has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
or
>In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
or
>The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

>>19046938
he basically never uses "communism" to explicitly refer to the communist society rather than the movement

>>19047094
Why don't Marxists buy my wacky race science? We will be such good friends after.