I got such an aneurysm from reading the next reply (see link) I decided I had to let you all read this brainrot:
Also yes, .world is so low hanging fruit. But this one is slightly different.
They lost me on 5th word.
Also what the actual fuck
I guarantee their thought process went something like this: communism is when no iPhone. A “materialist” loves iPhone. Therefore, Marxism opposes materialism
Ah yes, how can I forget this critical piece of materialist theory from Comrade Madonna:
They can beg and they can plead
But they can’t see the light (that’s right)
'Cause the boy with the cold hard cash
Is always Mister Right'Cause we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
Marxism being opposed to materialism…wat?
I’ve studied the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital in college, which is pretty standard. I’ve also read a few of his shorter works like the Critique of the Gotha Programme and On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I’ve ever read despite him having Jewish heritage).
SleezyDizasta ^
I’m not so sure, at least to me he correctly sums up some Marxist thought here: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23635227/11835855
Wow people read. But they don’t actually apply the knowledge. The fact this person refers to “Das Kapital” instead of “Capital” shows their lack of expertise. I bet they haven’t even read all the 3 volumes, which each one of them is about a thousand pages or so. You can claim you have read a “book” if you only read the first 10 pages. That’s literally what they do with Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” book. Despite the book supporting the Labour Theory of Value, liberals claim it to be pro-capitalist because they only read the first 8 pages.
The Communist Manifesto is so easy to read I don’t think anyone should flaunt about it. And then they state that the Jewish Question is more “antisemitic” despite its dual-character nature of presenting both sides, one which defends the Jewish people in its first half, and makes a caricature of the anti-Jewish people in the other. This is what happens when a metaphysical person reads a book which is intended to be read from a dialectical point of view. Deeply unserious. Don’t say you’ve read it until you actually apply the knowledge.
The fact this person refers to “Das Kapital” instead of “Capital” shows their lack of expertise
?
I love absolute buffoons reducing all these different political movements ummm actually AUTHORITARIAN. Jeez stfu.
marxists bitterly oppose individualism
Fuckin ayn rand ova here
“Explicit support of political violence”
Unlike capitalism which is very peaceful.
“When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call it murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in a position where they inevitably meet an early and unnatural death, a death by violence as much as by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessities of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live, and forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until death ensues, which is the inevitable consequence—knowing that these thousands must perish, yet permitting these conditions to remain—it is murder just as surely as the deed of an individual; disguised, malicious murder, against which none can defend, which does not seem what it is because no one sees the murderer, and the death of the victim seems natural, since the offense is more one of omission than of commission.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/condition-working-class-england.pdf
These lib “definitions” make a lot more sense when you add “against me” where applicable. So it would be “Explicit support of political violence against me.” otherwise they don’t care who the system is violent against.
Or as Mark Twain put it:
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
I love when liberals do confident reddit replies on topics where they’ve clearly never read a book.
