Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.10644735]

Did Karl Marx bring create a philosophy that promotes the chaos of the hinterlands? Is it inherently a demonic focal point that has arisen in history?

[Anonymous No.10644757]

>>10644735
I don't know, maybe you should read a book about it instead of starting a shitshow here

[Anonymous No.10644782]

>>10644735
>Did Karl Marx "bring create" a philosophy that promotes the "chaos of the hinterlands"?
There was already geopolitical instability in, as far as I know, at least Russia due to an unpopular and protracted war being lead by a hated government. Any ideology that could be attached to the slogan "peace, land, and bread" would have won out.
>Is it inherently a demonic focal point that has arisen in history?
No, and take your medicine.

[Anonymous No.10644818]

>>10644782
When I say demonic, I do not mean in the sense that you are probably thinking of it. I mean it more in the psychological sense.

[Anonymous No.10644990]

You have to understand that Marx based his philosophy on what he witnessed during the end of the Industrial Revolution.
The Communist Manifesto came out at the exact same time as the revolutions of 1848, and it is neither a coincidence, nor a conspiracy. At the time, workers in Europe worked 12 hours per day, and suffered from bourgeois indifference towards their living conditions, but they were also aware that they had power in their hands, and owned guns. The middle class also felt a need for reform, a big economic crisis struck Europe in 1847, and the rest is history.

He also was far from being the first socialist, his outlook was just more scientific than the others.
Marx theorized capitalism in its own way, starting from the thesis that human work is the main thing that gives a value to an object, and basically concluded that capitalism carry some internal contradictions that should give rise to communism at some point (like: Why does the prospect of most people losing their jobs due to automation and AI is considered as a problem, and not celebrated? Humans have been building tools to alleviate their workload since the dawn of times, for God's sake.)
The thing is: Marx is only a philosopher, from a different time when ICBMs and the service industry didn't exist. He is neither demonic nor angelic. His theories are still pretty great to explain things like pic related, and he badly needs to be read, but he also need to be assessed critically, with a cold head. Protip: muh gulags isn't an argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGld3FbDY6s

[Anonymous No.10645014]

>>10644818
>When I say demonic, I do not mean in the sense that you are probably thinking of it. I mean it more in the psychological sense.

[Anonymous No.10645489]

>>10644990
Marx's theories are more relevant than ever under a worldview of deregulated economics that we have had for a few decades. The only problem for Marxists are heavy welfare states which soften the inequalities caused by capitalism, causing reformists to win the argument. But such states are dying out and we have seen the systematic attack on organised labour, rising inequality, crises and widespread apathy. Marx is much more relevant than at any point since the 70s currently.

[Anonymous No.10645730]

>>10645489
>Marx's theories are more relevant than ever under a worldview of deregulated economics that we have had for a few decades
I agree m8.
>The only problem for Marxists are heavy welfare states which soften the inequalities caused by capitalism
Yeah, but that's Keynesianism anyway. People need to stop drinking the Cold War-era Kool Aid and conflate Marx and Keynes.
What makes me more afraid are cold-hearted libertarians like Nick Land who doesn't give a single fuck about what will happen to 90% of humanity if he continue on the path we are headed on.
>But such states are dying out and we have seen the systematic attack on organised labour, rising inequality, crises and widespread apathy
Well, there has been a resurgence of Keynesianism since the 2008 crisis, and desu it doesn't bother me that much insofar as it can either make the material conditions of my miserable life better before I die, or just show that Keynesianism is doomed anyway (i.e. SYRIZA and Podemos) and that we need something more powerful to remediate to the problems caused by capitalism.
Again, what Marx wanted was a world where people would create stuff solely for their use-value, and I think automation and AI are about to bring that question back unto the table soon enough.
>Marx is much more relevant than at any point since the 70s currently.
He was already relevant when Reagan and Thatcher started to enact their neoliberal policies. His analyses are however more potent nowadays because we are witnessing the absurdity and harmful effects of their ideology.

[Anonymous No.10645752]

>>10645489
>Marx's theories are more relevant than ever under a worldview of deregulated economics that we have had for a few decades
I agree m8.
>The only problem for Marxists are heavy welfare states which soften the inequalities caused by capitalism
Yeah, but that's Keynesianism anyway. People need to stop drinking the Cold War-era Kool Aid and conflate Marx and Keynes.
What makes me more afraid are cold-hearted libertarians like Nick Land who doesn't give a single fuck about what will happen to 90% of humanity if we continue on the path we are headed on.
>But such states are dying out and we have seen the systematic attack on organised labour, rising inequality, crises and widespread apathy
Well, there has been a resurgence of Keynesianism since the 2008 crisis, and desu it doesn't bother me that much insofar as it can either make the material conditions of my miserable life better before I die, or just show that Keynesianism is doomed anyway (i.e. SYRIZA and Podemos) and that we need something more powerful to remediate to the problems caused by capitalism.
Again, what Marx wanted was a world where people would create stuff solely for their use-value, and I think automation and AI are about to bring that question back unto the table soon enough.
>Marx is much more relevant than at any point since the 70s currently.
He was already very relevant when Reagan and Thatcher started to enact their neoliberal policies. His analyses are however more potent nowadays because we are witnessing the absurdity and harmful effects of their ideology.

[Anonymous No.10645773]

>>10645489
>Marx's theories are more relevant than ever under a worldview of deregulated economics that we have had for a few decades
I agree m8.
>The only problem for Marxists are heavy welfare states which soften the inequalities caused by capitalism
Yeah, but that's Keynesianism anyway. People need to stop drinking the Cold War-era Kool Aid and conflate Marx and Keynes.
What makes me more afraid are cold-hearted libertarians like Nick Land who doesn't give a single fuck about what will happen to 90% of humanity if we continue on the path we are headed on.
>But such states are dying out and we have seen the systematic attack on organised labour, rising inequality, crises and widespread apathy
Well, there has been a resurgence of Keynesianism since the 2008 crisis, and desu it doesn't bother me that much insofar as it can either make the material conditions of my miserable life better before I die, or just show that Keynesianism is doomed anyway (i.e. SYRIZA and Podemos) and that we need something more powerful to remediate to the problems caused by capitalism.
Again, what Marx wanted was a world where people would create stuff solely for their use-value, and I think automation and AI are about to bring that question back onto the table soon enough.
>Marx is much more relevant than at any point since the 70s currently.
He was already very relevant when Reagan and Thatcher started to enact their neoliberal policies. His analyses are however more potent nowadays because we are witnessing the absurdity and harmful effects of their ideology.

[Anonymous No.10645805]

>>10645773
What do you think about economic calculation as developed by Cockshott and his comrades? I've been looking at various proposals for a new kind of political economy, and the one they outline in TNS seems most realistic to me.

[Anonymous No.10646010]

>>10645805
I haven't read Towards a New Socialism yet, but from what I've heard, it also seems to be one of the realistic proposal to instantiate socialism to me.
It is certainly more thoughtful than the Invisible Committee stance which basically boils down to "dude let just destroy everything and we will have full communism, fuck cybernetics lmao"

[Anonymous No.10647248]

reading group where

[Anonymous No.10647270]

>>10645014
Dosto, probably,

[Anonymous No.10647341]

No, not at all. For Marx communism is the answer to a chaos - capitalism and its unstable contradictions. Whether or not you agree, proletarian dictatorship is supposed to be a resolution of the contradictions - namely the contradiction of the entirely opposed class interests of the bourgeois and proletariat under capitalism.
It isn't a demonic focal point in history either. It can't be described as a focal point. It started being for real in 1917 and still exists in North Korea, Cuba, and nominally in China today. Even if every communist government falls within 20 years, 120 years isn't a focal point. And a focal point would imply that the project was internationally unified. It wasn't. Geopolitically, communist countries have not always been perfect allies.
Demonic is pretty silly from the standpoint of history. The great hero Winston Churchill, who fought alongside Stalin to beat Hitler, himself treated his colonial subjects similarly to his ally in allowing millions to starve in a famine.
Good guys and bad guys is history for children. People use what means to achieve what ends they will. For communists, this was establishing maintaining proletariat dictatorship. The means were a very high amount of lives. The united states wants to remain an empire: countless lives have been cost because of this too.