Not this one
This one;
Something I find interesting in the world is, Karl Marx isn’t necessarily retarded, but I find that his work, especially the communist manifesto, to be a work of retardedness laced with so much emotional appeal that every libtard that creates a romanticist novel of revolution sound like one of Karl Marx’s Side chicks. Point being, I believe Karl Marx ironically wrote a shit story and due to poe’s law, was taken seriously (regardless of actual objective history, I’m spitting facts from an echo chamber. Strays not blanks).
In my eyes, he’s a political Satirist, and as chairmen of the Anti-Political Political Party, I too am a Political Satirist, so it’s only natural that real recognizes real.
To be honest and fair, he lived his life as a bohemian and a couch surfer, so he was probably the first lazy hippy that gained traction prior to the invention of LSD and the recaptured culturization of Magic Mushrooms.
He also was a couch surfer and didn’t have a concept of time like a working class individual, and he got money from not working and some other shit. A Tad Ironic given the context that he’s fighting for is the proletariat when he himself was less of one.
Honestly, him and I are practically comrades with a dreamed lifestyle. I would not mind being a shitposter a kin to being in his shoes. I just don’t have a grand cause or anything of that sort or the funding to support my couch days.
Karl Marx: Proving that the first step to revolution is mastering the art of ‘productive’ procrastination since 1848.
To be fair, if he thought the system was oppressive and shit and Capitalism-Bad, then it’s actually principled to not partake in it. But that’s just a lazy cop out to allow him to be a lazy fuck while hardworking men let him do the talking with words.
Marx’s manifesto: A blueprint for revolution, written by a man who never had to punch a clock, just a typewriter.
It’s funny because in his book, the Communist Manifesto, he calls for a violent revolution “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”. It’s a very romantic book with emotional appeal, it’s like Twilight for Political activists who want to get laid. You know, the Pre-Noam Chomsky-X-Michael Foucault of the time. All the Social Justice Warriors in their indignant blinded self righteous light bathed in the romance of such an appeal, and got laid in the process. It’s a love story as old as time, pick up a guitar and a political activist book, get laid by some feminist, and move on.
It’s only in recent years that gender and sex questionably is now the Social Justice Frontier in which the sex is not worth it, and more regrettable than the morning walk of shame to the uber ride afterwards.
And I’ve read some newer shit
-from newer retards, that try to capture the same style of writing that Karl did, and they’d talk about either Race, or Colonization, or some other myriad of the world’s issues. Most of these cunts were forgettable, so I don’t remember the actual names nor care to.
Point being, Karl Marx was like an Elvis to the political dogma of the shit world. And everyone is just a shitty Elvis Impersonator, trying to get high on his shit, with some succeeding like a Bruno Marx.
It sounds awfully whiny, and that’s the trap a lot of new age retards fall into. They believe that they’re the idealist and righteous hero and that they suffer or lament in the cause of the working class.
My nigga, do you know how many rich libtard yacht enjoyers there are? They have no fucking clue what the working class is, only sympathy for the struggle from a distance, and activism to the degree that they don’t lose access to trust fund wealth or something else retarded. The only activism is their mail in ballots voting on behalf of a party that promises about the activism, but I mean, what politician never lies?
One of the funniest things
About the text in the communist manifesto, Is that there is a tribalism dynamic between two factions. The Proletariat, and the Bourgeois. If you were to swap those two words, you’d see that the majority of text changes from ‘eat the rich’ rhetoric to ‘starve the poor’.
For example;
Original:
- “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
- “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
- “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.”
- “The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.”
Swapped:
- “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
- “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
- “The modern proletariat society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.”
- “The bourgeoisie, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.”
Another example;
Original:
- The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
- The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
- The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
- We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
- Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
Swapped:
- The proletariat has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of proletariat, the East on the West.
- The proletariat keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
- The proletariat, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
- We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the proletariat built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
- Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the proletariat class.
Point being, this is basically romanticized tribalism of Us vs. Them. The intent of the author is obviously shifted when you swap the two main words and classes of the debates. And of course, some things don’t really make sense, but that’s predicated on your perceived world view, and not the actual objective nature of reality.
There’s poor people that wish for the death of rich people, just as there are rich people that wish for the death of poor people. They both have different capabilities, but it’s tribalism and it’s wealthist or wealthism. Judgement based on value or wealth or class in society.
Classism is tribalism.
And if you just swap the words in the text, it can wriggle enough of the spell to break the romantic delusions of grandeur and disenchant you from eating it up like the dribble that it is.
Of course it is absurdly positioning the bourgeoisie in this reverse-role, of course it contradicts Marx’s original argument. This swap is a comedic effect by showing how the narrative can be twisted to fit any group as the protagonists of history. It’s a simple justification to show to people that:
Communist Manifesto is just Twilight for Political Activists
It’s romantic soft core porn for the pseudo intellectual. Like the politics of a V-tuber turned wannabe pornstar dreaming of having more than five OF subscribers.
It’s not bad, soft core porn by itself isn’t bad. It’s just not necessarily accurate or a true reflection of reality. Just like Twilight, you know, vampires and werewolves wanting to date one chick in a High School and -reasons-.
Politics can become a trap that enraptures people to angry ‘hate’ towards any group or identity. To be fair, Identity politics isn’t just a racial or gender divide, it’s not just socio economic classes, it’s also political classes and affiliation. The True identity and intersectionality politics boils down -always- to Tribalism. One Camp vs. another. One Tribe against another Tribe. One Political idealogue thought versus it’s counter or adjacent claim.
As the Chairman and Founder and Emporer God King Non-Elect of the Anti-Political Political Party, I beseech thee to reconsider the idea of politics and to not be enthralled by midwit soft core Political Romance Porn. It’s a Trap brothers and sisters, resist the mind virus of a half baked and under cook raw political Idealogue. No matter the amount of sex you dream of receiving after pretending to have read a few books. It’s not worth it, especially in this day and age.
In Closing
I’m not saying Communism is bad. I’m not saying Capitalism is good.
I’m not saying that Hong Kong is a Hyper Capitalistic city-state in the Hyper Communistic Organism of China. And I’m not saying that the Neo-Marxists in America allied with the Socialists in college campuses to also push post modernism and deconstructivism under the guile of progressivism to remove modernist institutions while simultaneously denying that Socialism didn’t at all exist or was broadly successful in National Socialist Germany, with the exclusion of the Genocides and losing the war thing.
Hell, the above, I’m not even applying or implying them to be true. In fact, I agree with some things I just said and also disagree at the same time.
I’m merely asking provocative questions, shit posting, and pointing out some delusions and fallacies to what would be equivalent to a highschool dream girl swooning over their favorite political activist.
These are My Critiques on Karl.
Also, the person who renamed themselves after Charlemagne the Great, you suck. You’re not even close to what Charlemagne the Great is. In fact, Charlemagne the Great is so great, I can’t even type his name without adding ‘great’ to the end of it. Charlemagne the Great. See. Charlemagne the Great. Told you so.
You know who you are
* Not Valid Financial, Legal, Life, or Any Advice