/lit/ - Literature

>>13626312
Marx was a Jew, and Bakunin pointed out correctly that his ideas sounded like Jewish ideas which would inevitably lead to Jews abusing them.

>Zip forward to USSR
Oh wow I can't believe it a bunch of communist Jews quoting Marx are starving and torturing millions of people top death. How bizarre.

>reading Marx's letters
>assuming they will be boring
>suddenly starts calling a guy NIGGER SKULL

>>13626312
WTF I love Marx even more now?

>>13627615
He was an atheist

>>13627656
So is nettayahoo

is this the comment about lassalle?

>>13626312
>Marx
>white

Phrenology is based

>>13627801
yes

>>13626312
w-what in the world? A person that I thought had some good ideas in a field that he put the most time in, has some other ideas that I disagree with? Oh heavens, better throw out the baby with the bathwater

>>13626312
marxism has nothing to do with marx, it is accidentally called by his name, but philosophers and regimes who follow this ideology which came to be after marx are contradictory to everything marx taught and believed
i really dunno why are they called marxists, perhaps they drive some kind of inspiration for their unrelated philosophies and political systems from marx?

>>13627852
>yes, I only take the parts that are socially acceptable seriously, and ignore anything else the philosopher said as being a "product of his time", how could you tell?

>>13627858
marxism is not an ideology, it's not interchangeable with communism (which is what these "horrible states" pursued). you can use marxism to investigate the causes and process for why the revolution happened in russia, why it failed, how the ussr came to be, etc.

>>13627863
based

>>13626312
Phrenology has more truth to it than we're willing to admit. Chinese did it better than the west, observing facial traits that actually correspond to development to determine your luck in life

>>13627869
"these states" quite literally followed marxism, non-marxist communism exists but its minor and seen nowhere
you clearly dont have a clue about what marxism actually is

>>13627878
you can't "follow" marxism. what, they followed "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall"? or did they follow "happening twice, first as tragedy and then as farce"? marxism is a scientific endeavor, and there is a reason it's so intertwined with communism and the labor movement of its time (beyond simply marx being one), but it's not interchangeable with communism. they are not referring to the same thing. you can't run a state on "marxism", marxism doesn't provide recipes for state-management, it doesn't even provide a recipe for the seizure of power itself.

>>13627893
marx didnt make marxism
retards who came after him created it while erroneously claiming its following his philosophy

>>13627899
and what do you think my claims apply to? saying that every self-described marxist is equally a marxist is like those people who think they have a gotcha with "hitler was a socialist bro, it's in the name!"
but even disregarding that, my point remains true for "marxists" just as well.

>>13627908
>hitler was a socialist
hitler followed a school of socialism, even if a heterodox one, but i get why you would be pissed at a mentally deficient right wing boomer spouting it as a catchphrase

and communism is the end game of marxism, its an integral part of the philosophy

>>13627908
hitler was a socialist bro, it's in the name! and the socialism

>>13627917
the way in which communism is inseparable from marxism is not the one you think. marxism is the scientific practice of social science, understood in the same sense as the original naturalists from the renaissance: just like they dared to understand nature in terms of nature (contra theological impositions), marxists proclaim that the social dimension of life (that is, the collective human activities that sustain, produce and reproduce the life of the society) can be understood on its own terms, without recourse to anything external to it. that is it, that is marxism. lukacs (i assume you would grant him the title of marxist) said that even if every single concrete claim made by marx and engels were disproved by empirical findings, marxism would still be true, because it is essentially a method, an approach to a dimension of reality, just like modern natural science began with the supposition that natural phenomena could be known rationally and prevailed even when every single early scientist was eventually completely replaced by new findings.

the reason why marxism is so bound up with communism, can itself be understood in marxist terms, that is in terms of knowledge being a practice contingent on class struggle. only a labor movement can seriously achieve the independence from the bourgeois knowledge practice to recognize this space of the social as open to knowledge on its own terms. so in a sense, marxism was made possible by communism (and not the other way around!). But once the essence of this is out in the open, it doesn't really help to equate the two. many bourgeois (that is, favoring capitalism) intellectuals have (attempted to) re-appropriate marxism for their own endeavors, after realizing its power viz a viz the limitations of their thinking (limitations which were shown to begin with by the emergence of marxism).

>>13627954
by trying to divorce religion from reality you become the religion
thats the vital part marxists missed - the nature of existence which they try to ignore is very real
>said that even if every single concrete claim made by marx and engels were disproved by empirical findings, marxism would still be true, because
this attitude confirms what i was saying, that marxism is unrelated to marx, except maybe inspired by him
>it doesn't really help to equate the two
i was saying that communism is the end goal of marxism, achieving the state of communism, not equating it, so every marxist state must be by definition communist, which also casts doubt on your claim that marxism is merely a scientific method of social science because science does not have an explicit goal
its an ideology/religion whether you admit it or not

>>13627991
>marxism is unrelated to marx
It's like saying natural science is unrelated to Bacon, because we have found better ways of explaining the same things he attempted, and refined his method. no, Marx cannot be reduced simply to his positive commitments. he represented a new direction for thought.

>communism is the end goal of marxism, achieving the state of communism
whenever people set themselves up so blatantly i end up needing to deploy this utterly overused quote that, it seems, never stops being relevant
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence
-marx, 1845

Marx is shite even though class-based analysis was and is still helpful.

With that said, it's literally the more glaring sign of NPC low iq behavior if you retroactively judge previous generations (especially people near 200 years ago) by values and knowledge of the present.

People who do this are instantaneously discredited. Fucking losers

>>13628009
it's not even clear that "the values of the present" preclude even self-described progressives from calling people niggers in private. so in a sense, marx was no more outdated for using these insults than anyone living today

>>13628003
>It's like saying natural science is unrelated to Bacon, because we have found better ways of explaining the same things he attempted, and refined his method
thats actually an interesting way of looking at it, i havent thought about it that way,
although i still stand by what i said, because marx wasnt a father of marxism nor did his philosophy ever try to be what marxists turned it into, even if marxists used him as a starting point

>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself
>We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things
im an integralist and this surprisingly reminds me of my own attitude towards "the present state of things"
in its claiming a certain conception of reality it is necessarily an ideology or should i say a movement formed around one

>>13628015

That's so true. None of these values people shout from the rooftops are actually felt or believed. That's why they use social compulsion.

>>13628026
>in its claiming a certain conception of reality it is necessarily an ideology
it is necessarily interwoven with ideology, but not -an- ideology. in keeping with the renaissance comparisons, the only way for the early astronomers to put forth their ideas of naturalism (and humanism) was to be bound up with the emerging merchant class and its ideology, so being separate from the dominant ideology of the church. only this allowed them to develop the kind of thinking that would become science. but this doesn't mean astronomy, itself, is an ideology. the point here is that in designating any conception of the world whatsoever as ideological, you render powerless the objection against marxism that accuses it of being ideological.

>>13628009
>if you retroactively judge previous generations (especially people near 200 years ago) by values and knowledge of the present
now this is naive and linear worldview which falsely assumes that technological and temporal progress has a profound impact on knowledge

>>13628033
>but this doesn't mean astronomy, itself, is an ideology
no, but humanism, naturalism and their later culmination in modernism is an ideology within whose paradigm this "science" exists
the only way to see that as real is if you actually believe in it, so this only paints you as trying to impose your narrative - i could as well say that catholicism is the science of metaphysics and insist that it is simply - reality - but im not disingenuous

>>13628066
nobody is denying that, hence my last comment.

what do you think is the reason for catholicism's fall into irrelevance in these areas (the ones where humanism and science flourished)?

>>13628037

if you were talking about more foundational topics, then sure. We're talking about belief in the precursor to neuroscience. It's a completely different metaphysical paradigm they were operating in. Its literally moronic to make this comparison

Marx lived after the enlightenment so there was a metaphysical predisposition to empiricism, and they thought naively that all phenomena could be explained or demonstrated empirically and had not yet considered to question their base assumptions or to use falsifiable evidence, etc.

It's moral posturing disguised as a critique.

>>13628079
>what do you think is the reason for catholicism's fall into irrelevance in these areas
catholicism fell into irrelevance only in enlightenment era, which was realistically a conclusion of renaissance humanism, you could say those were when the seed of it all was planted, but catholicism was still going strong back then, church was the main sponsor of science and overwhelming majority of scientists were religious
it has nothing to do with "science" (whatever you think that word means), but with complex and multifaceted social trends

>>13628089
>It's a completely different metaphysical paradigm they were operating in.
>metaphysics depends on our knowledge of physics
and supposedly im the moron here
>We're talking about belief in the precursor to neuroscience
if you are talking about his retarded pseudoscientific stuff i dont really care about that, im not a marxist so i do not consider any of it to be scientific in any way

>>13628118

they are operating before the evidence-based, causal hard sciences became the norm. The point is, phrenology was still accepted because it hadn't made the transition yet into what we would now consider neuroscience.

>if you are talking about his retarded pseudoscientific stuff i dont really care about that, im not a marxist so i do not consider any of it to be scientific in any way

yeah no shit.

>retarded pseudoscientific
>I do not consider any of it to be scientific

Thats the point I'm literally making. It's not scientific, they haven't gotten there yet. How are you missing this basic idea.

You (present) consider "scientific" to be a benchmark for validity

Them (past) had not incorporated that metaphysic. ergo, they do shit that we consider "pseudo-scientific." That takes the present epistemological standard as a presumption. It's literally in the language you're using.

>>13628103
>it has nothing to do with "science" (whatever you think that word means), but with complex and multifaceted social trends
what point do you think i was making? i'm a marxist, i already explained what we do, which is grounding the movements of thought (culture, "science", ideology in general) in the movement of the social world which is self-sustaining. and precisely this complexity is what makes it dubious to claim that catholicism "was still just as relevant" until the late 18th century, when the reformation happened, when protestantism became a dominant influence in the culture of the european bourgeoisie essentially replacing the functions taken until then by catholicism, the same european bourgeoisie who were at the forefront of the enlightenment and the political revolutions that culminated in modern capitalism, etc.

in the same way that understanding "ideology" cannot be done without this grounding (which is a very marxist conception, even if you would deny it), so goes for the relationship between the ideology of communism (which expressed the real material phenomenon of the labor movement) and social science as an emerging field of thought that was incapable of being articulated before it. that is the thing, too, marxism wasn't the literal invention of social science, but even its early incarnations were marked all over with the utopian socialist sentiment of the fouriers, the saint-simons, the owens, all the way up to comte and proudhon's development which gave way for marx's contributions which we marxists regard as being definitive to this conception (ie no sociologist after marx can ignore him, even if just to disagree, they have to take off from him).

>>13628148
look, i know marx from frankfurters, like him for social analysis and commentary and think of late marx as a senile retard, his """scientific""" stuff really doesnt interest me and i dont give a fuck about it

>>13627863
Were your parents by chance siblings? Forgive my rudeness but AVOIDING cherry picking is scientifically speaking uttermost devoid of logic. How could we have advanced to today's society if everyone would have judged everyone else by all their actions and not only their most significant ones?

Marxism, and by extension communism, while perfectly justified in its angst towards the disproportionately wealthy, crucially overestimates the unwashed masses, the majority of whom, in fact, deserve to be enslaved. I wish it were otherwise and the average Joe had some sort of repressed potential, but again, the majority are perfectly in their element as it is—NPC pencil pushers and beasts of burden.

>>13628187
assertions with no justification in sight, the specialty of these so-called "cynics" which are in reality nothing more than utter cucks to ruling ideology.

Marxism, and its natural conclusion, communism, while perfectly justified in its angst towards the disproportionately wealthy, crucially overestimates the unwashed masses, the majority of whom, in fact, deserve to be enslaved. I wish it were otherwise and the average Joe had some sort of oppressed potential, but again, the majority are perfectly in their element as it is—NPC pencil pushers and beasts of burden. What’s really needed is eugenics—and only then can we talk about Marxism.

>>13628152
>this complexity is what makes it dubious to claim that catholicism "was still just as relevant" until the late 18th century, when the reformation happened
for a religion material development is irrelevant, its values should be applicable to whatever level of social development we live in - christianity is especially adept at this since it is notoriously metaphorical and filled with broadly applicable principles
>"was still just as relevant"
it quite literally was since it controlled the european society up to the enlightenment, if you want to make claims that its authority eroded from within go ahead, but it quite literally was the ruling system of its time centuries after the renaissance
>social science as an emerging field of thought that was incapable of being articulated before it
comte was before marx
durkheim and spencer were cotemporaries of marx
it all evolved into more mainstream thought through them and max weber, but i guess we will ignore it in your persistent efforts to impose your narrative and try to create some kind of apriori marxist suppositions
>ie no sociologist after marx can ignore him, even if just to disagree, they have to take off from him
that doesnt mean he defined it in the way you take it, it merely means that he contributed in his thought, nothing marxist about being used as a stepping stone for burgeois philosophy