Opinion of marxists.org

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Freedom site for being an archive to the writings of just about any prominent Marxist thinker, and, again, Snowstalker is a terrible representative for anything regardless of what you think about the ideology itself.

But any "prominent Marxist thinker" promotes utter trash. Why should they be taken more seriously than Snowstalker. It's a horrible horrible ideology that has accomplished nothing good ever.

The whole of social democracy is descended from Marxist thought.


Are you confusing Marxists.org with some crappy left rag like counterpunch?

The issue is that he's familiar with marxists.org from the parts of it that Sagestalker liked.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To give just one example, marxists.org has this document on early Soviet contraception and abortion policy (from Protection of Women and Children in Soviet Russia by Alice Withrow Field), which I've seen cited academically in both pro-choice and pro-life contexts and have myself used as research for a work of fiction.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Here's the thing: OK maybe Snowstalker wasn't the best advocate for Marxism. So was TNF a better and more representative one?

Well if so then Marxism is totally worthless because TNF made my blood chill. That is one scary, dangerous lunatic guy. At least Snowstalker can be written off as just a dumb teenager wanting to be an edgelord.

So yeah, I can't see any value in Marxism.

You're really not seeing the point. The thread you made is 'Opinion of marxists.org', not 'Opinion of Marxism'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'At present Marxism neither interprets the world nor changes it: it is merely a repertoire of slogans serving to organize various interests, most of them completely remote from those with which Marxism originally identified itself.'

Should I read Main Currents of Marxism? The fact that it starts with a Neoplatonism->Hegel genealogy really intrigues me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm curious how the people voting Horrible Site think people--budding historians and comparative political scientists especially--should learn about Marxist thought. Should they have to extrapolate or guesstimate what it is/was like solely from the writings of its critics, like how we're only conversant with Arian doctrine through proto-Orthodox attacks on it? Is there some sort of weird snobbery or fear specifically about having it all available for free in one place going on here? I don't understand how anyone other than BRTD and fascist creeps like Pingvin who don't believe in free speech anyway is voting HS.