/lit/ - Literature

>>14007525
It means you agree with Marx on many of the fundamentals, nothing more or less. Call yourself whatever you want though, no one cares.

>>14007525
No, sharing the same metaphysics as him isn't enough to warrant becoming Marxist. You can still develop your own politics, aesthetics, ethics, and epistemology.

>>14007525
no

>>14007525
>believes in history
what?

>>14007847
come back when you've read a few books.

>>14007849
how about you be more specific about what theory of history you believe in you faggot

You don't have to do anything, my broski.

>>14007525
>atheist materialist that believes in history
you could be a redditor instead

>>14007859
>'The only constant is change'
>Wow bro you believe in ahistorical constants bro what's wrong with you history can't just be reduced like that history is just a bunch of impenetrable accidents
No. Who said historical events are 'perfectly rational'? In fact, even if we were to propose that contingency played no historical role whatsoever, which no Marxist would, it still wouldn't be a case of history being reduced to a perfectly rational clockwork toy, because the process of historical change is extremely difficult to even DISCERN, let alone penetrate and reduce to simple 'patterns'. Bordering on impossible in many cases. Of course, as technique improves, as our species develops, it becomes relatively easier to unmask some or even many of the complexities underlying change (i.e. history). Obviously. But the assertion is that there are indeed laws on top of the contingencies. Even if they're as simple as saying 'history advances through change caused by competing forces'. Which is anyway, by definition, a valorisation of complexity, not a reduction to (vulgar) simplicity.

>>14007525
You can appreciate that Marx had many valid points but recognize that they were all depreciated after the world left the gold standard. Without the gold standard Marx's observations have no relevance.

Sadly if you understand history, you can't be a marxist, socialist or a commie.

>>14007525
>believes in history
>millions of deaths from his ideology
Pick one.

>>14007525
No not necessarily since Marx believed history had a telos and wasn't an open system of cumulative causation.

>>14008049
>Has never read Walter Benjamin

>>14007525
>believes in history

>tfw marx was right about literally everything
>tfw can't bring yourself to call yourself a communist because every self-declared communist living today is a genuinely disgusting human being
what went so horribly wrong

>>14008142
Marx was wrong about glabsolutely everything

>>14007525
kill yourself

>>14007728
This, but a wrong starting point is going to fuck up the rest of the framework anyways.

>>14008142
Marx's analysis of capitalism and critique of political economy are completely correct. Yet his normative claims were wrong. I can infer that from your post alone, as the descriptivism of Marx was fine, yet his prescriptions only gave rise to failure and terror. You need a new praxis.

>>14008356
you're showing you don't understand shit by unironically using this distinction like some philosophy undergrad anglo cuck

>>14009031
Explain how Marx's prescriptions were just as valid as his descriptions then.

>>14009031
you're not going to even vaguely explain what you mean are you
we're going to be treated to 'read marx' in a couple posts if you even reply

>>14009084
Haven't you seen the South Park underpants gnomes episode?

1: seize the means of production
2:???
3: hyper-productivity and post-scarcity

>>14008142
online!=reality

>>14008356
you're talking about Lenin, not Marx. Marx didn't layout a specific political program.

>>14009361
haven't you read Marx? hyper-productivity and post-scarcity are a pre-requisite for seizing the means of production u dumb baby

>>14007525
May as well, everyone to your right will accuse you of being one anyway

>>14009451
Bro he literally said he wanted a DotP. He also said the Paris Commune was an example of said DotP. Why do liberal faggots derive so much smug pleasure from saying Marx didn't lay out a programme? The answer is because they can't be arsed putting in the work to defend actually existing socialism from criticism, usually because they reject it themselves and wish the association would just go away.

>>14007525
yep, your immediately a cuckmie

>>14008356
> yet his prescriptions only gave rise to failure and terror.
And what was his prescriptions exactly?

>>14009576
gibs money - garl margs

>>14009576
What he outlined in Critique of the Gotha Program

>>14007525
No man just read an econ 101 textbook, it will btfo Marx. Literally any book

>>14008142
You don't the communists, you want the working class.

>>14009693
So the Trump voters. Got it.

>>14007863
Did he not already specify that he is a materialist? Hetarch

>>14010105
That's a nice leftist perspective you've got there, retard

Marxism is the biggest meme because by its material nature it is purportedly scientific but then instead is completely unscientific

>>14010105
>So the Trump voters.
There is no American working class, anon. That's the joke, you want what you can't have.

>>14009084
>- the distinction you're using is worthless
>- yeah?? then explain how (something which assumes the distinction is not worthless)
moron

>>14009098
I don't have time to answer questions that due to how deep their go require AT LEAST a couple of full-length posts of explanation, so in such cases all I can afford is calling people stupid retards they are.

>>14011089
wow that's deep as fuck, did you copy that from the wikipedia page on popper?

>>14011251
t. lazy faggot

Hello
Just here to remind you that anyone who unironically uses this >>14008356 talking point has not read Marx and is just trying to seem educated on the topic by rejecting one aspect and approving of the other.
Marx's solutions were completely in line with his critique of capitalism, workers seizing the means of production and abolishing capital is the logical conclusion to every criticism of capitalism he has.
Either you agree with everything Marx said (but don't agree with the way socialism should be put into place hence the leftist sectarianism) or you completely reject his analysis, there is no "I think his critique of capitalism is good but his solutions are bad" approach, if you ever hear this from someone you can feel free to dismiss anything they said as they just outed themselves as pseuds.