/lit/ - Literature

>>15859281
Yes, mildly. I don't even like capitalism, but you people need to develop a better sense of humor

>>15859281

I think communism is very wrong but I don't think Marx was an idiot or completely worthless as a thinker.

"Mode of production" and the relationship between the base and superstructure are two good historiographical contributions.

>>15859718
the base/superstructure thing has always struck me as idiotic. It's a complex system of feedback loops that involve things termed 'material' and not, reducing it to a system where one set is purely caused by the other is obviously wrong. The insight that economic class concerns exert a lot of influence on human history is fine, but I don't understand the need to take it further than it applies.

>>15859769
read hegel before marx

>>15859281
I remember back when I was 14 in my libertarian phase and used to share these kinds of memes while never having read a single political philosophy book (or any book for that matter) in my life, I would feel smart by mocking famous thinkers as if I had it all figured out simply by belonging to a political camp.

>>15859281
I find most critiques of Marx are either on his character or on "cultural marxism" / neoliberalism.

I mean to discredit Marx, you basicly have to argue for capitalism, which I rarely see anyone ever do, and everyone agrees there are flaws in the system. Flaws that Marx likely pointed out over 150 years ago.

>>15859769
Sounds like you haven't actually read the theory.

>>15859797
>>15859774
Why don't you just explain your disagreement with what I said

>>15859789
we've all been there. I thought I figured out all of human spirituality and religion when I watched some Hitchens and Dawkins youtube debates as a teen.

>>15859817
>reducing it to a system where one set is purely caused by the other is obviously wrong
nice argument, read hegel brainlet

>>15859817
because none of what you said is coherent nor something Marx said, Marx and Engels actually pointed out that the base/superstructure is NOT the only thing that explains social relations.

>>15859795

Agreeing with the criticism of capitalism of Marx doesn't mean you agree with his proposals for replacing it.
Totalitarian dictatorships in which the economy is centrally planned by the State have more problems than capitalism, that is why China kept the totalitarian dictatorship part but allowed private property and free market capitalism to exist.
And those dictatorships of the XXth century were communist for real, for communists, before real communism comes (the society at the end of history with no state and no social class, a concept that may be an impossible utopia, religious idea comparable to the kingdom of heaven after the second coming) there should be first a dictatorship of the proletariat, and that is what the URSS, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Mao's China, Albania etc tried to be.

>>15859861
The base/superstructure concept is used that way by Marxists, to deny any other factors influencing the course of history.

>>15859866
>Agreeing with the criticism of capitalism of Marx doesn't mean you agree with his proposals for replacing it.
What proposals? Marx didn't really propose a replacement in any kind of detail. Just a few sentences here and there within a massive corpus devoted to understanding the nature of capitalism.

>>15859817
because they don't understand his work and can't comment on it. all marxists use circular reasoning and false axioms

>>15859900
see >>15859797

>>15859866
What do you mean by Totalitarian dictatorship?

>>15859912
You aren't going to say a single thing of value are you

>>15859919
>expecting substance when you have no idea what you speak of
you first

>>15859903
>>15859919
Come back after you've read a book and we can have a productive conversation.

>I think communism is very wrong

>>15859866
read this >>15859901

Also do you know what USSR stands for? They were not in fact communists, but socialists regimes lead by men who thought they could bring about social progress. To some degree they did and transformed primarily farming countries to industrialized nations able to rival the US. They were never able to finalize the proejct due to corruption, politics and personal power trips, so now we're seeing the fallout of once revolutions turn into capitalist dictatorships. Mind you this isnt what Marx proposed, but were others continuation of his thought. Marx was much more passive and thought history would move along in a more natural, unforced way.

Meh its ok, better than a good amount of marxist memes

>>15859789
most of the posters making these threads haven't gone past that phase so congratulations for growing up anon

>>15859954
>>15859948
It doesn't matter if I'm wrong or not, you refuse to even state what you think or contribute anything at all. You could have made several posts by now explaining the concept in the way you see it, it wouldn't even take much effort. This behavior is bizarrely common among the Marxists on this site, you clearly don't even want to discuss the topic so what you're doing in the threads is beyond me.

>>15859961
Lmaoooo you left-coms are useful retards for fascists

>>15859954
thanks for proving my point
>durr thesis synthesis antithesis
>durr feudalism slavery capitalism
wow so enlightened!

>>15859797
The memes really are true. It's impossible to have a productive conversation with leftoids.

>>15859991
How so

>>15859981
I'll tell you why I no longer bother spoonfeeding faggots like you, because you are not here to learn, you don't give a shit about what Marx said, even if I explain the theory in 3 lengthy posts I'll get some dumb strawman argument with a smug joke pretending as if once again you dismantled 200 years of political theory with a 4chan shitpost, I only engage when I read a post from someone who has read the material they're talking about, even if they're critical of Marx.
But I don't waste my time on brainlets like you who want to use big words without reading a single page of what they speak of, so instead I'm only here to shitpost as well, because what else does that OP post and picture serve for anyway?

>>15859948
>Just read the bible

>>15860033
You have spent more effort on this post explaining why you won't explain the idea than it would have taken to just write the post itself.

Are you afraid of saying what you think or something?

>>15860033
You sound like a liberal.
>I don’t have to educate you bigot.
Are you going to say exactly that to the proletariat? lol

>>15860039
>implying the bible isn't a must read

>>15860025
Why should we discuss with someone who wants to criticize something without having read it? Its a fruitless discussion, since it will just result in stubbornness and accusations or misinterpretations of Marx, most likely stemming from some reactionary youtuber who also hasnt read Marx. Its tiring. Its like discussing Harry Potter with someone who has only read JK Rowlings tweets.

>Marxists give impassioned defense of their refusal to explain what they think
lol you fucking retards

>>15860082
Sound like christians.

>>15860068
Maybe if you're a retard who still believes in the jewish sky daddy, then again you're a marxist so I wouldn't be surprised

>>15859281
This isn’t even lit, can marxists fuck off please? this isn’t your discord.

>>15860082
Ok, explain why you think the base / superstructure is idiotic. Dont come with this >>15859769
>reducing it to a system where one set is purely caused by the other is obviously wrong

Explain what you think is wrong. How is the material basis needed for humans and the distribution of them not what shapes the superstructure, and why isnt the superstructure also what maintains this distribution?

>>15859769
Reading misguided criticisms of Marx made on the basis of a lecture of a bunch of shitty wikipedia articles is one of my favorite pastimes. And no, I'm not giving out free lessons.

>>15859866
Marx never made any proposals for replacing capitalism. The features of its negation will be determined by necessity and not by a preconceived plan.
"Totalitarian dictatorships in which the economy is centrally planned by the State" is not the negation of capitalism but one of the forms of state under capitalism.
And "Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Mao's China, Albania" never "tried to be" dictatorships of the proletariat. They were all bourgeois and peasant revolutions from the very beginning.

I love capital. In a sexual way. Yesterday I fondled an investment fond.

>>15860161
>And no, I'm not giving out free lessons.
based Marxists absolutely unwilling to explain what they think