/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13159428]

What should I read before starting with Marx?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13159454]

Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon.
Smith, Ricardo
Hegel

[Anonymous No.13159461]

Nothing. Besides his significance to a vast swath of 20th century philosophy--and society at large--he is a surprising pleasure to read. He's witty and engaging and dramatic. He explains essentially the history of the world on his terms. If you're reading Capital just get the Oxford university press world classics edition and read the introduction and follow the notes. You can branch out from there in a hundred different directions.

[Anonymous No.13159507]

>>13159428
Nitzan and Bichler "Capital as power" (2009)
First half contains a very thourough critique of both Marxist and Neoclassical economics.
tl;dr - they both have so huge critical problems, that they are basically no better than shamanism. Although Marx is more salvageable.

[Anonymous No.13159522]

>>13159461
spbp
FUCK BUTTERFLY

[Anonymous No.13159537]

>>13159454
real butter said that she would never read hegel

[Anonymous No.13159545]

>>13159537
Agreed, Hegel is unreadable.
Schopenhauer also stated that Hegel is a fucking fraud, who hides his lack of thought behind undecipherable gibberish.

[Anonymous No.13159553]

>>13159507
Sounds interesting, thanks anon

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13159586]

>>13159537
I’m likely never going to read him. Stirner’s reaction to his teachings are enough for me.
But the list above is for OP

>>13159507
>Bichler
Hehehe
Yeah, neoclassical capitalism is shit

[Anonymous No.13159591]

>>13159428
Honestly just Hegel before Marx.
It's good to read Lúkacs at the same time as Marx though. (Or so my girlfriend tells me)

[Anonymous No.13159592]

>>13159586
i have her filtered out, dummy, and i can see your post clearly
im immune to your tricks

[Anonymous No.13159597]

>>13159545
Reading Phenomenology of Spirit right now, I'm fucking dying senpai. This is either a test of patience or endurance, and I don't think the distinction matters.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13159599]

>>13159592
*waves*

[Anonymous No.13160472]

>>13159461
I think I'll do this, and see if its enough to get him. Thank you, anon

[Anonymous No.13160661]

>>13159428
hesiod's works and days

[Anonymous No.13160771]

>>13159545
Not a fraud by far but just a terrible writer. Atleast, compared to Schopenhauer who is the crown-prince of philosophers with writing ability. IMO Schopenhauer's inability to justify or take note or maybe just didn't care for the hegelian dialect caused him to call him a fraud. Also he reached the highest position in the prestigious university of berlin(?) of-course theirs gonna be critics.(plus schopy was full of envy)

[Anonymous No.13160774]

>>13159454
>stirner
Stop recommending this fucking meme to people

[Anonymous No.13160776]

>>13159428
I'd start with Marx, at some point when you start to ask you more complicated questions you'll have to go to hegel

[Anonymous No.13160783]

Best translation or edition(s) of the full capital?

[Anonymous No.13160802]

>>13160774
cringe hasn't read stirner

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13160820]

>>13160774

[Anonymous No.13160900]

If I read Marxist texts post-capital without finishing capital am I lacking too much context? I got halfway through capital and while I found it interesting I felt like I was just slogging through the thing.

[Anonymous No.13160923]

>>13159591
>just Hegel
That's not how you should approach philosophy

[Anonymous No.13160930]

>>13160900
>If I read Marxist texts post-capital without finishing capital am I lacking too much context?

Not at all, I don't think much marxists (Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Trotsky, Gramsci...) refer to Capital, besides book 1, in their writings, unless you are planning on reading only political economy

[Anonymous No.13160963]

>>13159428
read hayek

[Anonymous No.13160969]

>>13159461
this.
required reading is mostly a meme.

[Anonymous No.13160995]

>>13160963
>Socialism is when the state does something,

lmao, yeah sure, read hayek

[Anonymous No.13161036]

>>13160995
how bleak
marx makes me want to puke

[Anonymous No.13161040]

>>13160930
Thanks for the advice my guy

[Anonymous No.13161071]

>>13159428
Unironically Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Most of my boi Marx’s economic theory are built upon their ideas. Sometimes Marx just quotes Adam Smith to speak of the misery of the working class. You can read selected chapter tho, there is no need to read an entire book.

[Anonymous No.13161087]

>>13161071
Adam Smith was a better philosopher than Marx (or Hume)

[Anonymous No.13161105]

>>13159461
>he is a surprising pleasure to read. He's witty and engaging and dramatic.

he´s a sad pathetic man, what are you talking sonny?

[Anonymous No.13161124]

>>13160995
thats pretty bad interpretation of hayek. he wasn't so radical

[Anonymous No.13161211]

>>13160995
>claims hayek misrepresents socialism
>goes on to misrepresent hayek
Like clockwork

[Anonymous No.13161289]

i dont understand why marxism is still respectable especially after those genocides and failed reforms in communistic countries. thats a dangerous extremist cult

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13161415]

>>13161105
>I have never read Marx. I hate Marx!
>posts in every Marx thread to tone police
You are a huge failure, just o let you know.

[Anonymous No.13161420]

>>13159428
Muh dick.
Jokes aside study economy

[Anonymous No.13161438]

>>13161415
weren´t you an anarchist? or do you change ideology depending on your mood?

[Anonymous No.13161444]

>>13161438
That ain't butterfly, just some name fag *spits*

[Anonymous No.13161909]

>>13161289
Back to facebook, boomer

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13161942]

>>13161438
Marx thought up some valuable critiques of capitalism. I’m not autisticly going to reject everything the man said just because he disagreed with Stirner and Bakunin

>>13161444
Naw, it’s me.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13161951]

>>13161289
READ A FUCKIN BOOK, RED-STATER