/lit/ - Literature

No. He ruined history.

>>6382442
he literarily ruined history!!!1

Can someone tell me the name of this meme? It's all over the place with peoples faces and shit, I want the basic version of it

>>6382437

>>6382453
vaporwave?

>>6382442
He only spoiled the ending.

Has anyone read this? I read it in a night and a morning. Slavoj is entertaining and funny. Pussy riots story is interesting.

It seemed like a few times slavoj brought up feminism just to be a good leftist. Nadya struck me as a bit of a Maoist or sjw.

Any thoughts?

he's hegel's fault

Extremely influential dude, his life works amount to the most nuanced critique of capitalism and social authority through his theory of historical materialism. His work also signifies the beginning of modern political philosophy, as well as many (if not most) other areas of academia.

Fucking scumbag essentially genocide-d 100 gorrillion people by himself because he was a dumb loser who didn't know anything about economics and was probably a homosexual as well.

>>6382489
>critique of capitalism and social authority through his theory of historical materialism.
you shouldn't talk about things you don't know, you make us all sound idiotic.

>>6382457

Wow what a smart dude I wish he was my dad

>>6382437

I would post on /marx/ general like other marxist threads if it weren't for all anti-communist bait shitposts.

I'm also regretting using pics of Young Stalin cause I've only got around thirty of these fuckers.

>>6382520

>>6382522

>>6382505
lol okay how is historical materialism not a critique of capitalism and social authority, or is there something else that I've fundamentally gotten wrong in my shitpost?

>>6382505
look at his name
>Shitposting Ironically

I don't think you should be really expecting smart comments from him

>>6382472

Even though I loathe political anti-authoritarianism, I sympathize more with the libertarian socialist opposition in Russia more than I do with the blatantly homophobic and chauvinist Communist Party, even if they like Joseph Stalin.

I mean, it's a legitimate criticism to say that they act bourgeois, and that the contemporary left's obsession with identity politics is doing more to seperate the merger of socialism and the labour movement than any anti-communist propaganda ever could.

>>6382559
thanks, we didn't see it

>>6382559
Good point, that was my bad.

>>6382541
Historical materialism is the study of history focused on the social shifts and the material results instead of icons and discourse. It's not tied to capitalism or even states.

At the same time Marx was more than okay with capitalism and buroise, he saw them as needed steps in human evolution inherently revolutionary. He hoped they would just leave the lower classes progress into self regulation but he was just a dumb modernist.

>>6382470
this nigga
>>6382453
aesthetics

>>6382576
>Historical materialism is the study of history focused on the social shifts and the material results instead of icons and discourse. It's not tied to capitalism or even states.

Yes, yes, but the analysis of history through that lens points to how social conditions are reproduced through the means of production. Historical materialism seeks to place societal progression within the contexts of both productive forces, relations of production, and how these in turn shape the relevant ideological superstructure (icons and discourse). To say that this analysis has nothing to do with the capitalist and state modes of productive control is inane. It's task is precisely to place those institutions within a critical historical framework.

>>6382470
Clever

But you're wrong. Everything marx has said has been debunked.

>>6382608
>le debunked meme

>>6382622
No it is true. Not proven wrong with well reasoned arguments, debunked with self-serving infograhics.

>>6382640
thank god you guys are only a meme

>>6382640

Capitalism. Forever. And Ever.

>>6382437
>Can we talk about this Karl Marx guy?
Theses on Feuerbach
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Socialism: Utopian & Scientific
Wages Price and Profit

Get back to us after that. (Should only be a day's reading if you're academic, a month's if you're not).

>>6382576
>buroise
PHONE POSTER GET OUT

Have you guys read an extensive amount of philosophy? Like the Greeks and upwards to the 19th century.
Just interested

>>6382711
No, I started with Marx and ended with Marx

Marx is Marx, Marx is Marx

>>6382453

you have 10 seconds to explain to me why you're not a Maoist-Third Worldist

>>6382761
Because M—C…P…C'—M' you fucking anti-worker nomenklatura cunt.

>>6382801
things have changed; first worlders generally don't produce surplus value.

There are plenty of workers in the third world who DO produce surplus value though.

>>6382819
>first worlders generally don't produce surplus value.
surplus value is evaluated against the average socially necessary labour time as constituted as a wage. The wage is an independent variable. The imperialism thesis is bullshit.

M—C…P—M' which is the service industry reproduction of value is in full fucking effect dickhead.

>There are plenty of workers in the third world who DO produce surplus value though.
Get your head out of your ass new guy. Commodites are not a physical form, but a relationship between people. The first world reproduces surplus value through service work at an even higher intensity than it did through physical good production in the 1960s. In fact, the rate of surplus value has GONE UP because service work is insufficiently mechanised. MORE surplus value is produced in the first world that was being produced in the 1960s on an absolute AND relative basis because of the primary accumulation of new areas of human life by the commodity form.

Next time before you open your fucking shit cunt of a mouth bother to remember that social relations are not concretised in physical labour, or physical products, but in relationships around the use of social time. Your blue collar manualism is negative and anti-worker, and reduces the potential for you to actually see the relations that blue collar workers around you are living and organise with them.

You make me fucking sick, Third worldism is a deep fucking sickness in Maoism, and discredits the positive work that Indian and Philippine Maoists are doing. It doesn't help that US third worldists are some of the sickest nomenklatura cult organisations in existence.

>>6382841
ok buddy

im sure your marxist organization will jump leaps and bounds for the workers in the first world, who are paid much much higher wages than those in the third, and have more access to healthcare, and expensive cars, houses, and even have enough money to feed their kids too much, while third world kids starve! first world workers are not revolutionary.

you're pretty angry friend, was your old girlfriend a third worldist or something?

>>6382903
>im sure your marxist organization will jump leaps and bounds for the workers in the first world, who are paid much much higher wages than those in the third, and have more access to healthcare, and expensive cars, houses, and even have enough money to feed their kids too much, while third world kids starve!

This is all true, but it is neither revolutionary nor marxist.

>expensive cars
This in particular is problematic. I wear the same underwear that chinese workers wear. There is nothing special in that the underwear is sold here at the socially average necessary production cost as if produced in my country, whereas in China the underwear is sold there at the socially average necessary production cost as if produced in China. There is nothing special in the price.

>first world workers are not revolutionary.

neither are third world workers. The last time we saw a proletariat coming into being was in 1989 in China.

>you're pretty angry friend, was your old girlfriend a third worldist or something?

Not at all. Many of my comrades are "organise where you're at" Maoists embedded in the labour movement. But third worldism, particularly first world third worldism is abandoning the duty to organise.

>>6382925
>it is neither revolutionary nor marxist.
someone who has a comfortable life within the system is less likely to fight it than someone who starves due to it

>I wear the same underwear that chinese workers wear. There is nothing special in that the underwear is sold here at the socially average necessary production cost as if produced in my country, whereas in China the underwear is sold there at the socially average necessary production cost as if produced in China
My underwear are produced by third world workers, since i live in the first world. The first world has mostly exported its means of production onto the third to conduct superexploitation and have created 'mall economies' in their own countries
>neither are third world workers. The last time we saw a proletariat coming into being was in 1989 in China.
where are your naxalite maoists in america? or your Communist Party of Burmas in germany?
There may be people fighting for the sovereignty of natives, or the right treatment of minorities by policemen, but these are posed by minority groups that don't make up most of the people in that country, who would rather live comfortably at the expense of the third world than join socialist revolution. The first worlders have much more than their chains to lose.
>particularly first world third worldism is abandoning the duty to organise.
Us third worlders hold up that there should be revolution in the third world, resistance in the first. we should organize to teach other radicals about mtw and how to resist in the first world. We are no naxalite maoists or communist party of burmas, but it would be dangerous for Us to go and fight with them, and incredibly unwise.

>>6382977
>Us third worlders
*third worldists

>>6382977
>someone who has a comfortable life within the system is less likely to fight it than someone who starves due to it
Not at all true. If you bothered to read the history of our class you'll find that revolutions happen during sustained UPswings in living standards. This is why the contemporary Chinese proletariat is so interesting.

>and have created mall economies
This is excessively reductivist. Most of the service commodities are education and child-care or health and social services.

>superexploitation
is vacuous. See Marx's treatment of chinese cotton.

>where are your naxalite maoists in america?
Please do bother with the history of the Symbionese liberation army and weather underground (should have been "weatherfront" but they were tasteless bastards), and the RAF.

Urban Foquista Bullshit.

>who would rather live comfortably
Please reread Length of the Working Day and take an industrial tour of the west with me.

>resistance in the first
Oh please, this is just liberal catering. Wherever the value form exists, we workers exist. Wherever we exist, we exist to abolish ourselves.

>>6382457
Christian heaven seems pretty communist. Capitalism isnt sustainable. I won't say communism is the answer though.

>>6382512
We all do son, we all do.

>>6382453
listen to floral shoppe

>>6383194
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcsYSJwewWk

you will feel the meme