/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23425031]

Dude, why are this guy's followers so fucking mid? Engels and Lenin come off as preschoo shit by comparison. It's only in "western Marxism" that you come across the interesting stuff.

[Anonymous No.23425035]

>>23425031
>Marx is a philosopher
Hahahaha, The fact that i see him with philosophers proves people are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.23425037]

>>23425031
He was literally like 200 iq, compared to 130 iq Engels and Lenin

[Anonymous No.23425043]

>>23425037
20 iq schizo

[Anonymous No.23425087]

>>23425031
>Engels
Marx was literally Engels' nom de plume. He didn't exist, he was invented by Engels because he was afraid of his devout father's reaction to his sacrilegious books so he signed them as "Marx" instead. this photo is just Engels wearing a Santa Claus beard he bought at Harrods

[Anonymous No.23425609]

>>23425037
Engels talked Marx's out of a retarded french theory he embraced for a few weeks

>''Marx’s loathing of Malthus led him to take refuge in an even wackier theory, proposed by the French naturalist Pierre Trémaux in 1865. In his book Origine et Transformations de l’Homme et des Autres Êtres, Trémaux postulated that evolution was governed by geological and chemical changes in the soil. The idea attracted little attention at the time and is now entirely forgotten, but for a few weeks Marx could think of little else. ‘It represents a very significant advance over Darwin,’ he wrote. ‘For certain questions, such as nationality etc., only here has a basis in nature been found.’ The ‘surface-formations’ of the Russian landscape had tartarised and mongolised the Slavs, just as the secret of how ‘the common negro type is only a degeneration of a far higher one’ could be found in the dusty plains of Africa. Engels, who usually phrased his rare criticisms of Marx as mildly and respectfully as possible, didn’t trouble to hide his belief that the old boy had gone barmy.''

[Anonymous No.23425614]

>>23425037
>He was literally like 200 iq,
kek, all that iq and still a fucking bum and a loser.

[Anonymous No.23425620]

>>23425609
This kind of environmental/geographical determinism was very common in the mid to late 19th century, Renan held a famous and influential version of it I believe. Ultimately it influenced Braudel.

[Anonymous No.23425735]

>>23425037

>He was literally like 200 iq
Here's a 100 iq question : Are centrally planned economies a good idea and did Marx endorse them?

[Anonymous No.23425775]

>>23425735
Marx believed that a revolution in basic norms of human association would occur that would reveal questions like "laissez-faire or central planning?" to be "questions mal posee," badly-posed questions or questions that have faulty premises. It's somewhat easier to understand this perspective if you read something like Mutual Aid by Kropotkin. It both is and isn't a utopian aspect of 19th century socialist/anarchist thought. There are people who take it too far and people who don't. Marx is mostly in the latter camp.

A way of seeing what Marx actually has in mind might be to reflect on niggers. Imagine a city that's half American black and half European. First, imagine the city has a "democratic" delusion in which everybody is equal, and is consequently mired in constant problems. Black people commit 95% of the violent crimes, do 95% of the littering, use 95% of social services, are 95% of long-term prisoners, etc., all while making negative tax contributions, they are a net drain on the economy even when they AREN'T doing these things. Now imagine the same city, but blacks are second-class citizens and it's just understood by everybody that they shouldn't be involved in government, and also that the cops are right to profile them and quarantine their neighborhoods. In this version of the city, the blacks are happier AND the whites are happier. The black neighborhoods are cleaner, safer, and nicer, because white rules are imposed on them and they are frequently reminded of these rules (see "broken windows theory").

Now, what was the difference between the two cities? It was the removal of a delusion. You can easily imagine the first city going on for a hundred years wondering why everything sucks, wondering why everything is filthy and awful and nothing gets done, and every industry and administration is filled with incompetents and poisoned by cynicism and misbehavior. But because they can never get over the mental block of "maybe we aren't equal after all...," they will just keep laboring under this delusion forever. But imagine things got SO bad that a core group of whites, who were especially tortured by the broken system and its core delusion, were FORCED to see how retarded it is. They didn't "ideologically formulate" a new "philosophy," they didn't scientifically "prove" that blacks are retarded, they just SAW directly and vividly how retarded the system is and how it is founded on a retarded, unproved hypothesis (racial equality).

Now imagine asking, "What do these white people want? Do they want to centrally plan all the blacks away? Do they want to centrally plan how to pick up every piece of garbage the blacks throw on the ground?" No, they want a FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT in how people conceive of political and social organization in the first place. Everything else will follow from that restoration of basic sanity.

[Anonymous No.23426081]

Because Marxism is basically a child's temper tantrum, being acted out by adults who want to live with mommy and daddy forever, but can't, so they want to force the government to take their place, but that just leads to collapse EVERY TIME.

[Anonymous No.23426106]

They always dumbed down marxism to appeal to a mass audience

[Anonymous No.23426112]

>>23426081
What nations are striving under capitalism though?

[Anonymous No.23426124]

>>23425035
>The fact that i see him with philosophers
Economists were social philosophers before Keynes. It was only in the early 20th century that economics started becoming its own serious academic field distinct from social philosophy.

>>23425609
>Marx’s loathing of Malthus led him to take refuge in an even wackier theory
Malthus was unironically correct, though. His theory almost perfectly predicted economic growth prior to the industrial revolution.