How much of an autist do you have to be to agree with Marx

Most people that aren't money crazed neocons realize that the system is pretty fucking broken
They just don't want to become a number and lose shit like national identity, family, and freedom

Fucking morons like yourself do not understand Marx. He isn't suggesting people need to take steps to dismantle and destroy the family system, you blithering retard. He is very simply stating that as the need for capital erodes so too does the need for the family unit, that when one goes so will the other.

Marx was a retard, idiot. Try the redpill and see how Hitler understood so much more

I get that the OP is expressing an anti-Marxist sentiment, which is perfectly fine, but I just want to point out to the OP and underline that his verbiage is confused. Specifically, the bracketing phrases around the greentext "everyone that reads this... agrees with it but marxists" is confusing enough on its own merits, but on a first gloss, I also took the "no one becomes a marxist. you are born a marxist" to be a pro-marxist statement, rather than the anti-Marxist statement that it really is (you are born a retard). My point is that OP's text is confused, that's all.

Trips of truth

This.

Marx isn't advocating the abolition of the nuclear family he's basically saying "romance is 90% finance" ergo families aren't built on a good foundation in a capitalist society. It'd be healthier for everyone if we found partners we loved because of their inherent value as a human being not due to the practicality of having a financial stable future which would become an anachronistic motivation in a post-capitalist society.

Marx isn't a prophet. He never claimed to be. He also didn't right very much about communism he was mostly a critic of capitalism.

If you can't see how capitalism is destroying the planet and enslaving the majority of society you are on some ill levels of ideology bro.

I'm not a marxist, I'm a mutualist which is a form of free market socialism but I ultimately agree with his diagnosis of capitalism but not his prescribed means of overthrowing it and what he recommends we replace it with.

Marks' main fuck up was putting an evangelical spin on his otherwise very sound and highly compelling philosophy of history.

By Capital’s own argument and the nature of the material dialectic, communism isn't something for which one advocates or seeks to "immanatize," it is a proposed inevitability--the natural sequence in the capitalization and abstraction of human labor as it expresses itself though a social order.

Mao and Che and the long line of apostles and heresiarchs were nothing more than religious leaders, just the promise of the return to the prelapsarian state in a different guise.

By Capitals own argument and the nature of the material dialectic communism isn't something for which one advocates or "immanatizes," it is a proposed inevitability--the natural sequence in the capitalization and abstraction of human labor.

marx himself is essentially 100% irrelevant in this century, his name is just a flag white leftists rally behind out of tradition

This is really hard to read so maybe I don't understand your point but

>I thought that maybe I had misunderstood him
>he and all marxists I asked meant that the family shouldn't exist

Yeah nah, you completely misunderstood him.

>How much of an autist do you have to be to agree with Marx
2/3 of an autist for marx

2 of an autist for kant

1/2 for hegel

1/4 for nietzsche

0 for christianity or muslim

1/4 for buddhism

2/3 for schopenhauer

1/10 for logical positivism

1/3 for fideism

Holy fuck you're stupid. Like those people who decide not to do anything when they find out they have no free will.

Read the communist manifesto

>Maybe in that speech about the family he didn't mean that family shouldn't exist, maybe he meant that the family forces the man into capitalism because he needs to work to sustain his family
Its more like the current family structure is dictated by capitalism and is being changed as capitalism requires it. Example being how family unit has gone from extended family with all living and supporting each other together, to nuclear family where father supports his wife and kids and the extended family only is really together for select holidays, if at all, to the current iteration where both husband and wife are working. With the parents spending most of their day working at whichever company, and the kids spending most of their time at school preparing to be good workers, we can already see the dismantling of the traditional family unit well underway to the totality of capitalism.

Not sure whether ironic shitpost or not

Fluoride in the water is turning the kids into Marxists

Tbh he said nothing right, his study on economics is "insightful" or "perspective" at best. Completely irrelevant to the macroeconomics of 2017.

His social ideas used to be babby's first rebellion tier but now it is just cuck tier normie shit. All the rebelling kids will be "Alt-Right" for a while now.

Sharing only works in a homogeneous society no larger than 60 people per commune.

He's actually quite right, and you don't have a rebuttal to the point, which is why you're going for the spicy ad-hom.

In Marx, two vague nineteenth century ideas are in tension: To be a "man of science", cool, dispassionate, stating the case, and at the same time to be a romantic: yearning for a better future. There is no other way to explain the constant emotion in Marx's prose, even in his more technical work, then to attribute to him some of the romanticism of the period. And this because romanticism of the type to which I refer permeates the nineteenth century mind so totally that, try as he might to get "woke" from bougie fictions, even correctly being skeptical of sentimentalities, Karl Marx himself was quite powerless to escape these.

And the point is that these two tensions are indeed irreconcilable, and a contradiction in terms. If the thing is inevitable, then there is no particular reason for you to necessarily be the one to set up a first international.

The Marxian project would have been improved if it could have instead dispensed with the silly superstructure of historical materialism, in favor of practical statements of the form "this is the sort of world that we want to live in, here is why it is a good thing and why you should want same as well", etc.

Moreover, jettisoning historical inevitability gives your project increased urgency, and better intellectual consistency: you don't just kick back knowing that Jesus will come, or that Communism will inevitably take place, someday. You instead take increased resolve to make the world that you actually want to live in (the good bit in the final thesis on feuerbach), exactly because you understand that it may not necessarily take place.

I find it hard to believe that even someone as morally crusading as you fails to see the parallels between Christian teleology and Marksist teleology, and grasp the implications about human psychology that that parallel implies.

Look up the phrase immanentizing the eschaton and turn with it in your mind “Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!”

Ethics is juvenile. It is facile. It is a simple game for simple minds to simplify the world and convince themselves of their own importance within it.

>The Marxian project would have been improved if it could have instead dispensed with the silly superstructure of historical materialism, in favor of practical statements of the form "this is the sort of world that we want to live in, here is why it is a good thing and why you should want same as well", etc.

Much like formalism in the 1920s, ala IA Richards, or the entire analytic brand of philosophy, Marx fell for the "gotta be scientific" meme.

My rebuttal is oh-so-cleverly embedded in my insult. Just as lacking free will doesn't mean your body is going to get up and go through the motions of life while your mind sits inertly atop it, historical inevitability doesn't mean society will spontaneously change without the force of human action. Both mean that each action taken is causally inevitable. You've completely ignored Marx's theory of history in order to make it seem like a mystical teleology.
I looked up your phrase. Coined in 1952. Almost prophetic.

>this is my opinion but I am not going to shed any light on why I think this way

This, a thousand times this. It's good to see some people have actually read Marx and aren't just regurgitating the co-opted narratives of their masters.

>OP reveals huge misconception of Marxism
>gets instantly BTFO by everyone
>cowardly disappears without owning up to his stupidity

And the worst thing? A few week from now he will make another thread, here or somewhere, about how stupid or wrong another bit of Marxist theory or writing is.

Anti-Marxists are zealots. They've decided they want to hate him before they even learn what he says. Everything in this thread indicates that this is his first time reading the most basic and elementary work of Marxism, yet his hatred for it is years and years old. It's kind of pathetic, because OP will die too stupid to realise this is an impulse constructed by a narrative of class.

you're retarded
the family is retarded

>Western society is grossly oppressive and imperialistic and should be destroyed
>meanwhile it's also only society on the planet where people are free to pursue what they want individually, as long as they put in the work, and it's also the only society on the planet where the state isn't an adversarial murderer to it's own citizens and you have rights

Marxists truly are people who have no idea how bad society can really be.

>0 for christianity or muslim

About 10 retarded though

>meanwhile it's also only society on the planet where people are free to pursue what they want individually, as long as they put in the work
What you want isn't free, capitalism destroys and oppresses in a very fundamental way. Through inescapable consumerist ideology.

I didn't say it was perfect. But name a society that is better or shut the fuck up.

I agree that leftists/liberals who are apologists for other oppressive regimes simply because they aren't the West are hypocrites and self-hating malcontents of the worst kind. However, just because it's a freer, 'better' society doesn't mean it should be spared any critique or pursuance of progressive change. Besides, many of them see 'soaking the streets with the blood of the bourgeoisie' as a superior situation to economic exploitation, so the whole "what about other countries!" doesn't really work with them.

One of the reasons the West is so great is because it's open to correcting its mistakes.

>However, just because it's a freer, 'better' society doesn't mean it should be spared any critique or pursuance of progressive change.

And that's not what I said either.

This thread is about Marxist communists who want to destroy the West because they believe it is founded on and continued only by the oppression of others, which is tremendously simplistic and ignores all the positive things that the West has done and continues to do.

And this is IGNORING all the attempts to create a Communist societies in history, which have turned into literal hellholes for all involved.

Then what are you saying? One can seek the complete annihilation of the Western hegemonic order without thinking it's worse than Saudi Arabia or Europe under feudalism. If your primary complain is that Marxists aren't saying "thank you!" to the West before engaging in diatribes and progressive political action, then it's a pretty silly complaint.

>And this is IGNORING all the attempts to create a Communist societies in history, which have turned into literal hellholes for all involved.

To say they are completely ignoring all hitherto attempts at transitioning into a communist society is tremendously simplistic as well.

> If your primary complain is that Marxists aren't saying "thank you!" to the West before engaging in diatribes and progressive political action, then it's a pretty silly complaint.

You're not listening. Wanting to destroy the West isn't "progressive political action", that's just what they call it, because they are dialectical materialists.

What it really is in reality, is a utopianism, that will quickly turn into a totalitarianism.

>Hitler
>not Strasser
pleb

That's a rather uncharitable interpretation. Anyway, my point is leftists not acknowledging how much better they have it living in the West instead of a much more oppressive regime is an irrelevant criticism.

>is an irrelevant criticism.

Maybe to you. But it's not to me. It seems to me that if you're a character like Noam Chomsky, you shouldn't be advocating the destruction of the society that allows you to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year(like he does, and has for most of his life), live comfortable without fearing for your life, and that is sufficiently non-corrupt as to have have electricity on 24 hours a day.

Ideologues like him, literally have NO idea how many things have to function, and how many people have to be honest and upright for a society to function like the West.

Well, why not? Again, no respectable leftist would argue flourishing and agreeable amenities do not exist in Western societies, but such recognition doesn't preclude them from claiming said flourishing and the current is inextricably dependent on exploitation (domestic and foreign), unacceptable levels of inequality and oppression, and dehumanizing ideology. Just because it's preferable to other existing societies doesn't mean the project for improvement is over. What counts as acceptable varies from person to person.

the current system*

>Again, no respectable leftist would argue flourishing and agreeable amenities do not exist in Western societies

Except the fact that they do so all the time, and can't shut up about it.

What part of "Western society is a patriarchal and imperialist system that needs to be destroyed" do you think is redeemable?

Literally none. These people don't think it is redeemable at all. They don't criticize "aspects" of Western civilization, they criticize the axioms upon which it is built, and want it destroyed.

They are not "progressive", and they are not good people.

I'm coincidentally reading The Communist Manifesto now, and came across this passage just an hour ago.
I too was puzzled by it, but if you read the next passage, and consider the time it was written in, I found it to make much more sense.
I did not read it as him wanting to dissolve the nuclear family, although like another user said I do think the need for it would dissolve as capitalism does. What I took from the passage is simply that he laments that prime children are forced to work in the mines, while the bougie homeschooled kids are groomed to be capitalist perpetuators.
Remember this is written before mandatory public schools and child labor laws.

>literal hellholes for all involved
I take it you have never travelled through the former CCCP like I have and met and talked with people who sorely misses the days of the Union?
I'm not a tankie and fully realize the oppression that took place, but I do not think the Soviet failed to the generally agreed upon degree.

Remember that for the most part the Union consisted of previously and later poor and uneducated people, that for many were not better before or after.

Embracing capitalism to the sickening degree that the US did would, I wager, not change that for the majority.

>the kids will be fine
No they won't. They'll be fucked up from not having a family.

Take your straw men and fuck off, capitalist apologist

>this is fine! no problem here! doesn't bother me! those poor people are just lazy!

>Take your straw men and fuck off, capitalist apologist

Calling something a strawman without explaining how it is one is not an argument, tankie.

Meanwhile in non-MoveOn.org world.

Even if Marx was wrong about this particular issue, how does this disapprove socialism or discredit the Marxist perspective. Something about Marxism that you need to understand is that we don't think of Marx as infallible. He was wrong on several things and he could've very well been wrong about this as well. But the essential core of Marxism isn't "hurr durr lets get rid of the family." There's much more to it than that and I recommend you read up more.

Your claim that it's common for leftists to deny that capitalist societies can be comfy is an obvious straw man.
That they are comfy for everyone is something I'd disagree on.

>do you think is redeemable?
I'm a conservative, so I personally do not believe Western civilization would benefit from a communist/socialist revolution.

With that said, I'm not sure what position you're arguing against, I never said their problems with Western society or the kind of changes they desire were right. I'm only saying there is nothing logically unsound or prima facie wrong with saying "many people benefit from X system, maybe even myself, but it still suffers from severe problems A, B, and C that cannot be reconciled, so we ought to push for Y society."

i like this

I agree. Capitalist societies aren't comfy for everyone.

But the fact that you believe that if only you had the power, you could make a society that IS comfortable for everyone makes you dangerous.

global development is inevitable. just because the world is improving under capitalism doesn't address any of the arguments that marxists put forth. our world may improve but will only subsist under global capitalism.

and you didn't respond to my graph. may i remind you that 15% of the US is under the poverty line despite US development/GDP and so on. what is OK about that?

>just because the world is improving under capitalism doesn't address any of the arguments that marxists put forth

Really? Because to me it reduces Marxists arguments to: "Because not everyone can become as rich as Bill Gates, we should destroy society."

If most people, most of the time, can live good and comfortable lives under capitalism, given it's increasing efficiency, there's no reason to abolish private property, nor is there any reason to try to create a stateless, moneyless and classless society which only can exist in the dreams of materialists, and will almost certainly end up in a worse system than capitalism itself.

Maybe you should calm down that hysteria a bit, and think a bit more before posting retarded shit.

Uh, you could always look backwards in history at how societies used to be structured. People lived more or less in tribes and often any sort of family distinction was not there, at most you had clans.

I get you're having an allergic reaction because capitalism infects and changes lots of things about how society is structured (many of these unhealthy) from how humans lived for thousands of years. But try to not be such a typical, hysterical right-wing loser and read things slowly.

b8 so gr8 i r8 8/8

Not that guy you were replying to but I'll say this anyway.

We can also look back at history and see that society of any sophistication had the concept of marriage and parenthood. It's fine to live without a family structure if you are willing to accept the consequences of it. Also, I'm definitely not going to be following you down that path of societal structure, as I value family, and children as an end in and of themselves, and not merely as a tool to get something.

I think the most objectionable thing about Marxism is the ecumenical nature of it. I'm not sure you people would ever leave some one like me alone as I am a walking antithesis to your system.

>"hurr durr lets get rid of the family."

Literally what happened in several countries. The Khmer Rouge for example not only sepparated families and by so destroying them but if one family memeber was found guilty of counter revolutionary activity the whole family was killed.

"To kill the grass you must also remove the root"

>1/10 for logical positivism

>If most people, most of the time
yea i guess those lower class people born in the country with the highest GDP in the world who no longer have access to healthcare due to incredibly profit-driven nature of society will just have to bite the bullet, eh?

>increasing efficiency
[citation needed]
global development is due to technology, not the wonderful social and economic effects of global capitalism.

>Because not everyone can become as rich as Bill Gates
no, it's a bad system minimum wage cannot even sustain a life due to wage slavery while the extreme (and increasing) inequalities only grow larger everyday and the social effects of capitalism devastate our culture and especially my country
>destroy society
i prefer 'change society', thank you. it's still a society, isn't it?

It has nothing to do with "becoming as rich as Bill Gates". A significant chunk of the people are unable to afford basic food and shelter. They cannot "live good and comfortable lives", and the fact they cannot is linked directly to the practices of those with economic power.

>A significant chunk of the people are unable to afford basic food and shelter.

Which is a number that is decreasing every day.

>No one becomes a marxist.
The entire higher education system is dedicated to proving otherwise.

Worldwide, not in Glorious Capitalist US of A.
Your country is going down the shitter, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

I don't want power, I want power to be redistributed to the people, along with the means of production.

fuck off /pol/,the revolution is coming whether you want to or not, don't you want to be on the right side when it does?

He doesn't mean get rid of the family. He had a wife who he was madly in love with and a load of daughters.

He meant getting rid of the family as a property relation, where the family is defined through its relation to capital. The husband as the labourer, the wife as the possession of the husband whose job it is to raise future labourers and wives to propagate the system endlessly

Also, to the ahistoricalfags who think that our modern version of the family is natural, it ain't. For the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of human history, children were raised by a whole group of people. predominantly by their parents yes, but in a house you'd usually have 3 or 4 generations. Uncles, aunts, grandparents and older siblings would all help raise you. Going further back still you would've been raised by your tibe.

Fags who don't think think that the nuclear family is natural but it ain't

yeah i bet the good old boys down south are just gonna lay their arms down when the guys from chapo trap house tell them their family farms have been selected for collectivization

So your logic is Khmer Rouge is bad therefore Marxism is bad?

The Conquistadores quoted the Bible while they raped and pillaged. ISIS quotes a book where non combatants are specifically off limits.

Dude, if you're whacko enough, you could find justification in Where's Wally to enact some purge

If they had any sense they would

I never really understood the basis for this thought. One of my majors was philosophy at a large state school (50,000 +), we read marx, and at no point did I feel that the course was biased for or against him. The professor specialized in marx, and even he didn't consider himself a marxist.

I'll grant you that the self described marxists who dont have a firm grasp of the text are degenerate - and that the non phi majors who just took it for marx were particularly bad and more interested in defending him than examining his work.

Where does this sentiment that college generates marxists come from? Does it come from other majors that don't read his texts? Or from people who don't go to college?

Marx was a Jew.

I put more effort into this (you) than you did for your entire shitpost

I wouldn't say autistic. They're just weak, gullible people left behind by capitalism.

>So your logic is Khmer Rouge is bad therefore Marxism is bad?

No. Dont put words in my mouth you dishonest cunt. The only thing i said was that communists actually take these passages of the communist manifesto literally. There's no grandiose interpretation. It's just "let's destroy the family unit so burgeois values wont be instilled in the next generation".

Look, the problem at hand is, that the utopia marx created isn't reliable. There is no way for it to exist, because human motivation also isn't something which can be bound.
That's the flaw i see within it. You can make it as equal as you want, it will never come close to the growth of capitalism, also the general public has more to eat and more money that they used to have.
I have no idea how people can even compare what we have today, to how society was structured 200 years ago.
I mean in marxes time you'd be happy if half your kids would grow up and not die. You aren't seeing that the world he saw is one that was directed at his time and age. We have progressed and if he were to live today i am sure that he would have a different position (not saying he would love the way it is) on how to build up his utopia.

And who defeated the Khmer Rouge? Other communists: the Viet Cong.

Marx was the single best spook buster in the history of philosophy and you're a fucking retard. You probably didn't read him too.

>the modern family has nothing to do with capital
Bwahaha

Commodification of every aspect of life erodes every traditional identity and leads it to irrelevance, Marx saw this better than anyone. His thought is basically the logical conclusion of modernity, you can either attempt to forestall the destruction with bourgeois identity politics or you can take him seriously. What meaning, for instance, does national identity have when the global market cares nothing for borders? It's pure illusion that obscures the material basis of inequality and conflict.

>Marx was the single best spook buster
>believes in objective value

>he's basically saying "romance is 90% finance" ergo families aren't built on a good foundation in a capitalist society.

yes, marx strive for the revolution of love. come on, user. be more serious.

and about 10 fedoras for atheism

Noob here.
If I hate communists does it mean I hate marxists too?

...

Stop baiting.
If you weren't able to tell, you wouldn't have any reasons to hate either.

Anarchcommunes a la Solentiname

They really won't. There's an article in Scientific American about a study of kids who were taken from their families and grew up in Soviet orphanages; the results were not in the least bit positive. I've got it lying around somewhere but maybe an user has read this article and will post it.