this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
59 points (98.4% liked)

Slop.

870 readers
401 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 38 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This quote is from Human Requirements and Division of Labour Under the Rule of Private Property. It's extracted from a longer section which reads as follows (I've highlighted where it appears):

<How the multiplication of needs and of the means (of their satisfaction) breeds the absence of needs and of means is demonstrated by the political economist (and by the capitalist: in general it is always empirical businessmen we are talking about when we refer to political economists, (who represent) their scientific creed and form of existence) as follows:

(1) By reducing the worker's need to the barest and most miserable level of physical subsistence, and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement; thus he says: Man has no other need either of activity or of enjoyment. For he declares that this life, too, is human life and existence.

(2) By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard -- general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need -- be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity -- seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy -- despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance -- is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save -- the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour -- your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power -- all this it can appropriate for you -- it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.>

I love Marx Quoters because half the time you have to fucking quote mother fucking Marx to show them why they are fucking wrong. Because the next fucking line is:

Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power -- all this it can appropriate for you -- it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.

All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.

So no, Mr. "I've been teaching Marx for 20 fucking years" Marx isn't saying "Hey be 'normal' and stop being 'weird' and just go dance and shit you loon" he's saying, "You want to dance, you want to sing, you want to be jolly, have joy, be free, be human, and in order to even have any of those things you need to want fucking money first, and in the end your pursuit for humanity will only leave you with an insatiable want for money, because that's the only thing that makes you human".

marx-joker

Thank you for this

[–] Athena5898@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So this might have helped me with this problem I have about spending money on myself. Its to a problem that my wife gets on me a lot for it.

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is the problem that you don't like spending money on yourself? Just trying to understand.

[–] Athena5898@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

That's a large part of it. I think I internalized a lot of suffer=good. And no matter what I spend money on it feels like I could be spending it on something better. But spending it on other people is fine because its better then me.I'm used to it anyway and other self depreciation thoughts.

Like don't get me wrong, I am happy that it's easy for me to soend money on others but I do need to get things for myself at times that is more planned then the final impulse purchase once every so often. (Normally a game or food.) I think I've gotten better but I almost always end back where I started without realizing it.