The problem with you marxists is that you require people to spend their lives reading and interpreting the works and life of Marx (and its followers).
I don't like Marx, that's enough for me to not be interested in anything that comes from him.
Is that so hard to understand?
I am a leftist, by the way.
I would prefer spend my life reading the works of John Stuart Mill rather than Karl Marx.
No you don’t, you can get all the Marx you need from Engels, Lenin, Mao, and a thousand others
>>2781681Don't forget comrade Trotsky
I have only read the manifesto and some parts of the principles of communism and I'm good to go
You don't need to be a theorist to be a communist
>>2781675Your actual problem is that you're mad butthurt about Marx. Fuck off, porky liberal
>>2781770I am a libertarian.
The idea of historical materialism is good in theory but does not seem to suceed in practical terms.
>>2781778>good in theory but not in practiceThought terminating cliche. LLM or retard call it.
Sure there's a lot of theory various Marxist philosophers have written and discussed about; The more specific concepts or ideas, but the general idea of communism isn't hard to grasp at all. Capitalists own the means of production which is detrimental to the workers who make up most of the planet, That's it. Theory is more about how it should be attained.
>>2781778>good in theory but not in practiceBut that's exactly what milton friedman say is good
"a theory can be tested by the realism of its assumptions independently of the accuracy of its predictions"
>>2781778Of course you are an ancrap troll. Why don't you fuck off to Trump.social or AynRand.com instead of shitting about the board with butthurt threads about Marx every day?
>>2781782If you think ideas are based only on material conditions you should just stop thinking and eat grass.
>>2781797>ideas are based only on material conditionsWhat do material conditions mean to you?
>>2781798Food, water, housing.
>>2781798Can you show me where Marx says that material conditions are exactly those and none other? And where he says that ideas are based on food, water and housing?
I will mention that the falsification presented by our anarchists above have been deboonked already by comrade Koba
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm
>To proceed. Our "celebrated" Anarchists heard somewhere that Marx's materialism was a "belly theory," and so they rebuke us, Marxists, saying :
<"In the opinion of Feuerbach, man is what he eats. This formula had a magic effect on Marx and Engels," and, as a consequence, Marx drew the conclusion that "the main and primary thing is economic conditions, relations of production. . . ." And then the Anarchists proceed to instruct us in a philosophical tone: "It would be a mistake to say that the sole means of achieving this object of social life) is eating and economic production. . . . If ideology were determined mainly, monistically, by eating and economic conditions—then some gluttons would be geniuses" (see Nobati, No. 6. Sh. G.).
>You see how easy it is to refute the materialism of Marx and Engels! It is sufficient to hear some gossip in the street from some schoolgirl about Marx and
>Engels, it is sufficient to repeat that street gossip with philosophical aplomb in the columns of a paper like Nobati, to leap into fame as a "critic" of Marxism!
>But tell me, gentlemen: Where, when, on which planet, and which Marx did you hear say that "eating determines ideology"? Why did you not cite a single sentence, a single word from the works of Marx to back your assertion? True, Marx said that the economic conditions of men determine their consciousness, their ideology, but who told you that eating and economic conditions are the same thing? Don't you really know that physiological phenomena, such as eating, for example, differ fundamentally from sociological phenomena, such as the economic conditions of men, for example? One can forgive a schoolgirl, say, for confusing these two different phenomena; but how is it that you, the "vanquishers of Social-Democracy," "regenerators of science," so carelessly repeat the mistake of a schoolgirl?>>2781831>>2781819>>2781810>>2781806I will not read your stupid book. I will read On Liberty instead. Have a nice day.
While OP is obvious bait, we really do need people that have actual technical writing skills to write these things in a non-poetry format.
Unique IPs: 13