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.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23635227/11814221

    • ∞🏳️‍⚧️Edie [it/its]@lemmygrad.mlOP
      21·
      4 months ago

      I’ve studied the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital in college, which is pretty standard. I’ve also read a few of his shorter works like the Critique of the Gotha Programme and On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I’ve ever read despite him having Jewish heritage).

      SleezyDizasta ^

          • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
            24·
            4 months ago

            The issue here is that the “non authoritarian non state” is communism, and communism for all intents and purposes is just a utopia. It was Marx and Engels vision of a perfect society. It’s nothing more than a fantasy. Utopias don’t exist and never will. When these types of violent revolutions happen and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, it’s going to remain there indefinitely because communism is an unachievable goal. The theory itself is flawed.

            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.

            • trashxeos@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
              12·
              4 months ago

              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.

      • Anna ☭🏳️‍⚧️@lemmygrad.ml
        17·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
        15·
        4 months ago

        On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I’ve ever read despite him having Jewish heritage).

        They legit dont understand Marx was satirizing anti-semitism.

    • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
      15·
      4 months ago

      Marxism is when no iPhone. Materialism is when iPhone. Therefore, Marxism opposes materialism

      I bet their thought process went something like that 🤯