Message from @PebbЛe
Discord ID: 511024932327784459
Including with the abstract
Humans will become an obstacle to the robots
Scientists will not exist
@Shalopy The development of the productive forces freeing up labor time posits that action encompassing leisure, concrete and abstract labor would be done as a genuine aspect of the individuality of a person
passions would be ultimately realized
and would likely fall into the fields of administrating their society
You seem to assume people are naturally good @Shalopy
Which is dangerous to assume.
I'm curious, are you a Marxist/Communist?
I am a Marxist yes
@PebbЛe Do borders exist in late phase Communism
Depends on who you ask
In your opinion
Robots can't take over
I think that most marxists advocate self-determination of a people especially in anti-imperialist or anti-bourgeois culture senses, so it is not crazy to posit that late Communism will have demarcated land
*Slides in EMP*
then again you have radical world communism goofballs who dont understand ethnic and cultural relations
They can take our jobs though So fuck them
Marx thought there was no difference between man and women
Marx was a fucking tranny
Read his Manifesto
i did
It said to deal away with societal differences between men and women
That both are equal
i think i know what line you are talking about
it relates to modern industry and its blanket identifying of the working class as an instrument
I'd consider myself in favor of a fairly regulated Capitalism in order to include the vast majority of people and get them contributing to the society/innovation(as well as so they can benefit from it), which would mean some sort of affecting the rich, and giving to the poor(although I'm not sure with what yet), as it would all lead to social stability. Social progress would go from there, slowly, as to not cause volatility, and the degree that the economy is regulated would be debated as to fit with the current economic situation-fairly fluid but not going from Command to Laissez Faire kind of fluid. There would probably be as well an upper limit and lower limit to how much someone could make, and the wealth taken from past the upper limit would probably help sustain the people at the lower limit given they work hard.
So was Marx a supporter of the nuclear family?
@Doctor Anon Engels is the one who posited works of the nature of the family
and no he disagreed with the nuclear family as the basic economic unit of society
Chevo
Fucking commies hating the nuclear family
before you conflate, there is context to it
it is a largely comparative piece of man and wife to bourgeois and proletarian in an attempt to recognize the nature of societal liberation includes the liberation of the female sex: `...Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.`
What would be the alternative to monogamy?
it is not talking about the social nature of a family or sexuality
it is talking about the nuclear family as the economic unit of society
the smallest unit of access to production, consumption and exchange
Socially, monogamy would most likely still be the norm, otherwise, there would be significant social instability in the society.