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.
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.
SleezyDizasta ^
That confirms that he never read any of them.
I’m not so sure, at least to me he correctly sums up some Marxist thought here: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23635227/11835855
You can stop reading there. Whatever accidentally correct points are made afterwards are just that, accidents. Their(the world poster) initial assumption is wrong. They assume that if communism is not achieved within a few years it was failure, despite Marx and Engels already stating that the transition towards to will take many generations. Communism is also not exactly something to “achieve”. Once the transition into the communist phase of development is completed, that phase too will change and develop. Precisely not a Utopia. Utopia is per definition perfect, ergo unchanging.
Not to mention that Lenin greatly expanded on these points anyway in State and Revolution in a way that proves Marx and Engels correct anyway, though I do wonder if the person you’re referring to has managed to read and purposely misunderstand that, too.
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.
Me when I read Le The Das Kapital 🤓
?
Yeah, that one’s not a valid critique IMHO
“Das Kapital” is much more immediately obvious what it refers to
Everytime someone says “Das Kapital”, it is more likely that person is either not a marxist or is beginning to understand marxist theory. Every marxist who cites Capital refers it as Capital, with its volume next to it. “Das Kapital” is just the original text of the German release, which there is an English edition which calls itself Capital, because we don’t call it “The Capital”.
Anticommunist Anglophones call it Das Kapital because it sounds more foreign and therefore eviler.
They legit dont understand Marx was satirizing anti-semitism.