/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13530937]

Would Marx be for or against immigration. And if your answer is
>immigration would not be a problem when clases are abolished
Could you try and justify it?

[Anonymous No.13531027]

>>13530937
A classless society would also be a raceless society

[Anonymous No.13531030]

>>13531027
blackened society

[Anonymous No.13531054]

>>13531027
>raceless society

[Anonymous No.13531367]

>>13531027
Ah, everyone wants to live in Brazil

[Anonymous No.13531391]

>>13530937
He wanted a worldwide revolution and a stateless society. So I don't think he minded immigration.

[Anonymous No.13531399]

>>13531027
Natural classes would form, the weak overlords and the strong cart pullers

[Anonymous No.13531432]

How exactly would immigration be a problem in a world where the very concept of nation and borders are obsolete?

[Anonymous No.13531461]

>stateless society
>people relocating between states

wew

[Anonymous No.13531471]

>>13531432
Race is not tied to borders or nations, it’s coded into your genetics.
Also, a stateless society wouldn’t stop different cultures from emerging eventually, it’s only a natural process.

[Anonymous No.13531482]

>>13530937

regardless of how he actually felt he should've been against it
In fact I would think that pretty much all socioeconomic ideologies would be against it because it can only serve to disrupt and destabilize the carefully balanced system
No matter how much people want to believe in the feel good idea of everybody just gettin' along with no borders or structure systems always work better when they're controlled
This is why communism and socialism can actually work perfectly in relatively small insular communities

[Anonymous No.13531490]

>>13531432
Why would borders become obsolete magically, are you going to stop having any forms of centralised administration at all?

[Anonymous No.13531509]

>>13531027
>>13531391
>>13531432
Marxism springs from liberalism, liberalism denied the individual was different and placed him above man made institutions. Tradmarx also denied man was under any institutions, the difference between tradmarx and liberalism is that communism sees capitalism as an institution while liberalism sees capitalism as a natural institution that works in and with man. Communism saw it as an artificial divider and controller. Marxism grew balls with leninism and stalinism under influence of a push to deny weak liberalism which is what fascism was the highest point was.

So to answer OP madx definitely wanted a worker revolution where he thought class abolition was the one thing that would make man entirely equal.

Neo Marxism saw the limits of this viewpoint and made it entirely culture related

[Anonymous No.13531667]

>>13530937
Deport them where? Is xyr advocating for gulags?

[Anonymous No.13531690]

https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/

Based on Marx's statements about Irish immigration to Ireland, it appears that Marx considered that mass immigration was a tool used by capital to "force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class" and divide the working class into English and Irish camps who were too busy being hostile to each other to be hostile to the employers exploiting the both of them.

[Anonymous No.13531699]

Capitalism is what caused all the economic immigration. Open borders is a basic human right though.

[Anonymous No.13531704]

Marx was an immigrant

[Anonymous No.13531732]

>>13531699
>capitalism is bad but the things capitalism does is good, actually
The modern left in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.13531738]

>>13531690
>>13531699 (checked)
These. The context matters significantly, and capitalism has a tendency to corrupt all things in the name of profit.

[Anonymous No.13531761]

>>13531367
>muh Brazil
You should refrain from speaking about something you don't understand

[Anonymous No.13531764]

Friendly reminder that Marxism is the product of the unexamined hypostasis of the same enlightenement abstractions concerning Man, language, human-nature etc. (the Rousseauian/Hobbesian/Lockean contractian "state of nature", Smith's "land of barter", etc.) that underlie liberalism-proper, and that these abstractions are themselves the result of the unexamined reification of unexamined pre-enlightenment abstractions (Smith's "land of barter" for example is not at all corroborated by contemporary anthropological evidence - he just made it up). Marxism is just some random enlightenment abstraction built on a foundation of other enlightenment abstractions built on a foundation of nothing.

Friendly reminder that Marxism is ontologically liberal.

[Anonymous No.13531767]

>>13531738
A modern and progressive burger company.

[Anonymous No.13531813]

>>13530937
Immigration of whom, from where, and in what circumstances?

>>13531509
Marxism is anti-liberal.
>Without any doubt, the individual is a unit from a biological point of view, but one cannot make this individual the basis of social organization without falling into metaphysical nonsense. From a social perspective, all the individual units do not have the same value. The collectivity is born from relations and groupings in which the status and activity of each individual do not derive from an individual function but from a collective one determined by the multiple influences of the social milieu.

>>13531699
>human rights
lmao

>>13531764
Friendly reminder that Marxism is ontologically opposed to liberalism.
>Setting out from the individual-unit in order to draw social conclusions and to construct social blueprints or even in order to deny society, is setting out from an unreal supposition which, even in its most modern formulations, only amounts to refurbishing the concepts of religious revelation and creation and of a spiritual life which is not dependent upon natural and organic life. The divine creator — or a single power governing the destiny of the universe has given each individual this elementary property of being an autonomous well-defined molecule endowed with consciousness, will and responsibility within the social aggregate, independent of contingent factors deriving from the physical influence of the environment. Only the appearance of this religious and idealist conception is modified in the doctrine of democratic liberalism or libertarian individualism. The soul as a spark from the supreme Being, the subjective sovereignty of each elector, or the unlimited autonomy of the citizen of a society without laws — these are so many sophisms which, in the eyes of the Marxist critique, are tainted with the same infantile idealism, no matter how resolutely "materialist" the first bourgeois liberals and anarchists may have been.

[Anonymous No.13531844]

>>13531764
This

[Anonymous No.13531904]

>>13531813
>>Setting out from the individual-unit in order to draw social conclusions and to construct social blueprints or even in order to deny society, is setting out from an unreal supposition which, even in its most modern formulations, only amounts to refurbishing the concepts of religious revelation and creation and of a spiritual life which is not dependent upon natural and organic life. The divine creator — or a single power governing the destiny of the universe has given each individual this elementary property of being an autonomous well-defined molecule endowed with consciousness, will and responsibility within the social aggregate, independent of contingent factors deriving from the physical influence of the environment. Only the appearance of this religious and idealist conception is modified in the doctrine of democratic liberalism or libertarian individualism. The soul as a spark from the supreme Being, the subjective sovereignty of each elector, or the unlimited autonomy of the citizen of a society without laws — these are so many sophisms which, in the eyes of the Marxist critique, are tainted with the same infantile idealism, no matter how resolutely "materialist" the first bourgeois liberals and anarchists may have been.
This ideology was brought to you by Adam Smith's Land of Barter(tm).

[Anonymous No.13531911]

>>13531732
A destabilized third world isn't a good thing but the least we can do to help is let them into the first world

[Anonymous No.13531912]

So I could basically move around forever and basically not be a part of any community if i wanted too?

[Anonymous No.13531916]

>>13531911
Stabalizing the third world is a better solution instead of this retarded half measure.

[Anonymous No.13531919]

>>13531911
Why am I supposed to make my society worse to benefit some third world retards on the other side of the globe while my countrymen die in their own piss?

[Anonymous No.13531922]

>>13531916
Not going to happen under capitalism whose main goal is just to make money and only make small changes like letting in immigrants pretending that it makes the whole issue ok

[Anonymous No.13531926]

>>13531919
Because you are the ones who fucked up the third world in the first place with colonialism and the cold war

[Anonymous No.13531942]

>>13531926
My country had zero colonies and was barely involved in the cold war in any way whatsoever, got any not retarded reasons?

[Anonymous No.13531953]

>Who would Kierkegaard main in Smash Bros?
>Would Wittgenstein own an iMac?
>Would Sartre be able to play VRChat?

the absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.13531965]

>>13530937
if marx were alive today he would be a racist accelerationist

[Anonymous No.13531969]

>>13531919
Why are nationalists so short sighted Can’t you see the simple connections?
>third world country is a shithole, people starve etc..
>the people therefore want to emigrate, which they do (even if they’re „not allowed to“)
>these people, formerly spread out around the globe, move to already overcrowded areas of first world countries
>these first world countries get even more overpopulated and have to spend finances on accommodations, welfare or even just the deportation of the immigrants
>economic progress of the country is slowed down, job market problems arise, social division happens etc
>not only the initial country suffers, but also its trade partners
„Heh I don’t care about anyone but ourselves“ doesn’t work.
And if your countrymen die in their own piss without options, you don’t live in the first world

[Anonymous No.13531971]

>>13531942
Well if you don't want to help them out then they are inevitable going to immigrate to the first world

[Anonymous No.13531974]

>>13531953
Kierkegaard would main Kid Icarus

[Anonymous No.13531976]

>>13531965
Elaborate or die. Statements without reasoning are like chair without legs, silly and strange.

[Anonymous No.13531993]

>>13531027
>Marxists aren't useful idiots for neoliber-

[Anonymous No.13531994]

Yes, for the same reason he advocate for free trade.

[Anonymous No.13532003]

>>13531969
Sounds like closing the borders is a great idea, thanks.

[Anonymous No.13532012]

Elaborate how a firstworld stays so if it takes in millions of third worlders. Do marxists just think this will fuel the le revolution? Are immigrants more likely to not be lumpebproles in their eyes? Sounds doubtful

[Anonymous No.13532017]

No such thing as immigration under Marxism due to the world belonging to the people. Under capitalism immigrants are just another exploited resource whether they're for fearmongering or feeding capitalism.

[Anonymous No.13532023]

>>13532003
Yeah totally gonna work out right?
Because naah man, we don’t need trade partners or any of that shit dude. Fuck that haha.

You should look up „national economy“ and maybe, just maybe, read a thing or two about that so you don’t have to base your opinions on politics on „lol fuck everybody but ourselves“. Helps you to understand that the world isn’t just a bunch of totally independent countries and stuff.

[Anonymous No.13532043]

I wonder what Marx was up to. What can his end goal have been? Coming from such a long line of Rabbi's it's puzzing to think that he left jewishness behind. Maybe he was a beautiful new future for the world. Everyone equal, led by a group of benevolent leaders.

I'm sure he just wanted to make the world a better place aren't you?

[Anonymous No.13532052]

>>13531732
>things are good or okay before capitalism ruin it
FTFY

[Anonymous No.13532055]

>>13532043
Reminder that when someone says 'go back to /pol' they really saying I'm ok with the prevailing marxist order and, rather than engage, I'm happy to use dismissive rhetoric to protect that ideology.

[Anonymous No.13532071]

>>13531942
What country are you in anyway?

[Anonymous No.13532073]

>>13530937
This bugman should deport most of the third world if he wants to be consistent.

https://akarlin.com/2013/09/racists-not-where-prof-said/

[Anonymous No.13532076]

>>13530937
>Would Marx be for or against immigration.
Considering that Immigration is quite literally a tool of the capitalists to crush wages and stop worker revolts the answer seems pretty straight forward.

[Anonymous No.13532094]

>>13532073
Indians are racist as fuck, its never really addressed desu

[Anonymous No.13532099]

>>13532012
It's a short term solution that doesn't solve the underlying problems of capitalism

[Anonymous No.13532103]

>>13532043
Communism isn't egalitarianism. There are no ruling class either

[Anonymous No.13532108]

>>13532012
Immigrants are all self interested family people, they are conservatives at heart going along with lefty values for the benefits.

[Anonymous No.13532109]

>>13532099
>It's a short term solution
To what?
Because the only thing Immigration really addresses is Stagnating economies and Worker unrest.

[Anonymous No.13532110]

>>13532071
Russia

[Anonymous No.13532113]

>>13532076
>the answer seems pretty straight forward.
wouldn't he advocate for it to accelerate the revolution?

[Anonymous No.13532115]

>>13532108
>they are conservatives at heart
Exactly, conservative about the values of the home countries.

[Anonymous No.13532117]

>>13532109
It makes first worlders feel less guilty and less likely to want to change the system

[Anonymous No.13532119]

>>13532110
>russia not involved in the cold war and having no colonies

Ayo hol up

[Anonymous No.13532122]

>>13532110
Didn’t you guys made satellite states in East Europe and Middle East? And involved in the Cold War?

[Anonymous No.13532123]

>>13530937
Look at the size of that NOSE

[Anonymous No.13532124]

>>13532113
No, why would that make sense?

[Anonymous No.13532129]

>>13532113
>wouldn't he advocate for it to accelerate the revolution?
Yes, the revolution is surely accelerated by making worker unrest even harder and continuing the growth of capital.

[Anonymous No.13532130]

>>13531926
>let's just make assumptions about every western country and make people pay for something they had nothing to do with
and Marxists wonder why everyone hates them.

[Anonymous No.13532137]

>>13532124
>>13532129
Marx advocated for free trade to accelerate the revolution and free trade just helps more wealth accumulate in the hands of the capitalists

[Anonymous No.13532138]

>>13532130
>confusing prescription for description
It is a natural consequence of playing stupid games to win stupid prizes.

[Anonymous No.13532143]

>>13532137
>Dude things need to get way worse to make things better

Yikes

[Anonymous No.13532144]

>>13532138
>confusing prescription for description
Meant to be the inverse

[Anonymous No.13532146]

>>13532138
>>confusing prescription for description
No, he isn't.
>>13531926 gave a reason for:
"Why am I supposed to make my society worse to benefit some third world retards on the other side of the globe while my countrymen die in their own piss?"
Its clearly prescriptive, as it gives reasons WHY a certain thing should be done.

[Anonymous No.13532151]

>>13532143
Marx would like a word with you

[Anonymous No.13532154]

>>13532146
>as it gives reasons WHY a certain thing should be done.
No that is description, the reply didn’t state that the anon should, but that he must.

[Anonymous No.13532165]

>>13532154
>must
I meant would

[Anonymous No.13532168]

>>13532154
>No that is description
"You should do X because of Y" is not a description, how retarded are you?

[Anonymous No.13532174]

>>13532165
>>13532144
Learn to fucking read through what you wrote before posting retard, this isn't too hard.

[Anonymous No.13532177]

>>13532168
That >>13531926 never use the word should

[Anonymous No.13532181]

>>13532174
Chill nigga, I am not the one inserting a should into someone’s post

[Anonymous No.13532186]

>>13532177
Yes, but read the fucking post before, it gives a reason WHY something should happen.
"X should happen because of Y" is NOT a description, >>13531926 JUSTIFIES why >>13531919 should happen.

[Anonymous No.13532196]

>>13532181
Dude, at least I am able to read two post.
The first guy said "Why should X happen", the reply to that was "because of Y", if you think that is descriptive there is something wrong with your understanding of the English language, which would be pretty unsurprising at this point.

[Anonymous No.13532204]

>>13532186
No he gave a reason why it is happening not why it should happening.

>"X should happen because of Y" is NOT a description
I know it isn’t, and my point is nobody is making that statement in the first place. Justifying something is not the same as encouraging it.

[Anonymous No.13532216]

>>13532196
>The first guy said "Why should X happen"
>>13531919 never said that either senpai. He asked for a reason and he got one.

Learn to fucking read senpai. You are literally projecting words into people post.

[Anonymous No.13532217]

>>13532204
>No he gave a reason why it is happening not why it should happening.
You literally are unable to read, I really am unable to argue anything at this point.
Sure if you believe 2+2=5 go ahead, I do not care, but if you just read the post you would see that this is a lie.

>Justifying something is not the same as encouraging it.
???
What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.13532222]

>>13531953
>mega man
>no
>yes, but he would lie about not liking it

next

[Anonymous No.13532226]

>>13532216
>>>13531919 never said that either senpai.
What is wrong with you?
You realize the thing, "X", that should happen can be him doing something?

At this point you are just denying reality...

[Anonymous No.13532227]

No one so far mentioned that Communism and Marxism leads to Jewish slaughter of the people.

Yikes

[Anonymous No.13532232]

>>13532227
It is also irrelevant to the question of Marx supporting Immigration or not.

[Anonymous No.13532234]

>>13532052
Borders were not invented by capitalism

[Anonymous No.13532238]

>>13532217
Not an argument. Nobody made any suggestions in the reply chain, and pretending otherwise is delusional at best

>What the fuck is wrong with you?
I unfortunately know the difference between a prescription and a description lmao.

[Anonymous No.13532244]

>>13532204
>Justifying something
Justifying something most definitely isn't descriptive though.

[Anonymous No.13532245]

>>13532226
Why do you still insisting on repeating the word should when no one but you is using it?

[Anonymous No.13532249]

>>13532227
Communism is the removal of social hierarchy

[Anonymous No.13532251]

>>13532244
My bad. Describing or illustrating would be a better word.

[Anonymous No.13532252]

>>13532238
I mean, you can deny reality all you want, but the facts are pretty clear, one guy asked why X should be done and the other said WHY it should be done.

[Anonymous No.13532253]

>>13531471
Race as a coherent category and having the 'more melanin' gene are different things.
Also, 'different cultures' exist already within what you seem to call 'Cultures', there's no such thing as the latter.
You're using concepts like a elementary school student.

[Anonymous No.13532255]

>>13532249
Read Marx before you speak

[Anonymous No.13532259]

>>13532252
Again spamming the word should as if someone said it... why do people have to project prerogatives into casualty so that they can be mad about it?

[Anonymous No.13532264]

>>13532245
>>13532259
>Why do you still insisting on repeating the word should when no one but you is using it?
Because I am rephrasing "Why am I supposed to do X" into "Why should I do X"?

You are literally denying reality here.

[Anonymous No.13532273]

>>13532251
>Describing or illustrating would be a better word.
Yes, he is describing why one proposed action should be taken...
If I describe why all black people should be killed, is that prescriptive or descriptive?

You are literally not engaging with reality here.

[Anonymous No.13532278]

>>13532255
>"Marx actually supported class hierarchy!!"
no

[Anonymous No.13532295]

>>13532278
ReAd MArX.

[Anonymous No.13532306]

>>13532264
But it is not a complete rephrase you delusional retard. Suppose doesn’t just imply any moral obligation like should does.

[Anonymous No.13532307]

>>13532278
Read Marx but for real this time

[Anonymous No.13532309]

>>13532278
Think it was more heirarchy based on prestige instead of wealth or whatever. So commie society academics can keep fellating themselves like they do now

[Anonymous No.13532311]

>>13532273
>If I describe why all black people should be killed, is that prescriptive or descriptive?
Prescriptive because you literally used the word should.

If you said Blacks are killed because they cause crimes than that it is a description

[Anonymous No.13532315]

>>13532278
>class hierarchies are the only possible social hierarchies
stupid retard

[Anonymous No.13532316]

>>13532306
Fine I admit, whatever you are saying is absolute truth.
Two plus Two indeed equals Five, I should have known that from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.13532324]

>>13532311
H-how, can you not see it?
Its truly remarkable that you still are unable to figure it out.

Whatever see >>13532316

[Anonymous No.13532328]

>>13532315
Read Marx.

[Anonymous No.13532329]

>>13532316
I accept your passive aggressive concede.

[Anonymous No.13532332]

>>13532329
Fine, I have accepted the truth that two plus two is indeed five.
I truly have no argument left why it should have ever been 4.

Go ahead, make the last reply, I give you the honor you so desire.

[Anonymous No.13532335]

>>13532315
ok you got me. Marx secretly wanted a ruling class of people who with their own interests which conflicted with the rest of the people

[Anonymous No.13532337]

>>13532324
Saying that A causes B isn’t the same as B should happen coz of A. One is a casual link the other is opinion.

[Anonymous No.13532338]

Today's thread about Marx is a disgrace. Usually there at least one or two people who have read Marx. Even someone who is against his critique of the Capital but who have at least read him.
Today no one. Only people talking about things they don't know.

Marx in Das Kapital, Vol.1, Chapter XXV (translation from french copy)
"the Capitalist system develops the means to exploit the worker more, by making his day of work longer, or by making his work more intense, or by increasing the number of workers employed by replacing a strong and expensive workforce by many inferior and cheaper work forces, the man by the women, the adult by the teenager or the children, a Yankee by three Chineses. These are methods to diminish the demand of labor and make the labor market superabundant, in one word, to create supernumerary workers."

[Anonymous No.13532351]

>>13531813
Whatever it sets out to replace the individual with classes it still tries to get rid of all classes to make the individual work again. It's literally just an addition to liberalism by denying the free form nature of capitalism as being a persecutive force to man. In the end it seeks the same thing and whatever asides by downgrading the individual to meet the single class is still similar to liberalism. In contrast fascism, conservatism, monarchy etc try go build up the institutions to buoy against base human nature and the grouping of man as a whole unit. Marxism is 100% an ideological child of liberalism minus an industrial setting. In fact if the industrial age was set 200 years prior Marxism would have been developed then

[Anonymous No.13532352]

>>13532335
Read Marx.

[Anonymous No.13532359]

>>13532338
You haven't read Marx.

[Anonymous No.13532360]

>>13532338
Go back and actually read Marx. That quote is just an oddity

[Anonymous No.13532362]

>>13532337
You still didn't get it.

Whatever, go get your last reply.

[Anonymous No.13532364]

>>13532352
Make a point

[Anonymous No.13532367]

>>13532364
I did. I said that you should read Marx before commenting on what he did or did not want.

[Anonymous No.13532372]

>>13532360
Read >>13531690

[Anonymous No.13532379]

>>13532367
I wasn't him but every marxist screeches read Marx and I've regularly dispatched of them in a debate and I never reveal I've never actually read Marx outside articles. He's become some mystic for u ppl. Marx lent himself to bolshevism not menshevism

[Anonymous No.13532391]

>>13532367
And further so Marx never found a replacement for capital, he tried to pawn off work vouchers from an American but that's just replacing capital w capital. He should've banned trade outside barter in villages and banned cosmopolitans and banned national politics

[Anonymous No.13532394]

You are not allowed to give your opinion on Marx until you read his entire oeuvre including personal letters. (Pictured is just his work with Engels)

[Anonymous No.13532398]

If you've read this you've read and understand more about Marx than 97% of hardcore marxists
https://b-ok.xyz/book/3353767/d3bdae

[Anonymous No.13532524]

I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark-- superstitious dread,
For its Marshall--blackest agony.

Nope no hierarchy here, no body to rule over anything, or decide what, how, how many, how much is dolled out, how much the currency is worth, or any other trivial matter of a society. No hierarchy, no decisions, no movement, no motivation, only stagnation, unless there is force, but who is using force if no power base exists?

[Anonymous No.13532551]

>>13532335
>--Marx clearly wanted to abolish class hierarchies, but there are other things that are often considered hierarchies, especially by braindead anarkiddies, that he wouldn't want to get rid off
>--HURR DURR SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT MARX SECRETLY WANTED TO KEEP CLASS HIERARCHIES
just learn to read you nigger

>>13532351
Another illiterate faggot, this time with writing issues. Or maybe it's just the lack of any coherent thoughts to express in the first place that's the problem.
>similar to liberalism
your mums asshole is similar to liberalism

>>13532398
That's probably true.

[Anonymous No.13532579]

>>13532398
my favorite is when Marxist tell you to read various books about how you are supposed to interpret Marx and Engels, rather than decide for yourself what they mean, and how it actually plays out irl. Even in instances of failure, Marxists tell us that it was the wrong interpretation that was utilized. So many ways to interpret the same words, so many ways it can fail, but its never Marx, or his apostles, its everyone else who gets it wrong.

[Anonymous No.13532594]

>>13531969
In actuality they are mostly fairly welloff migrants that go country shopping, many of them temporarily as they suck up money and get bored (the elite of their shitholes). The countries that do have huge amounts of refugees are much poorer and closer to the sources, these are the people that genuinely need to escape, not really by fear of death or starvation but simply out of a desire to live a safe life (which is not pressing but reasonable still), and don't have the knowledge or resources to go country shopping. The welloff ignore good options, or indeed the countries they're already in or travelling through, in favour of both the wealthiest and those that offer lots of welfare and social conditions that allow them to do anything with impunity while having minor celebrity status. Which the various medias aggressively condition in the population to the extent that their minds just break if they ever have a critical thought.

[Anonymous No.13532595]

>>13530937
He would be against, immigrants act like scabs, undermining organized labor..

[Anonymous No.13532602]

>>13531399
based

[Anonymous No.13532610]

>>13532579
My favorite is when the staunchest anti-communists suddenly become the biggest believers in the absolute truth of propaganda coming straight from the mouths of so-called communists as soon as it comes to evaluating stuff like Stalin saying "why yes, of course I'm a Marxist and the USSR was socialist!"

>So many ways to interpret the same words
Yes, if you're allowed to cherrypick and to handwave problematic fragments away by saying something like "yeah, we've made progress since then and corrected our understanding, trust me :)", then there's an infinite number of ways to interpret Marx.

[Anonymous No.13532634]

>>13532551
Do you really deny that Marxism comes from liberalism? You know nobody will take you seriously if you deny that right anon?

[Anonymous No.13532641]

>>13532610
Oh lord then nobody including Marx is a true marxist. You live in your little fairytale world

[Anonymous No.13532650]

>>13532579
My favorite part is when in 2019, on the internet, it is perfectly fine to discuss about authors we didn't even read.

I still haven't read Hegel. I have a copy of the phenomenology of the spirit, and i intend to read it soon, when i'm finished with other books.

However, that's fine Anon, i haven't read Hegel, but let's discuss about Hegelian philosophy. I've heard Hegel talks a lot about dialectics. I don't know what it is, but it seems cool. Wanna talk about it?

[Anonymous No.13532661]

>>13532650
Do you have anything interesting to add?

[Anonymous No.13532672]

>>13532661
Nop. You can /thread.

[Anonymous No.13532673]

>>13532634
"Comes from" is so vague that I can't deny that, but even if it comes from it in some way, then it still completely negates it. And fascism also comes from liberalism, even more so than Marxism.

>>13532641
Engels and Lenin were Marxists.

>>13532650
yeah dood, i haven't read him as well, but we can discuss him. Hegel was totally wrong about the whole thesis--antithesis--synthesis thing so he sucks imo and I heard that he caused nazism or something.

[Anonymous No.13532680]

>>13532672
Btfo by >>13532661
/thread

>>13532673
>fascism comes from liberalism more than Marxism
Guys we've got a certified retard in here

>Engels and Lenin
Cope

[Anonymous No.13532736]

If you "people" love so much marxisim why dont go to live in Venezuela? lmao

[Anonymous No.13532749]

>>13532673
>yeah dood, i haven't read him as well, but we can discuss him. Hegel was totally wrong about the whole thesis--antithesis--synthesis thing so he sucks imo and I heard that he caused nazism or something.

You're wrong. It's Friedrich Nietszche who is responsible for Nazism. I haven't read him also.
But it doesn't matter since i've heard he is a fascist haha.

[Anonymous No.13532771]

>>13532650
my favorite part is when in 2019 I can make an assumption about whether or not another person read what I read based on that person's understanding of the same literature, without acknowledging if there is a reasonable explanation behind the abilities for this person to come to their own conclusions of the matter. In 2019, with reddit spacing no less.

[Anonymous No.13532789]

>>13532610
so where did it go so wrong?

[Anonymous No.13532794]

it's harder to justify imaginary state borders. don't you think you should have the freedom to travel wherever you want whenever you want without bureaucracies stopping you and making you pay for the privilege?

[Anonymous No.13532938]

>>13531969
Just don't let the third worlders in, simple as that

[Anonymous No.13532949]

>>13532673
>And fascism also comes from liberalism
Yes, but mostly by virtue of OPPOSING everything liberalism supports.

[Anonymous No.13532977]

>>13532594
That’s very, very wrong.
I’m from a country in Europe that took quite a lot of refugees. What you say is solely based on what you wish it is like so it fuels your political ideas instead of actual facts.
Believe it or not but most third world countries don’t have a real (in the sense of numbers that would have any impact) financial elite and if they do, they (their education and value on the job market) would be worth less in countries with different systems. The amount of filthy rich people that inherited their wealth instead of selling their personal knowledge or workforce in third world countries is basically negligible.

>The countries that do have huge amounts of refugees are much poorer and closer to the sources, these are the people that genuinely need to escape, not really by fear of death or starvation but simply out of a desire to live a safe life (which is not pressing but reasonable still), and don't have the knowledge or resources to go country shopping.
So people in Syria weren’t starving through cut supply? They didn’t face death? They just „didn’t really live a safe life“? Again, you’re downplaying everything in favor of your ideology and again, it’s wrong. Do you know how many refugees emigrated from Syria alone? About as much as my country has inhabitants. These refugees have to be spread out across lots of different countries. Not for their sake but for the sake of the national identity of the host countries.

>The welloff ignore good options, or indeed the countries they're already in or travelling through, in favour of both the wealthiest and those that offer lots of welfare and social conditions that allow them to do anything with impunity while having minor celebrity status.
Here we go again. What do you think? How does immigration work? Do you think personal finances are irrelevant? They’re just rich and get welfare anyway and enjoy „minor celebrity status“ (lmao)? No.

>Which the various medias aggressively condition in the population to the extent that their minds just break if they ever have a critical thought.
This is not a critical thought. It’s made up bullshit. It’s shit from people who have absolutely not even the slightest of any idea about economics, laws, situation in other countries or relations to other countries. It’s shit from people who live in their bubble and instead of acquiring knowledge about this, come up with their own version of how things work, which (oh surprise) is completely wrong because (oh surprise) it’s not based on any sort of actual underlying fact.

[Anonymous No.13532979]

>>13532977
(Cont.)

I’m not a „open all borders“ liberal and I’m not promoting immigration per se (which is evident in my original post). What I’m saying is, in simple terms: the world is a pretty big place and if you believe it or not, a lot more intertwined than you think. A refugee from Syria is not worth less than myself as a human being and being a modern human being per se has the obligation to help other human beings. Not solely for the sake of being a „nice guy“, but for the sake of relations, avoidance of segregation through ignorance, avoidance of social problems and therefore not only wars but also the emergence of growing radical beliefs through simple spreading of said beliefs across a group of easily influenced people fearing what has been kept from them, who eventually create movements that not only inhibit quality of life but eventually have the possibility to turn a prosperous country into one you need to escape from. You see, it’s all a big circle.
Which brings us back to my original point: if you want to stop immigration, which (without segregation) is a good thing, you have to help out the initial third world country and make it a place you can actually prosper in.

[Anonymous No.13532992]

There is no "would". Marx explicitely opposed immigration as a tool of capital against labour. All European communist parties were accordingly opposed to immigration till the 70s.

[Anonymous No.13532995]

Probably on paper but he hated nigs IRL