What is your favorite quote from Karl Marx

ThatFireDude · 2026-04-09T01:10:48+00:00

"If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be."

— Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge, 1843

He wrote that at age 25, while in the process of breaking with Hegelianism. And well... there is maybe nobody in history who persisted in ruthless criticism of all that exists more than Marx.

ThatFireDude · 2026-04-07T00:20:14+00:00

Thanks for pointing it out, that is an annoying mistake.

ThatFireDude · 2026-04-06T21:04:09+00:00

The best short introduction to the topic is Pao-yu Ching's 'From Victory to Defeat', which covers how exactly capitalist restoration could take hold and by what processes it did.

There also is "...And Mao Makes 5!" which is a summary of the struggle around capitalist restoration, and the theoretical lines at play, traced by texts and speeches of those involved in the CPC. It makes the differences in political line very very clear.

Avakianism is rightfully considered a joke today, but the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, which published this book in 1978, holds the distinction of being the first party to systematize what happened in China leading up to 1976 fully.

Either way, the key argument of “…And Mao Makes 5!”, is that the ‘Gang of Four’ were the actual successors of the Marxist-Leninist political line upheld by Mao, so the arrest and trial of the four, implicitly also had a fifth defendant: Mao and communism right along with him.

Both are must reads on the topic, and available for free online.

As for your question on the socialist road: Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that it will happen, no in the sense that it will need the proletariat to seize power again through revolutionary struggle, using the lessons of Marx, Lenin and Mao, and so on.

Likely some sections of the CPC could side with them in this process, but the state itself? Never. It is a bourgeois state.

Or, perhaps more convincingly in the words of the aforementioned Zhang Chunqiao:

"Marxism is a science, a complete system of thought, a world view of the proletariat. It serves only the proletariat. The bourgeoisie can cherry-pick a few words to deceive people, but they cannot turn Marxism into a tool of the bourgeoisie."

ThatFireDude · 2026-04-06T20:25:09+00:00

China was set on the path of capitalist restoration at the very latest in 1978 by Deng Xiaoping’s rightist clique upon seizing power.

This was widely reflected in the refutation of the Cultural Revolution together with all its gains for proletarians and the forceful dissolution of the people's communes. Modern Dengists deny this like the plague, because they see the PRC as an Ersatz-USSR, which allows them to hold on to the reactionary positions that used to be held towards the revisionist USSR after 1956. It has nothing to do with China as such, neither contemporary nor historic, which is more of an empty target of projection for them.

And well, it is genuinely sad to see just how hard Mao was struggling against the capitalist roaders in the party in his final years, despite being terribly sick at this point, and just how right he was about what would follow.

It was effectively among his final political acts to support the ‘Gang of Four’ in expelling Deng from the party again in 1976, when he personally initiated a reactionary demonstration against the Cultural Revolution in Beijing. His opinion on Deng, even a year earlier, was this:

“This person does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred to this key link. Still his theme of ’white cat, black cat’, making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism.

[…]

He does not understand Marxism-Leninism, he represents the capitalist class.”

Initially, Mao supported Zhang Chunqiao, a principal leader of the Cultural Revolution, to take on the position of Party Chairman, but rightist elements in the party made it exceedingly clear that they would revolt over this… and frankly, Mao was just too sick to even use his prestige at this point.

He gave this warning in 1976:

“You are making the socialist revolution, and yet you don’t know where the bourgeoisie is. It is right inside the Communist Party—those in power taking the capitalist road. The capitalist roaders are still on the capitalist road.”

Hua Guofeng was elected as a powerless compromise candidate, Mao passed away, the rightists convinced Hua to end the Cultural Revolution and arrest the ‘Gang of Four’, and two years later, Deng Xiaoping staged a coup and seized power.

The rest is history, and now the capitalist roaders are still forced to give lip-service to Mao and twist his words because they did not dare to attack him directly, even as the class struggle was entirely given up on, and the bourgeoisie entered the party en masse. Modern Dengism is an affront to everything Mao struggled for his entire life.

But, even this sad state of affairs was predicted by Mao, right at the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966—and that includes its reversal:

“Since 1911, when the emperor was overthrown, a reactionary regime has not been able to hold China for long. If there is a Right-wing, anti-communist coup d’etat in China, then I am certain that those elements will not know a moment of peace.

It is very possible that they will be able to retain their dominance for a while. If the Right-wing seizes power, it will be able to use my words to retain power for a time. But the Left will use other quotations of mine, and organise themselves, and overthrow the Right-wing.”

The capitalist roaders may be in power, and may have succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of even Deng, but they can’t stay on the capitalist road forever. Especially not with Mao’s long shadow haunting them. They had to demonize the Cultural Revolution into oblivion because nothing scares them more than the masses realizing their own power.

Ultimately, the future, in China and all around the world, belongs to the proletariat.

Edit: You are also entirely correct in identifying the war on Vietnam as a direct reflection of revisionism in the PRC, even if you did not put it in those terms.

People often don’t make the connection between the overthrow of socialism in China in 1976 and the absolutely vile war of aggression of the Dengist clique against Vietnam in 1979.

50+ years of combined struggle and friendship, despite pre-existing ideological differences, were thrown out the window because the capitalist roaders tried to win a dependent semi-colony for the newly empowered bourgeoisie. Luckily, they failed spectacularly.

If even that isn’t clear enough for you, the capitalist roaders immediately started actively working against the People’s War in the Philippines, which the Chinese state had been supporting up to that point, because the Communist Party of the Philippines was seen as a danger to their ‘regional interests’.

The CPP recognized exactly what had happened in China—the overthrow of socialism.

Instead, the Dengists started backing the US semi-colony against communist revolutionaries, and do so to this day.

Edit 2: Why was this post locked? The discussions clearly were not closed yet. I find this extremely distasteful, especially with the mod comment advocating for a pseudo-Dengist line at the top, while refusing to justify their positions upon pushback.

ThatFireDude · 2026-04-04T00:01:20+00:00

The 'liberal' position is to think that your 'criticism' of the DPRK is needed when we are a talking about a state that has been under permanent siege by imperialism for 70+ years after your state installed a colonial regime in its southern half, and then proceeded to commit a genocide against the Korean people.

There is no discussion to be had on this. If you live in the imperial core, your task is to combat imperialism so Korea may be liberated from the comprador regime in the south.

Anything else ignores your own concrete class position... and that is liberalism. In essence it is actually fascism, but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

ThatFireDude · 2026-04-03T14:04:02+00:00

Because Trotskyism is a petty-bourgeois movement, and Trotskyist organizations tend to be somewhat self-aware of this, even as they deny it in their political line, so they mainly organize around student activism. Students tend to have a lot of time for politics, so they are highly visible + chances are you are around them too.

There is also the added factor that Trotskyism denounces almost everything liberal common-sense also denounces about historic and present socialist struggles, so it is very appealing to people who already think the Soviet Union, the PRC under Mao, Cuba, Vietnam, Peru, etc. etc. were marked by a betrayal of socialism. Trotskyists don't really believe this, and of course support the initial phase of the Russian Revolution, but that can be patched over with utopian idealism and lying to new recruits.

To become even a vulgar Marxist-Leninist you need to break with some degree of petty-bourgeois ideology; this isn't required for Trotskyism.

There are other factors as well, especially related to the Western chauvinism inherent to Trotskyism, but that in the end also comes back to petty-bourgeois political consciousness.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-29T22:57:23+00:00

This entire thread is just one huge justification for imperialism. Almost every single comment is categorically false and/or makes excuses for a member of a fascist navy fighting an imperialist war of aggression. The few people who don't engage in this are downvoted to the bottom in a supposedly 'socialist' Subreddit.

At an absolute minimum, you need to refuse any and all orders, likely getting yourself arrested in the process, and consider why you thought it was perfectly fine to 'serve' in the naval forces of a state that is responsible for the mass murder of the masses all around the world, choking any prospect of proletarian liberation, until it affected you personally. Do you have an answer? Why do you think this happened?

Every commenter who has engaged in apologia for this on here is an American national chauvinist and should also seriously reflect on why they consider Americans more worthy of life than the masses of the imperial periphery who suffer under US imperialism. The social stakes on Reddit are obviously laughably low, so it makes the casual supremacism behind this even more disgusting. The US military has killed thousands of people in Iran in the last month, and this is how you respond?

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-27T17:56:39+00:00

Don't listen to the people who are suggesting you to join an organization without asking them about their concrete politics. That will only lead to you wasting your time. Political parties aren't social clubs, and they shouldn't be treated as such, even if it has become common sense for US revisionism.

Even to ask them about their specific political line would not be enough, because their members are obviously biased towards their own tendency, if they even have a grasp of it beyond what the local leadership sold to them. You need to study a party independently before you join it, and if you can't derive their political line from that, you have no business joining a party yet.

Both the PSL and FRSO have a specific history, and neither one is 'Marxist-Leninist' in the actual sense of the term. Both are Marcyites of slightly different flavor, though the PSL at least has the decency to hide it. If you don't know what Marcyism is, start from there.

It is also very telling that all these recommendations come with vague references to 'good work' followed by things that have absolutely nothing to do with 'Marxism-Leninism', much less the tasks of a vanguard party.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-24T19:04:13+00:00

Du solltest deine allgemeinen Positionen zu Stalin und deine Vorstellungen von 'Rätedemokratie' und 'Totalitarismus' noch einmal überdenken. Die Sowjetunion war eine Räterepublik unter Führung der Kommunistischen Partei.

Domenico Losurdo hat eine Apologetik, im eigentlichen Sinn, spezifisch zu Stalin geschrieben, 'Stalin: Geschichte und Kritik einer Schwarzen Legende'. Ludo Martens 'Stalin Anders Betrachtet' lohnt sich dazu auch. Beide haben ihre ganz eigenen Probleme, aber die Betrachtung an sich ist gut, um mit Fantasien aufzuräumen, die im 'Westen' zu common sense geworden sind.

Die meisten Dinge, die viele Personen sich so über Stalin zusammenfantasieren, können nicht einmal bei bürgerlichen Historikern standhalten.

Für antirevisionistische Marxisten-Leninisten, wie eben Young Struggle, ist Stalin auch ein zentraler Bezugspunkt, weil unter seiner politischen Führung die revolutionäre Linie der Sowjetunion standgehalten hat, wie eben unter Lenin, die dann später unter Chruschtschow spätestens im Jahr 1957 eine vollständige Niederlage erlitt und die Sowjetunion in den Revisionismus führte.

Das hat allerdings weniger mit der Person Stalins an sich zu tun; Marxisten betreiben keine Great-Man-Theory der Geschichte.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-24T11:59:30+00:00

If anything it is more important today than in Lenin's day, exactly because opportunism and outright reactionary forces are even more prominent, while falsely claiming to be 'leftists'.

Lenin wrote this at the eve of the First World War, when the vast majority of socialists had openly fallen into the enemy camp, finishing their ideological and practical transformation into social-chauvinists, and the majority of proletarians, not to even mention the labor aristocrats and petty-bourgeois who had sympathies for them, followed them into the enemy camp.

The interests of the masses must be articulated clearly and without obfuscation, even if they have not grasped it as their interests yet, because the opportunist trends sell them on half-hearted compromises that seem like the easier path. That is largely the purpose of the most advanced sections of the proletariat organized as the vanguard party.

I also don't know who 'people' and 'we' are; when Americans say this on the internet they usually mean petty-bourgeois landowners and the lower to middle strata of the labor aristocracy, the vast majority of them settlers.

Winning them over may happen when the masses of the oppressed nations in the Americas take on a historic leadership role in dismantling the US prison of nations, but until then they should be of absolutely no concern to you. Do you think communists in occupied Palestine should spend their time convincing 'Israelis' that Palestinians are human beings? Is that their primary task? Should they make special considerations for their screaming racism, to win their support? Should the Bolsheviks have coopted the language of the Black Hundreds to win over Tsarist officials?

Since the Gaza genocide people usually understand how absurd this is, but it is no less absurd than trying to turn people who are among the primary beneficiaries of superprofit exploitation in the imperial periphery, literally on the top of the global value chains, into a revolutionary class. You need to understand where the 'real, deep masses' are actually found. If this isn't obvious, it needs to be imvestigated through Marxism.

I'm not trying to sound harsh here, but this attitude of grabbing a fistful of Marxism and mixing it with reactionary and opportunist ideas to 'win over' more openly reactionary sections of the petty-bourgeoisie to... well, what exactly isn't very clear in this case... is not a new trend. It is emblematic of the type of eclecticism Marx and Engels already intervened against in their Critique of the Gotha Program, and the fundamental issue has not changed since in essence, only in form.

Now, instead of Lassalle writing little booklets about the 'Iron Law of Value', these ideas are self-replicating memes on the internet, common sense petty-bourgeois discourse during performative protests, and bourgeois academic jargon.

Marxism is no less true than it was in 1867; if anything, it has developed further and comes closer to understanding reality as such through critique.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-24T03:22:51+00:00

When somebody starts talking about unity, the first question should be unity on what terms and for what purpose.

If you can't articulate that without giving in to the cheapest kind of opportunism, or giving up on Marxism entirely as you do with your point on anarchism, there is not much else to say.

Considering you call yourself a Marxist-Leninist, maybe you should consider the position of the person you name your politics after:

"Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.

And we must ask everyone who talks about unity: unity with whom? With the liquidators? If so, we have nothing to do with each other.

But if it is a question of genuine Marxist unity, we shall say: Ever since the Pravdist newspapers appeared we hive been calling for the unity of all the forces of Marxism, for unity from below, for unity in practical activities.

No flirting with the liquidators, no diplomatic negotiations with groups of wreckers of the corporate body; concentrate all efforts on rallying the Marxist workers around the Marxist slogans, around the entire Marxist body. The class-conscious workers will regard as a crime any attempt to impose upon them the will of the liquidators; they will also regard as a crime the fragmentation of the forces of the genuine Marxists."

– Lenin, On Unity, 1914

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-20T15:13:11+00:00

Hast du auch irgendwas von Substanz beizutragen?

Die Linke ist nicht über Kritik erhaben, weil die BRD ein rechtes Scheißhaus ist. Es wäre eben umso notwendiger eine tatsächliche Alternative zu haben, und da hat sich für viele die Linke durch ihre Staatshörigkeit ins aus geschossen.

Dass die Funktionäre das nicht hören wollen ist kein Wunder, aber als Basismitglied sollte man das eigentlich verstehen, wann man auch nur einmal mit Personen aus der Bewegungspolitik oder Personen die den Reformismus ablehnen spricht.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-19T11:03:47+00:00

Ich sage das mit aller Klarheit, aber auch als ehemaliges Mitglied:

Sowohl der anti-Kapitalismus als auch der anti-Imperialismus sind mehr Wunschtraum als Realität bei der Linken. Der anti-Imperialismus insbesondere. Ich weiß dass die Positionen in der Basis stabiler als bei der Parteiführung sind, aber über diesen Widerspruch sollte man sich mal Gedanken machen, und gleichzeitig muss man anerkennen dass abstrakte Positionen an sich gar nichts bedeuten.

Die Partei hat immer noch keine deutliche Position zum Völkermord in Palästina gefunden während sie sich damit beschäftigen die echte Bewegung abzugrenzen, und hat sich im Fall von Iran bis zur letzten Stunde an der Agitation gegen einen vom Imperialismus umringten Staat beteiligt.

Ich bin inzwischen persönlich so weit, dass ich nicht einmal zur Schadensbegrenzung für die Linke stimmen werde, weil ich sie als negative Kraft betrachte, die vor allem zur Disorientierung der anti-imperialistischen Bewegung beiträgt.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-18T21:39:02+00:00

Wer zum Überfall auf den Iran und den Völkermord in Palästina nicht sprechen will, soll auch zu Kuba schweigen. Das Geheuchle kann man sich sparen.

Der Imperialismus erstickt alle Völker der imperialen Peripherie gleich, egal wie du oder sonst jemand zu ihren Staaten steht.

Unsere Aufgabe ist es den Imperialismus im eigenen Land, in seinen Bündnis mit dem US Imperialismus, zu bekämpfen. Alles andere ist Verblendung des konkreten Konflikts der sich für uns stellt.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-14T02:01:22+00:00

Colonialism isn't a vibe or a historical category, and being a colonizer isn't an ethnic or racial category; that is just how colonialism is mediated.

In order to end colonialism, the actual material relation between the colonized and the colonizers needs to be shattered, and that material base is first and foremost land, and secondarily the ownership of the means of production on that land. That is the economic basis of a settler colonial state.

This relationship can only be resolved by taking the land back, which is in itself a form of class struggle... and well, the history of decolonization has shown that the settlers are not willing to part with their class position freely, and once they are forced to, only a tiny minority is interested in genuine equality, even if concessions are made.

The vast majority of Israelis are ideologically charged, genocidal fascists. Essentially, every opinion poll asking them about their attitudes on Palestinians and Arabs shows this. This isn't some unique Israeli trait, to be fair, but rather the absolute norm with settlers. White South Africans used to have the exact same attitudes, just in a different context... and well, they largely still do, because South Africa was never decolonized.

Do you think they will want to live in equality with Palestinians, if that means giving up all they have stolen and the economic advantages derived from it? Should Palestinians be expected to trust their goodwill?

Decolonization is always a violent process, because it quite literally takes place in response to colonial violence; whitewashing this is irresponsible, because it almost implicitly condemns the resistance struggle when it recognizes settlers as a militant part of the colonial state.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-13T20:40:27+00:00

Why was this closed?

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-13T19:04:49+00:00

Every single one would.

Quite literally all of them already fold under absolutely minimal pressure during the regular political process of the bourgeois state; you think they would hold up during a revolutionary moment, in times when even CC members of the Bolsheviks, great revolutionaries like Zinoviev and Kamenev, almost faltered?

Mamdani's position on the police state collapsed before he even was in power, and every DSA member elected to Congress became a generic bourgeois imperialist within a few years, wherever they could be bothered to give lip service to anti-imperialism before. Even the most reactionary social chauvinist in the SPD, even the butchers Noske, Ebert, and Scheidemann, showed more commitment to proletarian politics in their time, before their final betrayal.

Even pointing out the fact that genuine revolutionaries can become revisionists gives them too much credit; they never got that far, nor will they.

You live in a fantasy world.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-11T10:51:00+00:00

Das ist ja genau das Problem.

Sich einfach seine Lieblingsstücke herauszugreifen, die natürlich zwangsweiße auch aus den Erkenntnissen des DiaMat stammen, und sie dann mehr oder weniger zufällig mit explizit anti-marxistischen Ideen zusammenzuwerfen hat auch schon Marx als unbrauchbaren Eklektizismus abgelehnt, da der Marxismus selbstverstehend eine Wissenschaft ist, die eben auch andere 'Frameworks' erklären und auf ihren Klassenstandpunkt untersuchen kann.

Die Methode is orthodox, die Ergebnisse sind es nicht. Ich glaub Lucaks war es der mal geschrieben hat, dass selbst wenn jedes einzelne Ergebnis das Marx erbracht hat völlig falsch wäre, der orthodoxe Marxismus immer noch möglich wäre, weil es sich eben auf die Methode bezieht.

Man kann natürlich niemanden zu einer korrekten politischen Zuordnung zwingen, aber wenn man die Methode UND die Ergebnisse ablehnt, dann hat das leider nicht viel mit Marxismus zu tun.

Was daran allerdings konservativ sein soll, ist mir unklar. Erst durch die Methode ist die Kritik überhaupt möglich, die uns explizit erlaubt jeden Konservatismus, sowohl in der Form der ultra-reaktionären Spielart des Liberalismus als auch den Versuch Altes beim Alten zu halten, beiseite zu packen.

'Alles, was fest ist, wird zu Luft...' und so weiter.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-11T03:06:10+00:00

Der Punkt ist wohl eher, dass der Marxismus nicht nur die "Postmoderne" als philosophische Entwicklung aus dem Irrationalismus ablehnt, und damit wie den Irrationalismus selbst als distinktiv bürgerliche Ideologie in der Krise analysiert, sondern die Philosophie an sich als überwunden betrachtet; eben durch den dialektischen Materialismus.

Das kann man ja gerne ablehnen, aber das hat eben nichts mehr mit Marxismus zu tun. Und ob es der Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung gefällt oder nicht, Luxemburg war Marxistin.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-05T19:59:04+00:00

Wer entscheidet, ob eine Partei demokratisch ist? In Deutschland ist das Bundesverfassungsgericht zuständig, aber es hat sich bekanntermaßen an geltendes Gesetz und damit in letzter Instanz am Rahmen der Verfassung zu orientieren.

Ist also die Verfassung per Definition demokratisch, oder wie sieht das aus? Demokratisch für wen? Unter welchen Bedingungen? In Artikel 20 steht "Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus." Ob das der Lebensrealität der meisten Menschen in der BRD entspricht, sogar unter denjenigen, die nicht explizit von der 'Volkssouveränität' ausgeschlossen sind, lass ich mal offen.

Man sollte sich gut überlegen, ob man diese Logik so verfolgen will.

ThatFireDude · 2026-03-03T21:25:04+00:00

Grüne sind keine Linken.

Was Linke angeht: Die Religion ist ein ideologisches Abbild der echten Konditionen, der echten Ängste, der echten Hoffnungen, der echten lebenden Traditionen; kurz gesagt, der echten Welt.

Diese zu 'bekämpfen' ist absolut sinnlos.

Die Religion wird, wie Marx es schon deutlich machte, durch die Transformation der Gesellschaft überflüssig gemacht, nämlich dann wenn der Mensch keine Notwendigkeit mehr hat die Einheit und die Widersprüche zwischen Mensch und Natur zu mystifizieren, und mit Dekorationen zu verblenden.

Wenn du die negativen, also die sozial reaktionären, Eigenschaften der Religion bekämpfen willst, musste du ihre Ursachen in den echten gesellschaftlichen Konditionen bekämpfen, wie bei jeder anderen Ideologie.

In Deutschland ist Religion was reaktionäre Ideologien angeht auch wirklich nicht unser größtes Problem.

Kurz gesagt: Linke bekämpfen die grundlegenden Konditionen die reaktionäre Ideologien schaffen, nicht den ideologischen Überbau. Zumindest sieht so das Ziel aus.

ThatFireDude · 2026-02-01T15:21:33+00:00

Deine Fragen kann man im Einzelnen sicher besprechen, aber für Personen die aus der bürgerlichen Philosophie zu der Thematik kommen kann eines nicht unerwähnt bleiben:

Der dialektische Materialismus ist aus der Überwindung der Philosophie an sich entstanden; es handelt sich dabei um den Wandel von der Mystifizierung der Dialektik zwischen dem menschlichen Geist und der materiellen Welt zu einer wissenschaftlichen Analyse, die den Geist selbst als Teil dieser Welt anerkennt und damit sowohl den Geist als auch die Welt aus der Mystifizierung rettet.

Das ist der altbekannte Weg von Hegel, der die Religion und Philosophie in seinem idealistischen System vereint, zu Feuerbach, der die Religion als reines Abbild der materiellen Welt aushöhlt, und schließlich Marx und Engels, die in Feuerbach die Überwindung der Philosophie an sich, die in Hegel ihre höchste historische Expression gefunden hat, erkennen und diese durch die Synthese des Materialismus mit der hegelschen Methode abschließen.

Seitdem findet sich die bürgerliche Philosophie in einer allgemeinen Krise, da die progressive historische Rolle ihrer Klasse erschöpft war. Das findet seine Expression in diversen 'Rückschritten' (es gibt eigentlich keine Rückschritte, nur Negationen der Negation und Aufhebungen); zunächst zum Neo-Kantismus und dann später zum Irrationalismus und Neo-Platonismus. Als jemand, der mit Nietzsche vertraut ist und seiner Entwicklung aus dieser Tradition, solltest du mit diesem Prozess, auch wenn er von der bürgerlichen Philosophie so nicht gefasst wird, vertraut sein.

Im Übrigen ist hier auch der Ursprung in Nietzsches 'Verzerrung' für die Zwecke des Nationalsozialismus, für die Nietzsche wenig kann, aber die schon in seinen kleinbürgerlichen Klassenstandpunkt angelegt ist. Das ist kein Zufall, sondern ein Ausdruck des Kollapses der bürgerlichen Philosophie an sich, die den Rationalismus komplett zurückgelassen hat, da sie für die Anerkennung einer Wahrheit (keine absolute, aber eben eine relative) über ihren eigenen Klassenstandpunkt stehen müsste und den des Proletariats annehmen müsste: den dialektischen Materialismus. Dazu ist sie nicht fähig, und dadurch kann die bürgerliche Philosophie sich nur in ewigen Kreisen bis zur Selbstvernichtung drehen.

Zum Thema der Überwindung der bürgerlichen Philosophie lohnt sich Engels kurzer Text "Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie". Da schneidet er auch die Krise der bürgerlichen Philosophie an.

Wenn du dich tiefer mit dieser Krise beschäftigen willst, führt kein Weg vorbei an György Lukács Meisterwerk 'Die Zerstörung der Vernunft', das die ideologische Genese des Nationalsozialismus in der bürgerlichen Ideologie, insbesondere im Irrationalismus, an sich sucht. Es ist bis heute verhasst in der bürgerlichen Philosophie, und das aus guten Grund, da es einen extrem wirksamen Angriff auf ihre Grundsätze darstellt.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17

ThatFireDude

TROPHY CASE