/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21768733]

Why does he appeal so strongly to midwits?

[Anonymous No.21768761]

His writing is very emotional but quits making sense as soon as you think seriously about it.

[Anonymous No.21768793]

>>21768733
oversimplified answer is that his work appeals as Grand Unifying Theory of human history and culture that sets up it's proponents as visionary avant garde freedom fighters against le ebul capitalists.
Marx was a fat NEET neckbearded Jew manlet who grubbed for money from his shabbas goy Engels his entire career.

[Anonymous No.21768812]

Trannies want to rebel while still being "nice guys" because they're pussies, so they pick the most anti-liberal liberal which is Marx

Leftism is liberalism for pussies who want to rebel against their dad but their dad is already liberal so they have to pick a different kind of liberal, one that is EVEN MORE liberal

[Anonymous No.21768823]

Envy, and laziness.

[Anonymous No.21768860]

>>21768733
Glowies.
Anytime the economy impoverishes, anytime the injustices multiply, a people's movement starts to form. In modern times, Marxism and other state socialisms are encouraged by the secret services. Meantime they also encourage a fascist reactionary movement to fight them.
Both ideologies all lead back to the same thing. Authoritarianism. The alternative is scrupulously hidden or lambasted as impossible, childish, etc.

It may not have started out as a psyops, but it is used that way now. There are no political solutions to the problem of state-capitalism. Only the social revolution and only the anti-statist, anti-capitalist anarcho-communism

[Anonymous No.21768875]

>>21768733
It is the utopian promise that appeals to the ignorant masses. He denies Christianity (which teaches that humans are sinful inherently) and replaces it with a promise that we are capable of creating a utopia. At least the Christians know that their utopia can happen only when a perfectly good king takes power, and all his subjects are perfectly good. Conformed to his image. Marx never understood the human condition because he relies too much on materialism. A man is a material body and a soul. There is much more to life than temporality

[Anonymous No.21768890]

It's Gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.21768903]

>>21768793
This. It’s just secular Catholicism. Just as violent, dogmatic, and fanatical as any religion.

[Anonymous No.21768917]

>>21768890
>its the illuminati! AAAAA!!!

[Anonymous No.21768920]

8 replies and not one person has read a fucking book. Classic /lit/.

[Anonymous No.21768921]

>another coping against marx thread
/lit/-literature

[Anonymous No.21768923]

Envy.

Behind all marxist buzzwords there is simply envy.
Marxists cant perform triple bypass heart surgery, cant construct rocket engines or nuclear reactors. Hell, they cant even pour concrete or be welders/electricians. And yet marxism makes them feel like they constructed all the yachts in the world while they go on endless moralisms about how yacht owning is a mortal sin.
Education, transportation and healthcare is fucking free all over developed world. You are not oppressed, retards make 6 digit income out of single incident of oppression in our capitalist world.

If you are poor its because you are inferior, retarded, unproductive, subhuman junkie convict leftist parasite. The poors need to be wiped out. That's the only way to solve poverty in a world of free education and opportunities and everything else, a world where ANYONE can just FREELY access the stock market and own whatever the fuck he wants. Getting rich is just a matter of time.

[Anonymous No.21768927]

>>21768733
Never seen a midwit who understands Marx, desu. And I wouldn't think Marx would be a communist either (if that was what you meaned by 'midwit'); he was pretty bourgeois himself.

[Anonymous No.21768947]

>>21768733
As the other anon said, it gives them a theory which has the form of rigorous science, as if he were some kind of Isaac Newton of history and economics, though in reality, of course, it's a massive oversimplification of reality.

[Anonymous No.21768949]

>>21768947
>though in reality, of course, it's a massive oversimplification of reality.
that's hegel

[Anonymous No.21768971]

Marx is just a natural opposition to capitalism and his critiques are mostly great, people who seethe about Marx are brainwashed cattle most of the time. Stop looking at him as le bad Russian man le Cold War. And start looking at him as a critique on the greatest force in the world. You are just dumb if you think capitalism is infalliable with no flaws, or downsides. Or that Marx is some evil villain who just didn’t want you to prosper in your system. Grow up and read some books.

[Anonymous No.21768983]

>>21768971
>be marx, economic mastermind
>inherit massive wealth and marry into even more wealth
>end up homeless beggar thanks to your economic mastery

nah he was a lazy stinky job hating leftist

[Anonymous No.21768984]

>>21768971
> Marx is just a natural opposition to capitalism and his critiques are mostly great, people who seethe about Marx are brainwashed cattle most of the time. Stop looking at him as le bad Russian man le Cold War. And start looking at him as a critique on the greatest force in the world. You are just dumb if you think capitalism is infalliable with no flaws, or downsides. Or that Marx is some evil villain who just didn’t want you to prosper in your system. Grow up and read some books.

[Anonymous No.21768989]

>>21768971
A man is heavily influenced by his environment, Marx grew up in a world that was rapidly industrialised and where people were looking at evolution as the be all and end all of all theories. Marx combined evolution and his economic theory based on gold standard in a non-welfare state. But constructs like historical materialism make me think that Marx had limited idea of what enables human action and thus his projected path looks imaginary to me.

[Anonymous No.21768993]

>>21768733
He appeals to nerds who are smarter than average but suck at everything else because he offers a path to success against all those sportsball jocks and businessmen and other more virile, masculine types who aren't as smart and good and in any just world wouldn't be the ones getting the chicks and money.

[Anonymous No.21768997]

>>21768984
This is the high quality content I come to the literature board on 4chan for. This is just really great form of in depth discourse. I really appreciate the time you took to copy the other anon's post and found an image to go along with it. You even solved a captcha just to do this. This is how you are spending your time.

[Anonymous No.21769002]

>>21768997
NTA but other anon's post was completely worthless and sub idiotic. It was actually worse than the post mocking it because it was nothing but empty, dishonest bullshit, the correct response to which is total disregard.

[Anonymous No.21769011]

>>21768993
>he offers a path to success
I wish I could unread all the leftist literature I've put in my brain. I've become a Debbie Downer to everyone around me. I always somehow shoehorn some historical fact or materialist analysis that turns everything people enjoy into another thing wealthy people have done to fuck the world up. It has not provided me success. It has not given me solace. My work peers don't appreciate it. I don't know what path to success you think arguing about bakunin on leftypol is going to lead to.

[Anonymous No.21769017]

>>21768989
The main thing they got wrong is how long and enduring Capitalism would actually turn out to be. But his analysis is still invaluable and others have continued his thought today.

[Anonymous No.21769022]

>>21768733
Most people don't want to work for a living if they can get away with it. Some people are pseuds. Put them together

[Anonymous No.21769031]

>>21769017
Marx talked about how his analysis was subject to the winds of change. I believe it was the French preface to the manifesto. The other anon also mentions the gold standard when he spends a whole chapter in capital discussing how gold is simply a medium.

[Anonymous No.21769034]

>>21768733
Because marxism is a cult to nothingness and mud people instinctively want to go back to it. They can't tolerate existence.

[Anonymous No.21769038]

>>21769034
You're confusing Marxism for anarcho syndicalism. You're thinking that the Spaniards between wars who ran bakeries all day before everyone invaded them.

[Anonymous No.21769043]

>>21769031
Much of what he had to say about how capital operates is just as relevant as ever. He discusses much of the fundamentals of capital. Analysis can always change and like I said there are others who take his thought further, but he laid a lot of fundamental ground that still is very relevant.

[Anonymous No.21769062]

>>21769043
>very relevant
if you want to produce famine and gulag
famine and gulag are the only products of marxist economy

[Anonymous No.21769078]

>>21769038
So in what marxists believe exactly? How will communism work, in a technical sense?

[Anonymous No.21769087]

>>21769078
We don't know that yet. Marx himself said that the answers to those questions will appear by themselves after the revolution.

[Anonymous No.21769096]

>>21769078
The vast majority of Marx's work was a critique of the current system, it wasn't a science fiction proposal for the future. I've seen some literature in some threads on how modern computing could be used for centralized economic planning. There have been multiple revolutions, each with their own take on what happens after the revolution. Professors and crazed outsiders writing shit based on what marx wrote. I think you should at least look over the table of contents for Capital to see what it's actually about.

[Anonymous No.21769101]

>>21769096
So in what marxists believe exactly?

[Anonymous No.21769108]

>>21769101
At this point you are wanting me to put in effort into typing some long reply only to get a basedjak and green maymay arrows. So, here's the table of contents I mentioned previously. I'd like you to look it over and poke around, just in case you are actually approaching it in good faith.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

[Anonymous No.21769132]

>>21769108
I think what that anon is trying to point out is that marxists have no positive beliefs. Their only core beliefs are things like ending capitalism or bringing the revolution, yet for them the future is nothing but a void. For people with such a strong fervor for their ideology, they have a remarkable lack of curiosity for the future they want to create. Even religious people put more effort into explaining the technicalities of the afterlife or the astral plane or whatever. If you ask a marxists about the future instead, they don't have any clear answer. They will just mumble in circles, maybe they will direct you to something vague that somewhere someone else said, and then they will shrug their shoulders. What matters is tearing down the system. Everything that comes later is an afterthought.

[Anonymous No.21769143]

>>21769132
here. hope this helps.

[Anonymous No.21769160]

>>21769132
>For people with such a strong fervor for their ideology, they have a remarkable lack of curiosity for the future they want to create
Because trying to hypothesise how every single aspect of communist society will form is complete speculation, communists are only concerned with reality and the movements in it.
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

[Anonymous No.21769164]

>>21769160
>communists are only concerned with reality
This is such a ridiculous cope lmao. Also why do they have such a hard time coming to terms with the reality of the economic calculation problem?

[Anonymous No.21769172]

>>21769101
The very nature of how the economy functions under the capitalist mode of production leads to contraction of the owning nonproducing class and expansion of the producing nonowning class, as well as the depression of the wages of the producing class to the theoretical minimum due to wages being just another commodity subject to market forces

It also leads to crises and cycles that inevitably cause social upheaval

This is inevitably leading to a point at which the depressed producing class will simply repudiate the mode of production, which is predicated on the simple and arbitrary notion of private (arbitrary) ownership of the means of production, rather than rationalized collectivized ownership of essential means of production. Anything short of this would not be a revolution because the only other "moves" are either to let the existing owners keep owning everything while the producers own only their wages, or to replace these owners with new owners, which will just repeat the cycle until the depressed producing majority inevitably revolts

So when the depressed producing class finally does overthrow the owners, it won't just overthrow them but the very principle and premise their ownership is based on, ie private property. They will overthrow the capitalist mode of production, not just capitalists

What comes after that is necessarily unpredictable because it will be the first time in history that modern rationalized technological society self-consciously attempts to ground itself not on arbitrary private property but on rational production for the sake of the whole

In Marx's vision this was not supposed to be totalitarian and it was also supposed to happen surprisingly painlessly and quickly, he definitely foresaw wars and birth pangs as the old world was shrugged off by the new one being born, but it was basically integral to his thought that the revolution would happen because it's just utterly obvious to the working masses that the system of capitalism based on private property is nonsensical, and thus they would rationally turn to collective ownership and rational administration to meet the needs of life. And because the means for meeting these needs have been developed to an incredibly high degree under capitalism, which rationalized everything initially for the sake of "profit" (the profit of arbitrary private owners at the expense of actual producers), just so that the collectivized society could inherit it, the collectivized society is now sitting atop an industrial machine that can meet 99% of human needs easily, and the frenzy of irrational overproduction and meaningless wars for scarce resources etc. can be over, and mankind can relax and basically become enlightened rational cosmopolitan beings freely associating. Marx thought nations and so on would still exist but that they might slough away over generations or centuries, or become like regional identities and dialects are today, optional fluctuating things.

[Anonymous No.21769176]

>>21769132
You got it right.
>>21769160
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
This quote perfectly exemplifies why communism is a cult to nothingness. It's an ideology for mud people who can't stand existence so they feel a deep urge to abolish it.

[Anonymous No.21769177]

>>21769172
It's a beautiful dream and it all makes sense from a certain perspective. The key thing is the part about how the whole mode of production inevitably produces this disenfranchised class that thus inevitably recognizes itself as such and thus inevitably overthrows not just the particular owners but the whole premise underlying their ownership, which is what is causing the problem at the deeper systemic level. The best way to understand what Marx thought would happen is by comparing it with the replacement of feudalism by industrial capitalism, which was both an earth shattering irreversible transition that nobody living through it could fully understand, and something "obvious" in its final phases and in hindsight. It's impossible to go back to feudalism because the principles it's based on are self-evidently nonsense, and so too the principles of private property and capitalism are self-evidently interwoven with everything we know of daily life today. Marx was looking at the real and not really disputed by anyone crises and irrationalities in capitalist production and all the nonsense they cause, and the unresolvable problem of the proletarianization of the actual producing classes, and predicting another cataclysmic shift, because he saw it as a necessary part of human social and economic development to seek to self-conscious mastery over problems and dynamics like this. His principle of "labor" (man transforms his environment, himself, and his social relations by confronting problems and creating solutions, which then create new problems requiring better solutions, etc.) was fused with a Hegelian dialectical logic of progressive rationalization by rising to higher levels of consciousness at which apparent errors are resolved by reframing them entirely. But he never really operates from a Hegelian mystical frame of mind either.

The main problem in his thinking is, as most 20th century Marxists understood, he didn't understand all the different ways that capitalism can recursively modify its social and cultural superstructure. He thought the fundamental process was inevitably coming to a head and that while the clashes might be bloody they were at least going to reach their resolution one way or another, and soon. Living in the century of Nietzsche and every other philosopher proclaiming a radical atheism and rationalism and writing in the decades after Darwin supposedly debunked the last elements of idealist mysticism in natural science, he had extremely high faith that the Enlightenment rationalist project was still underway and percolating down to the masses, and that it would inevitably triumph over irrational survivals like religion and vulgar nationalism. Not to the point of destroying them completely, but basically he thought that when things were going well, and people lapsing into being total retards, they tended toward rationalism and a desire for scientific objectivity.

[Anonymous No.21769178]

>>21769164
Because that fundamentally misunderstand what marxism and the labour movement is, marx wasn't a economist trying to formulate a new better way to manage the economy, socialism moves beyond the economy all together. The economy as we know it ceases to even exist as concepts like property, the division of labour, value and commodities become redundant.

Communism is not a movement that seeks to run the economy better, one cannot make this system better, on the contrary, it already functions too well. Communists have no suggestions for improvement. They insist that these problems exist because of the system.

[Anonymous No.21769181]

>>21769177
He also had a typical 19th century faith in the masses' willingness to participate actively and constantly in politics, and he had a 19th century experience of political activism, which was very issue-based, almost directly democratic, with revolutions every five minutes and citizens highly defensive of their franchise and so forth. Of course none of this continued into the 20th century, and Marxist movements all failed miserably, cucked to fuse with bourgeois socialist parties, or were a disgrace to Marx's intentions. This is why so many Marxists in the 20th century turned to things like psychoanalysis and non-Marxist sociology, to try to understand why the proletariat tended to lose class consciousness and become more irrational (turning to culture industry distractions and apolitical nostalgia for pre-industrial simplicity, and to nationalist mysticism aka fascism as they saw it) rather than tending toward rationality as Marx thought.

[Anonymous No.21769184]

>>21769181
Everything in Marx hinges on a faith which has been impossible since the first quarter of the 20th century, a faith in the basic rationality and basic political self-consciousness of the producing wage-working class. Marx's projections can still be defended pretty well over a very long term, like clearly capitalism has these crises and overproduction is irrational and inefficient, and private property irrationally favors mediocre owners and concentrates wealth, etc. But his faith in an actual communist revolution is basically just 1830s French socialism mixed with his own Enlightenment secular rationalism, and decorated with very beautiful Hegel paint as he was one of the deepest readers of Hegel who ever lived (though he was not a Hegelian in almost any systematic sense of the term). Reading Marx like theologians read the Bible and arguing over scholastic points of detail is ironically basically a form of irrational bourgeois nostalgia for when it was still possible to think that Marx's project could have worked, it's a way of daydreaming about an ideal past and its possibilities instead of confronting the bitter realities of organizing labor in the changed conditions of the 20th century. The problem is that the whole project is predicated on rationality and thus consent, because a conviction is only rational if it is self-consciously and freely consented to. The essential problems of Marxism since 1920 have been, one, that blue collar properly proletarian workers don't give a fuck about Marxism and have some of the most petit bourgeois mindsets by Marxist theoretical standards, and two, the modern capitalist superstructure has scrambled and blurred modern class relations and created a kind of illusory pseudo middle class with a million chutes and ladders so that everybody is more focused on incremental micro-changes in their status or or momentary advances and reversals in their personal fortunes that class self-consciousness is impossible and thus so is collective action.

This is all interwoven with the culture industry which is impenetrable to traditional rationalistic Marxist analysis, it can only diagnose it from afar by looking down on it as retarded. This is what it now does from inside bourgeois universities and thinktanks, where with every passing day Marxism becomes more just a "theoretical tool" of bourgeois academics. The only practicing labor organizers along Marxist lines are a tiny minority mostly deluding themselves by chasing clout unionizing low IQ Mexicans here and there.

These posts go together btw
>>21769172
>>21769177
>>21769181
(and this one)

[Anonymous No.21769194]

>>21769184
>blue collar properly proletarian workers don't give a fuck about Marxism and have some of the most petit bourgeois mindsets by Marxist theoretical standards
Yeah. The masses yearn for fascism. I honestly have no clue why marxists are so self assured that the collapse of capitalism will bring communism. Don't they look around? Don't they interact with blue collar or rural people? If you give them to choose between communism and fascism, they will choose fascism, specially if you give it a different name that doesn't carry all the bad PR.

[Anonymous No.21769199]

>>21769184
>blue collar properly proletarian workers don't give a fuck about Marxism and have some of the most petit bourgeois mindsets by Marxist theoretical standards
It's a good thing that doesn't matter than
>When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. **It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today. There is no need to explain here that a large part of the English and French proletariat is already conscious of its historic task and is constantly working to develop that consciousness into complete clarity.**
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm

[Anonymous No.21769215]

>>21769194
Marxists are forced to analyze fascism as a "lapse" and not as a choice, which means they have to second-guess the masses. They have to define a priori what is rational, as not including nationalism (or anything like it). This is why Marx is called one of the masters of the "school of suspicion" or "hermeneutics of suspicion," along with Nietzsche and Freud. He takes your apparently self-conscious beliefs, like your belief in the sanctity of private property, and shows you how it's actually just something you acquired because you are interpellated into bourgeois culture that emanates from the capitalist mode of production. Basically if you agree with Marx, you are in the vanguard class of truth-knowers who see the "new world in the dead husk of the old, yearning to be born," but if you disagree with him and think religion or the nation are primordial values, then you are one of the deluded parts of the dead husk that doesn't realize it's dead.

>>21769199
This is a good example of what I am saying above, in this post. This is the vanguardist element latent in Marxism. The proletariat itself has to be told what "it" is going to do. The natural endpoint of this kind of thinking is Lukacs' Leninist mysticism in History and Class Consciousness. There the proletariat is elevated to basically the Marxist equivalent of the fascist "nation." The liberal rationalist self-determination element of Marx's Hegelianism (in which the World Spirit works through individuals reasoning individually) is submerged in the other side of of Marx's Hegelianism, the one that operates on Hegel's famous "cunning of reason" which works through individuals as its unwitting tools. This duality was always present and unresolved in Hegel and Marx simply passes it on to Marxists. It reaches its final culmination in the failure of Lenin's vanguardist quasi-fascist communism, which bypassed democratic elections and used revolutionary terror freely, in the disillusionment of everybody who believed in Lenin, and in Stalin turning Marx's theory into an ossified religion of "dialectical materialism." The latter was another tendency already latent in Engels, who was a vulgar Marxist who was regarded by Second International Marxists as the one who gave Marxism its much needed "metaphysical foundation," an idea actually antithetical to Marx (although people will say that he "approved" of Engels' vulgar metaphysical writings, it's not clear what this means exactly).

[Anonymous No.21769226]

>>21769215
>The proletariat itself has to be told what "it" is going to do.
No it doesn't, you misunderstand what the vanguard is, the vanguard is a organisational body which only assist the labour movement, it cannot force the labour movement to take this or that form or rebel at this or that time (the bolsheviks actually tried to stem revolutionary fervour at times). The proletariat strike and organise because they are compelled to do so by capital. Communism finds that the proletariat is the class which through its special situation in bourgeois society is able to overcome the particular interests that characterise all other classes and groups. Its misery drives it to resistance against capital and the bourgeoisie, necessitating an association. The immediate aims of the proletariat are of economic nature, expressing themselves in demands for higher wages for example. But Marx has shown that the relation of wage labour itself is exploitative, so wages remain a form that can never be perfected, while at the same time these demands will inspire the bourgeoisie to crack down on the proletariat's efforts. These facts necessitate the proletariat to move beyond those immediate, economic demands and towards political demands, thereby also bringing about new forms of association. The victories of its struggles are not the immediate gains, such as the aforementioned higher wages, but the increasing association of the proletariat, which becomes an end rather than a mere means and thus is able to overcome the fracturing that characterises bourgeois society. In the course of this movement, the proletariat must raise itself to the position of the ruling class, seize all means of production, as well as the corresponding products, and thereby overcome the economy based on the exchange of labour products. Since the existence of classes is based on this very economy, the proletariat through this act abolishes all classes, including itself.

[Anonymous No.21769229]

>>21769199
>since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself
This is pure wishful thinking from part of the author. Anyone who has grown up in a ghetto knows that these people don't see anything inhuman about their way of life (and why should they?) nor they have any interest in changing it. They resent rich people not because they are more refined or have more "humanity" and wish they had that themselves. They actually find those things phony and a sign of weakness. No, they resent the rich simply because they want to possess the luxurious items they have, just like a barbarian or a pirate coveted the belongings of a civilized man.

[Anonymous No.21769231]

>>21769229
>This is pure wishful thinking from part of the author
The working class organising is wishful thinking?

[Anonymous No.21769232]

>>21769226
Why is the first bit of this post a response to my critique of vanguardism and the rest a non sequitur copypaste from some commie reddit?

[Anonymous No.21769238]

>>21769229
Marx distinguishes between proletariat and lumpenproletariat. He actually saw the latter as counterrevolutionary, dangerous, and mostly obnoxious. The lumpen basically include anyone who isn't a bonafide proletarian, that is, anyone who isn't a producing wage-worker, which Marx basically understood along the lines of highly visible essential industrial production that was much more common under 19th century high industrial capitalism.

By Marx's standards basically everybody today is lumpen except for rare factory workers who, paradoxically, tend to be even more petty bourgeois and bourgeois in mentality because they are usually highly skilled well paid trades with great unions. True blue shitty grunt work is usually unskilled labor with disposable lumpen scabs. Like I was saying above, Marxism really didn't predict how well capitalism functions as an algorithm to blur and scramble class relations like this.

Schumpeter did a great job of describing it in its totality, in my view.

[Anonymous No.21769240]

>>21769232
Because no one here reads

[Anonymous No.21769245]

>>21769238
Forgot to add to my second paragraph in this post, today's Marxists will often try to shift the goalposts around here by being third worldists who say that real true blue proletarian work has now shifted to the third world, and that revolution will emerge there. And Marxism does indeed have some extremely fascinating theory on viewing capitalism as a global totality and showing how class relations can be redistributed on a global scale. But that obviously gets you into all sorts of frankly fanciful discussions, as there are terminally online Marxist Chinaboos, and terminally online Marxist wiki experts on every little third world socialist regime that ever was or could be, trying to convince you that the communist revolution is still going on. At least the naive ones who go help Mexicans unionize are doing some small good.

>>21769240
Just seems cynical, I actually started preparing to type a response because I think vanguardism is a recurrent problem in all socialist thinking and Marxism is no exception, but it started to read like a survey blurb or chatGPT output pretty quickly.

[Anonymous No.21769250]

>>21769245
>But that obviously gets you into all sorts of frankly fanciful discussions
That's why these threads are always so shallow and everyone talks past each other. You have to know the economic history of every country and have actually read books.

[Anonymous No.21769260]

>>21769250
True, but then you end up like most "real Marxists" today where you're really an economic historian or, more likely, some rich kid doing undergrad at Cornell who is really smitten with his Marxist professor and wants to be a Marxist professor too, which means being a guy who wears $1200 glasses and $300 turtlenecks in his professional headshots.

This stuff is supposed to be the theoretical head or crown atop the organic body of autonomous labor, autonomous here in the specific sense of rationally self-conscious of itself and its situation, and desirous of better understanding itself and its situation. Marx clearly saw the role of his theory as being "there for those with eyes to see," and then those seers would explain it by gradations downward to the ranks below them, and the organic structure of self-organizing labor would receive a BETTER structure (through better self-knowledge). All of this is predicated on a lot of things that are now laughable: near 90% voter turnout, highly intelligent and highly politically engaged citizens, socialism being a "hot issue" and even (in Marx's lifetime) a virtual society within the larger society that was fiercely proud of its autonomy and its struggle against the traditional state organs and parties, etc. None of this shit works when transplanted into a Russian revolutionary context in which the people frankly voted for increased democratic liberalization and a move toward mild socialism, let alone when transplanted to today's context when you have dysgenic lumpenprole hordes that Marx would have been utterly disgusted by.

[Anonymous No.21769334]

I dont know why are communists complaining when we are already living in communism.

Corporations are communism:
>centrally planned
>collectively owned (bitch you werent going to be part of politburo or supreme soviet or central committee either, you arent statistically likely to be a central planner)
>government backed monopolies
>anti market practices (lobbying, censorship, fees, licences, regulations, barriers to entry, all government enforced on their behalf)
>doesnt make a profit in the free market, exists thanks to tax subsidies and government contracts
>moralizing political propagandists like soviet commissars instead of market professionals
>extremely collectivist
>government is the biggest employer
>money is fake, centrally planned central bank fiat

[Anonymous No.21769377]

>>21768733
modern marxists (excempting eurocommunists) are completely devoid of material conditions and have a nostalgia for a time that they have never experienced (the 19th to early 20th century). Trying to explain to them that the proles, if anything, chose to make common cause with the burgeoise than go through some autistic fit of impotent violence. Most of the proles retirement and pension benefits today come from pension funds investing in a mixed portfolio of private equity and money markets funds. The health of the stock exchange is also the health of the working class, one which they collectively influence. Now, the only thing Marxists want to do is to waste their days trying to convince online reactionaries, and themselves, that traditionalism is actually a progressive ideology.

[Anonymous No.21769410]

>>21768733
Because the basic concept is well known and easy to understand, and they can use it to posture as intelligent people so that they can gain some type of superiority over their peers socially.

[Anonymous No.21769423]

>>21769334
I mean, I guess I understand where you are coming from, but i don't know if it is centrally planned if there is more than one center. Then again, you could say that all these people know each other and/or communicate through a type of game theory signaling

[Anonymous No.21769510]

my favorite part of marxism is definitely the one where Engels says that being a slave is better than being a modern worker because a slave is an object that is owned and thus he has "an assured existence(???)" while the worker is a free agent. I think there's some psychological component behind it. Something about the womb.

[Anonymous No.21769612]

>>21768733
Philosophy in general strongly appeals to mid wits on this board because you can discuss philosophical ideas without having actually read books, you can just discuss things you know from hearsay cultural osmosis Wikipedia and YouTube videos, which with art literature, you cant

[Anonymous No.21769624]

>>21768733
Why does Trump appeal so much to mentally ill idiots?

[Anonymous No.21769626]

>>21768860
Take your pills, schizo.

[Anonymous No.21769627]

>>21769624
Trump appeals to everybody who doesn't like the deep state's uniparty, nobody likes Trump as an actual politician or individual except nice boomer ladies who are just tired of getting fucked over by a country that hasn't represented them in close to 100 years

[Anonymous No.21769638]

>>21768733
Takes some stuff that sounds reasonable and builds off of mass-morality and then makes some pretty questionable assertions. This is actually good for midwits. They love stuff that's nonsensical but verbose enough that you can invent headcanon to rationalize it while saying everyone who doesn't agree with you is just too dumb to understand it. This got a hundred times worse in the 1960's when anarcho-marxism became popular because it completely gives up on the Marxian intellectual tradition and advocates a completely impossible end. Since the end results are impossible, it's impossible to ever be held accountable. It's an eternity of smugness and dismissing others as simply "not getting it" while having some ideological excuse to vent all your daddy issues and spiteful mutant rage.

It's kind of a shame too because Marxism is worth learning. Had its political wing completely died out, we could've had more impartial discussion of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.21769669]

>>21768875
Interesting

[Anonymous No.21769688]

If you got a thousand random people in a stadium the Marxists couldn't sort them into these "classes".

Kapitol does not imply a kapitolist, marx was not the only socialist with these ideas and his projection of economic principles onto individuals gave us Bolshevism, leninist communism, anarcho communism and other kinds of fammine.

The divestment of value from currency was an established issue before christ, the classical greeks knew about inflation, hereditary rent seeking and compounding interest were known to the romans and the tribunes of the Republic were effectively the ancient commies.
Ptoletarian= pleb=worker.

M->C->M'? Yes tables are made of wood. Yes trees grow themselves, obviously someone could hoard a hundred tables in a single room for no reason.
Jesus was a carpenter, a jew, and probably a commie as well, Jesus lived in a literal commune, he was a communitarian.

The battle between workers who want to retain value, republicans/ fascists who want to carry out general redistribution, and nobles who want to levy peasant armies is eternal

[Anonymous No.21769720]

>>21768733
It allows them to deceive themselves into thinking they are radical, intelligent, "revolutionaries" who are challenging the system but in reality they are intellectual frauds and moral cowards who are simply cogs in the machine. Most modern day Marxists I know are upper middle class university employees or graduate students who are on academic welfare. They are some of the most spineless, authoritarian, inauthentic cowards I know. The same is true for idiots like Jordan Peterson. He speaks out and critiques Marxism but he's just another side of the same coin.

[Anonymous No.21769725]

>>21768761
fpbp

[Anonymous No.21769748]

>>21768733
He's quite highbrow due to how revolutionary his philosophy and analysis were at the time and how they still affect our philosophy and culture to this day. I consistently see /pol/ rubes and tradlarpers either get him wrong or prove to everyone else they can't read to save their lives. Pretty much all intelligent people delving into philosophy at one point or another accept Marx's critique, but the higher man is the one who overcomes Marx: he develops deeper discernment of the psychology of that tradition and replaces it with a system of his own values.

[Anonymous No.21769751]

>>21768761
which part doesn't make sense?

[Anonymous No.21769754]

>>21769334
This is what happens when you think you understand Marx but don't read him.

[Anonymous No.21769789]

>>21768923
>Marxists cant perform triple bypass heart surgery, cant construct rocket engines or nuclear reactors
This was bait written by a commie.

[Anonymous No.21769799]

>>21769748
>t. midwit
commies all think they have a personal relationship with marx, he's their jesus. his work wasn't revolutionary his supporters started a revolution.

[Anonymous No.21769836]

>>21769748
Only good post in the thread. It’s good to have a Marxist phase in your youth but at one point you have to accept its inherent flaws prevent it from being a comprehensive Weltanschauung without abandoning the valuable critiques. In this sense Marx is actually the ultimate midwit filter. Anyone that accepts him uncritically or dismisses him out of hand exposes himself as an emotional fool.

[Anonymous No.21769945]

>>21769836
to accept marx uncritically would be unmarxist. he revised kapital 4 times before his death

[Anonymous No.21769970]

>>21769836
To accept Marx uncritically is the hallmark of a true retard. God I detest communist pieces of shit. Leftism is a disease.

[Anonymous No.21770067]

>>21769970
communists don't accept Marx uncritically and leftism is anti-communist

[Anonymous No.21770072]

>>21770067
>leftism is anti-communist
no

[Anonymous No.21770109]

>>21770072
yes. leftists remain within the bounds of bourgeois morality, politics and the system of nation states. they claim to represent "the people" rather than a single social class. in effect they're agents representing the bourgeois world as able to accommodate the interests of the workers as long as the correct politicians are elected and proper moral norms enforced over economic laws. which makes them mortal enemies of independent class organization of the proletariat that understands the only way to its class emancipation to be the abolition of bourgeois society.

[Anonymous No.21770605]

>>21770109
ok I see what you mean now, I think there is a fine line between communism and "leftism" (which emphasizes identity politics which is arguably a tool being used by the ruling class to divide and rule). As a matter of principle however I can't support communism.

[Anonymous No.21770640]

>>21770605
>As a matter of principle however I can't support communism.
This for me too. Economic cuckoldry is hot.

[Anonymous No.21770681]

I'll give it a shot desu. Obviously smart people agree with and disagree with Marx, but I think the reason so many mid-wits love him is (ironically, maybe) historical. Riceour, I think, said Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx all made the subject unknowable to itself. At the turn of the century conditions were prime for self-explorstion, and the two world wars raised difficult political questions (including fascismus)
The left, then, co-opted Marx while the soviet union grew (or was revealed to be) increasingly authoritarian. They also released new Marxist works (e.g. Grundrisse), so people had to walk the fine line of interpretation of the new and Critique of the soviet union (e.g. MP Adventures of the dialectic)
This lead to an expanded Marxism which was then used to support a more post-modern strain (like Foucault's set of objects). This has become the new status quo, which allows people to feel edgy by reading/engaging with Marx while still functioning
Or something like that, I'm tweaked and a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.21770851]

>>21768733
How can you say he was wrong in 2023? a lot things he said coming true. You never worked a day in your life did you?
>inb4 muh so did Marx
>still doesn’t know Marx was a Freemason spook
>still think an individual could have written that
What it means is that the governments knew that capitalism is bad and it was going to fail at some point just like now.

[Anonymous No.21770863]

>>21769626
Agent Glowie Smith. We meet again!
Misinformation campaign still chugging along, I see.