/lit/ - Literature

>>14646098
Basically this.

post some Gang weed memes

>>12881771

Capitalism is buzzword anyway, and you conflate Marx with Marxism.

My point isn't that Capitalism will collapse at "x date", but that the capitalism as it exists today will no longer be a reality in a few decades. Neither will there be any utopian accelerationist utopia, since at a very basic level social conditions cannot be accelerated , dissolved or transformed just by technological intelligence. What is labeled today as Capitalism, is today is the monetary side of Capitalism that operates entirely under fictious values, market futures,petrodollars and a whole fields of consumer and service markets. In other words the globo-homo world that everyone has come to know as of today, that is an alliance of neoliberal state technocrats and advertisers/managers. It can only crash and burn from here on out and not in a pleasant way at least in the western world, with my final point being , isn't all so banal and boring that this is the futurist world we were promised? I thought Crapitalism and liberal democracy meant INNOVATION AND MUH FREEDUMBS

>>12875849
There's nothing really far-right about this fact though, this is basically what left-wing had always been before dumb neolibs stole our name

>>12820316
smokin' hot takes from 1848

>>12629176

>>12236601
>lol dude who cares who does it it's not like taking care of animals and growing food is hard lol don't you know scarcity is a spook?

>>12205106
low iq clap trap

>>12167760
Or we can eat the rich lmao

>>11796812
>cucked
also, I had a good chuckle at
>Mastery over all existence
I mean you’re visibly trying to sound profound, but it looks like:
>I don’t believe in God, because an omnipotent being is logically impossible
>and my goal is an omnipotent humanity
this is angsty teenaged narcissist: the post

NPC lit

bottom text

>Marx successfully diagnoses the ills of capitalism, but he doesn't provide any good solutions
Is this the new left/neoreactionary equivalent to "1984 wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual"?

>>11619915
I can respect that honestly, i often see people on this board try to take on SotS with absolutely no research or knowledge of Hegel/Marx and missing even the most obvious references (e.g the very first theses being a direct reference to Capital)

Comments is a lot more depressing and "on-the-nose" but i think a layman can read and understand Comments since it doesn't require extensive knowledge about his influences, Détournement, or the other weird Situationist jargon Debrod loved to use.
It's a shame SotS keeps just being interpreted as "we live in a society gangweed" instead of the work that it is.