/lit/ - Literature

>>17544847
>>17544847
>Marxism draws on positivism and Hegelianism
marx "historical materialism" is opposed to what he considered naive "enligthenment materialism". hegelianism is obviously opposed to objectivity and clear thinking.
>Marx made a systematic attempt at objective study and analysis of reality
he didn't. his entire worldview denies the possibility of this. pic rel quote isn't just something he threw out there, it's an integral part of his worldview. he said this because he denied the dichotomy between social knowledge and acting. that's a profoundly anti-objective view.
>This was the whole point of his work, of "scientific socialism" and of dialectical materialism
it wasn't. "scientific socialism" was supposed to oppose his own to that of those who analyzed the flaws of capitalism and tried to derive a more moral system. this attitude of the "utopians" is more objective than marxism, because the "utopians" did not the deny the objectivity of knowledge and analysis as it is done in marx.
>dialectical materialism
utterly confused, garbage entirely unscientific idea.
>I bet you're some sort of fucking "centrist" or liberal "nationalist" too. A simp for bourgeois ghouls and their shitty system with no understanding of how destructive it is to traditional values.
you're not very bright.

you have a surface level understanding of marxism and you have been hypnotized by the words. calling something "scientific" doesn't make it so. it's just a word. stop speaking about marxism.

marxism goes against everything we believe naturally as rational europeans about science, objectivity, logic, reality and truth.
it's a deeply confused, irrational system at its base built around the meaningless anti-scientific mysticism of hegel. to be a marxist you have to reject the european rational worldview, a cornerstone of that civilization since the 1700s and the basis for all the progress we've made.