/lit/ - Literature

I have and I agree he's pretty incredible even though I'm a National Socialist

>greatest writer to have ever lived
>not Shakespeare

>greatest philosopher to have ever lived
>not Kant or Parmenides

>greatest philosophical writer to have ever lived
>not Nietzsche

Oh shit nigga what are you DOING?

"Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the thing is to change it." - Marx

Marx didn't care about having a good, livable philosophy.

Anyone with half a brain can see past his materialism.

Are you really that retarded, OP?

>>3664700
lol have you ever even read marx little guy?

have you guys ever read What Is To Be Done? it's like what ayn rand is for young republicans for young communists

>>3664714

Yeah I've read Capital. It wasn't that great.

Hey Marxists,

if Marx is truth, where is my revolution?

Marxists: 0
White privileged Christian cisscum capitalists: 1

>>3664739
i want to know why marxists don't actually answer this criticism haha
wasn't capital marx trying to scientifically prove that global revolution was imminent?

>the greatest writer to have ever lived

OP, I can't honestly believe that you believe that.

So, in all history, in all languages, the best writer (writer being defined as someone who transmutes ideas into symbols and records them in the physical universe), Karl Marx was the BEST writer?

Don't you think that's a bit of a strong statement?

My troll detector hasn't fully gone off, so that much make you a sincere retard.

>>3664726
lol have you ever *really* read marx, kid boy?

try the german ideology on for size, or better yet the grundrisse. and read them in marx's own writing, viz., in 19th century german.

no i'm serious

>>3664746
i don't think it's that outlandish, he was definitely a very impressive guy who wrote a lot of very impressive books. but he's not particularly relevant to the modern world unless you interpret him extremely liberally imo

>Marx

Enjoy believing a hypocritical philosophical quack who based his entire work around a flawed view of history.

>>3664749
>have you ever read Marx
>yeah

>but I mean, have you REALLY read marx, you fucking child

marx was good with his journals and his shorter works but he was bad at writing his big pieces, anything more than several pages began to develop inconsistencies that are often irreconcilable with the rest of the piece. he shows signs of poor drafting work and some cognitive dissonance that prevented him from writing philosophy well. even when cognative dissonance occurs during you're writing you should stay coherent and address the second opinion in another manuscript. 6/10 good read

could anyone give me an example of a contingent modal proposition? thanks ahead of time for completion.

>>3664744
'Scientifically' in an older sense, he meant for it to be a 'science' in the sense of an evolving tradition, rather than a stagnant ideology.

This is enough to answer you, but there are even Marxists who say that it is valid to conceive of a proletarian revolution, but that it just hasn't happened yet.

>>3664753
>around a flawed view of history
I'd like for you to tell me what that view is before I agree with you.

>>3664759
>I'd like for you to tell me what that view is before I agree with you.

He believed that capitalism would fall to socialism then communism through revolution because he believed that the workers would somehow 'wake up' to their exploitation of their capitalist masters when in fact their living conditions were improving at a rate that was unheard of in history do to the efficiency of resource allocation provided in a free market environment.

>>3664744
are you a retarded person?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghe_Guevara

try that on for size, to start, little guy. there are a lot of implications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

do you, uh, see a common pattern?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Le_Bon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Debord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Félix_Guattari
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baurdrillard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Zizek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)

i mean, for fuck's sake, children

a good example of keeping two opposing opinions separated into two manuscripts would be Bertrand Russell's on denoting and logical atomism respectively

>>3664775
Che*

>>3664775
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS

Done. What now, OP?

>>3664774
Holy shit, is this reductive.

>>3664688

>You guys really should read all of his works.

How about... no.

>ctrl F
>dialectics
>0 results
c'mon /lit/

>>3664793
: - O

o man i want that

>Marx
>greatest writer

Right. Next to Kant.

>>3664804
>use
>value
>commodity
>labor
>wage
for that matter, etc.

are we being raided?

>>3664806

That's the old East German editon called "Marx-Engels Werke" (MEW). It was for sale literally for a song after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the following years. Less difficult to buy than to transport really. There was an even larger edition calles "Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe" (MEGA), a sort of joint venture of Soviet and East German editors. Both aren't critical editions by modern standards. A full critical edition (even larger!) of MEGA is being prepared at the moment, due in 2025 (or so).

>>3664829
/lit/ is a Marxist haven.

Like it's the only place where it comes up that isn't /pol/.

>>3664843
I know that, but it seems there are more free market babbies than usual

>>3664775
did you just argue with my post by linking to the wikipedia articles on slavoj zizek and che guevara

>>3664807
>implying Kant didn't fuck up a lot despite his brilliance
I wouldn't call him the greatest writer.

Why do ppl still talk about him?? Every idea I heard that came from him resulted in a huge amount of fail when put into the real world... And all his prediction never happened...

>>3664855

>>3664700
>implying Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher
>implying there is a difference between philosopher and philosophical writer

>>3664861
socrates didn't write

>>3664775
>RAF
I don't think we should be very proud of that.

>>3664744
From what I've heard Capital is Marx's critique of capitalism. I've heard that communism isn't a huge theme of the book.

>>3664863
socrates DID write, he was one of the 13 heavenly generals of ancient china. his revolutionary writings on war, however antiquated are seen as an unprecedented literary achievement for that time

>>3664863
all philosophical writers are philosophers, not all philosophers are philosophical writers

>>3664875
lol what? i cant tell if trolling or thinking of sun-tzu mixed with japan's 12 heavenly generals.

>>3664863
Fair point. But the exclusion still stands as lame.
Kant and Parmenides both wrote. So did Nietzsche.
Does the fact that Kant and Parmenides wrote exclude them from the non-writer philosopher category?
No?
Then Nietzsche belongs on the same list they are on.

>>3664807
lol no.

>>3664955
>Kant and Parmenides
So entry level it hurts.

>>3664861

What I mean is that Nietzsche was the best writer out of the big name philosophers.

Not so fast, Karl.

>>3664688
>Karl Marx is the greatest writer to have ever lived
ENOUGH...
go kill urseld

Karl Marx is certainly one of the most influential philosophers to have ever lived, and his methodology is still supremely useful in studying history. His critiques of capitalism are still valid, especially with over one billion people on Earth working for less than a dollar a week for the benefit of Western corporate interests. Just because you live a plush bourgeois existence doesn't mean labor is not being appropriated from the masses for the benefit of the few.

>>3664774
>would somehow 'wake up'
>somehow

>>3664840
>due in 2025 (or so).

do you even read, babby? you know nothing ignorant fool

>mfw people are anything but full centrist social liberal near me

Some anon told me that I should read about 'greek democracy' instead of reading more Marx. It could possibly help me with contextualizing Marx. Any good books on 'greek democracy'?

>>3665859
Just a couple. Really hard to find, anon. Sorry, can't help you.

Check your privilege communists.

>>3665846
>approving of the welfare state
disgusting

>>3665907
Objectivists pls go.

>>3665898
>revolutionary commies are privileged because they aren't liberals
What?

>>3664861
because Kant was a great philosopher but a very bad writer.

>>3665918
Check your privilege.

I'll read one of his works. Life is short. Pick it.

>>3665935
To be honest, they have a point. Violent revolution usually only ends in tears, and these days the monopoly of violence possessed by state governments is so strong that it's a foregone conclusion you'll lose anyway.

>>3665952
Good. I shiver at the idea of the type of people supporting revolutionary communism these days getting any power.

>>3665952
I know. Reading that discussion is one of the things that made me seriously reconsider communism. I just wanted to post it in an asinine way, forgive way.

>>3665967
forgive me*

>>3665961
I'm of the socialist persuasion, but a belief that violent revolution will yield the results you want demonstrates a clear inability to learn from the mistakes of history. Most of them end up creating fascist totalitarian states in a red hat. They abandon the principles they sought to implement when they were writing subversive pamphlets and preaching in basements, choosing instead direct power over the people in often the most blunt and destructive manner.

>>3665973
Pic related

>>3664753
>Enjoy believing a hypocritical philosophical quack who based his entire work around a flawed view of history
w-wait you are describing that loon Molyneux with this, right? RIGHT?

>>3665973
Indeed. That's why I shiver. Often they also have no political experience.

>>3664688
teenager's first edgy

>>3664700
you are after my own heart. I agree on all counts, and love that you threw in Parmenides

I've never been given a convincing argument against the labor theory of value, so that much of Marx's work I agree with wholeheartedly.

>>3665929
Except he wasn't that great of a philosopher. Sure, he was very intelligent and had some good ideas. His system as a whole fails hard, his epistemology is outdated and his ethics suck. His aesthetics are ok as long as they're mostly borrowed from Burke, he fails hard with his religious bullshit.

Entry level. Great for undergrads until they realize actual philosophy isn't historiography/sucking some dead guy's cock.

>>3666407
Lol, I love it how edgy quickly acquired such variety of different meanings. It's the new "hipster". Btw, you're a fag.

>>3664688
>Wanted to achieve anarchy through a centralised and authoritarian state
>Didn't realise that power corrupts and that whichever niggers gained that kind of power would not want to relinquish it

This cunt can't even into the most basic psychology

>>3666485

>>3666493

>>3666472
>supply and demand.
I don't think the labor theory of value applies anymore. Consumerism rules, this is how the bourgeois avoided the revolution: production isn't what constitutes the base of economy anymore.

>>3666498
The point of the theory is that surplus capital is a crime against the worker, whose labor actually produced the goods, and goes to the owner who created nothing but reaps the lion's share of the profit.

Supply and demand have nothing to do with it.

>>3666490
>anarchy
That's a pretty rough definition of what Marx wanted. And the "power corrupts" relies on the very base of his criticism to capitalism. He fucked up overrating the masses' intelligence and will of regaining their dignity.

>>3666510
His surplus theory is ok. What he's wrong about is considering value of a product come from the labor inverted on creating it. What determines the value of a product is the law of supply and demand. It's society (in a general, abstract sense) what determines the value according to its needs.

>>3664703
>"Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the thing is to change it." - Marx

That one is funny because people like citing it as proof of why Marx was important and innovative, when that was really a Young Hegelian commonplace...

>>3664714
>>3664749
>little guy
>kid boy

Has /lit/ offended you? I think it has.

>Karl Marx is the greatest writer to have ever lived

lel

>>3666540
Well, Marx's economy is like an actualization of Smith's. Both are equally influential even though Smith's is chronologically prior.

>>3666544
Do you even read, bro? If you take out private property out of the equation, you didn't make an "actualization" of Smith's theory economics, you just denied it and went your own way.

>>3666552

Das Kapital is about (an analysis of) capitalism. The clue is in the name.

>>3664872
misses the point

the question was asked: why hasn't there been a revolution and why can't marxists account for it?

there've been many attempted revolutions (RAF included), and if you seriously read things written by the people i linked (i linked wiki articles bc ur fucking children; but yes, you need to actually read their works if you're asking this question and then refusing to read the articles), then you'll understand why. it's been addressed.

and i'm a little upset, admittedly, because this is something i'm very passionate about. i read marx two years ago, all while simultaneously learning about the cuban revolution, and it affected me greatly

>>3666571
see also: debord and the events of may 1968

>>3666552
MSmith is to Marx what Schopenhauer is to Nietzsche. Or what Hegel is to practically anyone. Philosophy doesn't evolve in a straight line, "bro".

ITT: edgy teens who will never realize what Marx did for literary theory

>read the grundrisse

Pic of me licking my Collected Works of Marx and Engels.

>>3666593
I hope you never lend me a book.

>vanguardism
sage

You wanna go there, bro?

>>3666513
Worth noting that this fact doesn't automatically mean society should be run by those with capital and those who can only provide labor should be subjugated. It just means Marx's justification for communism was bullshit.

>>3666593

Are most /lit/ posters disgusting looking neckbeards like this?

>>3666639
No, but most Marxists are.

>>3666593
Can't you sell those books to pay for a gym membership?

>>3666639
I am. And I make at least 15% of all /lit/ posts.

>>3666688
I make 25% of them, under various trips.

>>3666622
Indeed. Marx tried to make a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one. Funny thing is how contemporary Marxism must rely on prescriptive theories, or at least renounce to fundamental parts of Marx's analysis.

>the greatest writer to have ever lived
That's Kant, OP.
Analcrustie, go fuck yourself with a cactus ;-)

>>3665935

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

>>3666746
>oh no I can't find a single reason oh no I'm so retarded someone help me I shat my pants

>>3666746
>Kant
But Kantian ethics are just "It's wrong to make a decision based on the probable consequences, so you should make a decision on the consequences that would happen if everyone did what you're considering."

It's still consequentialism, but now it's less efficient.

I prefer philosophers where there aren't 5 million other texts to try to clarify what they meant.

>>3667468
And the best part is those texts are contradictory between them, so you'll never be really sure about which one's the correct interpretation.

>>3667568
>correct interpretation
What is this a middle school class.

>>3665918
They're 'privileged' as in the ones on that site haven't fought a war a day in their life.

And warmongering will get you banned on SRS.

>>3667468
So you prefer not to read?

>>3666478
>actual philosophy isn't historiography/sucling some dead guy's cock
>steathily drops dead guy's cock I was holding in my hand
What is it then ?

>>3667596
Ethics, and sucking some dead guy's cock.

Or maybe philosophy of mathematics and language, and sucking some dead guy's cock.

>>3667601
And stuff related to politics (well, ethics, but on a wider sense), sociology, philosophy of and epistemology/philosophy of science (well, this somehow always ends up studying language). Well, and aesthetics... But this last one is a pretty dead subject as far as I know... The last interesting stuff I'm aware of was said by Dickie and Danto like 20 years ago.

>>3667601
>>3667601
And stuff related to politics (well, ethics, but on a wider sense), sociology and epistemology/philosophy of science (well, this somehow always ends up studying language). Well, and aesthetics... But this last one is a pretty dead subject as far as I know... The last interesting stuff I'm aware of was said by Dickie and Danto like 20 years ago.

>>3666758
>>3667586
Your privilege is still unchecked. Please correct this.

>>3667619
>politics is ethics, but on a wider sense
>sociology
>dismissing Marx for historiography

Go burn whatever polemic bullshit screed you've been writing and kill yourself.

>>3667631
>dismissing Marx for historiography
lol what
I didn't dismiss Marx. read more carefully.

>>3667632
>That really checked my privileges.

>>3667662
>Great for undergrads until they realize actual philosophy isn't historiography

Yeah, I get that you think you made your concessions before, but there wasn't actually any content, just polemic and condescending degradation.

>>3667687
As I said, Kant is completely irrelevant once you get out of the academia. Epistemology, ethics and politics perspectives of today have left behind Kant (except some kantian ethics professors who don't use to write anything remotely interesting). This doesn't happen with Marx. His influence is still present in today's politics debates.

>>3667722
>As I said, Kant is completely irrelevant once you get out of the academia
as are most philosophers

>>3667722

HAHAHA!

Kant irrelevant?! You breathe Kant and you don't even know it!

For me, Baruch Spinoza was the end of philosophy. he figured it out and everything after him is pointless.

Also, Friedman > Marx
Marx was an idiot. Friedman was a genius.

>>3667981

>>3667966
Yet nobody knows they're "the most important thinker ever".

>>3667978
Oh sorry, you're right. I totally forgot the open debate about the possible or impossible unification of the pure and the practical reason. Also, the other day I read an essay by a Harvard epistemology professor about the difference between phenomena and noumena and what neurosciences have to say about the subject.

I love it when some fag is late to the party and thinks he's got it all figured out.

>>3667981
Well, I recommend you the historic introduction Schopenhauer wrote in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. There he explain where Spinoza fucked up (well, it was actually an incorrect interpretation of Aristotle by Descartes, Spinoza "inherited" it from reading him). Anyway, his pantheism is an interesting metaphysical approach to the metaphysical problem, like a precedent of naturalism (too rationalist, though).

>>3666478
wow use more buzzwords
filtered

>>3666478

>making absolutist value judgements
>not teenager tier
>claiming marx is best
>not edgy tier

>>3668077
>Yet nobody knows
Meant "says"

>>3667981
>tfw there is a possibility you are a distant relative of Spinoza
Feels good

>>3668080
oh no

>>3668083
>making absolutist value judgements
For example?
>claiming marx is best
I didn't say so. Anyway, I prefer Marx.
>tier
>tier
>tier
>tier

>>3668083
Oh, btw,forgot to say it, but you can try to explain why do you think my opinion about Kant is wrong so it doesn't look like you didn't even read him.

>>3666478
>Entry level
>sucking some dead guy's cock.
>edgy
>hipster
>fag

>>3668093

>For example?
"greatest"
>I didn't say so.
but the OP did

you get 0/2 on reading comprehension and 1/1 for homophobic tendencies. you're worse than sunhawk

>>3668097
wow, your reading comprehension is worse than I thought. I'm this guy:
>>3666407
you ignoramus

>>3668099
>"greatest"
Can you quote exactly where I said so?
You can't because I didn't.
>but the OP did
I'm not OP's mom.

Yeah, I understood nothing. But don't try to explain where I mistook you or you could end up proving you're retarded. Just let it how it is.
Also, homophobic? lol your capacity to discern between literal and figurative sense amuses me.

>>3664739

>maybe global revolution will still happen, you're no psychic.
>reducing Marx to his teleology

Breathing, how do you even manage it?

>>3668116
>>3668103
>call out OP's edginess
>you snipe me
>i respond
>you confused because you think I was the other guy
>mfw

>>3668092
I'm so happy for you.

>>3668120
This is what happens when you're not able to write without the use of greentext. You didn't specify who you were calling edgy, also you didn't specify why.

ITT: tripfags and "edgy"

>>3668152
I've had enough edgy for today.
I miss those times when people called others "idiot", "retard" or "faggot".

>>3665973


I love how "most of them" =/= all of them. Viva Cuba Libre!

>>3666490

Just because power tends to corrupt does not mean that it NECESSARILY corrupts.

>>3666498

Congratulations, you wrote something utterly stupid. Your medal is in the mail.

What are people consuming if not produced goods? Why can so few working people afford really common products?

>>3664688
True.

>>3668195
Hurrr that's a theory of value idiot, I was talking about what determines the value of a product, not how production works. I was basically citing Alfred Marshal's critique to Labor Theory of Value.

Good job missing entirely the point.

>>3668080
>wow use more buzzwords
>filtered

This is funny. Do you actually think those are buzzwords? That is like saying a car mechanic explaining to you why your car is fucked is using buzzwords such as 'gear shift', 'clutch' and 'transmission'.

>>3666576
>ITT: edgy teens who will never realize what Marx did for literary theory

lol. Name one single work of marxist literary theory that is not bullshit, please.

>>3664775
Of course the poster you are replying to is retarded, but the fact alone that people have read Marx and been influenced by him hardly means that dialectical materialism holds true... If that were the case the history of Christianity would also prove the existence of God.

>>3666513
>What he's wrong about is considering value of a product come from the labor inverted on creating it. What determines the value of a product is the law of supply and demand. It's society (in a general, abstract sense) what determines the value according to its needs.

Yeah, the problem is that value in a truly economic sense should be thought of as the latter, if you want to actually analyze how the relations of production works. Marx' conviction that the value of the object produced is somehow determined by the labour that went into it is a vestigial Hegelianism: The idea that creating an object means to externalize ones essence and give it existence in the object created. I would be really interested in reading a critical evaluation of what the 'materialism' of Marx actually consists of, I haven't been able to make sense of it. The German Ideology does not make a very logical point about the relation between base and superstructure, then you get endless hedging about the 'last instance' (what does this mean?) and finally things like 'Realabstraktion' that suggest that indeed mind and matter are connected causally.

>>3666478
>his epistemology is outdated and his ethics suck.
>Entry level
>actual philosophy
10/10

>>3665898
Haha. Holy fuck, a feministic implied confession that men are more powerful than women and that their special kind of equality only can be realized by creaing a culture of shame, law reforms protecting feelings and social programming and the grooming of youth.

You see all ethics, morals and laws in society are derived from violence, or rather the threat of violence. There is a sense of mutual destruction that keep us all in check. You can nudge the boundaries of what is tolerated by slowly nudging the norms but if you make a great leap, such as a revolution all settings will be reset and civilization returns to default: Anarchism, tribalism, extreme powerhierarchy and in every case where this happens women lose because they, inevitably, inferior to men. Feminism is in extent a consequence of the luxury and privilege and surplus that white man created through colonialism and capitalism. Yet Feminism at core is a revolution against the power structure that secured their existence. It's troublesome. In the end it's ultimately women whining at men to get them the things the want.

Women.... women never changes.

>>3669230

In Better Angels of Our Nature, Stephen Pinker points out that women tend to have a civilizing effect on men. Married men tend to be less reckless than unmarried men, for example. So given a certain civility can be seen as the backbone of contemporary society, a lot of credit for it should go to women.

Incidentally, "grooming of youth"?

>>3669186
>>3667978
>Oh no I can't bring a proper argument because I'm too retarded and I've never read Kant.

I'll repeat this:
>Oh sorry, you're right. I totally forgot the open debate about the possible or impossible unification of the pure and the practical reason. Also, the other day I read an essay by a Harvard epistemology professor about the difference between phenomena and noumena and what neurosciences have to say about the subject.

>>3669230

>feministic

my sides have reached apeiron

>>3669298
>essay by a Harvard epistemology professor about the difference between phenomena and noumena and what neurosciences have to say about the subject.
Links to these? The latter one is probably a huge bullshit since neuroscience cannot into subjective experience and has only managed to map the brain with its corresponding functional regions; that's like -- okay, pretty neat -- but is a major snoozefest altogether, providing us with little to no answers, concerning, say, ontology

>>3669230
Keep on posturing while displaying your total ignorance of behavioral biology. It is sidesplitting.

>>3669270
We'll have to wait and see which culture comes out dominant at the end of this global reshuffle, before we can verify your argument. Not that I'm not willing to wait.

>>3669230
>by creaing a culture of shame, law reforms protecting feelings and social programming and the grooming of youth.

this is what happened at the expense of women before we only recently started working it out lol do you get your world history from /pol/ nigga

>>3669333
I can't link it because it doesn't exist. It was irony.
>>3667722

>>3664700
kant is a cunt

>>3669333
Ah, btw, neurosciences study epistemology.
What scientists say about subjectivity is as shit as what philosophers say. Well, evolutionary psychology and naturalized epistemology try to theorize about how it evolved from basic nervous systems, but that's all.

>>3669420
Do you even know what you are talking about?

>>3669412
ImWAAHuel Kunt

Arthurr Dopenhauer

come on, let's go

>>3669408
>>3669420
Hm, ok then

The subjective theory of value is a question-begging mess, in the end it makes even less sense than LTV.

Are there any economic theories of value that make a lick of sense?

>>3669426
Neurosciences (not neurobiology) regarding philosophy. It's psychology + linguistics + epistemology.

>>3669445
>not adopting eliminative materialis,
>2013

>>3669445
Ugh, meant cognitive sciences, sorry. Cognitive sciences try to put all that in relation to neurosciences. Lapsus linguae.
>>3669442
>Are there any economic theories of value that make a lick of sense?
Ehh...Difficult question. All economic theories tend to fail terribly. It's like the least efficient "science" ever.

>>3669461
I've always seen economics as an "objective" way to substantiate a sort of unspoken political theory.

I realize I might get called glib for this, however.