Ignoring that he did have a job. He worked for a newspaper before he was exiled from Prussia.
How hard can it really to be to write a thousand pages of theory anyway? I can type 140 wpm, so I could pump that out in an afternoon.
Sorry snowflake, writing smut fanfic about capitalism-chan and communist-tan is not a job.
If somebody didn't pay you according to the the terms of a contract then it isn't really work, sweaty.
Marx basically died destitute. Where the myth comes from that he was wealthy is beyond me.
They assume that we'll cult of personality the guy like some dogmatists. How idealist of them.
And then everything he talked about never actually ever happened ever.
Look out, this guy understands Marx
communism has apparently still never been tried.
These dorks always say shit like this and I have no idea what they are talking about.
"That wasn't real communism" is a cliche that chuds imagine Marxists use as a defense, because it's what radlibs with no understanding of Marxist history or dialectics say.
No, that's accurate. Understanding the distinction between socialist states and full communism is important.
I was referring to the radlibs who disown all historical examples of Actually Existing Socialism, both because their conception of socialism's record is tainted by propaganda, and because they possess a fundamentally idealist, Utopian, and non-materialist understanding of the world.
The USSR was actually pretty successful at implementing socialism as well
People never account for the fact that a successful Communist-led revolution has never happened in a fully industrialized imperial power. You can't equally compare the Soviets in 1970 to the US or the UK or western Germany in 1970 because the US and western Europe were FAR ahead of imperial Russia in 1917. The fact that the Soviets turned Russia from a near-feudal backwater to a major superpower in a couple decades is proof in and of itself that socialism/communism "works"
:lenin-pensive: Feudalism to space travel in four decades, BAY-BEE! :stalin:
And likely killed far fewer people doing so, though capitalists will swear up and down that capitalism has never killed anyone wrongfully, and that every single death in socialist societies is the direct fault of communism...
Okay that makes a lot of sense. Liberals across the board seem to have a really difficult time understanding development.
Rand, Rothbard, Friedman
Brunch table from hell.
Also fuck your little bow tie, Rothbard, you pedo bitch.
Also fuck your little bow tie, Rothbard, you pedo bitch.
:michael-laugh: Got him.
Guys, Ken Burns never even played jazz music or baseball, his documentaries are shit
I think Ken Burns was the one who put Wynton Marsalis as the spokesman of Jazz, which gave Jazz the shitty austere, neoliberal face it has had for the past 30+ years. So if I remember correctly Ken Burns need to shut the fuck up too, unless I'm wrong lol
Nope you're right. Wynton Marsalis says shit like real jazz died in 1970 and that hip hop is degenerate nonsense. He's totally missed the jazz rennaissance of the 21st century, and been left in the cold by everybody else in jazz who took hip hop (which was in turn first influenced by jazz) and brought it back into jazz to create true awesomeness.
Jazz is dead because it only exists in extreme minority populations of minority populations (and within them often the middle to upper class or people who dodge working class problems by being affiliated with churches) and in white academia. Working class people do not have time and in general exposure to "get" jazz.
The stuff you're posting speaks to what I'm saying, no offence of course.
Why would anyone want to listen to jazz though? It doesn't exist organically in anyone's community anymore and the reason why you found yourself interested in jazz is because you had a music department, you studied music and there was an obvious facilitation of your interests and the skills you built upon.
I think if all it took was the internet and a passing interest in something, we would all be listening to like Venezuelan Hropo, Indian Classical or Ewe drum music. But no, we mostly listen to pop musics and if we are crazy and liked the soundtrack to Cowboy Bebop or something- jazz and classical. I think saying all you need is YouTube is reactionary
I'm also not saying outliers don't exist but there's no point in bringing them up when the extreme majority of the trend is that people aren't interested in classical or jazz. I really don't think it's because of taste or intelligence, I think it's just exposure.
When people bring up how people used to love classical or jazz, I always need to respond, duh, it was everywhere.
But my point is that with the public school training and your clarinet you already had a foundational ear training that most people don't ever get in their entire lifetimes. And how do people start listening anyway? We have to keep going back to exposure and I'm going to keep saying that just because it's on YouTube doesn't mean people will look for it or even be interested by it if they do find it. You had a music education that was sufficient enough to keep you interested and going, a lot of the US can't speak to that.
You personally havent really said anything about your music program too, like it blows my mind when people make the arguments you're making and then their school did Essentially Ellington competitions or were well funded. Not saying you're that but it happens a lot when I do have this discussion.
The first point is the one you're making, people can just find it on YouTube and learn to like academic music. To which if were the case, more people would like Bird.
The point I'm making (I hope lol) is that communities are being sucked dry financially and it effects things like the sense of community and education, amongst other things. I think that because of this, people don't have an appreciation for music. Instead people are exposed to increasingly cheaper and simpler music to the point that even hard bop sounds complicated and/or requires too much attention span.
Most people just work, fuck around on their phones, watch tv, dread going back to work, then repeat. Where does developing a broad musical palette fit into that? It doesn't. If you were left behind by our failing country, you'll likely never really enjoy jazz or classical.
Working class people do not have time and in general exposure to “get” jazz.
i listen to some jazz, my music taste is all over the place though, bit weird that you think we are some "other" tbh
And to rebutt theres a lot of Jazz out there that is made with pop sensibilities. So when you find some obscure album off /mu/, its not really... obscure... it's just stuff with pop sensibility that has been buried by half a century of pop music. Like Giant Steps or Take Five. Also, I'm working class as well, have two jobs, dont get it twisted.
/mu/
i would rather set myself on fire than go there
i also don't really like pop music
but i'm not a music nerd, so maybe the stuff i listen to is pop influencedAlso, I’m working class as well, have two jobs, dont get it twisted.
the weird sweeping generalisation threw me off
Pop music is being used as an umbrella term that includes rock, hiphop, actual pop music, dubstep- backbeat stuff.
They're observations I've made studying and working in the field of music but also being from a place where more than a quarter of the population lives in poverty.
i mostly listen to metal, folk, and some classical, with a bit of jazz thrown in, but i like the odd song/piece from all over the spectrum really
I only listen to Anarchist SoundCloud Rapper Warlords exclusively. I have every word, sample, beat, melodies completely memorized to the point of perfect replication.
Working class people do not have time and in general exposure to “get” jazz.
What's there to "get"? A cool song is a cool song. You can engage with music on a deeper level, sure, but unless it's unstructured far-out stuff (note that there are examples of this in other genres as well) good music is almost immediately accessible.
So why are most people completely uninterested or unaware of Bartok? Thad Jones + Mel Lewis Orchestra? Why do most people just listen to 2+4 stuff and not much else? There's no way it's that simple unless you spend your life listening to /mu/ and pitchfork reviews.
Have you heard a song you didnt like and then learned to love it? That's the entire modern experience with classical and jazz it seems. But how do you get people to care about pieces that are fourty minutes long or in a musical language that you don't understand? The goals in listening to this stuff are different than a Coldplay song or something.
So why are most people completely uninterested or unaware of Bartok? Thad Jones + Mel Lewis Orchestra?
Commercialism of music? Most people like mainstream artists because that's what has an advertising machine behind it.
in a musical language that you don’t understand
This is what I'm not processing. Plenty of jazz songs are cool at first listen, and it's not as of jazz is some hyper-exotic style that's foreign to mainstream listeners.
I feel like that's one half of the problem, sure, but I think the other half is the lack of exposure to the musics in our communities. Have you never been to a Jazz Club where everyone is completely buried in their phones, even the tunes with diatonic as fuck lyrical heads get ignored pretty quickly.
The first time I heard fucking *Donna Lee * I thought it was absolute noise. I like it now obviously but I disagree with your assertion.
....Anyone could... but no one does or cares to find out... How many people do you know that are not musicians themselves who dig Bird?
And you're telling me that all people can and will just sit through an entire Brahms symphony without falling asleep or getting incredibly bored? Thats crazy, thats not how it works at all
Defunct political ramblings
Watches as China rises to overtake the west
Alright
CPC has never abandoned Marxism, it continues to inform the party’s decisions to this day and it shows
Remember that time Marx lived in Moscow. He certainly would have been welcomed with open arms by the checks notes reactionary-as-fuck Tsar
Even if I wasn't a Marxist, I'd consider Marx to be one of the most profound philosophers in history for synthesising natural philosophy and humanism while developing both materialist dialecticism and the groundwork for critical theory. I don't expect a libertarian to read, that's why they're libertarians, but the philosophical contributions would be truly genius even if nothing came of the political project of Marxism.
It is kind of weird that Marx had his entire career funded by a wealthy businessman.
I mean a poor business man couldn't have done it could he?
It is less weird than lots of stufff rich people get into.
He was the senior economic analyst at Ermen and Engels, a liberal think tank in the UK.
