Marx’s vision of the ideal worker

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name	10552
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1760301253521.jpeg (293.97 KB, 1118x1600, IMG_0301.jpeg)

Marx’s vision of the ideal worker Anonymous 12-10-25 20:34:13 No.2518960

Marx’s vision of the working class WAS social-darwinist. Darwin was one of his primary inspirations. He considered the proletariat (men working in factories) to be inherently better, stronger, smarter than the bourgeois; in particular, because they had the ability to educate themselves outside of bourgeois institutions, and were not beholden to bourgeois morality. Comparisons between him and Nietzsche run deeper than most people think. He basically envisioned an athletic, physicallly fit and educated man, quite literally beyond good and evil (we will make no excuse for the terror). That’s not to mention: armed. Armed and formed into a legion with his fellow workers. If you closely read through all of Marx’s texts, he continually places great optimism in the potential for the common man to become a super man, the overman. All that is to say that Marx’s vision of the communist revolutionary was a lot more “fascist” than most so-called “leftists” would care to admit. Lastly, I’d like to point out that the author of Might Makes Right had a real name, and he was a revolutionary socialist himself.

Anonymous 12-10-25 20:37:17 No.2518967

>marx was an idealist
Of course, that doesn't invalidate historical materialism as a whole thoughever.

Anonymous 12-10-25 20:47:03 No.2519006

Marx had no idea about the power of mass media, drugs, or alcohol

Anonymous 12-10-25 21:05:15 No.2519041

>>2519006
He actually did, he also wrote about this. The fact of the matter is that Marx was a revolutionary then, but “conservative” now.

Anonymous 12-10-25 21:06:51 No.2519048

Weird how you had the Z flag before but now you use the Tankie flag to post those falseflags.

Anonymous 12-10-25 21:24:01 No.2519096

Stirner mogged [copy pastes hard to spell name] Nietzsche before he put a drop of ink on paper

Anonymous 12-10-25 22:27:47 No.2519197

>>2519048
Yeah I am a zigger actually lol, because I read books lol do you have a problem with that? ::^)
>>2519096
Stirner was a faggy bourgeois aesthete who needed to invent all of these abstract concepts to make his ideas seem out of the blue and original, rather than work through the traditions of his ancestors like the Fashy Marx, and oh look whose system actually went on to fight revolutions and win them.

Anonymous 12-10-25 22:44:57 No.2519243

>>2519096
false nuke

Anonymous 12-10-25 23:12:17 No.2519294

Marx was a moron. What else is new?

Anonymous 12-10-25 23:14:17 No.2519297

>>2519294
>Marx was a moron when he was young. What else is new?
Ftfy

Anonymous 12-10-25 23:16:35 No.2519299

>>2519297
The idea of a young Marx and old Marx is a lie

Glownonymous 12-10-25 23:41:30 No.2519342

>>2519197
>Stirner was a faggy bourgeois aesthete who needed to invent all of these abstract concepts to make his ideas seem out of the blue and original, rather than work through the traditions of his ancestors like the Fashy Marx
You have no idea of what you are talking about. First of all, Stirner was an "ancestor" (such a faggy word to use when talking about philosophy, use "predecessor" instead if you don't want to sound like a chud) of Marx, there is a reason why the last part of the German Ideology written by Marx was a polemic against Stirner, and why Marx abandoned humanism after reading Stirner.

Both subverted the Hegelian tradition that was the standard fare in German academia back then, and both criticized the materialist humanism of Feuerbach in their works. Stirner also took inspiration from ancient Chinese philosophers like Daoists, probably Yang Zhu in particular.
He just took the materialist humanist dialectic to its conclusion, and concluded: why should you stop at Humanity = God in your criticism of religion and idealism? Why couldn't I proclaim that Me = God, then? Why should I replace God with a new secular pseudo-religion centered around the worship of Humanity? (If you don't understand why I'm saying this, read Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity)

Stirner's book is a critique of the 1830s-1840s left Hegelians. If you think he invented all of this from absolutely nowhere, first of all, you are ignorant of the genealogy of Marx's ideas, and second of all, you then think philosophical ideas can be created ex nihilo in a void without any external input, which goes pretty much against Marx's theory of historical materialism.

Unique IPs: 8