GarbageShoot

Unwilling =/= Unable, this is transparent sophistry

Why don't the underpaid employees simply buy enough stock to sway company policy

Remember idealist/materialist in a philosophical context is, in its most common use, a metaphysical distinction. Marx's use of "idealism" is based on this but isn't the same.

But an important element of Marxism is that it ascribes strategy based on a) class position and b) conflict-aversion. If you are a prole or you just want to play it safe, even as a member of the bourgeoisie, it tells you that socialism is the best way to accomplish that goal, but it's by the same framework that it can give a capitalist insight on how to practice capitalism with still-more-brutal efficiency if that is what they want.

You'll get there

Nah, undergrads read almost zero Marxist literature, almost 100% from Marx and just a tiny bit from Engels. The rest is memory-holed from history.

I think Marxism is functionally but not technically inherently communist on the grounds that it avoids discussion of moral values and things like that.

I encourage you to go over to c/askchapo on hexbear.net if you are curious.

It is not "the classical version of communism", that would be the Utopian or anarchist ideas and projects that preceded it. Marxism is a class of ideology that has historically and still does have the greatest weight in geopolitical importance, starting with "classical Marxism", a now-dead ideology, and its many successors, like you list.

Marxists don't argue for a deonotological disallowing of markets, but believe that those who own the markets should not thereby own the rest of society. I'm sure even you would agree that it would be better is everyone had the comfortable position that you do -- and indeed we should move in that direction, even though we cannot simply decide that everyone will be wealthy tomorrow -- but we all must work with the conditions we find ourselves in, including to transform those conditions over time.

If you'd like to discuss the subject, there are many comms on a handful of instances where people would be happy to!

Popular cinema has been a smear on the pavement for years. Indie cinema has been going just as it's ever been.

You don't seem very interested in the responses that do elaborate. I wonder why that is . . .

Martin is exactly the person this threatens, because what he puts out is ultimately a type of slop. When you are committed to the "gritty realism" tenant of how anyone can die and plot lines might just become irrelevant, sabotaging any coherent notion of themes or meaning beyond that basic premise, what you are left with is basically just fake history and fake politics, a more elaborate version of putting army men and OCs on a map and just kind of vomitting meaningless worldbuilding details and "lore" about them fighting until enough people have died that you call it a book.

AI is largely incapable of effectively conveying themes except in the bluntest manner, but if all you need is to be willing to put writing violence, sexual pandering, arbitrary setting descriptions, and dramatic language, AI is more than up to that task, though you will still need to edit to fix contradictory details.