/lit/ - Literature

do you not believe in god's universal design?

>>11850647
I fail to see what that has to do with Marxist progressionism unless you're referring to End Times of the Abrahamic religions.

You would have believed it last era.

>>11850665
yhouy are a fool

>>11850675
Without sarcasm I ask you please enlighten me

>>11850637
It's typical for humans to fixate their gaze on particular aspects of reality and pretend it's all there is. Considering that the most vocal opponents of this view have the opposite; that all change is always bad. Varg is a meme for a reason.

>>11850637
>hurr durr world was better in third reich durr

>>11850675
you ought to read the APOSTATE HEGEL. you think you understand MARX but you have not read his teache.r

>>11850694
DIRECTED AT >>11850678

>>11850679
Varg is right though.
And that's not what he says.

>>11850706
>learning to read and write is what made us stupid
>civilization is created by subhumans
This is what he says.

>>11850637
“Every era is an improvement over the last” is exactly the sort of undialectial thinking that defines vulgar Marxism.

If you carefully read the first chapter of the manifesto for example, when he compares the feudal era with the modern one there is never any straightforward ‘that was bad, this is good’, there is clearly an exchange of good and bad, things and gained and things are lost. While it still can be seen as a net ‘improvement’ it is almost meaningless to group all things together such that they could be considered better or worse as a whole.

>>11850637
The theory of dialectical materialism doesn't hold that one stage of economic development is better than the one previous. According to Marxism and class based social system will be deeply unpleasant for the majority to live in.

So despotism to feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism, and all the intermediate stages in between of which there are many, each one mostly lucked since there was still a ruling class who lived the best life while the masses toiled in the mud, workshops and factories.

The only time it gets improved according to communist theory is the socialist stage which in principle follows the capitalist stage. This is the big radical idea to disband the historical class system pattern and convert society to one of equals.

Of course that's an idea that presumes that class is entirely about entitlements and lineage. There are natural inequalities in human nature that always bias society. The smartest, most able will find themselves getting places first. And they be inclined at times to selfishly exploit that fact.

It's no wonder the capitalist system is so entrenched and the whole proposition socialism naturally follows it is so dubious.

>>11850752
Typos
*According to Marxism *any class based
*each one mostly *sucked since there

>>11850752
You started out alright and then just threw out your entire foundation with lazy dismissal.

Marxism does not hinge on the idea that people are equal in either ability or need. It actually explicitly does not.

>>11850637

The world is close to becoming a one world government ruled by very bad people.

In oldy times you could have slave states, but they were just one in a million. Now the whole world is a slave state. They can poison us or kill us or control us all and there's nowhere to escape.

Things are worse. Globalism is cancer. We need separate unique countries with no international ruling or business class.

>>11851479
/thread

>it's another "i read half of the manifesto and i think i know what marx thought" thread
i'm not even going to tell you to read capital, i'm going to tell you to read the 1844 manuscripts which are around 10 pages.

is it possible to create a system in which the people of that system care more about preserving it than self interest?

>>11852956
yes, for example capitalism, where the exploited workers care more about preserving their state as exploited workers than their own interests i.e abolishing wageslavery

>>11852944
Why would I read the irrelevant ramblings of some German nigger based on outdated anthropological and economic theories again?

>>11852964
what about a system where the object is to work in the interest of another person rather than yourself?

>>11852968
yes, for example capitalism, where the exploited workers work in the interest of the capitalist patron rather than their own interests

>>11852967
why would you? there is no reason, i'm just responding to people who make threads as if they know what they're talking about without bothering to read. this is a common practice when it comes to any thinker or field, to tell casuals to git gud or fuck off

>>11850752
>There are natural inequalities in human nature that always bias society. The smartest, most able will find themselves getting places first. And they be inclined at times to selfishly exploit that fact.
And nobody said othereuse? Daily reminder the first proponents, creator and critic of the word meritocracy (in the modern sense of the word) were marxists.

>>11852989
>othereuse
Otherwise

Reminder Marxists had one job, to overthrow capitalism, and now it's stronger than ever, unbeatable even. The Communist Idea is a black box without content, and they are loathe to ever fill it in with substance except in the broadest outlines, which formally rely on the very Idealism they claim to be so against.
Marx kicked Bakunin out of the International claiming he had no theory, yet even though his writings were sparse he predicted a Marxist state would become an authoritarian, centralized nightmare.
It's a transhuman cult of transformation that took the cause of anticapitalism and twisted it to those ends.

>>11852976
what about a system where the object is to work for your own interests and it happens that your own interests intersects with the rest of the community's interest? is this possible?

>>11853011
that would mean "your" interest is not simply yours, it's the community's, since you are part of the community. all societies reproduce themselves in that way, class-based or not.

>>11850637
>le born in the wrong generation
Literally you.

>>11853011
This was one of the deeper points of Marx, lost on so many Marxists who are trained not to see the heritage of Idealism by its total rejection as a core mantra they recite ad infinitum.