<Marx, mid-19th century:

...

vug.

Both.

Marx was right of course. This is why you should never read "marxists", only Marx.

You sound like a religious fanatic.

Cockshott

It's a testament to his work how prescient they turned out to be.

Marx was a genius, not a prophet.

I think Marx was right at the time he was alive. Emphasizing that we shouldn't be constructing a finished utopia in our heads that we try to impose on reality. But today we're at a point where we've had several communist revolutions and, regardless of your tendency, they have failed sooner or later. So the question of what happens the day after the revolution needs to be considered imo. So Zizek is ultimately right in this case but on the other hand it wouldn't be correct to say Marx was wrong.

...

I didn't say he was.

This is a thread for idiots, there are two quotes from two people taken out context and a yes or no question.
You may as well ask the board if you would rather eat a beehive of juggle lava.

I would eat juggle lava, but without the beehive.

Have you even read any of them?

I'm reading it right now faggot back off!?

:O

These aren't contradictory. You'll notice in that in the Manifesto, there's a "day after" plan.

Having a plan for what to do immediately after the revolution isn't the same thing as utopianism. Utopianism was usually this big storytime circlejerk of descriptions of already completely transformed societies with little thought towards a practical plan to get there. The problem with this is then attempting to make society fit this idea, rather than trying to move society towards a better state of things based on the material and social conditions in the here and now.

I don't think Marx would have had any problem with people trying to formulate "day after" programs. His problem was with people wanking about perfect societies that had little to do with really existing material conditions.

I might agree with your position, but your reasoning for why Marx was right is weak

This is retarded, you can't completely upend society and have no idea what to put in its place, to do so would be irresponsible and dangerous.

Zizek is right, we have to have some idea of what we want the future society to look like in concrete terms, not just throw around some vague principles and throw our hands up in the air.

...

We tried "making it up as we go"

Everything only happened in third world shitholes
All of them turned to shit eventually due to structural problem that we can avoid since we know about it

I dont see a reason to treat Marx as the second coming of Jesus, he was a smart guy and right about almost everything but I still think create a concrete plan that covers all the gotchas is important, due to the aggressive nature of capitalist states.

It was one thing in marx days when wars were still horseback and muskets, a whole other thing when its nuke, proxy wars, machine guns, killerdrones, poison gas, phosphorous bombs, agent orange and cyber warfare.

I agree with the gist ("making up as we go", as vulgar as you put it, is not preferred), but really; parotting le "only in third world shitholes" maymay? The fuck was the Communard uprising? The fuck was the German revolution? The fuck were basically all other worker insurrections against capital in "rich" western Europe in the 19th century, while the much less "rich" Russian proletariat merely reared its head with actual relevance in the mid-early 20th century? Even after the October revolution communist movements never stopped popping up in the west either.

t. assblased Holla Forums brainlet

this its dialectics

...