What did Marx mean by this?

>marx being right about anything
Sure is spooky up in here!

Attached: 1449769761317.png (450x450, 273K)

Yes. There is no "world literature" that came about by anything like what Marx described. There is english/american literature that, through exclusively economic power, spread across the world and smothere those "national literatures" that Marx is talking about.

Absolute ideology

>There is no "world literature" that came about
but that's wrong. Kafka, Beckett, Joyce, Proust, Dostoevsky, Tolstoj, Freud, Dante, Shakespeare, Marx himself. These (and somebody else) are the cornestones of world literature, they are crucial in every part of the western world and they move beyond existing as simple pieces of "national" literature. Note that he isn't saying that national literature scenes stop existing altogheter, but that the borders become more and more thin.

>Not a single digit with a callous on it.

What does he mean by world-literature? Books about something or a new class we give to things?

I think that if he is talking about the former, then he's probably right.

I looked up the definition and it says written works, especially of superior value. Perhaps a new understanding will unite all expression thus raising the value of all works.

All products of national literatures that have been put through an anglo blender and inserted into the english speaking sphere that arrogantly considers itself "the world" (it's not)

I disagree user. Sure anglofags are annoying with their anglocentrism but the authors I've cited have all fundational relavance to every literature in the western the world, hence the erosion of national borders when it comes to literary traditions.

Stop ruining max foreheads ebin book.

pan-european lit? great,
world lit? suck my whole dick.

Lol well that's one opinion that's for sure

French intellectuals are the most guilt-ridden, dishonest and cynical of all intellectuals.

>we live in the only country on earth where a semblance of intellectual honesty is still held up to a standard
typical romance hubris
we italians still consider ourselves the only heirs of the classic world despite being a bunch of morons

>All the world literature worth a shit basically all come from europe

huh

>What did Marx mean by this?
Nationalism keeps the door to superior literature shut.

"Nationalism is bad for jews so I'm trying to figure out how to make it unviable and bring about an international order in which jews will be more safe."

Attached: 1505598003194.jpg (576x1024, 95K)

come discover what Marx meant (and other things) in our amazing reading group

So wheres the superior literature being made now? Nationalism is becoming less and less relavant

Nationalism is becoming more relevant and is surging. It's the postwar jewish international order that is failing and lashing out against nationalism as it loses credibility.

you're a literal retard

>Nationalism is becoming less and less relevant
No, Marxism is becoming less and less relevant, hence why you prefaced that statement with a clear example of how Marx was a retard with no foresight for his shitty ideas.

Jews are internationalists who don't fare well in homogenous countries. Marx was trying to develop a system that would safeguard jews by diminishing the power of the nation and reducing national cohesiveness among Europeans so Europeans would be less of a threat to jews.

a world without unique cultural diversity is a worse one, an anti-natural ideology would want to remove all remnants of nature from humanity, that is all the earthly sinful variation that we gained when we left eden (from their point of view). this is why jews also want to remove all differences between men and women, noble and pleb, highIQ race and lowIQ race, etc. its a sickly thing that we europeans have taken up their absolutely abhorrent way of thinking about morality.

Literature ought to be individuated from the universal and be an expression of a distinct cultural setting. I'm not interested in reading homogenised global literature.

Jew detected

This is you, man. Take a long, deep look and rethink whether you really figured the world out or not.

Attached: 1506006459957.png (601x508, 127K)

>Manifesto made some moral claims
Marx had no right to make moral claims against anyone. He was a total scumbag.

Psychologizing the goyim won't work here, rabbi.

Attached: 1513488830843.jpg (605x531, 32K)

>jews are also quite wealthy which is why I am designing an ideology that will cause the wealthy to be put up against a wall and shot

Mouthbreather.

Marx was concerned with using the proles to attack the European aristocracy jews felt were holding them out of power. That was the target, jews think they're entitled to rule over non jews.

communism was directed against the bourgeoisie and Marx and Lenin talked about Jewish bankers near constantly

>most jews were wealthy
o i am laffin

>He gave us the greatest analysis of materialist society, with incredible insights into its future.
Tell me, what stage of history are we in now?

Attached: 1468018750806.png (309x367, 37K)

yeah wow what an original opinion thank you for sharing such an incisive perspective

I dropped Marx because the labor theory of value is categorically bullshit, everything else is just opinions and I couldn't care less about them.

Are you implying people didn't read stuff from other countries before? Sure it wasn't quite as widespread but this was merely a by-product of mass production and wider availability of professional translators.

Attached: Paris Commune spared the Rothschilds.png (991x688, 287K)

Fucking Richard Stallman, man.

Attached: Radical shitposter.jpg (500x203, 33K)

Nothing is more materialist than Marxism. Everything becomes defined by access and control of finite physical resources. All conceptual spheres become oriented on this axis. It's perverse. Not even in consumerism is art so reduced as it is in Marxism, where it becomes simply one more tool by which to seize and control capital.

>More people are unaware of these writers than aware.
>More surface of the earth is free from their influence than influenced
How very global.

Yes, it's surging, because globalism is bland and depressing. Nobody likes it, except those who can afford endless novelty. The flavor of life comes from the nuance of tradition.

>M-Marx i-isn't relevant anymore will you stop talking about him, r-read some acceptable economics
~ Bourgeois damage control every single year since the early 1900s

Attached: 37eb28a8b3450503e0125cb3ae396cf2.jpg (391x391, 37K)

He's part right though. Jews are a nation of their own that have lived as minorities for centuries, much like Gypsies, except with stronger ethics and more of a desire to stay rooted in place. Certain forms of nationalism is dangerous for any outside group, and it's very easy for those ideologies to perceive Jews as outsiders, since they tend to hold their own customs separate from the whole. That said, Marx, though culturally Jewish was not religious. Too many people look at Jewry as a homogeneous and organized culture, which it is not. They have traditionalists, and nationalists, liberals, conservatives, orthodox, nihilists, and on and on and on. Because they share cultural roots, you will find certain commonalities throughout Jewish art and literature, but there is no conspiracy. The simple answer is that Jewish people are typically more legally minded, as in they care a great deal about rules. If something is allowed by the rules, than it is generally speaking fair game. It might be rude, or mean, or underhanded, but that is between a man and God. All that truly matters between man and man is the law.

1. Who is saying this?
2. The bourgeois are the middle class, not the wealthy. That means you. And if actually read your Marx, or any of his followers, you'd know that the markings of class are not so easily washed away. Unless you join the under class literally, everything you do will bear the fruits of the bourgeoisie. Ever law you make, every thing you buy, it is all intrinsically bourgeoisie, no matter how socially conscious you think you are.

>Capitalism is going to die aaaaaaany day now
~Communist damage control every single yeaer since the late 1800's.

And Marx actually is still relevant, just not within economics.

Marxism is literally historic materialism though.

And historical materialism is literally the only macro-sociological method that isn't complete horseshit, so it checks out.

All macro-sociological methods are horseshit, user

Sociology is a meme.

>macron
>right wing

good god schlomo

>americans

People are shitting in this post but Capital is completely moral-free reasoning, it is mostly Hegelian in nature

This but Deleuze instead.

Kali yuga m8

>bourgeois are the middle class, not the wealthy.
it means the capitalists which are usually wealthy

>anyone i disagree with is american
Maybe if you weren't so far up your own ass you'd take a second to consider a different opinion. Your stances aren't based on reason, but fluffy rhetoric.
tldr: the nose makes yet another victim

The real question is what ISN'T allowed on their rules. When things get to the point where pedophilia is allowed I think there is not much of a point in debating on and on

Attached: nosferatu.jpg (1069x800, 55K)

Good point. Jews have no morals in the European/white sense, and it's their host's rules they are trying to abide by but only so to not cause problems for jews. But jews are an iconoclastic people in soul, there is no greater force in the attempt to break down all the rules in the west than them.

>t's their host's rules they are trying to make it look like they abide by
FTFY

>Marx was right about everything. Hence why we should discard materialism in its entirety.
W h a t? Marx himself is materialism to the core. I think you are mixing up the terms. If anything we should discard idealism, you fool.

Whyy the fuck would they need to damage control? They aren't losing.

he wasn't too sure himself, which is why it's so ambiguous/useless.

actually, jews define themselves, even come into existence, by negating their hosts. by criticising and undermining.

Indeed. Jews are an anti-people. Their in-group identity is understood and strengthened in opposition to "the other."

If you are not already blinded by the artificial light of ideology I encourage you to open your eyes and learn. If you are a pursuer of the true and good you will know that Marxism must be buried alongside its millions of corpses.

friesian.com/marx.htm

Attached: Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn.jpg (600x770, 76K)

Marx developed a secular monasticism (probably just copied Proudhon, Fourier, and Saint-Simon) except for the whole "vow to poverty part" that is essential to monasticism, but who cares? Atheism! Marx undoubtedly saw himself as the next Christ or an actual prophet. He wanted to create a perfect world, taking after Christian tenets of monasticism without the whole Christianity part or the poverty part—history and hindsight tells us that he did achieve poverty! But this was an economic system designed for wealth and leisure, while unknowingly whorish to totalitarianism; you gotta secular people somehow! Marx made prediction about the future. Surprisingly enough he was a retard and couldn't prophesy a damn thing, especially in his own theory of communism. He believed himself to be a god, thinking he could lay out every single detail about the rise of capitalism and the eventual overthrow of the bourgeoisie because of the exploitation and overwork. But holy shit! Capitalism got better and work conditions got better. It seems that Marx forgot the part about how he wasn't like a Jewish prophet, whom he hated immensely, and all the fellow jews of those prophets. Kinda odd how this fella was part Jewish, fucking hated jews, would get rockhard with his cockbuudy, Engels, when sending letters with "niggerjew" in them. He wanted everything controlled by the state and everyone to be cookie cutter. HOLY MOLEY DING DING DING! National German Socialist Workers Party ringing the fucking bell! There was this guy Hitler who was part Jewish, hated Jews, and wanted to do a lot of the same things Marx did. I guess the biggest difference is that Marx sought proletariat revolution and Hitler utilized democracy, but hold the fucking phone. Proletariat revolution? Majority rule? Mother of French Revolution. These fuckers are one and the same! Instead of violent mob rule for the sake of "le citoyen," it was the violent mob rule for the sake of the "proletariat" and it was mob rule turned violent for the sake of the "aryan" or the "NOT a Jew." You heard it here brainlets, the French Revolution gave us a retarded fat fuck, Marx and an inferiority complex cuck, Hitler. It was the masses that gave us them. Oh And they both failed abysmally. Praise the crown, capitalism, civil liberties, and the Church.

this is so true it breaks my heart. i have a jewish friend, without any doubt the smartest dude i’ve ever known but holy god he lives scavenging for incongruity and has an intricate mental tabulation of all sort of people he distinguishes himself from, he talks about them with an air of authority on sociology.

Macron is center-right.

This, the right getting meme'd into disavowing Marx without reading him was a great step in their anti-intellectual streak.

The stupidest people today are whites who pretend to be communists, not realizing that communism was from the beginning a jewish ideology, and one that was designed specifically to attack them and their people. They are quite literally useful idiots who don't realize they're doing the bidding of their own enemy. Doesn't get any stupider than that, does it?

Attached: 1431757980655.jpg (255x168, 25K)

I don't know what that has to do with my post, I'm simply saying that the right is anti-intellectual and has shown little interest in sociology. Personally I haven't read Marx, but one of my favorite sociologists, Jacques Ellul, was a "Marxist" according to wikipedia, and I don't dismiss any ideas because of my ideological bias. Servile submission to capitalism is just, or arguably more Jewish than communism.

It was to say the only people who understand Marx are people on the right, since those are the only people who are willing to face the jewish problem and learn about jewish behavior. The disconnect here is that your interpretation of "the right" is outdated and also informed by jews who think, rightfully, that nationalism is the biggest threat to themselves and their globalist ruse, which is currently being pulled on white nations.

>rich jews get the bullet in marxism

Attached: 1518981716537.png (637x631, 18K)

why are you afraid of Jews

I'm on "the right" politically and harbor no great love for Jews, no great distaste either, although I'd prefer they stay in Israel. My interpretation of "the right" is not outdated. The right has been retarded, at least in America, where it is compromised of Jewish neocons, Evangelical idiots, and silly reactionaries who are all too lazy, or worse, too malicious to do their homework and build a serious intellectual argument and justification for their beliefs.

>why are you afraid of that cancerous tumor in your ass

We're more or less on the same page then, though I associate those elements of the right with post 60s jewing, which has been equally present on both sides, and the suppression of intellectual aspects that never really went away but are now finally being reasserted and understood by a greater portion of whites.

Bro I swear to God now any second there will be a workers revolution just you wait. seriously bro it's coming just any second

Attached: 1521483707316.jpg (588x823, 109K)

>look up Marx's mother

>Marx had a bad relationship with her and started pressuring her for inheritance (money) after dad had died, but before she did -y'know, like shitty person would do

OF COURSE!

Well good, don't get intellectually lazy then! We are going to need smart people, I suggest reading some Jacques Ellul or James Burnham for good insight. Respectively the Technological Society and the Managerial Revolution are both great reads. Also I suggest you refine your argument a tad (depending on the circumstances of course) when pitching counter Semitism, it's a hard ball to catch for most.