Why is leftypol so hypocritical? pic rel

Engels means those who have to sell themselves to an employer because they are divorced from the means of production. It does not matter if they are doing this "willingly". In fact, Marx constantly makes facetious (but true) remarks about how the agreement between the Capitalist and the worker is completely voluntary in Capital.

Principles of Communism and the Manifesto are historical artifacts of Marxism, nothing more. Marx's developed theories on economics (though there is an essence of these in "The Poverty of Philosophy") were not worked out until the early 1860's, about 15 years after the works you are reading were written.

Two things to consider. The first being the welfare state requires taxes. It also doesn't mean massive porkies won't fund neoliberalism/ that the contradiction of capitalism won;t just disappear.

There's more to Marx than the manifesto. Also check out anarchism if your worried about the state.

also, the answer to your meme is that it's voluntary, unlike taxes – it's like consensual sex and rape

if you are a radical feminist, perhaps, you believe there's no consensual sex

if you are a radical moron, you believe there are no consensual contracts

I'll give you one (1) chance to recommend me something that's under 100 pages

...

And where did I admit that you disingenuous turd basket?

You're either retarded or dishonest.
Go.

Even grade school children are expected to read more than 100 pages, and that's for things far more simple than economic theory.

...

leftypol told me to read these things
i read them and they were garbage, and now leftypol admits they are garbage and tells me to read something else

I read that. I like Stirner but I wouldn't let him organize a society.

Also taxes are totally voluntary
Haven't you heard of the social contract?
Ecks dee xxxdxdd

They unironically told you to read the manifesto?

kill yourself

This is an abridged version of Capital Volume 1 that is about 45 pages long.

Keep in mind - this is a 550 page book condensed down to 45 pages, so if parts seem underdeveloped that is why.

This explains a lot of basic concepts, like Marx's labor and commodity axioms.

Yes.
Also, luxuries, which are a need.

just go and live a primitive life or something
or join a cooperative (cooperatives are allowed in such societies)

...

You're explaining this poorly.

Yes - the agreement to work between the two parties is completely voluntary. It's the historical circumstances that led up to this "voluntary" agreement that leftist critique.

I don't know what kind of society you have in mind

I have in mind one where there are multiple factories, some even owned cooperatively

The manifesto is literally a propaganda pamphlet.
See:

The only answer you got was 'read le manifeso bro'?

I would go after them contradictions if I were you.

I'm imagining one where not working means you're denied basic necessities. Y'know, capitalism.

Before I read it: I don't want a critique of capitalism. I know the flaws of capitalism.

I want the actual solutions. I want to see what you are actually proposing society should be like.

Pretty sure in an anarchic society you would need to work too. Only welfare state lets you be a NEET.

Before I go on: what are those flaws?

Poverty, inequality, oppression, waste of resources

Until we fully automate everything, sure, but only because we need to produce those things, not because they and the tools to make them are held hostage.

None of these have much to do with the core of Marx's critique. Sure, they can all be linked back to contradictions he points out but he was trying to move away from the humanist tone you find in the Manifesto with later works.

I am a results-type. Rhetoric only takes you so far.

It's feeling pretty utopian in here friend.

You can make a 1000 pages criticizing anything you want, but it's meaningless if you don't provide a better alternative.

Kill pigs. Nothing wrong.

Well, Marx and Engels did work on socialist theory.

If you really want to read the bits they did write on that before getting an understanding of why they choose X or Y instead of Z in the first place, there is "The Critique of the Gotha Program" and "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific".

Also, don't reduce Marx's critique of Capitalism down to the polemics of a high school student writing about Gamergate. The idea you can build any successful society without an understanding of the processes involved in the current one is a topic he spends a lot of time critiquing because it's utopian.

oh look someone's not impressed because they're reading an a-philosophical book without historical context

man you sure blew us out

Depends on your definition of "successful society". I would argue it already happened.

I'm sure you would. Which is why you should read Marx ;). But not his meme material.

So if I read "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and I find some flaw with his ideas – will people also tell me that this is meme material?

Because it's like socialism is immune from criticism because it's never been tried and any material you find is not the real material.

Well, there's always going to be non-marxist communists who may or may not call some of his ideas dumb. It's not so much immune to criticism as anarchism is immune to criticism of marxism, and marxism is immune to criticism of anarchism, and everything is immune to criticism of the manifesto.

That isn't what's happening here. Re-read the thread.

The manifesto is meme material. You have been directed to other material, but you prefer your self-congratulatory 'too intelligent for Marx' stance.

No, what they will tell you is that Marx's focus was never on developing "socialism". It was critiquing Capitalism (which is an unbelievably complex socioeconomic system) so that the movement that actually changes society knows exactly what needs to be changed, what labour needs to be disposed of etc.

No. You are 1: Refusing to give the bulk of Marx's work a chance because you have somehow already identified the issues of Capitalism with the structural issues that existed prior to Capitalism without understanding why they persist under Capitalism (which wasn't even Marx's focus, his focus was on the boom and the bust) and b. therefore think you will learn nothing from his immense body of work instead purposely choosing to stick to his underdeveloped works. knowing well that after you pick out X or Y point and bring it back to us listing a million variables that could counteract it, our attempts to redirect your attention to the bulk of Marx's literature can be denied by relying on your blatant self-aggrandizement since you've "already got it figured out man, this is the best we've got!".

best insult this year so far