marx: ...so, revolution
batman: sounds criminal
foucault: sounds normie
marx: no it's not normie, it's the way one class overthrows another, and thus its regime of exploitation
gandalf: is this not to become just as bad as the enemy?
marx: god dammit gandalf
machiavelli: it is always in the prince's interest to depict all challengers to his rule as just as vicious as he, if not more so
frodo: well i'm sure there's some way we can sort out the good from the bad, decide whether the challenger really is better
socrates: sure, are you?
marx: the proletariat is the first class in history to be dominated by objectified labor itself, not any lord or master in particular. by overthrowing this domination, it wins—not just for itself but for the whole of humanity—emancipation from the realm of necessity.
dr. manhattan: the realm of necessity is all there is
ayn rand: capitalism is all there is, or was, or ever will be
fred flintstone: yep, i can vouch for that
george jetson: same tbh
death: ᴀʜᴇᴍ. ᴇᴠᴇʀʏᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴅɪᴇs.
yoda: spirit are we, not this crude matter
marx: are you suggesting, master yoda, that capitalism may be eternal just like the soul is considered eternal?
yoda: ...not say that did i
marx: but it's what you believe
yoda: uncomfortable defending that thesis i am
marx: capitalism comes into the world covered in blood and dirt. conditions for it must be *established*, they aren't just given naturally. people have to be dispossessed, separated from the means of subsistence, so that they can be put to work as "free labor"
jean-luc picard: i can confirm that in the future we have no use for capitalism, as the conditions for it have disappeared
ayn rand: weren't you with the borg for a while?
jean-luc picard: well, yes, but-
ayn rand: he's a collectivist, you guys! get him!
the avengers: we're a collective the
a-team: we're a collective the
x-men: we're a collective
the fellowship of the ring: we're a collective
leonardo, donatello, raphael and michelangelo: we're a collective
popper: that's different, you're open societies, we're talking about totalitarianism, where the individual is subordinated to the collective
marx: i'm sure someone who spends nine hours a day doing whatever their boss tells them to do never feels subordinated to the collective
elon musk: they should be grateful for the opportunity to participate in realizing one heroic individual's grand vision!
marx: wasn't your "grand vision" basically to make existing technology cheaper?
marx: that's the thing, that's all capitalism lets anybody envision. the imperative to accumulate *is* the evil homogenizing force you're all so afraid of
heidegger: no, it's technology
nietzsche: no, it's slave morality
postmodernists: no, it's modernity
morpheus: we can hack technology
aesop: slave morality just *is* morality. normative ideas can't be inherently evil because they're the only basis we have for calling anything good or evil
socrates: i'm sorry, what the hell is "modernity"?
holden caulfield: it's when everyone is a phony and stuff
t. s. eliot: it's when everything just seems to be getting shittier
virginia woolf: it's when women start publishing under their own names
marx: exactly! "modernity" is an idealist and vaguely reactionary account of processes that can be much more concretely specified and analyzed. once you do that, it becomes clear that current trends are necessarily self-undermining, containing the seeds of their own destruction
the dude: why you gotta be all about destruction, man? can't we just coexist?
van helsing: not with the undead
marx: thank you!
hannibal lecter: this compulsive othering of capitalism makes it seem like you're compensating for something
marx: the same could be said of any commitment whatsoever. if we read all commitment as pathological, then the only winner is whatever we do without thinking about it. but these are commitments too! i opt for consciousness over unconsciousness
morpheus: ditto
dream: 𝔴𝔥𝔶 𝔭𝔯𝔦𝔳𝔦𝔩𝔢𝔤𝔢 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔰𝔠𝔦𝔬𝔲𝔰𝔫𝔢𝔰𝔰 𝔬𝔳𝔢𝔯 𝔲𝔫𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔰𝔠𝔦𝔬𝔲𝔰𝔫𝔢𝔰𝔰?
marx: because consciousness can be directly contested. it's public, and therefore democratic. it is the space that i have best access to, and where i direct my appeals to you
nietzsche: but notice you've made the assumption that democracy, communication, contestability etc. are values, which i would deny. all that has dignity is the absolutely independent act
marx: aristocrats depend on workers, you ass
arendt: but those workers, once ensconced in positions of power, tend to act like new aristocrats
killmonger: why did all the forces of reaction ally against me, if i was going to do things just the same as the old boss?
marx: exactly! the old boss depends on a certain configuration of exploitative relations, and will fight to the death to defend that configuration. the new boss, if they are to win, must set up a new and broader base, capable of greater coordination and cooperation within itself
postmodernists: sounds very providential, everything always working out for the best. are all coups progressive then?
harry potter: sometimes coups are done by death eaters
marx: right, representatives of a previously ousted class seeking to roll back the clock. these are not revolutions but pseudo-revolutions, which is obvious enough to anyone paying attention to where their money comes from
john mcclane: it's always about money
marx: it is and it isn't
death: ᴍᴏɴᴇʏ ᴛᴏᴏ ᴡɪʟʟ ᴅɪᴇ sᴏᴍᴇ ᴅᴀʏ
marx: and the different non-commodified arrangements that will replace it have already begun to sprout
rick deckard: buddy, money's never gonna go out of style
sherlock holmes: that's funny, money's never been an issue for me
james bond: me neither
marx: right, it fades into irrelevance when you *have* it. communism cannot be built on generalized want, but on generalized abundance
milton friedman: such a utopia can only ever be the preserve of a small elite, scarcity is the natural state of the universe
marx: well then our defining trait as human beings seems to be thumbing our noses at the natural state of the universe
icarus: careful there buddy
marx: why? will the heat of communism melt our wings? isn't it more likely that as more people's needs are met, the old way of doing things will decay all the more rapidly? it's capitalism that requires constant injections of state violence to stay up
gandhi: you yourself are not a paragon of nonviolence
spartacus: why should he be? what matters is whether you are upholding or demolishing social structures that, by their very nature, entail endless war and degradation
sarah connor: ...or even extinction
burke: this revolutionary attitude seems to fit the bill, since it entails endless war of the have-nots vs. the haves
hobbes: we'd all be much better off if no one were able to revolt
marx: capitalism seems to produce a great many revolutionaries, why have you no quarrel w/ it?
marx: as long as there are haves and have-nots, that is, as long as private property is the governing norm, you will not see the peace you claim to desire. to think otherwise is to indulge in the deepest fantasy. of course it may be that your true desires are something else...
marquis de sade: and so what if they are? there is no god, why should we fear to be evil, to indulge, to wreak violence upon the innocent, if it amuses us?
marx: you are free to be a symptom, to be wholly determined by your unfortunate class position, to be as cruel as property
marx: but you will command no respect, you will earn no love, and you will be crushed, in time, without pity or remorse. no one will mourn your passing. no one will cherish your memory. the species will move on from you, and you will have been as tiny and insignificant as a flea
rustin cohle: that was going to happen anyway
marx: i dunno about you, but it certainly hasn't happened to me
hannibal lecter: so it is, ultimately, nothing more than an ego trip
robin hood: if i rob from the rich to give to the poor, and enjoy the love they give me in return, does that make me prince john's equal, because we're both motivated by ego?
dr. house: all that matters are results
kant: so the ends justify the means, do they?
jack bauer: uh, yes
james bond: duh
the avengers: absolutely they do
marx: if ends don't justify means, what does? where is the list of right stuff and wrong stuff laid out simply and unambiguously so that we can follow the rules which never contradict each other and all our ethical conundrums are solved?
*everyone starts talking at once*
marx: ...so, that said, let's pay attention to the world, to causes and effects. humanity can thereby extend its grasp and reach greater levels of freedom, consciousness, and responsibility.
thanos: no, too much people
marx: oh for fuck's sake not this again
marx: if more than half the world's wealth is in the hands of 1% of its population and as a member of that 1% i claim that it's poor people's fault for daring to exist, i'm obviously just trying to shield my hoard from richly-deserved blame
john locke (not the one from LOST): what's wrong with wealth i've earned through my own sweat?
gordon gekko: if you're sweating, you're doing it wrong
machiavelli: it is important that the prince always give the appearance of thrift, hard work, etc. but only so that he may cultivate this attitude in his subjects and gain access to their useful labor
robert california: quite so
marx: the capitalist creation myth about thrifty farmers saving up beaver pelts isn't actually how any major fortunes ever came into being; all great accumulations of wealth are born out of naked theft, pillage, murder, and slavery. locke is a writer of children's stories
hayek: is your "revolution" any exception? it would rob and pillage and make everyone slaves of the state
leslie knope: i don't *think* i'm a slave...
harriet tubman: yeah you definitely fucking are not
marx: slaves don't get to vote, they don't have recallable representatives deciding who sits on the central committee, they don't have rights or any way to get justice when they are wronged
dr. strangelove: ze soviets have none of zis, zey know nussink of rights, zey are like animals who must be put down for zeir own velfare
everyone: ...
said: the west has never viewed the east as fully human, nor any of its institutions as fully civilized sacha
baron cohen: *audibly gulps*
marx: the crimes of colonialism, which europe commits abroad, are rarely counted among the defects of the liberal system. but those states that pursue development without enslaving other peoples are criticized for doing violence to "their own people!" in tones of outrage
frank underwood: i'll tell you a little secret about patriotism: it's always bullshit, but it sure comes in handy sometimes
fanon: always?
marx: there's obviously a big difference between "patriotism" in the imperialist countries, which is just chauvinism, and patriotism in countries that are struggling to throw off the yoke of imperialism
the crystal gems: indubitably
petyr baelish: every power on earth is a would-be empire
marx: even though it sounds scary and cynical there's no contradiction between that and saying that a more equal, multipolar distribution of power would allow for greater freedom and flourishing
eduard bernstein: how very modest and incrementalist of you
marx: both continuity and rupture are laws of nature. i don't rule out either one a priori like *some* people
mycroft holmes: it's becoming rather difficult to discern what it is you *do* rule out, herr doktor. are we to understand that no criticism of you or your "communism" is possible, since you both contain so many multitudes?
ricky lafleur: maybe you should worry aboot your own damn self and quit hasslin my buddy carl. whys it so important for you to cristicize him when all hes cristicizing is the real shit real people are going through, you ever think aboot that? go eat a fuck you fuckin dick