/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16405949]

>Read Marx or Marxists
>Everything is reduced to the dry and boring language of an economics text book
>claims that stopping the alienation of labour will somehow free humans, while i only get the feeling it'll reduce people to soulles automatons whose lives are focused on "producing" and nothing more, while reducing all arts and philosophy to critiques and one-sided analysis.
>Read Nietzsche
>feel spirit, danger, and a living and organic philosophy
>Feel both admiration and critique for the human conditions, and feel more alive after having read him.
I might not have worded this really clearly, but i hope you got the general gist of my problem here. Does anyone else have the same issue? I cant read Marx without being bored out of my mind. Every Marxist work just reads like a boring, dull and out of date economic textbook. Am i reading Marx wrong or is this really just what he is about?

[Anonymous No.16405975]

>>16405949
The same goes to a lesser extent to Freud and psychoanalysts. Holy crap theyre so boring

[Anonymous No.16405990]

Marx tried to create a science whilst ignoring and deliberately misinterpreting the scientific discoveries of his day. Famously he wrote to Darwin about evolution because he wanted a material origin (even though OTOOS mentions God several times, even in the last paragraph), but threw a tantrum when Darwin pointed out that natural selection is in direct opposition to Marx’s socialism and decided to believe in evolution without the part of evolutionary theory that makes it a valid theory.

[Anonymous No.16405996]

>>16405949
I never understood why the Marxist material dialectic conception of history meant that the material and economic should be history's only aim. Marx was a retard.

[Anonymous No.16406050]

>>16405996
base/superstructure

[Anonymous No.16406235]

>>16405996
History doesn’t have an “aim”, it just happens.

[Anonymous No.16406246]

>>16405975
The behavioralists are so much worse in that regard

[Anonymous No.16406257]

>>16405990
replace Nietzsche's head with Kaczynski's and it would be perfect.

[Anonymous No.16406260]

>>16405949
>I might not have worded this really clearly, but i hope you got the general gist of my problem here. Does anyone else have the same issue? I cant read Marx without being bored out of my mind. Every Marxist work just reads like a boring, dull and out of date economic textbook. Am i reading Marx wrong or is this really just what he is about?
Yes you are, nerd. Just read Marxists work as a tool for your will to power. Problem solved. Also Marx and Lenin are both very compelling writers, you must be seeking out boring shit on your own.

[Anonymous No.16406284]

>>16406260
seething

[Anonymous No.16406298]

>>16406284
What do you mean "seething"? I'm literally telling you how to enjoy reading Marx. I couldn't care less about Marxist theory and materialism myself, I just read Marx for the good data, good analysis and the historical context. Also for the sake of knowing thy enemy.

[Anonymous No.16406316]

>read book about economics
>it is just boring economics
you're a retard

[Anonymous No.16406333]

>>16405949
Marxists and anti-capitalists in general are boring people; it's WHY they think the way they do in the first place. It's WHY many of them work at shitty jobs and never improve their situation, or fail to find meaning in the life that they currently have. They lack creativity and have a terrible capacity for judgement.

[Anonymous No.16406341]

>>16406333
Based libertarian! Did you already pray at the altar of Ronald McDonald today, anon?

[Anonymous No.16406356]

>>16406341
See? These faggots will never take ownership of their own lives. It will always be someone else's fault. Their meaningless existences will always be the result of somebody else's meddling. If it's not production, it's consumption they're obsessed over.

[Anonymous No.16406409]

>>16406356
Anon, I don't know how to break this to you, but there's literally no reason to support capitalism. In fact, I'd be more understanding if you wanted to bring back feudalism.

[Anonymous No.16406417]

>>16405949
Refuted by a certain R Wagner.

>"Property" has acquired an almost greater sacredness in our social conscience than religion: for offence against the latter there is lenience, for damage to the former no forgiveness. Since Property is deemed the base of all stability, the more's the pity that not all are owners, that in fact the greater proportion of Society comes disinherited into the world. Society is manifestly thus reduced by its own principle to such a perilous inquietude, that it is compelled to reckon all its laws for an impossible adjustment of this conflict; and protection of property—for which in its widest international sense the weaponed host is specially maintained—can truly mean no else than a defence of the possessors against the non-possessors. Many as are the earnest and sagacious brains that have applied themselves to this problem, its solution, such as that at last suggested of an equal division of all possessions, has not as yet been found amenable; and it seems as if the State's disposal of the apparently so simple idea of Property had driven a beam into the body of mankind that dooms it to a lingering death of agony.
>As the historic origin and evolution of our States seems worth a close examination in any verdict on their character, since thence alone do rights and conditions of right appear deducible, so the inequality of Possession, nay, its total absence in one great section of the State's constituents as result of the latest conquest of a country—e.g. of England by the Normans, or of Ireland in turn by the English—should be matter for explanation and, if need be, for vindication also. Far from embarking on inquiries of such difficulty ourselves, we have merely to point out the patent metamorphosis of the original idea of Property by the legal hallowing of usurpation, and to say that right by purchase nowadays has taken the place of right by earning, between which two came right by violence of seizure.
>Clever though be the many thoughts expressed by mouth or pen about the invention of money and its enormous value as a civiliser, against such praises should be set the curse to which it has always been doomed in song and legend. If gold here figures as the demon strangling manhood's innocence, our greatest poet shews at last the goblin's game of paper money. The Nibelung's fateful ring become a pocket-book, might well complete the eerie picture of the spectral world-controller. By the advocates of our Progressive Civilisation this rulership is indeed regarded as a spiritual, nay, a moral power; for vanished Faith is now replaced by "Credit," that fiction of our mutual honesty kept upright by the most elaborate safeguards against loss and trickery. What comes to pass beneath the benedictions of this Credit we now are witnessing, and seem inclined to lay all blame upon the Jews.

- Know Thyself (1881)

[Anonymous No.16406460]

Evola already trashed Marxists and such types.

They will always fail because they make materialistic factors the basis of human experience and not the transcendent.

[Anonymous No.16406461]

>>16406409
>there's literally no reason to support capitalism
It keeps giving me things I enjoy. What's the reason not to?

[Anonymous No.16406542]

>>16406461
Are things enough for you friend? Do they fulfil you? Complete you? I couldn't care less about things. I don't even know what I'd do with them. I just want to feel like I've accomplished my mission once my time on this earth is due, but what mission can one possibly have on a world so debased?

[Anonymous No.16406567]

>>16405949
Why do you have to read Marx? Is it a requirement for some class?
Marx and the early communists are shit to read, especially considering we know what a giant fail that ideology is. You suffer under Marxism, and you suffer equally as bad reading about Marxism.

[Anonymous No.16406575]

>>16405949
I prefer marx to nietzche. At least Marx's autism is played straight unlike the storm of spergy poeticisms that is neitzche. If I wanted a good examination of contradictions that doesnt devolve into waxing dramatically in arbirarity, I would read hegel or schopenhaur.

[Anonymous No.16406581]

>>16405949
Both refuted by a certain R Wagner.

>"Property" has acquired an almost greater sacredness in our social conscience than religion: for offence against the latter there is lenience, for damage to the former no forgiveness. Since Property is deemed the base of all stability, the more's the pity that not all are owners, that in fact the greater proportion of Society comes disinherited into the world. Society is manifestly thus reduced by its own principle to such a perilous inquietude, that it is compelled to reckon all its laws for an impossible adjustment of this conflict; and protection of property—for which in its widest international sense the weaponed host is specially maintained—can truly mean no else than a defence of the possessors against the non-possessors. Many as are the earnest and sagacious brains that have applied themselves to this problem, its solution, such as that at last suggested of an equal division of all possessions, has not as yet been found amenable; and it seems as if the State's disposal of the apparently so simple idea of Property had driven a beam into the body of mankind that dooms it to a lingering death of agony.
>As the historic origin and evolution of our States seems worth a close examination in any verdict on their character, since thence alone do rights and conditions of right appear deducible, so the inequality of Possession, nay, its total absence in one great section of the State's constituents as result of the latest conquest of a country—e.g. of England by the Normans, or of Ireland in turn by the English—should be matter for explanation and, if need be, for vindication also. Far from embarking on inquiries of such difficulty ourselves, we have merely to point out the patent metamorphosis of the original idea of Property by the legal hallowing of usurpation, and to say that right by purchase nowadays has taken the place of right by earning, between which two came right by violence of seizure.
>Clever though be the many thoughts expressed by mouth or pen about the invention of money and its enormous value as a civiliser, against such praises should be set the curse to which it has always been doomed in song and legend. If gold here figures as the demon strangling manhood's innocence, our greatest poet shews at last the goblin's game of paper money. The Nibelung's fateful ring become a pocket-book, might well complete the eerie picture of the spectral world-controller. By the advocates of our Progressive Civilisation this rulership is indeed regarded as a spiritual, nay, a moral power; for vanished Faith is now replaced by "Credit," that fiction of our mutual honesty kept upright by the most elaborate safeguards against loss and trickery. What comes to pass beneath the benedictions of this Credit we now are witnessing, and seem inclined to lay all blame upon the Jews.

- Know Thyself (1881)

[Anonymous No.16406589]

>>16406542
>what mission can one possibly have on a world so debased?
What mission do you want to have? Give some examples.

[Anonymous No.16406606]

>>16406581
that was fucking boring to read. wagner sucks lmaoo

[Anonymous No.16406614]

>>16406606
It makes more sense in the context of the whole essay, which is very good. But as for the quotes alone, what was boring about it coombrain?

[Anonymous No.16406621]

>>16406614
I didn't get horny at all

[Anonymous No.16406633]

>>16406621
Look! Callicles, I get you want to keep spilling your honey out of your buckets, but it's probably a very good idea to read Plato's Gorgias.

[Anonymous No.16406641]

>>16406633
>>16406621
>>16406614
samefag

[Anonymous No.16406645]

>>16406633
engorgias on my cock, fag

[Anonymous No.16406649]

>>16406589
You haven't grasped nihilism yet desu. In the current circumstances, no mission is worth the effort, no lord the loyalty and no thinker the admiration. Everything is theatre. The dramatic experiences that would define the character of men in other ages - war, death, spiritual and intellectual challenges, adventure, etc - are neutralised. You live to pay taxes, silence your human voice with commodities and then die. Against this, the only thing man can muster is his naked will and spirit. Can he really muster them, though? To affirm every choice for every moment of his life, regardless of the ultimate pointlessness of it all? If it is possible, it is exceedingly hard. It's hard to convince oneself that it's worth the effort. That's why people attach themselves to increasingly stupid and irrelevant shit to crusade about in search of meaning, be it social justice or Koch capitalism. "This thing matters, it really does, so I matter too!" It's all phoney as fuck. There's nothing worth wanting and nothing worth fighting for because nothing takes itself seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.16406652]

>>16406649
It was a simple question bro, but what I'm gathering is that you just like to bitch about shit

[Anonymous No.16406660]

>>16406614

its boring because the prose is fucking dreadful. interestingly, it's probably a translation issue.

http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2012/02/appalling-state-of-english-translation.html

[Anonymous No.16406685]

>>16406641
Get over yourself pseud.

[Anonymous No.16406697]

>>16406660
It is indeed, the German reads much better but what can you do when you can't translate it yourself. However it's probably made even worse by the fact that writers of the Victorian era were already antiquated as it is.

[Anonymous No.16406700]

>>16406685
Look! Callicles, I get you want to keep spilling your honey out of your buckets, but it's probably a very good idea to read Plato's Gorgias.

[Anonymous No.16406717]

>>16406697
yeah so i'm gonna go ahead and not read that shit because the prose sucks ass and his ideas are midwit at best and i don't read german so i'm not gonna read the original either. but thanks for posting a piece of work that you just admitted yourself is rendered horribly in the translation.

[Anonymous No.16406731]

>>16406652
I gave you a simple answer too. What mission am I supposed to want? Any mission that is truly a mission has meaning. What one would prefer depends on the context of his era. So long as it is challenging, interesting and truly mine, I wouldn't care much about its actual content. There's just nothing about the 21st century that has any redeeming qualities at all.

[Anonymous No.16406742]

>>16406731
Why can't you actually give a straight answer and provide examples for what mission you'd like to have? Do you have any idea what you even want?

[Anonymous No.16406882]

>>16406742
My point is that currently, absolutely nothing has real value. Things can only have personal value. So whereas for example a medieval German peasant could claim that his role in life is to support the economy and therefore enable the aristocracy to fight for and defend Germany, a modern worker can't even lay claim to that much since that job can be outsourced to any impoverished Somali. No ties exist between man and man and between man and civilisation. What you choose matters only because you choose it and for no other reason. There's a problem there in that if you're not attached to any of the options, no choice is better than the other and any attempts to make a choice that isn't genuine will just fall short. If you choose being a rich art patron to be your life's purpose, but you aren't working towards that goal 24/7 and can't be bothered to put in the effort, then you're just deluding yourself. I know what I value and what I like, but there are no worthwhile expressions of my ideals, so choosing anything becomes pointless. Can you see Nietzsche's warrior poet having a place anywhere in this world? What about Plato? I don't think so. Our equivalent is rap battles and youtube pseuds. This is the brave new world of liberal capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16406892]

>>16406649
4chan is the playground for nihilists. /lit is a bit better, but the rest of this board is filled with Nazis who aren't really Nazis, gamers, anime addicts, and sex deprived freaked. I've been using the board for about a month, and I've come to the conclusion that most people here are unconscious nihilists.

[Anonymous No.16406894]

Problem, Marx?

[Anonymous No.16406956]

>>16406892
It's the modern condition. If we count all the people that use anaesthetics like consumerism, sex and incoherent "great causes" as nihilists, it's probably an all-encompassing, universal phenomenon. The issue is that I want out.

[Anonymous No.16407014]

>>16406542
>Are things enough for you
>I couldn't care less about things
I like how he basically admits marxism leads to poverty

[Anonymous No.16407048]

>>16407014
I am not a Marxist I just literally couldn't care less about material objects. What do you need anon? What do you really need? A home, food, water. Anything else? "Well, I'd need to entertain myself." There's public libraries. "Well, I'd like something to do." If your housing, food and water are guaranteed, then you're free to choose whatever you want. Tell me then, what do you really need? Do you need an 8K TV so you can watch 2/10 Netflix garbage? A sports car? A Rolex? Will any of those things actually and meaningfully improve your life?

[Anonymous No.16407123]

>>16407048
Ah sorry, I see your point now. I think it's time for me to stop posting for a while.

[Anonymous No.16407143]

>>16406956
What ideology do you support as a way out?

[Anonymous No.16407155]

>>16405949
Marxism is very rooted in the material.
Marxism is based on why you should work to change things so that they work in a certain way, it doesn't tell you how to be happy or anything, only that you should work to get the most from your labor and stop abuse from those with more power.

Nietzsche isn't really interested in the real world so much. He's a guy that is all about the spirit.
He's there to tell you how to find fulfillment and greatness, not really how to run society.

They're basically opposed to each other.
You call Marxism boring and uninspiring, Marxists would call Nietzsche lacking in real world applicability and proof of the effectiveness of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.16407197]

>>16407123
I probably should've stopped posting a while back myself desu.
>>16407143
Whatever ideology has lots of non-nihilists in it. As I said earlier, I don't believe anything today is worth fighting for. I support some political ideas and groups, but only out of inertia and a vague sense of loyalty. I think the Traditionalists (and especially Evola) are correct about the world, but they themselves had little faith in things improving. The Traditionalist solution consists in overcoming materialism on every level, but I am not sure how that can be done even on the scale of the individual.

[Anonymous No.16407204]

>>16405975
You must be doing something wrong. Freud wrote in very lively clear prose. He also rendered all moral philosophy useless in one quick swoop.

[Anonymous No.16407206]

>>16407155
Where's the empirical evidence that Marxism is effective? The problem with dealing with Marxists is they patently reject the idea that Marxism has ever been implemented as a system of government, when that isn't really true. It's been a rousing failure each time, and the misery it's produced affects more members of a population than capitalism does. It also goes to rot immediately, as seen in Russia, China, Venezuela, whereas capitalism seems to have a much longer period of general effectiveness.

[Anonymous No.16407236]

>>16406882
>My point is that currently, absolutely nothing has real value.
That is 100% a you problem. I mean, you can't even tell me what you'd like to be doing. The problem is so obviously you.

[Anonymous No.16407269]

>>16407206
>Where's the empirical evidence that Marxism is effective?

There isn't any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_von_B%C3%B6hm-Bawerk He BTFO of Marxism decades ago.

[Anonymous No.16407277]

>>16407236
>"Things can only have personal value."
Literally the next sentence. Do you not see a difference between becoming a firefighter because you believe it's cool and morally good to be a heroic guy who saves kids from burning houses and becoming a firefighter because you personally feel like it might be an okay thing to do? In liberal modernity all higher values are bankrupt. This is the problem. It is mine as much as it is the problem of many other people too.

[Anonymous No.16407293]

>>16407048
For some those things improve their life. The question should be what system produces the most happiness, i.e. covers basic needs better. And that's definitely marxism.

[Anonymous No.16407297]

>>16407206
That depends on what parts you want.
As far as his analysis of society's construct goes, Marx is nearly impossible to dispute. I have yet to find a liberal or a conservative that can really dispute his class first organization beyond just avoiding it.
As for his math and its veracity. Thats something very much debated. You can start with the Labor theory of value, noting that value and price are different things in Marxist economics. Is Marx wrong that the value of an object is rooted in the labor that goes into it? Essentially, its a way to put into math what you instinctually know when you call something overpriced.
I will say that Marx's weakness comes in his historical deterministic views. That communism is an inevitable eventuality. This is his biggest mistake and feels like he went too deep into Hegel.

If you want proof of the effectiveness of socialistic ideals, then Norway, wherein the state owns nearly 80% of non-home wealth, is an example of the effectiveness of such a system. While not exactly socialism, its becoming closer to it every day given Norwegian politics.

For your post, I'll say that socialism is comparatively a new idea, so saying that it always fails is pretty wrong.
Liberalism and democracy was built up in the 1600 and 1700s and then failed spectacularly in the French Revolution and nearly failed in the isolated and stable US as well. However, then it came back through slow reform over the next century. Its now hard to dispute the inherent effectiveness of those ideas in building wealth and enhancing lives.
Given the interconnectivity of the world, socialism is going to have an even harder time coming into power than liberalism did, so don't ask too much of it too soon.

[Anonymous No.16407390]

>>16407277
Acts of heroism happen all the damn time. Life has also never been as amazing as art portrays it. Stop reading fiction / watching movies and do something with yourself already.

[Anonymous No.16407424]

>>16405949
>muh feelings
Philosophy doesn't care about your feelings, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16407522]

>>16407297
Norway's capitalism/socialism hybrid works because the population is only 5.5 million, and is still a mono-cultural country, which also has a vital natural resource that generates a financial surplus for the country. Norway utilizes just pinch of Marxism, instead of trying to implement the whole Manifesto like Lenin did. Norway is not a valid argument for neo-Marxism.

[Anonymous No.16407535]

>>16405949
>I cant read Marx without being bored out of my mind. Every Marxist work just reads like a boring, dull and out of date economic textbook. Am i reading Marx wrong or is this really just what he is about?
That's is exactly why Marx is right, and lyric, romantic idealists like Evola and Nietzche are wrong. If you feel pleasure reading it, it's probably not the truth. It plays on your ego, your narcissism. Every teenager and young adult want great adventures, great epics. Truth is, there are no epics in earth reality. Only the development of productive forces, and their consequences on living conditions. I believe in the spirit by the way, but the spirit is not much compared to the relationships of material production.

[Anonymous No.16407606]

>>16405949
Anything worth learning will come across as "boring" to plebs like yourself, who get off on cheap rhetorical pyrotechnics.

[Anonymous No.16407629]

>>16407522
Norway not being a massive state, nor one that deals with strong struggles isn't a total condemnation of the validity of Marxist ideas.
Think of them like the Dutch Republic, who followed similar paths towards being the first liberal state, before it fell due to outside invasion.

Sometimes thats whats required for early forms of ideas to be implemented.
You have to always think in the long term I find. Politics and social change is an easy thing to get caught up in the now with.
Now I could be wrong here about the efficacy of Marxism, but I do think that calling it a dead ideology based off of barely a century worth of content is becoming too limited in view.

[Anonymous No.16407651]

Watch me refute all communist arguments past, present and future with a single word:

Dilate.

[Anonymous No.16407831]

>>16406235
It happens..and then it happens again

[Anonymous No.16407858]

>>16407269
Anyone that tries to argue economics on the basis of individualism is very misled.
Economics is a system that needs to be considered outside of all those within it.

Just for kicks, his argument against exploitation based on that workers are paid ahead of time, misses the point.
Time isn't that big of a deal because at the end of the day the worker is paid less than the value of his goods produced. Whether those are real or potential profits is irrelevant because the intention is the same.

[Anonymous No.16407875]

I just want to destroy the banks. That's it. I don't care whether you're a tranny or a nazi. If you don't like banks you're my friend.

Fuck the banks.

[Anonymous No.16407880]

>>16407875
Dude I love banks, I keep all my money in one

[Anonymous No.16407892]

>>16407880
Where does your money come from boi

[Anonymous No.16407912]

>>16407892
From my generous boss's recognition of my hard work :)

[Anonymous No.16407923]

I just want to destroy the trannies. That's it. I don't care whether you’re a banker or a nazi. If you don't like trannies you're my friend.

[Anonymous No.16407932]

>>16407923
Why?
Seems like a strange and pretty much non-existent group to obsess over.

[Anonymous No.16407940]

>>16407932
because i always have to get through arguing about them with contemporary faggots.

if everything was functioning as it should, trannies would not even need to be a thing.

[Anonymous No.16407980]

>>16405949
Marx is not bad, in fact he is quite excellent, but he demands you get down on your knees and suck his circumcised cock like your life depended on it (not quite as menacingly as Hegel, but pretty close).
Nietzsche wrote out of compulsion, his desire was for a better world.
>>16405975
Freud was a bad translator of good texts. He translated them into a new language, that of psychology. Not as bad as you think, but ultimately useless.

[Anonymous No.16408002]

>>16407980
Why do hegelians never talk about this guy

[Anonymous No.16408028]

>>16408002
envy.
I also printed and bound Benedetto Croce's book on Aesthetics, although haven't had time to read it

[Anonymous No.16408074]

>>16407932
You’re all unhinged paedophiles and rapists.

[Anonymous No.16408091]

>>16405949
Read Bookchin.
Ecology Of Freedom, Philosophy Of Social Ecology, Re-Enchanting Humanity are good titles.
(He hated Marx too)

[Anonymous No.16408099]

>>16408074
>You’re all unhinged paedophiles and rapists
So have been most great men.

[Anonymous No.16408135]

pic related are modern marxoids
marxist theory is over with these people in charge
forget it

[Anonymous No.16408168]

>>16408135
Creating strawman pictures of people you disagree with is not an actual argument against them.
I could take that exact drawing and doing 2 minutes of work swapping the beret for a Schirmmütze, the dialog for references to the great white race, and throwing some mass shooter in the background achieve the same amount of worthlessness.

Get actual points rather than relying on the most simplistic possible arguments.
There are good counterpoints to marxism, find them.

[Anonymous No.16408171]

>>16408135
What makes you say that?

[Anonymous No.16408225]

>>16408168
>>16408171
Not him, but I think marxism is deeply flawed, even if it is mostly right about a few things. There's a good reason it always fails, while plenty of more economically socialist governments with private ownership and free markets have done very well for themselves. The main trap I see most people falling into is not understanding economics demographics(people).

[Anonymous No.16408249]

>>16408135
your pic is Leninism though
Marxism considers big-mouthed louses as less significant than the shit you scrape off your shoe

[Anonymous No.16408252]

>>16407535
materauaiaol production. look mama, look how i say matrurytuala production. i am a good conscious man not like all those unconscious punk spiritistiscs.

[Anonymous No.16408267]

>>16408249
No True Scotsman af

[Anonymous No.16408279]

>>16405975
I find Freud's work entertaining at times but mostly because he's such a fucking weirdo. The guy was intelligent and a good writer, but he was also stubbornly entrenched into some deeply flawed assumptions. His well known obsession with incest was nothing compared to his total lack of understanding of the nature of symbolism. He always assumed symbolism could be reduced to a universal language he could apply to anyone interchangeably, showing a disturbing lack of understanding of what it means not just to be human, but to be alive. I genuinely think he might have been a psychopath.

[Anonymous No.16408287]

>>16408249
What is the point in discussing Marxism independent of the political movements it spawned? It was Marx himself that said the point of philosophy was to change the world. If Marxism-xism has consistently birthed statist movements that run themselves into the ground the common denominator is marxism.

[Anonymous No.16408398]

>>16408287
Sadly every possible social arrangement has failed except for Feudalism which was simply allowed to be stolen away.
We as a culture need to drop Hollywood memes about how awful Feudalism was.
Read Marc Bloch's Feudal Society i & ii and Gies' Cathedral, Forge And Waterwheel for a real understanding of what we just fucking gave away

[Anonymous No.16408406]

>>16405949
Marxism is bugmen trying to rebel against bughood while ignoring the fact that they're still operating within the bugman framework. Only semites and bugmen feel any affinity for it, naturally.

[Anonymous No.16408458]

>>16405949
holy shit, do you actually just read to affirm your own innate inclinations instead of engaging critically with the material? ain't gonna make it anon

[Anonymous No.16408565]

>>16408458
I agree in principle but like reductionism there is a point at which critical studies injure the assessment more than assist.
A synthesis approach is better, to read a point and it's counterpoint and then determine what is true and what is bullshit through comparison and syncretism.

[Anonymous No.16408614]

>>16406333
This aligns with my experience with this type of people. Also based trips of truth. Marxists eternally btfo

[Anonymous No.16408670]

>>16406882
>nothing has real value. Things can only have personal value
How are these mutually exclusive?

[Anonymous No.16408681]

>>16407606
Marx isnt really worth learning, though. You can read any modern economics textbook instead. It's better at what it aims to do (economics) while also not being horribly reductive and claiming that every facet of human existence is within the domain of economics.

[Anonymous No.16408705]

>>16408458
If i did i would not read Marx to begin with, would I?

[Anonymous No.16408793]

>>16407204
>He also rendered all moral philosophy useless in one quick swoop.
Imagine the IQ of a person who believes this.

[Anonymous No.16408798]

>>16408279
>I genuinely think he might have been a psychopath
Just a jew.

[Anonymous No.16408827]

>>16407940
fighting a hydra head with oculus rift goggles on; stop being retarded and ascend

[Anonymous No.16409201]

>>16408249
>It's turned into state tyranny every time but you cant really judge it for that
Definition of insanity etc.

[Anonymous No.16409245]

>>16406700
Samefag.

[Anonymous No.16409528]

>>16405975
I feel the same about Freud but then again it might be because I'm not much of a reader.

[Anonymous No.16409542]

>>16405949
Anybody who does not intuit this is a hylic. Read Heideggers essay "The question concerning technology" and your intuition will transform into understanding.

[Anonymous No.16409571]

>>16405949
>marxism
Intellectually dishonest, worthless.
>nietzsche
Intellectually dishonest, worthless.

>feel spirit, danger, and a living and organic philosophy
This is not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16409614]

>>16409571
>>feel spirit, danger, and a living and organic philosophy
>This is not philosophy.
Yes it is, literally every major German philosopher since Kant would say it is and consider that to be part of philosophy's realm(excluding Kant himself).

[Anonymous No.16409683]

>>16405949
> I cant read Marx without being bored out of my mind
>>16405975
>Holy crap theyre so boring
are you guys underage?

[Anonymous No.16409721]

>>16408793
t. doesn't understand Freud's premise

[Anonymous No.16409793]

>>16409614
>>16409614
G*rm "philosophy" isn't philosophy. They're musicians without musical ability.

[Anonymous No.16409803]

>>16409793
But Wagner had musical ability and he was a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.16409835]

>>16406882
Dude just have children

[Anonymous No.16409898]

>>16407535
This is bullshit. Your intuition will lead you to truth a lot of the time. If it resonates then there is likely some truth to it. We listen to music we vibe with because it matches our energy and we adopt ideologies based off our energy. Everything is energy and vibrations. The universe is spirit. Since you are materialist you will never see beauty or the sublime in life.

[Anonymous No.16409970]

>>16409898
What you want to hear, what is comfortable for you to know, is not necessarily the truth. Most is still illusion, even for those who follow their intuition. If i had followed my intuition, i would be playing MMORPG all day. It clearly resonated with me. Like i did in my teenage years. Would i be right? Closer to the truth? I know adults people like this, they are unread, ignorant manchilds.
So if the universe is vibration and spirit, which is could be by the way, the good vibrations make the owner of the means of production, and the wage slave, meet up in the production process, where the wage slave work all day for a shitty salary, and the owner of the means of production keep the lion share (surplus value), because of what, good vibrations?
You can vibrate all you want, you cannot change the relation of production with you good will, prayers, meditation, or whatever. This is a material problem, which have material solutions. But first, you have to know how it works. If not, you are stupid, lost, think in narcissistic ideas. If you don't know the mechanics of Capitalism, which are material, how can you hit it where it matters? You cannot dismount the machine, if you don't know what you are doing. Like praying can't repair a combustion engine, it cannot dismantle Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16409978]

>>16406892
Compared to what? To normies? Have you engaged with normies recently? With pic related? Every single interaction is either null or net negative to the development of the soul.
I have recently met with an american, unusual in these parts (rural continental Europe) and the man's vocal chords was a television's boombox. Even the way his speech was organized was kosher political commentary-inane SNL tier joke-literal advertisement. That is true nihilism, that is a man that actually embraced the nothing-ness. You pretend that distress and negativity is nihilism, you don't seem to understand what nihilism means.

[Anonymous No.16410003]

>>16408705
>>16407651
>>16407875
read theory, chud

[Anonymous No.16410011]

>>16410003
I did, it's why i made this thread in the first place, dipshit

[Anonymous No.16410082]

>>16409970
In your example of the MMO, a person doesn't stay the same. Change is the only constant. A normal person would eventually get bored and move on. Also with the capitalism example, the spirit of capitalism will exhaust itself as other solutions arise. The criticism of capitalism has no use and that's why most have turned to accelerationism whereby capitalism is intensified in order to bring about social change.

[Anonymous No.16410118]

>>16407390
I've not touched fiction in 10 years lol, it's like you just can't understand what I'm saying when I tell you everything feels pointless.
>>16408670
Did you read the rest of my comment? Some people are capable of transforming personal value into real value, but the vast majority of people are nihilists. We need value to come from elsewhere - morality, God, "the great cause", consumerism, sex, etc. Those who realise none of those things provide anything substantial today are left alone with nothing to latch onto. You can try to infuse every personal choice you make with value, but at the end of the day if you just don't give a shit to live by your choice every waking moment until the end of your life, you're just pretending to not be a nihilist. If you really give a shit about something, you will be tirelessly working towards it and you won't even consider that noteworthy.
>>16409835
Why?
>>16409978
Not who you're responding to, but you should consider that both normies and channers are capable of being nihilists. The former just experience it painlessly and unthinkingly, whereas the latter live it more intensely because the anaesthetics that work on normies (consumerism, media, sex) don't necessarily work as well on them.

[Anonymous No.16410244]

>>16407048
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16410303]

>>16410244
How?

[Anonymous No.16410399]

>>16408681
nobody reads marx for his economics lol. they read him for philosophy

[Anonymous No.16410416]

>>16410399
his philosophy cant be seen separately from his economics; it's what he bases his philosophy on.
It's part of the reason why his philosophy just reads like economics, and not particulary good economics at that.

[Anonymous No.16410417]

>>16406260
Based

[Anonymous No.16410432]

>>16406260
>Problem solved. Also Marx and Lenin are both very compelling writers, you must be seeking out boring shit on your own.
They absolutely arent. Lenin isnt as bad as marx, but his writing is instead infected with slave morality and bourgeoise hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.16410485]

>>16410432
Yeah well you're wrong. What are you reading bro? The polemics is where the good stuff is at. Lenin's "Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" is a wonderfully entertaining booklet. Lenin has the same biting humorous wit Marx does, it's great. Marx's accounts of Germany and the Second French Empire are also both very informative and very entertaining. They're great, eloquent writers. Maybe their heavily theoretical shit is dry and boring - I haven't read "Capital" yet - but who cares about that stuff anyway?

[Anonymous No.16410490]

>>16408279
Good depiction of Freud.

[Anonymous No.16410507]

>>16409793
>>16409571
Holy based

[Anonymous No.16410573]

>>16410485
>the polemics is where the good stuff is
thats true from a literary point of view, but it also completely undermines any semblance of Marx being scientific, and the bulk of his actual philosophy in terms of political economy and epistemology lie there (Capital, Grundrisse). The pretense of being scientific just drops as soon as you enter polemics, and you start to realize that Marx is really just pseudoscientific, he never really went into this investigation on capitalism with any good faith.
Even with the polemics, it often just comes across as Marx being butthurt at his peers (or betters, in Darwin's case), and it doesnt help that the German language is of itself extremely long-winded. Nietzsche is one of the few exceptions here.

Also any time Lenin screeches about blood-suckers i cant help but shake my head, since he was born into considerable wealth and rarely worked, living most of his life as a parasite. It takes all the sting out of any insults he has.

[Anonymous No.16410615]

>>16408252
Yeah, if you are latching into spiritualism as an explanation for the world at this point, your seeking self delusion honestly.

[Anonymous No.16410640]

>>16410573
Bro who cares materialist science is a load of garbage anyway, OP asked how to read Marx and I told him how to read him. If you want something interesting then stop reading boring shit. Also fuck capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16410706]

>>16406235
>t. platypus

[Anonymous No.16411007]

>>16408793
Look! Astupid nigger

[Anonymous No.16411018]

>>16408279
That is only because of Kant and the idea of universal reason. He was only working in the wheelhouse of other geniuses,

You midwit illiterate

[Anonymous No.16411090]

>>16406409
Thinking feudalism is gone in anyway but name is the height of modern midwittery

[Anonymous No.16411099]

>>16406542
There is no world where people devoid of hobbies and stuff are happy.

We are literally holy chimps. In what universe would a holy person or a chimp or the manifestation of either of those combined would not enjoy stuff and hobbies and shared art and craft.

Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.16411114]

>>16406581
Lol joos. Middleminorities really piss people off.

Maybe get better moms and love learning or something lol

[Anonymous No.16411160]

>>16410082
>the spirit of capitalism will exhaust itself as other solutions arise.
Other solutions will be shit again if they keep exploitation, the state, delegation of power, exchange value. In order to go towards a good future, one has to know how his present flaws.

[Anonymous No.16411358]

>>16411090
Feudal lords had an obligation to protect and provide work for their peasants. No such obligation on behalf of contemporary capitalists.
>>16411099
Your sense of self is so externalised, materialised and objectified that you can't even imagine being happy simply because you are being yourself. I don't know whether I should feel contempt or envy towards you.

[Anonymous No.16411608]

>>16410706
yes

[Anonymous No.16411860]

>>16411358
Excuse us mere men for having objects relations in our minds and only having pose to mind the gap.

Maybe if I was you with your internalized reality I could begin to understand the real and your genius

[Anonymous No.16411882]

>>16411860
It's not genius, it's just a perspective. If you lost your things you would suffer, whereas I would be in the same pit of ennui I am right now. Decide for yourself if that's better or worse. I know what's true for my point of view.

[Anonymous No.16411956]

>>16406333
>t. will never achieve historical consciousness
But go ahead, keep working as a wage slave alienated from the product of your labor
Meanwhile some likeminded workers and I will start a cooperative, make our production decisions democratically and share the FULL fruits of the sweat of our brow

[Anonymous No.16411968]

>>16411956
>alienated from the product of your labour
Why do you think people would care about this?
>You're baking cakes, but the cakes go to someone else. This is the origin of all the problems that humanity faces
Just listen to yourself bro

[Anonymous No.16412086]

>>16411956
>imagine thinking democracy solves your problems
>>16411968
>Why do you think people would care about this?
>"huh wow I guess I'm just doing work that has zero impact on my life, how crazy"
I wouldn't know anon, it's a mystery.

[Anonymous No.16412110]

>>16412086
>"huh wow I guess I'm just doing work that has zero impact on my life, how crazy"
if they enjoy the work they do, why would they give a shit about the product?
And even if they didn't, why do you believe that resolving the alienation from one's product will somehow make everything in society a-ok?

[Anonymous No.16412137]

>>16412110
Because everyone enjoys the work they do, right, anon? People just looove work? Alienation is one part of the problem. Obviously, it's not the only problem, but it is a problem.

[Anonymous No.16412150]

>>16411090
No, you are the midwit. In feudalism, the serf was attached to it's land. He had strong links to his lord, throught liege hommage, which garanteed total loyalty. The lord was obliged to protect his serfs, otherwise, the serf could go see the lord of the lord, and the serf's lord would get punished. The serf could keep part of his production, but had to give a part to his lord.
The serf couldn't leave his land, he was attached to it. He could however bought his freedom.
This is all very different from wage slave society, aka Capitalism. The capitalist is never obliged to protect the wagie. He can fire him at will. On the other hand, the wagie is free to leave whenever he wants.
If you refer to feudalism as exploitation, yes, it was never gone, because the serf was exploited by the lord as well. Other than that, feudalism and Capitalism are pretty different. Feudalism was based on land power, Capitalism is based on factory production power, and Capital the meeting of the privately owned means of production with the labor force, which meet together to produce value.

[Anonymous No.16412165]

Say: Shall We inform you who will be the greatest losers by their works?
Those whose effort goeth astray in the life of the world, and yet they reckon that they do good work.

[Anonymous No.16412173]

>>16411968
>Why do you think people would care about this?
because daddy wrote about it

[Anonymous No.16412189]

>>16412137
>People just looove work?
Plenty of actually working class people do, yeah. It's why there arent that many commies or anarchists among them.
But really, you still havent convinced anyone on why alienation from the product is such a big issue, and why it would overshadow many of the other issues that people face

[Anonymous No.16412195]

>>16412165
what's that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.16412209]

>>16412189
>Plenty of actually working class people do, yeah. It's why there arent that many commies or anarchists among them.
Cope lmao. Have you actually met a working class person in your life? Working class people will readily work their jobs without complaint, but they're at best indifferent about them. Work is viewed as a necessity, not a source of joy. If they had a choice, they wouldn't go to work every day.
>But really, you still havent convinced anyone on why alienation from the product is such a big issue, and why it would overshadow many of the other issues that people face
Because for most people, the work they put in is their only way of impacting the world and when that work makes zero difference in their personal life they start to feel like they're just a cog in the machine, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Which they are.

[Anonymous No.16412210]

ayyo marxist larpers: I know you understand that innovation under marxism is not as potent as under capitalism. the central committee simply can't match the hivemind of greed. innovation, and hyper reactive, hyper efficient economic networks -> greater military capacity. for as long as world peace is not a fact the incentive is to do what grants strength. it doesn't seem to me that that is communism.

[Anonymous No.16412219]

>>16412195
I believe it means no one will be at greater loss than he who lives his life and strives only in this world, with no concern for the next, and who still believe they are doing good.

God knows best though.

[Anonymous No.16412227]

>>16411114
Wagner moved away from antisemitism to pro-Whiteness more in his old age, replacing the blame of the prior with the need of the latter to a degree. He did after all write this in an essay to distance himself from antisemitism called "Know Thyself", where he explained even considering the negative effect jews are having and always had, Germany and other such nations are in such a state because of their own historic character which must be understood, reflected upon and criticised.

[Anonymous No.16412233]

>>16412137
Why are you in a job you don't like?

[Anonymous No.16412246]

>>16412210
Hey COMMIES! Did you know that LIBERALISM is way more economically effective?
>suicide rates rising
>birth rates imploding
>mass migration as a necessity to maintain infinite growth and keep the whole system from breaking down
>printing trillions of dollars just so a little lockdown won't send the world into anarchy and collapse
>purchasing power rapidly declining since the 70s
>consequences of liberal policy seem to be resulting in the spontaneous dissolution of the United States
>everyone is in debt to everyone else, there's probably more debt than there is money at this point
Absolute state.

[Anonymous No.16412262]

>>16412233
Addressing me personally does not solve the problem on a mass level anon. It's just a cope. In case you're wondering though, I'm actually unemployed. I live on the backs of wagies and it brings me great joy that I read comfy e-books while the rest of society take all sorts of drugs just to be able to stomach another day at work. Just try to imagine it! God! Couldn't be me.

[Anonymous No.16412269]

>>16412209
> If they had a choice, they wouldn't go to work every day.
I actually know quite some manual laborers who continued working after retirement age because they enjoyed it, and because they didnt want to sit idly. Again, you are divorced from the working class you claim to represent, as all commies are.
And honestly, if we were to take this claim (People inherently dont want to work), then Marxism is in even deeper trouble, as one of its aim is to reduce everything in life to just labour. By supposedly freeing people from alienation, you are in fact robbing them from anything valuable.
>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want (Critique of the Gotha Program)

>the work they put in is their only way of impacting the world
See, this can only be said by an anti-social loser who has no family, no community, who cannot fathom of anything else but work. If you did, then you'd realize that these things are far more important to people than work. You are no different than the sociopathic career capitalists.
Also, you STILL havent said why this will somehow go away if theyre not alienated from their product. If anything, the fact that the product goes away to something else might give them a sense of satisfaction or fulfillment they might otherwise not have.

[Anonymous No.16412276]

>>16412219
Wow, how profound and deep, only God could come up with such an aphorism.

[Anonymous No.16412277]

>>16406257
kaczinga didn't really do anything, you fags are just into him because he mailed out some bombs and looks miserable

[Anonymous No.16412299]

work sucks
why do left and right fags like it so much

[Anonymous No.16412317]

>>16412210
>Central committe
>Marxism

[Anonymous No.16412328]

>>16412317
How else are you going to organize labour?

[Anonymous No.16412339]

>>16412262
There is no problem. Society actively encourages, promotes, and rewards the most creative, industrious, and confident people, because these people in turn are good for society. The people who possess the least capacity in these areas are not rewarded, because... they would only sap society's resources and society would gain nothing in return.

There's no such thing as a perfect system, and you (and all Marxists in general) seem to have the whole thing backwards. People who don't know what's good for them or are too afraid to pursue what is shouldn't be rewarded. The system shouldn't be designed to make the lives of these people easier. I mean, why should it be? That would mean that the system is exhausting its resources merely to comfort the least creative and confident people in it. This approach has already been tried numerous times (communism), and it always leads to stagnation or implosion, because it simply doesn't make sense at bottom.

The way of life for you and everyone else not creative, industrious, and confident enough to be rewarded, is to work for someone else, consume, and invest whatever you have into whatever you can. That's all. Society is not here to suck your dick just for being alive, you have to be entitled to that.

[Anonymous No.16412342]

>>16412269
The exception does not prove the rule. I know such people too and they are a rarity. Even they often work for money. Moreover, if one wants to work, one does not need to work a job. There is a difference there. I have no idea what you're even trying to say after that because it's just incoherent. I am hostile to communism, but under communism there would be labour, but no jobs. Once again, important distinction.
>See, this can only be said by an anti-social loser who has no family, no community, who cannot fathom of anything else but work.
Next time quote the full sentence and my claim might account for your counter-argument. Also, valuing family and community by no means that you're capable of impacting it and consequently the world. In fact, modern capitalism dissolves community so it's even more impossible today than in any other age.
>Also, you STILL havent said why this will somehow go away if theyre not alienated from their product. If anything, the fact that the product goes away to something else might give them a sense of satisfaction or fulfillment they might otherwise not have.
Which is more likely to be a satisfactory life - you being a farmer all your life, for at least ten generations back and ten generations after and making a living off your produce - or being a job hopping manual labourer who works whatever gets him enough currency to afford a home in whatever city offers jobs?

[Anonymous No.16412350]

>>16412269
>See, this can only be said by an anti-social loser who has no family, no community
And how is doing community, family, social bonds in Capitalism?
>Also, you STILL havent said why this will somehow go away if theyre not alienated from their product.
Huterrites seems to do fine psychologically. Capitalism only suits the psychopath. If you are a smart psychopath, Capitalism is paradise.

[Anonymous No.16412361]

>>16412328
Through decentralized networks.

[Anonymous No.16412365]

>>16412350
>Huterrites seems to do fine psychologically.
Theyre closer to feudalist monasteries than anything "communist". Theyre several families, close communities, bound together by religious faith.
Im glad that you finally see that religion is far more important than materialism, though. We're making progress.

[Anonymous No.16412376]

>>16412361
And how's that going to work? Every local commune will make everything it needs by itself? Every commune needs a factory/plantation/whatever for any device or product they might need? If so, who will organize that?

[Anonymous No.16412377]

(...) Check Paris commune, which was validated by Marx. It wasn't centralized commities, but workers concils, which were both legislative and executive. The very workers were those who had collectively power.

[Anonymous No.16412387]

>>16412365
As i already said once, they are not communist because they are religious, they are religious because they are communist. Introduce wage labor in Huterrites communities, and they will completely dislocate.

[Anonymous No.16412397]

>>16412377
>Paris commune
>One city-side commune that collapsed before they got to do anything is prove that a worldwide commune is possible
nah

[Anonymous No.16412404]

>>16412376
There will be a centralization of needs, but not throught a central commity, throught decentralized networks. You can have centralization of needs, but done in a decentralized way.

[Anonymous No.16412406]

>>16412339
>There is no problem. Society actively encourages, promotes, and rewards the most creative, industrious, and confident people, because these people in turn are good for society.
I wish you fuckers would actually meet one of your idols once just to see what rotten, vile, disgusting, lazy, stupid and helpless people they really are. Your libertarian Ubermensch are Cardi B, Bloombergs, hereditary billionaires and all sorts of assorted trash. You, however, you are worse, because you idolise them.
>The people who possess the least capacity in these areas are not rewarded, because... they would only sap society's resources and society would gain nothing in return.
God forbid the jobs that most celebs, journalists, politicians and financiers go instead to hapless proles rather than depraved, degenerate losers.
>There's no such thing as a perfect system, and you (and all Marxists in general) seem to have the whole thing backwards.
>every criticism of capitalism is Marxist
Read a book.
> People who don't know what's good for them or are too afraid to pursue what is shouldn't be rewarded. The system shouldn't be designed to make the lives of these people easier. I mean, why should it be? That would mean that the system is exhausting its resources merely to comfort the least creative and confident people in it. This approach has already been tried numerous times (communism), and it always leads to stagnation or implosion, because it simply doesn't make sense at bottom.
Fuck yeah bro we need more people like Jeff Bezos, if we don't have more predatory people willing to destroy the economy and public life for power and private profits we will fall behind other societies who are willing to sacrifice more collective power on the altar of neoliberalism.

>The way of life for you and everyone else not creative, industrious, and confident enough to be rewarded, is to work for someone else, consume, and invest whatever you have into whatever you can. That's all. Society is not here to suck your dick just for being alive, you have to be entitled to that.
That's not what I want. I'd love a challenge, but not on the terms of spoilt, naive decabillionaire brats and especially not if they are competing against me with an incomprehensibly massive financial edge.

[Anonymous No.16412413]

>>16412387
No it's not. Remove God from the Husserites or force them to intermingle with foreigners/outsiders and they will lose any incentive to form communes.
non-religious communes tend to desintegrate very quickly because class-based sociological bonds are extremely weak compared to tribal ones (either religious or ethnic).

[Anonymous No.16412416]

>>16412397
Wonder why they collapsed. Is it perhaps because monarchists and republicans, like good lackey of the Capital, literally slaughtered them? That cannot be...

[Anonymous No.16412424]

>>16412404
And what will those decentralized networks be, then?
You're being extremely vague about very important problems that commies have historically been unable to solve. Time to put your money where your mouth is now.

[Anonymous No.16412445]

>>16412416
Being unable to defend your commune for merely a month is itself a good argument that your system is untenable.
But giving you the benefit of the doubt, there must be other non-religious, non-ethnic communes around that managed to do anything more than just persist on subsistence level, right?

[Anonymous No.16412448]

>>16412413
Israeli Kibbutz lasted for decades, some still last today, and they are not religious. I've read on the subject, and it's not about religiosity. It's about have total social safety nets, and having small communities. and also dealienated work.

[Anonymous No.16412459]

>>16412424
I have an idea but i won't talk about it. You'll see.

[Anonymous No.16412463]

>>16412406
>You, however, you are worse, because you idolise them.
I don't idolize anyone I don't personally know. I idolize family members and co-workers who have demonstrated their skills and accomplishments right in front of me. You're the one associating yourself with things that are unrelated to your personal sphere of existence, and it's why you're so confused and bitter.

>God forbid the jobs that most celebs, journalists, politicians and financiers go instead to hapless proles rather than depraved, degenerate losers.
You don't know the majority of people in these positions. You think you do, but you don't. At best, you're familiar with some exceptional cases.

>every criticism of capitalism is Marxist
Not what I implied. You're a Marxist because you think and argue like one.

>Fuck yeah bro we need more people like Jeff Bezos
Unironically yes. We need more industrious people with money to place their stake in the world and organize everyone incapable of doing so themselves (but who are worthy enough to stay on board).

>I'd love a challenge, but not on the terms of spoilt, naive decabillionaire brats and especially not if they are competing against me with an incomprehensibly massive financial edge.
Then you don't love a challenge. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.16412468]

>>16412445
Revolutionary Catalonia, was killed by both the republican, and the fascist.

[Anonymous No.16412471]

>>16412459
>We'll see when it happens
>Woops starvation 10 million people dead
Thats communism for ya

[Anonymous No.16412483]

(...) Budapest commune, killed by both the bolsheviks, with american support (when it's about killing emancipated workers, both the bolsheviks and the liberal Capitalists agree).

[Anonymous No.16412490]

>>16412468
Revolutionary catalonia was notoriously corrupt and incompetent, they barely produced anything. It's why Franco, who was a mediocre general by any definition, managed to just stomp them into oblivion.
Honestly, for something that is supposedly going to improve the material needs of workers (and nothing more), these examples of yours never seem to actually improve workers' material needs beyond anything they'd get in a feudal peasant system.

[Anonymous No.16412491]

>>16412471
Don't worry, you want your 10 million dead people, you'll have them, not from starvation, but from vaccines, chemtrails, electromagnetic field, etc... Capitalists literally want to cull the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.16412499]

>>16412491
> but from vaccines, chemtrails, electromagnetic field

[Anonymous No.16412504]

>>16412490
>these examples of yours never seem to actually improve workers' material needs beyond anything they'd get in a feudal peasant system.
Of course, when one, like you prioritize having over being, communal organization is dull. Gotta buy this new iphone god dammit.

[Anonymous No.16412507]

>>16412499
Ask Bill gates lackey. He literally said he wants to cull the world population.

[Anonymous No.16412510]

>>16405949
Read Laclau & Mouffe's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, especially the last chapter as they deal with this and give some specific solutions without denying the problem of inequality.

>>16405975
Read D&G. You're better off starting with Deleuze's Nietzsche & Philosophy though.

[Anonymous No.16412524]

>>16412463
>You're the one associating yourself with things that are unrelated to your personal sphere of existence, and it's why you're so confused and bitter.
This is 4chan bro I feel too much smug contempt to be "bitter".
>You don't know the majority of people in these positions. You think you do, but you don't. At best, you're familiar with some exceptional cases.
So you think. Unfortunately for you, the modern university is a perfect environment to socialise with and get to know "the social elite". God, they are a sorry lot, I tell you that.
>Not what I implied. You're a Marxist because you think and argue like one.
That's funny, but I think it'd be funnier to see you actually make an argument on how my thinking and style of argument is "Marxist".
>Unironically yes. We need more industrious people with money to place their stake in the world and organize everyone incapable of doing so themselves (but who are worthy enough to stay on board).
Bro do you even know what Jeff Bezos does? Do you think being a monopolist and driving your competition off the market by undercutting and then sharply rising prices takes a lot of IQ and drive?
>Then you don't love a challenge. Simple as.
What I really don't love is a plutocratic society where the measure of power is how much cash you have. I hate it because it's unnatural and disgusting. If I got crushed through overwhelming physical force or was intellectually outmaneuvered, that'd be one thing, but losing simply on virtue of being born in a world where the enemy has inherited more money than are in circulation in a small country AND is also capable of printing trillions of dollars at will if he so wishes is just too unfair.

[Anonymous No.16412530]

>>16412507
Sounds pretty based. The question is which population he wants to cull. Because the West seems to be doing it to itself without the need for extra help.

[Anonymous No.16412767]

>>16412342
>but under communism there would be labour, but no jobs. Once again, important distinction.
if someone feel like a cog in a machine, (and in a factory you are just that) its not important you call it labour or call it a job. the factory have hierarchy and you are a cog in the machine the same as before when you are employ. you are not alienated from the product of your labour but you are alienated from yourself the same way as before.
when communism come from the sky everyone know and understand you are your work and you end loving your work and your labour like a boring cog in a fucking boring machine. nobody believe this but somehow they want to believe it. what a cheap and dishonest view of the world.

[Anonymous No.16412860]

>>16412767
The thing is under communism you wouldn't have to work and you'd also be able to work whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.16412925]

>>16412860
why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.16412945]

>>16412860
>You dont have to work
>Nothing happens
>people starve, infrastructure crumbles
good job

[Anonymous No.16412970]

>>16412507
So do I. So does any man with both soul and brain. Gates has simply picked the wrong groups.

[Anonymous No.16413112]

>>16412945
>people starve, infrastructure crumbles
That's what they want.

[Anonymous No.16413376]

>>16412925
>>16412945
That's what "communism" means. If you're thinking of state planned economy and authoritarianism, that would be socialism.

[Anonymous No.16413394]

>>16405949
>Am i reading Marx wrong or is this really just what he is about?
Nope, Marx is mainly just 19th century economic autism and us extremely dry. You are completely correct. If you want something more frustrating, read Hegel

[Anonymous No.16413399]

>>16413394
or any German, really. It's amazing that Nietzsche managed to escape the long choking noose of that language.

[Anonymous No.16413413]

>>16413376
>If you're thinking of state planned economy and authoritarianism, that would be socialism.
There's communism as an ideology and there's communism the theoretical economic state. Communism as an ideology = state planned economy and authoritarianism because apparently that's how you reach muh magical post scarcity that you need in order to achieve communism

[Anonymous No.16413457]

>>16413413
Yeah well, that's the terminology, don't blame me blame Marx. I like planned economy and authoritarianism because they're based, not because they're free and super humanitarian.

[Anonymous No.16413867]

>>16406649
based. please write more.

[Anonymous No.16414189]

>>16412530
It's not the West. It's Capitalism. Put women to work, of course fertility rates are gonna drop massively. Women wage slave in order to decrease price of labor (supply and demand), and thus increase profit for the Capitalist.
>>16412970
Capitalism priority target to cull would be unproductive people. That's why you hear about euthanizing the old. No, killing the jehovists isn't something specifically planned Capitalism. Won't happen since many of them have Capital. You are just fantasizing. That's why historical materialism is also important. Because you cannot accomplish tasks which don't favor the mode of production. Capitalism only favor what favors it.

[Anonymous No.16414516]

>>16412210
This is what pushed me towards the ideal of Economic Democracy.
You can't really beat a market, so you have to work to curb its worst traits instead.

[Anonymous No.16414518]

>>16413457
Extreme cuckolding.

[Anonymous No.16414714]

>>16407204
>He also rendered all moral philosophy useless in one quick swoop.
Tell me more anon, how does he do it.

[Anonymous No.16415288]

>>16413457
>>16413376
are you the same?
>That's what "communism" means. If you're thinking of state planned economy and authoritarianism, that would be socialism.
>Yeah well, that's the terminology,
if you are the same poster this expose the level of hipocrisy, phoniness and dishonesty that was my point in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16415302]

>>16414714
nice dentures bro

[Anonymous No.16415594]

>>16405975
Deflecting commie detected

[Anonymous No.16415653]

>>16407297

>Is Marx wrong that the value of an object is rooted in the labor that goes into it?

Yes. If I spend a day digging a hole in an empty field, what is the value of the hole?

If I spend a year digging a hole one day and filling it in the next have I added anything to the value of the field?

These are oversimplifications of course, but the value of a thing is it's utility, and the utility of a thing can vary wildly based on the individual. There is actually no logical connection between the labour that is used to create an object and the value of the object.

[Anonymous No.16415673]

>>16407831
No it doesn't retard.

[Anonymous No.16415885]

>>16415653
Marx already addressed this himself in the idea of 'use-value' of commodities.

[Anonymous No.16416103]

>>16405949
It's okay kid, the sci-fi and fantasy section are 2 aisles down.

[Anonymous No.16416135]

>>16405949
Marx
>dry and boring economics
Nietzsche
>feel
>Feel

Sounds to me like you are some angsty little bitch but ok.

[Anonymous No.16416150]

>2020
>unironically reading marx
why
we already know he was wrong about everything

[Anonymous No.16416154]

>>16415653
>and the utility of a thing can vary wildly based on the individual.
So why don't prices immediately adjusts themselves when i nonchalantly enter a store to reflect my subjectively low valuation?

[Anonymous No.16416217]

>>16416150
>don't read something because it was proven wrong

go play your video games zoomer, reading isn't for you. heard a new iphone is coming out.

[Anonymous No.16416245]

>>16416217
Do you also read treatises on geocentrism?

[Anonymous No.16416537]

>>16415673
It happens..and then it happens again

[Anonymous No.16416571]

>>16406542
Genuinely hilarious

[Anonymous No.16416594]

>>16408798
/lit/ sometimes delivers.

[Anonymous No.16416617]

>>16407535
Lmao just kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.16416660]

>>16405949
Which book of Nietzsche did you read?

[Anonymous No.16416762]

>>16416660
the gay book

[Anonymous No.16416952]

>>16416150
His criticisms are valid. The solutions were not.

[Anonymous No.16417294]

>>16405949
Marx makes a lot of cheecky references to classic literature. You must have missed those. Also the first 3 chapters of Capital are difficult and boring, I think he tried to emulate Hegel a little bit, the rest is better.

[Anonymous No.16417311]

>>16407875
Join us bro

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170721/lincoln-park/john-dillinger-death-anniversary-biograph-theater-lincoln-station-gunned-down-public-enemy-no-1-polly-hamilton-lady-in-red-federal-agents-died-for-you-society-gangster-bank-robber/

[Anonymous No.16417991]

>>16416150
If anything given the collapse of the middle class and growing income disparity, Marx is getting proven right more than wrong as time goes on.

[Anonymous No.16418068]

>>16405949
Idealism's danger is its appeal to idiots; you lack the deductive reasoning abilities to examine multiple, material causation of phenomena, so your feeble mind's only recourse is to attribute to an ethereal, unknowable cause. Many such cases!

[Anonymous No.16418160]

>>16418068
Just because something is dry and boring, doesnt make it true.
Summa Theologica being a dense tome of 1000 pages doesnt mean it's irrefutable proof that Catholicism is correct.
Materialism are the fundaments of "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" redditors who cannot fathom of anything existing beyond.

[Anonymous No.16418235]

>>16416952
Genius post. Absolutely on the opposite of ready made thinking.
>>16418160
Marx's materialism is not your version, and the high school version of materialism.
Read Marx's Theses on Feuerbach:
"But that the secular basis detaches itself from itself and establishes itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be explained by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this secular basis. The latter must, therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionized in practice. Thus, for instance, after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm