/lit/ - Literature

>>12144135
>I’d say 95% of this board does not complete that criteria
Ofc.
I'd say /lit/ is like Wittgenstein's ladder in a sense.
Once you have accomplished the minimum standard of necessary reading you don't need /lit/ anymore, you will toss it aside and see it as a whole waste of rambling.
You will only get the shit people in most threads, that haven't come close to even touching the Aeneid.
The only reason to return is to talk about esoteric literature that you can't talk to anyone irl about (yet).
/lit/ is nothing but a stepping stone.
Good bye.

>>10632937
I read that version the first time i read capital, translation is fine and it's dirt cheap, but it gets annoying to having to go 1000+ pages back and forth to the footnotes at the back of the book. Some of the footnotes in Capital Vol 1 are insanely important to understanding what Marx is writing.

>>10633473
>so is it as simple as this?
Not by a fucking mile.

Since it seems you don't have the best grasp of general philosophy i would recommend you don't bother too much with it, since trying to understand the Hegelian dialectic without a solid background in Greek philosophy (specifically, Heraclitus and Aristotle's works on logic) + German idealism is suicide. However i can understand if you don't find that answer satisfactory so let me try to come with some more simple examples and how Marx thought about dialectics.

You can start by watching this video where Zizek tries to explain Hegelian dialectics in the form of a joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmJVsaxoQSw

Secondly, read the short theses Marx wrote on Feuerbach, where he is making a critique against the idealistic undercurrents within other forms of materialism before he comes along.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

Thirdly, read the last part of the afterword for the second edition of Capital Vol 1, Marx directly talks about his dialectical method compared to that of Hegels:

"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."

Read the whole thing at the bottom of the text here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

If you are committed to learning about the dialectic, try to read through this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ (although this is by no means necessary to just get through Capital Vol 1)

Besides that i don't know what more i can say, other then ignore everything Stalin/Mao/Lenin wrote about dialectics, and if any person tries to tell you Hegelian dialectics is about thesis ->antithesis -> synthesis you should probably ignore everything they have to say.