/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16013430]

Anon, what compels narrow minded people toward Marxist drivel, a confused mess of a social plan even worse than Christianity? Why do people latch onto their ideology, which is supposed to be founded on rational grounds, to religious levels of fervor?

[Anonymous No.16013441]

>>16013430
You have to check your privilege, white boi. Me and Tyrone, who is in fact a woman, are gonna seize the means of production. All your children will have purple hair, and-and Nintendo characters will come out as gay just like Finn. The future is one where you white men are slaves to us commies who will you have means of production. No hierarchy, just complete bliss as I butt fuck you.

[Anonymous No.16013685]

>>16013430
Physiognomy is real and influences character and political beliefs.

Ever notice how leftists are commonly out of shape, weak and meek? There's power in numbers for those kinds of people and they gravitate towards an environment where no one has to compete, lest they be found wanting.

[Anonymous No.16013835]

>social plan
stopped reading right there desoo

[Anonymous No.16013855]

>>16013685
post body and cock

[Anonymous No.16013857]

>>16013430
Because Marxism to laymen is just anti-capitalism. Which it is, but not as they understand it. Anti-capitalism is of course in vogue right now because of propaganda.

...and that's pretty much it. Most of society's worldview is not derived but passively acquired by the zeitgeist they currently inhabit.

[Anonymous No.16013859]

>>16013685
Physiognomy has nothing to do with body fitness, and leftism has nothing to do with lack of competition. Read a book, loser.

[Anonymous No.16014018]

>>16013430
I'd say inertia is a big part of it. Most of the people who claim to be serious Marxists today, wouldn't be Marxists if they lived in a time period when Marxism was frowned upon. The other part of it is that it's emotionally appealing, the idea of a world where nobody has to work is appealing to anybody, it's even more appealing to people who have no ambitions or skills.

[Anonymous No.16014074]

>>16014018
point to where exactly Marx says he wants a world where no one works

[Anonymous No.16014088]

They abandoned God and desperately try to replace it with obscurantist dogmatic ideology

[Anonymous No.16014095]

>>16013430
Marxism seeks to explain social phenomena within any given society by analyzing the material conditions and economic activities required to fulfill human material needs. It assumes that the form of economic organization, or mode of production, influences all other social phenomena including wider social relations, political institutions, legal systems, cultural systems, aesthetics and ideologies. These social relations, together with the economic system, form a base and superstructure. As forces of production (i.e. technology) improve, existing forms of organizing production become obsolete and hinder further progress. As Karl Marx observed:
>At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.
These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society which are, in turn, fought out at the level of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services (the proletariat). Starting with the conjectural premise that social change occurs as result of the struggle between different classes within society who contradict one another, a Marxist would conclude that capitalism exploits and oppresses the proletariat, therefore capitalism will inevitably lead to a proletarian revolution. In a socialist society, private property—as the means of production—would be replaced by co-operative ownership. A socialist economy would not base production on the creation of private profits, but on the criteria of satisfying human needs—that is, production for use. As Friedrich Engels explains:
>Then the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production — on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment.
Marxian economics and its proponents view capitalism as economically unsustainable and incapable of improving the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rate of profit by cutting employees' wages and social benefits while pursuing military aggression. The socialist mode of production would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through revolution by workers.

[Anonymous No.16014098]

>>16013430

Marxism is a tool for the intellectual petty bourgeoisie to overthrow, destroy and replace the money bourgeoisie. No wonder that marxism has always been so popular among teachers and students. Also no wonder that marxists dumped the working class for minorities, as the former was too socially conservative. The aim is still to be bourgeois in the place of bourgeois.

[Anonymous No.16014167]

>>16013441
>>16013685
>>16013857
>>16014018
>>16014088
>>16014098

read marx

[Anonymous No.16014199]

>>16014074
I blundered. I wasn't thinking of the genuine form of Marxism, I was thinking of the bastardised version of it that's become popular in the last decade. In any case, I think the general principle about avoiding work stands; no Marxist ever thinks that they're going to be employed in a factory making Jackboots after the revolution, they all imagine that they'll be given a sinecure.

[Anonymous No.16014475]

>>16013430
their lack of aspirations for their own abilities.

[Anonymous No.16014838]

>>16013430
Jesus would have been a socialist and you cant argue your way around it

[Anonymous No.16015814]

>>16014838
>render unto Caesar
numskull

[jesus No.16016112]

>>16013430
marxism is opium for neets and poor

[Anonymous No.16016120]

>>16013430
Most people don’t even read Marx

[Anonymous No.16016261]

Materialism is very popular today so Marxist ontology seems very intuitive.

[Anonymous No.16017190]

>>16016261
Why though? Don't the majority of people see that they lose either in materialism or with Marxism?

[Anonymous No.16017819]

>>16014098
>Dumped the working class for minorities
Who do you thinks makes up the majority of the working class faggot?

[Anonymous No.16017839]

>>16013685
You lost the war.

[Anonymous No.16017859]

>>16017190
You're not making any sense.

[Anonymous No.16017862]

>>16015814
Taxation is compatible with socialism, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.16017878]

>>16017819
In the US? White people and Hispanics. Nogs are lumpen

[Anonymous No.16017884]

>>16017839
let's visit the USSR to celebrate
oh wait

[Anonymous No.16017889]

>>16017839
So did you. Get over it, losers.

[jesus No.16018079]

>>16013430
people are also means of production. all means of production are also means of consumption.

[Anonymous No.16018519]

>>16014095
Very good post. Yet no answers. This board is framed into the society of the spectacle. No matter how rebel they think they are. Talk about trannies, Hitler, transgender, LGBT, the next political election, and you'll have plenty of replies. Rebels they say, yet still completely in the frame of the control system.