/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6204793]

>he dedicates himself to the ideologies of people who died hundreds/thousands of years ago
>he doesn't have his own philosophy which is influenced by others but not dictated by them

How does it feel to be a slave to other people's agendas, sheep?

[Anonymous No.6204802]

>>6204793
>own philosophy which is influenced by others but not dictated by them
Everybody does this. Do you just not get out much?

[Anonymous No.6204803]

>smarmy thread with no actual content
>le epic reaction to nobody picture

[Anonymous No.6205072]

>>6204793
pure ideology

[Anonymous No.6205078]

>>6204793
>>6204802

[Anonymous No.6205081]

>implying Marx was wrong about anything

[Anonymous No.6205088]

>>6205081
He certainly was wrong about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, which is probably the reason he couldn't bring himself to finish the chapter on classes, as he suspected as much.

[Anonymous No.6205092]

>>6205088

I'm interested in your thinking: I'd have said that many of the problems with the revolutionary potential of the urban proletariat were covered by Marx as "false consciousness", which is frankly bigger now than Marx could have ever envisaged.

I'm open to persuasion though, and the idea that Marx himself despaired of the proletariat would be intriguing in light of Marxism-Leninism.

[Anonymous No.6205121]

>>6205092
False consciousness is a major part of it, that much is for sure. The inverse problem is much bigger though, the comp, ete lack of people even perceiving themselves as a class. And then there's issues like the most radical french revolutionaries being manufacturers, not proletarians, and socialism anywhere east of france being on the one hand more accepted, but also mlre connected to questions of national liberation, which is also something picked up by the leninists e.g. when Stalin went to Vienna to do research on just that connection, coming to conceptualize nations as distinct, legitimate entities (and that was that for classical internationalism).
So, I'll be gone now, so just, uh, think about that.

[Anonymous No.6205145]

>>6204793
Does anyone just follow word for word the philosophy of one single person/doctrine?

That's way too inflexible to work in reality, sure the philosophy might cover the majority of what you will go through in life but if there's an outside context problem then you need to make your own decisions. Surely it's impossible to never deviate from a philosophy, in that sense we all make our own philosophies.