In Germany, everything is forcibly suppressed; a real anarchy of the mind, the reign of stupidity itself, prevails there, and Zurich obeys orders from Berlin. It therefore becomes increasingly obvious that a new rallying point must be sought for truly thinking and independent minds. I am convinced that our plan would answer a real need, and after all it must be possible for real needs to be fulfilled in reality. Hence I have no doubt about the enterprise, if it is undertaken seriously.

The internal difficulties seem to be almost greater than the external obstacles. For although no doubt exists on the question of “Whence,” all the greater confusion prevails on the question of “Whither.” Not only has a state of general anarchy set in among the reformers, but everyone will have to admit to himself that he has no exact idea what the future ought to be.

On the other hand, it is precisely the advantage of the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world through criticism of the old one. Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had only to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute knowledge to fly into it. Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally.

But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.

First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture."

Marx's critique:Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission. [//quote]

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Dear oi,
do you think that purposely off topic remark about Pol Pot should stay, if so why?

Notice no attempt to engage with Marx's words posted above, or even to show the link between Marx and communism, let alone Marx and Pol Pot, just nonsense, as per usual from this poster, one questions why he entered the thread in the first place?

I doubt the obscurantist even really likes Marx, he doesn't even give him the respect of a worthwhile critique.

Mike wrote:
Illustrate how it's off topic and serve him his arse on a plate.

You're not questioning why he entered, you're questioning why I never questioned it.

I find direct questions and swerve answers sends em packing....I've never yet relied on a mod/facilitator to prove my point.

Play the long game not the blame oi game, you're better than that.

oioioi wrote: Wow you genuinely are a fucking useless cunt.

I have to show you how a ridiculously off topic post is off topic? How by debating the obvious idiot about Cambodia?
He's shown he's clearly a trolling idiot, maybe he is you?

Does everyone have free reign to post youtubes and disjointed irrelevant copy pastes -the two most annoying things on the forum- on any thread we choose? He hasn't even tried to link Marx to Cambodia, did he live there between Germany and France?
Stop being a pleb and ban the irrelevant obscurist plank.

It's my own fault I logged in today, I shouldn't have.

Not serving your use makes me a useless cunt?

Excellent.