Hi Holla Forums I am a friendly Holla Forums user who would like to see your take on some images...

Marxism isn't taught in schools. At most, he's usually brought up in sociology classes where he can't be avoided, Marx being one of the foundational thinkers in the field, though in my admittedly limited experience, they usually portray Marxist materialist sociology as stuffy and outdated and it's much better to jerk off about culture and obfuscate everything into near meaninglessness.

Fascist ideology is seen as obscene in liberal circles, not as a threat. It's viewed in the same light as particularly depraved pornography.

Before any faggots jump in with the good old fashioned, not real socialism, remember people didn't really start starving until they nationalized the bakeries.

I took a Theory & Criticism course and the liberal professor tried to play the "Marx denounced marxism" meme. It's absurd how rightists think schools are teaching Marx, when college professors don't even understand Marx.

I cracked open the book I mentioned here Nietzsche was in it and also Mussolini. I did not see Heidegger.

You were shown Marx to broaden your perspective. You were not taught him and no professor told you to kill the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production. That's why it's called a degree and not a certificate.

Neck yourself.

Marx is taught in schools because we live in a democratic capitalist society and not a fascist hellhole.

you don't fucking say..

It's not outside of philosophy and Mein Kampf is ignored because it's terribly written.

Venezuela is a socdem state suffering from the dutch disease, Chavez should have used oil money to build industry so they'd have something when oil proces dropped.

Who gives a shit.

This isn't cuckchan and you can post more than 1 image per post.

B U L L S H I T and I'm not even a Leninist!

Thank you for this information. I will look into this later.

because they stay in their armchairs

Mein Kampf is not taught because it's autistic rambling about the Betrayal of Germany by the kikes and Hitler's plans for rebuilding German power. It doesn't teach anything new it's not a new perspective on economics or politics. Anti-semetism is not studied in universities for understandable reasons because de-humanizing a group of people by calling them rats and kikes is something the world moved on from after destroying Germany doesn't mean you can't read anti-emetic literature and other shit freely whenever you like just not in a university setting, Plenty of people find Marx and Lenin offensive but it's still taught because it talked about an alternative, Hitler's alternative is blaming everything on the jews fapping over the German people who dindu nuffin ever followed by conquering neighbouring countries

That makes sense. Thanks for your post.

Maybe they teach Das Capital and not Mein Kampf because one is full of complex economic observations and theories while the other is full of incoherent rambling about being rejected from art school and a fictional past of ubermensch kingdoms.

...

Conspiratorial gibberish is not something I would call "great," friendo. Anyone who knows anything will always say Hitler did some good things for Germany anyway (economically-wise, sure, in some aspects he did), so I don't know what you're talking about.

Jesus fucking Christ Holla Forums go to bed.

Marx said very little about socialism, his work was devoted primarily to developing his materialist philosophy and critique of capitalist political economy.

In fact, he intentionally avoided saying too much about socialism as he regarded doing so as a form of Utopianism.

...

Thanks.

The one part which I found to be wrong is the membership of the Sovnarkom stated - Budionnyy was not Russian, he was a Cossack.

Seeing the development of neoliberalism mirroring the explosion of capitalism and the sudden collapse of it in 1914, I've at times questioned both my own ideas and Marx's, wondering if Proudhon was right all along (seeing as his ideas were meant to grow in strength with capitalism's own development, not challenge its increasing power directly). Perhaps mutualism will be capitalism under a different name, but perhaps it's a system highly liable to develop into anarchist communism.

Ironically, perhaps the "utopian" cooperative-building of Proudhon plus his early scientific analysis of capitalism (acknowledged as such by Marx) was the right move and Marx's ideas on how to achieve socialism out of capitalism's contradictions collapsing were the real utopianism, misinformed by a system of dialectics developed to analyze the transformations of ideas and not the real world.

Oh yeah, and Lenin was half-Jewish, half-Kalmyk. That means 1.5 people were Jewish, out of 15 people.

yeah right Lenin's father was inducted into the nobility the Russian empire had a strict no jew policy

...

Any college that avoids Marx is seriously holding its students back. On a non-polemical level, his theories single handedly created a new method of anthropological and sociological study, a new philosophical discourse, and, of course, an alternative form of economic analysis.

It's interesting talking to Americans about Marx as opposed to anyone from France for example. America seems to be the only country where there's still a taboo around discussing/teaching Marx, while literally the rest of the world has no problem acknowledging him as a landmark in western theory, their personal political views aside. Really piques my pistachios

I had to read Mein Kampf in school but not a single page of Marx. You have to be delusional to think the burgers aren't terrified of Marx to the point of misrepresentation/propaganda in schools if not outright avoidance

This image literally boils down to different people having different opinions. There is no overlap. Thinking that this is a blow to the left is like thinking the fact that ancaps and neocons disagree on stuff is a blow to the right.

I might be wrong about this but didn't Smith and Ricardo invent labour theory of value? And aren't these two lauded as the God's of capitalism?

Let me ask you a question and I want you to really think before you respond. Do you think the greater representation of blacks in the American Democratic party is a black conspiracy? Do you think maybe there are factors for why a group would have greater representation and even success in one political group over another?