/lit/ - Literature

>>21060146
>Hegel still not on the team

>>20578128
>My guy, you're stuck in 1600 politics.
>You have no genuine understanding of how politics functions, evolves, develops and its underlying goal.
>You're a moral fag as much as the average liberal.
>If I just asked you a few questions you'd fold like a retard because your worldview is just aesthetics - that's it. It hasn't been relevant ever.


lmao, do leftists really??? what a retard

How did Marx get synthesized with stuff like fat liberation, queer theory, etc?

It seems as though there's this pervasive trend among the online left where people will identify as communists, Marxists, or anti-capitalists while insisting that the individual needs to be liberated from certain social norms (fatphobia, the gender binary, and so on).

How are these things related? I feel like the latter is more closely related to the liberal individualist thinkers, like Mill, who Marx reviled. His critique of liberal religious freedom in On the Jewish Question seems to foreclose a lot of these attitudes. Maybe I am misreading it, though, because I guess you could also make the case that Marx would see stuff like the gender binary or sexual norms being cast off as arbitrary under communism in the same way as religion.

I'm not very well read on post-Marx Marxian thought, so I'm wondering what books were influential in the synthesis/development of these ideas. Or are zoomers just confused? Interested in anything really, but especially in commentaries on Marx where I can see how this stuff was inferred from/connected to his work in the first place.

Also not really trying to start a firestorm about "woke SJWs" or anything, I'm just curious. I've been reading some of Marx's essays and he just comes across as different from how he's presented today by both the left and right.

>>19166169
Nietszche on Socialism

>Socialism—as the logical conclusion of the tyranny of the least and the dumbest, i.e., those who are superficial, envious, and three-quarters actors—is indeed entailed by "modern ideas" and their latent anarchism; but in the tepid air of democratic well-being the capacity to reach conclusions, or to finish, weakens. One follows—but one no longer sees what follows. Therefore socialism is on the whole a hopeless and sour affair; and nothing offers a more amusing spectacle than the contrast between the poisonous and desperate faces but by today's socialists—and to what wretched and pinched feelings their style bears witness!—and the harmless lambs' happiness of their hopes and desiderata. Nevertheless, in many places in Europe they may yet bring off occasional coups and attacks: there will be deep “rumblings” in the stomach of the next century, and the Paris commune, which has its apologists and advocates in Germany, too, was perhaps no more than a minor indigestion compared to what is coming* But there will always be too many who have possessions for socialism to signify more than an attack of sickness— and those who have possessions are of one mind on one article of faith: “one must possess something in order to be something.” But this is the oldest and healthiest of all instincts: I should add, “one must want to have more than one has in order to become more*” For this is the doctrine preached by life itself to all that has life: the morality of development. To have and to want to have more—growth, in one word—that is life itself. In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a “will to negate life”; the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine must be bungled. Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society life negates itself, cuts of! its own roots. The earth is large enough and man still sufficiently unexhausted; hence such a practical instruction and demonstratio ad absurdum would not strike me as undesirable, even if it were gained and paid for with a tremendous expenditure of human lives.

>>19113887
Jewish nigger Lassalle when?

>>19039523
He's capitalism's last resort... okay? Don't you DARE give workers their taxes back and tax landowners instead. That would - GRR - improve their living standards! And reconcile them with capitalists! Then they wouldn't be angry enough to participate in destructive revolutionary violence. STOP!

>>18785967
>So this is just the better version of Marx?
On the contrary, because Georgism predated Marxism, and Marxist texts were literally advertised in the English speaking world as "what to read after you have read Progress and Poverty" it is more correct to say that Marx is the inferior version of George.

>1 coat = 20 yards of linen
dropped

>>17468482
>No argument

>This thread

>>16495905
Communist "philosophy" is already among the top works of fantasy, no need to write more.

>>16474427
>intellectual debates
>with commies
You say this as if there can be a debate. Commies start from a position of having accepted specific ideas and interpretations that make it legitimately pointless to talk to them because any other kind of thinking does not compute for them.

You should read Poverty and Progress by Henry George though. It shows you the direction of early progressive thought before the Marxists took over. George annoys Marxist drones because they have no way of dealing with him through their normal NPC subroutines besides googling that Marx said George didn't go far enough.

>From the failed 1848 revolutions until the 1860's Marx thought an industrial crisis would cause a revolution in France
The revolution and the crisis never occurred and Marx was subjected to ridicule by his peers.
>Marx thought the recession in 1857 would lead to a revolution
It never did.
>Engels thought a crisis would lead a revolution in England by 1886
A revolution never happened and the economy in Britain recovered by 1888.
>Marx thought Capitalism had the long run tendency to keep real wages at a subsistence level
In reality, real wages have gone up in the long run.
>Marx thought workers' plight would lead to Communism
In reality, modern day plight of workers has not led to a renewed interest in Communism.
>Marx thought Capitalism had the long-run tendency to decrease the rate of profit
In reality, the rate of profit has not decreased.

>>16251134
>bioleninism
Th-They're radlibs, not communists!!! We true Marxists care about class.

>>16193549
>ART SHOULD SUPPORT MUH REVOLUTION
>CENSOR EVERYTHING THAT DOESN'T ADVANCE SOCIALISM
>STOP ENJOYING YOURSELVES!!!!

>>16124846
>capitalism

>>16049936
It's funny because when there was an actual poll it turned out Marxists were a noisy minority.

/lit/ needs more Henry George threads to fluster them.

>>16037634

Anon, what compels narrow minded people toward Marxist drivel, a confused mess of a social plan even worse than Christianity? Why do people latch onto their ideology, which is supposed to be founded on rational grounds, to religious levels of fervor?

>>15785934
>>15785962
>i-I know you are but what am I!

>NOOOOO WHY WON'T ADULTS TAKE MY SHITTY PHILOSOPHY THAT HAS BEEN DEAD AND BURIED FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY SERIOUSLY THIS IS NOT FAAAAAAAAAAIR

I feel bad for him, he was wrong about almost everything
>LTV isn't true
>Rate of profit isn't declining
>Class conflict isn't the engine of history
>historical materialism is untrue
>Marx's doomsday predictions about capitalism are wrong

>Oblomov
>Winnie the Pooh
>Bartleby the Scrivener

What else?

>>13001247
S-SHUT UP