(!)

@Hetzer,alexander77, the issue of hierarchies is a controversial but real problem; however, it was addressed by Lenin a long time ago. If a society, like Russia right after the revolution, confronts Western capitalist societies without having managed to spread the revolution globally, the mechanism jams, and the discussion ends. Inevitably, for the survival of the nation, one is forced to conduct profit-related dealings with other capitalist countries, all revolutionary work gets annulled, and market opportunities controlled by hierarchies lead to its transformation into state capitalism with disastrous consequences. The revolutionary socialist international did not spread, lost its battle, finding in Germany a capitalist stronghold that did not collapse, and ultimately was overwhelmed by Stalin. These are facts, not my personal ideologies. I am a Marxist, but I too have major doubts and enormous difficulties in achieving a "just" revolution. An event of such magnitude is of extreme difficulty; neither I nor you will ever see the solution. However, the future is not in a crystal ball but in the material events of history. On this, Marx is untouchable.

JDV666..why, what are you doing?? sharing that there are others who don’t share? no, so what?

One last thing, DeLorenzo... even capitalism doesn’t exist in nature; rather, it is a social organization that offends it for profit, nullifying any respect for it. When you say that a child will never want to share their toy with siblings... or that no adult wishes to share their wife or husband (something, among other things, that Marx never said), you should then understand that the workers also do not wish (I’m not saying to share) to have "all" the wealth they produce taken from them by the bourgeoisie and the banks. But this escapes you, doesn’t it? Or do you think, as a good hypocrite, that embezzlement should be a theft regulated by an organized and artificial society... seeing as in this case, nature does not help?

I completely agree with KINDOFBLUE.

JACK DANIEL'S, you took a very charming approach to the sentimental relationship, but you said something true; Marx did not focus on the intimacy of human relationships but rather on economic and material relations, which are what shape human behavior, not nature.

The nature of ourselves, when we analyze it, we do so from a perspective distorted by centuries of barbarism and wars... therefore it is not our nature that gives us dumb responses like those we read in this review, but our culture of oppressors. If you have a foolish face, your mirror will reflect a foolish face, DeLorenzo... a scientific reflection like that of Marx is a bit different from how you look at yourself in the mirror.

Let's admit it, who among us doesn't feel a Zequila inside every day? Sometimes we manage to shake it off with great effort, not always easily... only when we come out of the bathroom can we say we've gotten rid of it.

As children, they sell us blue onesies to dream of being Superman; as adults, they sell us books to actually become one... but in the coffin, finally, they dress us elegantly like Clark Kent.

When you find this publication in your hands and a few euros less, you understand that there's very little magic in our mind.

It's yin and yang, rest and movement, left and right... that's the concept.