/lit/ - Literature

Maybe if you want to join the freak cult, but for most people just understanding history is enough,

>>19858104
Obviously, one of the greatest geniuses of the Victorian Age.

Yes. Any honest reader will find that he uncovers a multitude of deeply concerning issues.

>>19858116
lol imagine being filtered by some german 19th century neet, you should kill yourself right now

>>19858104
Yeah, his philosophy was highly influential and even if you don’t agree with it it is still valuable knowledge.

>>19858156
lol imagine shilling the deadliest ideology of the 20th century and getting offended when someone disagrees, maybe you should read a history book. Or, is that not "reel socialism" for you? I'm sure the millions and millions and millions who died would love to hear your ideas on how it'll be TOTALLY DIFFERENT now.

Not really when you consider you could be spending that time reading the Greeks instead. And I mean that unironically.

>>19858104
I think he is bretty good, materialism is a good method of analysis- however I don't think it can explain everything- which Marx obviously knew given the amount of Hegelian mysticism in his theory.

>>19858170
agreed

>>19858104
If you do read him, you'll be able to notice how everyone propping him up as a genius these days didn't understand a single thing he wrote.

>>19858104
As an economist yes as a political theorist no

>>19858116
fpbp

>>19858104
The early stuff is. The failure of his economics of his later works makes them questionable, they are historically important but for the contemporary reader they're rainy day oddities.

>>19858104
>Is one of the most influential thinkers in history worth reading
Nah

>>19858104
>Is Marx worth reading?
absolutely

>>19858104
No, read Kolakowski’s main currents of Marxism.

>>19858209
>don't read the author because of things unrelated to the author
Why would someone that hasn't read him see this thread, and think
>oh I know the answer to this one!
This is a literature board. Not an extension of your epic le left wing BAD le right wing GOOD american brain rot. I read Mein Kampf without turning into a Nazi, why would I be scared of turning commie due to Das Kapital lol. You sound like a weak mind.

>>19858104
Not if you haven’t read the greeks, the arabs, the scholastics, the humanists, and the german idealists first. And the fact that you describe yourself as a “centrist” tells me you haven’t

>>19860288
>second this
It is exactly what you need. After you finish it you will be in the most ideal position to decide if you want to go further in marxism/leftism or ditch it forever

>>19858430
Well said

>>19860312
Not OP. But I am interested in those, currently reading the Greeks. But am I really going to come out of it politically affiliated? Just about every aspect of western society is purely materialistic, and questioning democracy is a death sentence.

>>19860288
the same anon as >>19860380 (cont)
Kolakowski destroys Marxism from analytic, logical and scientific perspective by exposing the contradictions of the theory and its major theoriticians through history. If you read it and want to be actually a marxist you will become at least aware of the crucial arguments that are against it and decide how you will tackle them (if it is possible)

>>19860399
So can I skip Das Kapital and just go to this?

>>19858116
being into history passionately helped get me into marx

>>19860410
Yes. It will not be easy if you are completely unfamiliar with philosophy and its history in general though. On the other hand reading das Kapital out of context and without knowing the philosophical background of Marx (especially his early years) will be much more daunting and useless (also more than 99% of tankies do not read das Kapital, why would you?)

>>19858116
>knee-jerk reaction to the name Marx

The terms middle-class, bourgeoisie, and social-economic exit because he invented them.

You should read him if for no other purpose that TO KNOW history, brainlet.

>>19860399
this dude thought stirner inspired fascism, he was just saying shit

>>19860443
>he invented them
He didn't. He never even recognized the existence of the middle class, That's more Weber's doing. Bourgeoisie is even older.

>>19858104
Nope

>>19860439
Oh I'm going through the Greeks first. I'm much more worried about having to read Hegel (and Kant?) to understand Marx. My motivations are far from pure in any case. As much as I don't want this to be the case, I do want to own tankies on the internet by understanding their theory better than themselves.

>>19860451
lol not at all
>>19860465
Kolakowski provides extremely well the philosophical background up to the genesis of Marxism (Plato, NeoPlatonists, German mysticism, Kant, Hegel among others)
> I do want to own tankies on the internet by understanding their theory better than themselves
So then this is the book you need

>>19858104
marxist here. you can just get a quick rundown on any book about economics, really

>>19858116
>t. voted for trump, twice
kys

>>19860410
That’s a terrible idea.

itt: coping marxcels

>>19858104
Yes go for it

>>19858104
Karl marx is wikipedia 5 minute read worth

>>19860312
wow you read so much! You should get a metal.

>>19858104
In the "German Democratic Republic" they tell the story about a weary old man who tries to gain entrance into the Red Paradise. A Communist Archangel holds him up at the gate and severely cross-questions him:

"Where were you born?"

"In an ancient bishopric."

"What was your citizenship?"

"Prussian."

"Who was your father?"

"A wealthy lawyer."

"What was your faith?"

"I converted to Christianity."

"Not very good. Married? Who was your wife?"

"The daughter of an aristocratic Prussian officer and the sister of a Royal Prussian Minister of the Interior who persecuted the Socialists."

"Awful. And where did you live mostly?"

"In London."

"Hm, the colonialist capital of capitalism. Who was your best friend?"

"A manufacturer from the Ruhr Valley."

"Did you like workers?"

"Not in the least. Kept them at arm’s length. Despised them."

"What did you think about Jews?"

"I called them a money-crazy race and hoped that they would vanish from the Earth."

"And what about the Slavs?"

"I despised the Russians."

"You must be a fascist! You even dare to ask for admission to the Red Paradise — you must be crazy! By the way, what’s your name?"

"Karl Marx."

>>19858104
Ehhh, it mainly depends if you're interested in exploring economic and sociological theories. Because you made reference to politics I'm guessing you're not.

>>19858104
The Capital is not worth your time. Try Communist Manifesto and British Rule in India

>>19860542
Karl Marx was an ashole

>>19860542
half of these are straight up fake

>>19860587
>voted for trump, twice
BASED

btw. Marx thought that primitive societies had no religion, and were extremely egalitarian. That is why he thought you could get rid off hierarchies and religion.

I cannot believe that people are retardrd enough to believe in marxist theory. Do people realy, genuinely believe that *ANY* gouvernment on this earth will WILLINGLY give up their power and quietly disolve itself after it "fixed" humanity?

>>19858104
his economic theories have largely been refuted or faded into obscurity.

his philosophy, on the other hand, is immensely influential.

>>19860862
>his philosophy, on the other hand, is immensely influential.
It's shit, see >>19860738

>>19858104
no, fuck off and stay away from Marx
>>19858209
Marxism isn't an ideology
>>19860410
just skip everything related to Marx and find another hobby
>>19860439
Capital doesn't require any prior knowledge. you clearly haven't read the book
>>19860458
>He never even recognized the existence of the middle class
he has. how about don't make factual statements on what you don't know
>>19860465
>I do want to own tankies on the internet by understanding their theory better than themselves.
you're in for a disappointment then because they don't care what the texts say. there's no limit to their readiness to wilfully misread everything and play stupid.
just find another hobby bro
>>19860847
no, try again
>>19860862
he has no philosophy
>Feuerbach's great achievement is: … The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned....

>>19860465
don't read fucking kolakowski, literally just go to marxists.org and read the german ideology, engels socialism utopian and scientific, and wage labor and capital. Don't listen to these chuddites, just read fucking marx if you want to understand marx, its not that hard

>>19860918
>he has
He didn't, he considered society in just two classes. The modern usage of middle class comes from Weber, as Marx preferred petit-bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletariat to refer to the fabled "middle class". Either way, he didn't invent the terms.

Read him and find out, I guess. His ideas on how capitalism affects people isn't groundbreaking, however, and can be gleaned by having working eyes.

>>19860918
>Marx is a hobby

Cringe.

>>19861153
he doesn't really want to understand Marx though
>>19861174
>He didn't, he considered society in just two classes.
Marx:
>What [Ricardo] forgets to emphasise is the constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the other.

>as Marx preferred petit-bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletariat to refer to the fabled "middle class".
the lumpen-proletariat is below the proletariat. it's not a middle class.
besides, didn't you just say that Marx only considered society in two classes and that he never recognized the existence of the middle class? why are you now saying that he referred to the middle class as petty bourgeoisie?
>>19861175
>>Marx is a hobby
>Cringe.
yes, that's why I'm telling OP who wants to read about Marxism as a hobby to fuck off

>>19860918
>he has no philosophy
Because if you call your philosophy "It's not a philosophy. Trust me, dude.", it magically stops being a philosophy. Suuure.

>>19858104
Based on how many knee jerk autists there are in here, either simping for Marx or outright boogymanning, it’s obvious that you should.

My second piece of advice is to not discuss him here, because it’s clear that everyone is so ideologically bound that any fruitful discussion regarding Marx is rendered practically impossible. I’m biased, but all of the /pol/ subscribers here are absolutely incapable of any good-faith discussion regarding views they don’t agree with. The same would go for the cultists. There’s a reason why there’s a distinction between Marxism and Marxian styles of analysis. Anyone still wholly subscribed to Marxism without any nuance entailing the last 170 years is behaving like a fundamentalist religious type, completely unaware of the discussion that has come from it.

Ground yourself in Hegelianism, Feuerbach, maybe pickup German Ideology, but either way you need to at least read Capital V1. It’s extremely accessible, but can get dry. If you need commentary, pick any of the companion volumes.

>>19861286
Cope, i can't think of anything that marx said that was interesting. or even right for that matter

>>19861304
Now I know you absolutely haven’t read Marx. In Capital, he makes plenty of admissions to the neoclassical economists while simultaneously critiquing where their analyses fall short.

You add nothing to the conversation and only act as evidence for my point that discussing Marx is fruitless here.

>>19858104
no as he didn't write about real communism
which has never been tried

>>19861276
no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's not philosophy because it's philosophy but under a different name. I'm saying it's not philosophy because it actually isn't philosophy.
>[The materialist conception of history] does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism... but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy, and all other types of theory.
According to philosophy action has to derive from the idea, for example from the ideal conception of justice, and mental criticism which arrives at correct ideas is therefore what drives history. Marxism says the reverse: that the development of ideas ultimately derives from the contingent economic necessities that force society to assume a particular form of production and of social relations and that history is not driven by evolving those abstract ideas by means of philosophizing, but by the evolution of productive forces that makes the current given form of production outdated and no longer congruent with them, paired with the revolutionary reorganization of production so that it matches this new development of productive forces.
so this is how the opposition of Marxism to philosophy is virtually a complete one. if you call Marxism philosophy you might as well call night day or your mother pretty

Probably but its a lot of shit you have to sift through, so if you have the time on your hands its worth whether it will turn you into one or be a deboonker of it

>>19858209
somebody deepthroated the cia propaganda

imagine never thinking about why western governments would want you to think this

>>19861315
I've told people my opinion of Marx in this thread. He stated that religion and hierarchy is a more recent phenomenon, saying that ancient people didn't have them. That is also why he thought they can be eliminated, It's completely wrong though. All ancient societies were very hierarchical and had sophisticated religions.

Historical Materialism is also shit because it ignores racial/biological differences of people and the role genes play in society, it's why Marxist downplay thing like the heritability of IQ.

>>19861427
>saying that ancient people didn't have them
wrong, he never said that
>That is also why he thought they can be eliminated
wrong, he never said that
>All ancient societies were very hierarchical
wrong, it's impossible for a group to be "very hierarchical" until enough surplus develops that a non-trivial part can be saved and until private property develops
>and had sophisticated religions.
wrong, the religions were very primitive at first. do you understand that a sophisticated religion has to evolve from proto-religion and from unsophisticated religion? it can't just magically appear
>Historical Materialism is also shit because it ignores racial/biological differences of people and the role genes play in society
wrong, it doesn't ignore them. for example:
Marx:
>Once men finally settle down, the way in which to a smaller degree this original community is modified, will depend on various external, climatic, geographical, physical, etc., conditions as well as on their special natural make-up — their tribal character.
Engels:
>We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an economic factor.
racial differences just don't play a very significant role so they rarely ever come up. if they are a non-negligible factor, then it's in small contingent events that Marxism just isn't interested in because they don't play any decisive role in history taken at the most general level

>>19861510
Jesus Christ, good work.

>>19861427
I remember you from the other thread. Let’s try to work on your racial essentialism and bring you back to reason:
https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo

No one is beyond rehabilitation.

>>19861510
>>saying that ancient people didn't have them
>wrong, he never said that
wrong, he did

>>That is also why he thought they can be eliminated
>wrong, he never said that
He did, why you think he said that "religion is opium of the masses"?

>wrong, it's impossible for a group to be "very hierarchical" until enough surplus develops that a non-trivial part can be saved and until private property develops
I don't understand what you're saying here, are so saying people with little wealth, and who are poor are less hierarchical? and what does private property have to do with hierarchy?

>>and had sophisticated religions.
>wrong, the religions were very primitive at first. do you understand that a sophisticated religion has to evolve from proto-religion and from unsophisticated religion? it can't just magically appear
This is stupid, you know what i meant when i said primitive societies had religion. and of course there were some sort of proto-religion that developed when people evolved from apes to humans, this doesn't negate that every ancient society we have found has had some form religion (often very sophisticated), all of them.
>Once men finally settle down, the way in which to a smaller degree this original community is modified, will depend on various external, climatic, geographical, physical, etc., conditions as well as on their special natural make-up — their tribal character.
This is extremely vague, and could just be referring to society. and not genes of people, and the selective pressures that the environment has on them.

>We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an economic factor.
The statement "economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development" could be interpreted as an denial of biological differences between people, though combined with "But race is itself an economic factor" he seem to acknowledge that there are differences between races though he never references biology and he could just think it's all "social". Again this is extremely vague and open to interpretation, which is why you have so many different flavours of Marxism. Especially when it comes to things like race realism and heritability.

>racial differences just don't play a very significant role so they rarely ever come up. if they are a non-negligible factor, then it's in small contingent events that Marxism just isn't interested in because they don't play any decisive role in history taken at the most general level
This is just cope, racial and biological differences are huge, and the heritability of IQ is probably at >80%. Ignoring this just makes historical materialism wrong, as I said previously. You can't separate biology (genes) and class, they're very much interwoven.

>>19861679
>shaun
Watch alt-hypes video on that clown.

>>19861426
Wow you found yourself resorting to the exact same dismissal tactic used by modern Chinese nationalists, good work! Doesn't seem like socialist rhetoric has evolved much in the last 100 years.

>>19861426
Isn't most of modern lefty theory have connections to CIA propaganda and funding?

>>19861510
Not that anon, but
>it's impossible for a group to be "very hierarchical" until enough surplus develops that a non-trivial part can be saved and until private property develops
That's wrong and only considers hierarchy from an economic point of view, disregarding authoritative hierarchy based on custom. If one has a much greater importance to the community, so much so that others must defend him with their life, that's another kind of hierarchy, that undoubtedly comes with its own advantages in times of plenty.
> the religions were very primitive at first.
Define "primitive religion" in a non-liberal way, I'll wait. Do you perhaps mean istitutionalized ones perhaps? Or philosophically more complex ones? Not that you consider any of them true though.
>racial differences just don't play a very significant role so they rarely ever come up.
Have you got a single source to back that up that isn't ideologized drivel? No, because everything is ideologized drivel, but even so.
>>19861679
>Shaun
>after Alt-Hype raped his ass
You can do better.

>>19858104
>is one of the most influential thinkers of all time worth reading????

>>19858104
His critique of capitalism is competent, but the proposed solution is incredibly short-sighted. Even the fucking anarchists had more common sense in seeing that the revolutionary authoritarian state doesn't just "dissolve".

>>19861702
To which he responded. Do your due diligence so you can at least understand the argument:

https://youtu.be/X2DZCHP5xvw

>>19861757
>Lol, the Alternative Hypothesis is an anti-semite. I left a negative comment on his video and he called me a "loxist". I had to look up what that meant, and apparently it's a word anti-semites use to mean "Jewish supremacist." And all I did was say his video was bad and he brings Jews into it. I knew he was a racist but I didn't think he was that kind of racist.
First comment on that video LOL

>>19861768
Whatever you have to do to protect yourself from the arguments you disagree with is just fine.

>>19858104
His economics has historical value, same with Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus. It's not taken seriously anymore in economics departments, though.
The rest of his philosophy is still worth reading, though much of it seems dated now, in particular the 'scientific' part of his socialism.

>>19858104
Not really, its trash. Imagine a fucking faggot who never once worked for the the private sector claimed too know what was best for the worker when he himself was a useless leech. The only people who worship Marx is like pic related who think they are heroes of the workers when in reality they are nothing but lazy degenerate faggots.

>>19861338
>According to philosophy action has to derive from the idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
No.
>if you call Marxism philosophy you might as well call night day or your mother pretty
So, is night day then?

>no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's not philosophy because it's philosophy but under a different name.
No, I understood you perfectly. You are saying you are an incompetent clown.

Read Keynes.

>>19861845
Better yet, read Nitzan and Bichler

>>19861694
>wrong, he did
show me where Marx said that ancient people didn't have religion then
>He did, why you think he said that "religion is opium of the masses"
he said that because he correctly identified religion as misapprehension of reality that can help people to manage and cope with their struggles without actually overcoming them.
now, what does that have to do with "Marx though religion can be eliminated because ancient people didn't have it"?
>I don't understand what you're saying here... are so saying people with little wealth, and who are poor are less hierarchical?
something like that. my point is there's barely any possibility of hierarchy in a tribe which produces practically only food and which produces just enough food to feed all its members. for a society to become "very hierarchical" you need a significant surplus that can be monopolized by part of society, and therefore a stable state organization able to preserve this situation of monopolization over time. those only develop gradually, which corresponds to the transition from a primitive communist society to ancient class society.
>this doesn't negate that every ancient society we have found has had some form religion (often very sophisticated)
so you've backpedalled from "all ancient societies had sophisticated religions" to "some ancient societies had sophisticated religions". but the latter isn't questioned by anyone, including Marx.
>This is extremely vague, and could just be referring to society. and not genes of people, and the selective pressures that the environment has on them.
what? it literally lists "special natural makeup" separately from "various external conditions, geographical, climatic, physical, etc." you just can't read.
>though he never references biology and he could just think it's all "social". Again this is extremely vague and open to interpretation,
"race" refers biology. everyone knows this. the vagueness is, again, just in your head.
>which is why you have so many different flavours of Marxism.
there aren't any flavours of Marxism
>This is just cope, racial and biological differences are huge, and the heritability of IQ is probably at >80%
you can say they're huge and throw around percentages if it helps you cope, but the fact remains they're irrelevant at the great-historical level. they're irrelevant to explaining the different modes of production and how they came to be. and they're irrelevant to explaining how capitalism will come to an end.

>>19861964
>my point is there's barely any possibility of hierarchy in a tribe which produces practically only food
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe
Did hunter-gatherers just democratically consesus'd into 'Let's build this shit in the middle of fucking wasteland' then?

>>19858104
Of course it isn't, it's like reading horoscopes or astrology. You may find it educating to read a decent analysis (of sane size) of his works though; Thomas Sowell's "Marxism" would be perfect for this.
If, by any chance, you will want to delve deeper then your "study" of marxism would be way smoother after this introduction so you are not wasting your time anyways.

>>19861736
>That's wrong and only considers hierarchy from an economic point of view, disregarding authoritative hierarchy based on custom
a society can't be "very hierarchical" based on mere custom. I didn't say that there's no hierarchy at all that's not immediately economic. what I said is that any significant hierarchy with marked differences between groups needs to have economic basis. you can have a commander that gets priority access to food in times of shortages and gets to wear special hat made of feathers. but there's no pronounced hierarchy and the society isn't "very hierarchical" until you have the resources to build him a court and import precious stones from afar to distinguish him and his entourage from other people.
>Define "primitive religion" in a non-liberal way, I'll wait
I mean something like personalizing natural forces and enacting rituals to appease them
>Have you got a single source to back that up that isn't ideologized drivel?
yes, Karl Marx. he's managed to explain history scientifically and he didn't need to appeal to racial differences in any significant way (because they're not a relevant factor).
>>19861750
his critique of capitalism has the reason why the proletarian state will dissolve already baked in
>>19861839
>No.
yes. maybe at least try referring to philosophy that pretends to have connection to society and politics. eliminative materialism is completely irrelevant here. it represents a gap in science of the human mind rather than any positive philosophical content. besides, the problem it concerns will be solved (or dissolved) by the development of science, not by philosophical argument. which only proves my point.
>>19862021
possibly, depends on what the purpose of the site was. but it's true that spending available surplus on pointless projects was a way for primitive communist societies to spend it without letting it accumulate, which would inevitably lead to expansion of private property and class differences, undermining social stability and bringing social conflict.

>>19861510
>racial differences just don't play a very significant role so they rarely ever come up. if they are a non-negligible factor, then it's in small contingent events that Marxism just isn't interested in because they don't play any decisive role in history taken at the most general level
This is just your revisionism. Race is 100% compatible with historical Materialism. In fact race and class are always intertwined.

>>19862021
>>19862089
I meant to put "pointless" projects in quotation marks, because I'm saying that they actually had a point
>>19862096
no, it's just facts. and of course they're compatible, my point is only that race isn't relevant to explaining anything important for historical materialism

>>19862106
>no, it's just facts. and of course they're compatible, my point is only that race isn't relevant to explaining anything important for historical materialism
This is bullshit, certain groups, races in Marx's time tended towards being reactionary. The peasents in central and Eastern Europe for starters. To marx the source of wealth is nature, and someone's race is part of their nature. Any materialist analysis which does not include race is in itself reactionary. Race like class is a social group and merits materialist analysis. Marx and Engels were both big on Darwin.

>>19862089
>try referring to philosophy that pretends to have connection to society and politics
What 'society' and 'politics' is, stems directly out of question 'what cognition is'

>the problem it concerns will be solved (or dissolved) by the development of science, not by philosophical argument
Considering, that anything social (money, classes, surpluses) is as real/virtual as pokemons in "Pokemon Go" app on your phone, marxism is just as equally endangered by science, as any other philosophy.

>>19860443
>The terms middle-class, bourgeoisie, and social-economic exit because he invented them.
Marx was just Hitler who just replaced the "jews" with the "bourgeois." Its just propaganda for people who need excuses as to why they are failures in life.

>>19862096
>Race is 100% compatible with historical Materialism
Historical materialism isn't a real. Its just a narrative, a type of story telling used by Marxists to paint themselves victims of history.

>>19862159
Historical materialism is not a narrative, it's a method of analyis.

>>19862096
>In fact race and class are always intertwined.
cringe.

>>19862165
> it's a method of analyis.
Yeah, a narrative. A method of story telling that solely rests of an appeal to authority from Marxists.

>>19862150
>x was just y who just replaced the "a" with "b." Its just propaganda for people who need excuses as to why they are failures in life.
Nice template, can I use it?

>>19862183
Okay then make a materialist analysis yourself and create your own 'narrative' of history.

History is always a narrative. It's called his-story after all. Historical materialism again, is just a method.

>>19862089
>a society can't be "very hierarchical" based on mere custom.
It very much can. Private proverty is a custom too, one you wish to abolish.
>I didn't say that there's no hierarchy at all that's not immediately economic. what I said is that any significant hierarchy with marked differences between groups needs to have economic basis.
Differences between classes aren't based on needs, which are mostly constant throghout humanity, but on responsabilities, their roles in society and the things necessitated to keep it.
>you can have a commander that gets priority access to food in times of shortages and gets to wear special hat made of feathers. but there's no pronounced hierarchy
So having the literal power over life and death is not considered substantial hierarchical difference? When the average is shit, something more than shit will always be pronounced and desired.
> the society isn't "very hierarchical" until you have the resources to build him a court and import precious stones from afar to distinguish him and his entourage from other people
Now you're just arguing semantics and determining something is "very hierarchical" only when it fits your predetermined scheme. Btw hunter gatherers had idols, "jewelry" and a variety of luxury goods (albeit on a smaller scale).
>I mean something like personalizing natural forces and enacting rituals to appease them
Literally the liberal definition, and you're wrong too. Prove to me religion was the personalization (and subjectification) of the natural forces, without actually citing Feuerbach's philosophy (wasn't it irrelevan to historical progression?).
>he's managed to explain history scientifically and he didn't need to appeal to racial differences in any significant way
Literally cult-tier, that's why political discussion is completely fruitless. Politics is ultimately the alternation of violence and coercion, and I can't wait for the next violent part.

>>19862195
History is solely based on the observer. There is no way history can exist independently of our interpretation and consciousness. The value of historical materialism is purely fictitious and based on a circular argument that stems from Engels and Marx only. Its a narrative Marxists use to delude people into being envious victims of their circumstances. One of the greatest abuses of history for political gain. Its utter non-sense, and anyone with critical thinking can discard it quite easily.

>>19862203
You are saying there is no way to interpret natural phenomenon because everything is subjective. You are just confused as to what historical materialism is. Again, historical materialism is that history is driven by MATERIAL phenomenon. It is not a theory of consciousness or a narrative. If history is not driven by natural phenomenon then what is it driven by? Geists and spirits? You cannot know the existence of something which cannot be 'measured' and historical materialism is a method at 'measuring' history.

>>19862225
>historical materialism is that history is driven by MATERIAL phenomenon
>If history is not driven by natural phenomenon then what is it driven by?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Müller-Lyer_illusion
And you can tell me what is actually MATERIAL and what is merely your delusion of it being so?

>>19862235

>>19862225
>You are saying there is no way to interpret natural phenomenon because everything is subjective.
Incorrect. There ways to interpret natural phenomena that don't require historical materialism. Historical materialism can not explain the Holocaust, or the assassination of Franz Ferdinand because it reduces history to purely a function of economic determinism. Race, religion, genetics, culture, heritage, philosophy, nationality, personal lived experience, and all sorts of other subjective factors can influence or even impact our idea of history history. You just reduce everything to economics because you don't want to acknowledge the inherent bias of the observer. As a critic, you never want to acknowledge that you are dogmatic in your beliefs because it reveals the hypocritical of your position. Instead of acknowledging that, you will employ solipsism to ignore that contradiction by defending an interpretation of Marxism that only exists inside of your head. You're right because you assume you're right and nothing else matters. You play circle arguments with apriori and play with ontology like sophist. You're also making a really silly argument to begin with; you don't have to live historically, you don't even have to use history has a guide to live your life. You do not have to beholden to the past. But as a Marxist, you just can't let go history. That's why you're stuck with Marx in a time capsule, and can only see the world through his eyes and not your own.

>>19862225
>You cannot know the existence of something which cannot be 'measured'
Precisely. Imagine the situation:
1. You teach a child. The child is lazy. You shout at him for being a lazy moron.
2. It turns out, that child has ADHD. Now, *you* will be a lazy moron, should you shout at the child. He cannot behave any other way.
3. People observing you, do not know anything about ADHD. They think you're just a lazy incompetent moron, spoiling the child.

The interpretation of the situation fluctuates like a fucking kaleidoscope, depending on information known and NOT known.

>>19862246
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect
"can lead to neglect for the left side of the visual field, causing a patient with neglect to behave as if the left side of sensory space is nonexistent (although they can still turn left). In an extreme case, a patient with neglect might fail to eat the food on the left half of their plate, even though they complain of being hungry. If someone with neglect is asked to draw a clock, their drawing might show only the numbers 12 to 6, or all 12 numbers might be on one half of the clock face with the other half distorted or blank. Neglect patients may also ignore the contralesional side of their body; for instance, they might only shave, or apply make-up to, the non-neglected side. These patients may frequently collide with objects or structures such as door frames on the side being neglected.
Neglect may also present as a delusional form, where the patient denies ownership of a limb or an entire side of the body."

>>19862246
>misunderstands Descartes THAT badly
This isn't as much of a gotcha as you think it is.

>>19862225
Its not that you can not interpret history. Its just that your basis for historical analysis purely based on faith in your principles. And you ignore that with circular arguments.

>>19862225
>If history is not driven by natural phenomenon then what is it driven by? Geists and spirits?
This is a false dilemma. No one has to care either way. It would make no difference if you were oblivious to it. There are plenty questions about the universe we will always be unclear about, and we can go about our lives being in the unknown. And, even we accept your position - it would contradict your whole philosophy. You can really hold Marx's theory of revolution of voluntarism i.g. the taking of political power with a theory that says economic conditions determine the shape of society. You're essentially saying revolt is like plowing a sea. If you trusted your beliefs - you wouldn't be Marxist because you see historical conditions are independent of your beliefs. You would not make any attempts to control them.

>>19862252
>You just reduce everything to economics
No it doesn't, materialism isn't just 'economics' rather economics is a part of Materialism. Genetics is also materialist and philosophies, cultures, nations can be categorized and sorted into concepts. I.E what are the material features that allow us to sort these concepts into categories. That's how anthropology works. You can especially explain politics through materialism, unless you're going to tell me money plays little role in politics today.

Yes you can explain the holocaust through materialism. The war machine of the NSDAP needed labor, many Jews died of sickness and starvation, all material consequences of material conditions.


By the way, Marx's apriori assumption: which is externalizing the dialectic from the subject does not come from his own theory, but Hegel's. ;)

>>19862254
>The interpretation of the situation fluctuates like a fucking kaleidoscope, depending on information known and NOT known.
And what does this have to do with materialism being wrong? New measurable variables came into account and now you must factor them in into your theory.
>>19862262
What you are only saying is that different individuals experience the world in different ways. This does not say anything against materialism. You are only saying that different people experience material phenomenon in different ways. This not mean that something cannot be measured and put into a standard. Science relies on this, that very article you sent me relies on some sort of material standard and measures the patient to this standard. Otherwise you would not be able to say they had a dysfunction in the first place.
>>19862263
It's a comic and I liken the poster to Descart there. It's not a dissertation on Descartes work.
>>19862323
A scientific theory is no less accurate because of the moral motivations behind creating it. Marx did indeed have moral convictions which motivated him to create his theory but his theory can be appliefd, analyzed and critiqued free from moral convictions.
>>19862378
>No one has to make theories to explain nature, we don't have to know.
Okay and there are people who like to understand the world. Good for you if you don't.
Marx says social mores are a reflection of material conditions, measurable phenomenon.
>you wouldn't be Marxist because you see historical conditions are independent of your beliefs.
This is precisely what Materialism is.

>>19858886
Literally the opposite my dude.
>>19860288
Not relevant, this whole thing is basically just a critique of Leninism.

>>19862132
>This is bullshit, certain groups, races in Marx's time tended towards being reactionary.
but that wasn't because of their race
>To marx the source of wealth is nature, and someone's race is part of their nature.
that's just a dumb equivocation on the word "nature". by nature being the source of value Marx means natural resources.
>Any materialist analysis which does not include race is in itself reactionary.
did you get stuck on your dialogue tree? I already said two times that Marxist analysis does include race. Marxism considered race and concluded that it's irrelevant to explaining anything significant in history. this is different from Marxism failing to consider race.

>>19861845
Fuck that, read Kalecki.

>>19862202
>Private proverty is a custom too
Absolutely idiotic statement.

>>19862141
>What 'society' and 'politics' is, stems directly out of question 'what cognition is'
no, you might just be autistic
>Considering, that anything social (money, classes, surpluses) is as real/virtual as pokemons in "Pokemon Go" app on your phone, marxism is just as equally endangered by science, as any other philosophy.
no, money and classes are very real. it's the positive contents of philosophy that are unreal in this sense, for example abstract justice or abstract moral good. and Marxism is the science that "endangers" those, because it explains them by economic factors rather than taking them as normative guides to action.
>>19862165
historical materialism is not a method of analysis, it's a result of an analysis
>>19862202
>It very much can. Private proverty is a custom too, one you wish to abolish.
no, private property has an immediately material basis. it emerged when productive forces reached such level that primitive societies weren't able to consume/dissipate the entire surplus anymore and it is sustained by force of the state that funds its apparatus out of profit of capitalist enterprises.
>Differences between classes aren't based on needs, which are mostly constant throghout humanity, but on responsabilities, their roles in society and the things necessitated to keep it.
how does this even address what I said? needs aren't constant but evolving. an average European 2000 years ago didn't need a car or a mobile phone to be able to function in society.
and differences in responsibilities quickly become an economic factor as soon as, e.g., being a warrior becomes a role assigned for life and those warriors begin accumulating war spoils and slaves, economically differentiating themselves as a class.
>So having the literal power over life and death is not considered substantial hierarchical difference?
what power over life and death? before class differences emerge, a commander is simply an instrument of the tribe.
>When the average is shit, something more than shit will always be pronounced and desired.
when the average is shit and the above-average is shit+0.01, then there are no pronounced differences. pronounced differences only appear when significant economic resources get monopolized on one side.
>Now you're just arguing semantics and determining something is "very hierarchical" only when it fits your predetermined scheme.
my entire point from the start was that there can't be "very hierarchical" differences without economic basis. if you think this is just semantics then like don't respond.
>Prove to me religion was the personalization (and subjectification) of the natural forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nature_deities

>>19862410
>No it doesn't, materialism isn't just 'economics' rather economics is a part of Materialism.
A worthless tautology that does not mean or substantiate anything.
>Genetics is also materialist and philosophies, cultures, nations can be categorized and sorted into concepts.
Yeah, and concepts are purely rhetorical. Which again proves my point - you're being a sophist. You're just making a narrative that appeals to your beliefs. You don't have any way to prove it besides apriori circulation arguments that appeal to your emotions.
>Yes you can explain the holocaust through materialism. The war machine of the NSDAP needed labor, many Jews died of sickness and starvation,
That doesn't even make any sense, you retard. If the war machine needed money, and labor, why did they kill the Jews who made money and had labor? Again, it makes no logical sense. Historical materialism can explain things that don't have an economic lense. The stupidity you're pushing lead to non-sense like lysenkoism where Marxists literally used historical materialism and class struggle to explain plant genetics. Its ridiculous.
>>19862410
>A scientific theory is no less accurate because of the moral motivations behind creating it.
Marxism is not a scientific theory. There are no control variables. Humanity can not be controlled. You only have a limited perspective based on your circumstances.
>Okay and there are people who like to understand the world.
You don't understand "the world." You just cling onto a perspective as if it was omnipotent. Its probably won't even be one you'll have for the rest of your life because many people go through different ideological phases in their life depending on what information they are exposed to. You're just arrogance and young.

>>19862517
>That doesn't even make any sense, you retard. If the war machine needed money, and labor, why did they kill the Jews who made money and had labor?
they didn't, as much as that was possible. they only killed them once they were unable to work (but this includes cases where the Germans just weren't able to put them to work)

>>19862495
>no, private property has an immediately material basis.
Yet I can't make "private property", I can only make property that due to custom becomes private.
>it emerged when productive forces reached such level that primitive societies weren't able to consume/dissipate the entire surplus anymore
It emerged ontologically with the specialization of labour, when language adapted to the circumstances of the time and usage of a determinate station became exclusive due to need. There hardly was a problem of underconsumption for primitive societies considering an increased supply was almost always invested in greater numbers, group projects or intertribal relations.
>it is sustained by force of the state that funds its apparatus out of profit of capitalist enterprises.
It is sustained, like all else, by the complacent consciousness of the people, from whom it actually originated.
needs aren't constant but evolving. an average European 2000 years ago didn't need a car or a mobile phone to be able to function in society
You don't need a car or a mobile phone to just function in a society, you need them at most to fuction efficiently. They're not a need, but a commodity, something that simplifies living in it. The real needs are, as always, food, water, sleep and arguably a self.
>and differences in responsibilities quickly become an economic factor as soon as
Never denied this, actually I implied it voluntarily. To a specific role in society corresponds the specific duty and previlege.
>economically differentiating themselves as a class
Then those are not simply warriors anymore, but they evolved into something else. Still, warriors keep existing with the same duties and previleges as before.
> before class differences emerge, a commander is simply an instrument of the tribe.
Liberal anthropology at its finest. There is no commander that is simply an instrument of the tribe, for he has everyone's life in his hands at the moment he takes harsh decision. And that's ignoring that chiefs in tribes often had the literal power over life and death over a certain individual.
> then there are no pronounced differences
From an outsider and omniscient perspective maybe, but there is no such thing as an outsider that partecipates in the society that he is oppressed or underprevileged in.
>my entire point from the start was that there can't be "very hierarchical" differences without economic basis
And it's wrong and reductivist.
> if you think this is just semantics then like don't respond.
It is semantics, for you redefine hierarchy as simply based on economic factors, rather than a wholistic view of it in relation to all elements of a determinate society.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nature_deities
This quite literally proves nothing, the protectorship certain deities have over certain natural forces doesn't prove their origin from the same. You're perpetuating unprovable liberal anthropology and you don't even recognize it.

>>19860393
just keep reading the greeks

>>19862466
>but that wasn't because of their race
yes a function of their social group,
>that's just a dumb equivocation on the word "nature". by nature being the source of value Marx means natural resources.
race can and does determine social development and thus it is important for that.
>We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an
economic factor.
From an Engels letter
>Even if we leave aside the question of the level of development
attained by social production, the productivity of labour remains
fettered by natural conditions. These conditions can all be traced
back to the nature of man himself (his race, etc.) and to the natural objects which surround him.
From Page 662 of my Penguin edition of Kapital
>Marxism considered race and concluded that it's irrelevant to explaining anything significant in history.
There is no such thing as Marxism. Certain individuals considered race and their conclusion that it is not important is wrong. Race, or more accurately GENES is material phenomenon which can explain many things.
>>19862495
>historical materialism is not a method of analysis, it's a result of an analysis
there is no 'result' of historical materialism. in historical materialism, there all that is natural changes, and with that so does the analysis itself. historical materialism is a methodology.
>>19862517
an embarrassingly bad post which I have no desire to reply to.

>>19862410
>New measurable variables came into account and now you must factor them
Your behavior depends on having certain factors NOT being taken into account.
You use moneys, for example, without having to contemplate their exact relation to human economy as whole. You just assume that they have magical intrinsical property and pay with them for things. And it actually works.
You use cognition, without being able to differentiate your states in space and time. You just assume that you are "you". And it actually works.
You watch films, without being able to differentiate frames beyond flicker fusion threshold (>~100Hz). Your disability helps you to assume that you are watching moving pictures instead of slide-show.

>And what does this have to do with materialism being wrong?
Claims about "true matter" are made through faulty instruments, that assign magical intrinsical properties to non-existent things. And utilizes these non-existent things in a way that it actually works. Money, corporations, families, classes, surplusses, theories, "I", "you", ideas, matter. All of these - based on perceptual *errors*.

>What you are only saying is that different individuals experience the world in different ways. This does not say anything against materialism
Indeed, because shouting "Matter exists!" is no different than shouting "God exists!". The burden of proof lies on one claiming their existence, not absence.

>You are only saying that different people experience material phenomenon in different ways.
You are only saying that different people work according to the godly Providence in different ways. Sure.

>This not mean that something cannot be measured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
This means that your instruments are by default *faulty*. Because the evolution operates on *heuristics*. And those were never meant to be optimal, just "okay-ish enough" in the *current* environment.

>Science relies on this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism
Science relies on a connectionist network. As Stephen Park Turner puts it: "It not only appears to be essentially unintelligible, it literally is unintelligible, in the sense that the units and processes by which it operates cannot be transformed into or stated as rules or principles, the kinds of explicit things that can be said to be intelligible. It is never fixed, although it becomes quite stable, so that new experiences do not dislodge what is learned. There is no changeless center or sovereign purpose, either"

>that very article you sent me relies on some sort of material standard
It relies on SOMETHING, to which theoretical access is blocked. You do not know HOW you know, because otherwise you would have gone into an infinite recursive loop. The only thing that it proves, is you being a machine. But that machine drifts in an ocean of uncertainty.

>>19862495
>no, you might just be autistic
Or, you might just be too dumb to comprehend.

>no, money and classes are very real
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/meaning-fetishism/
"The 1953 version of The War of the Worlds has a wonderful scene where a well-dressed man offers a bag of money to board a Pacific-Tech truck fleeing Los Angeles, only to be violently rebuffed by more rugged souls. And so he’s left, perplexed and dismayed, to await his doom wondering how money, the long-time source of his power over others, suddenly possesses no power at all.
Money offers a paradigmatic example of the confusion of differential or relational properties with intrinsic properties. Given the reliability of a system, information pertaining to the system need not be known to master the capacities belonging to some element within the system. An individual need not know anything about political economy to know, locally at least, what money can do. Given ignorance of the system, attributing special powers to the available element becomes the default, the only way to understand how the element, in this case money, does what it does. We literally fetishize money. The attribution of ‘special powers’ actually allows us to solve a wide variety of practical problems. How did your brother-in-law get that mansion? Well, he won a million dollars in the lottery. Since the enabling background is a ubiquitous feature of all such explanations, it need not figure in them—it ‘goes without saying.’ Given the system, money makes things happen. Why did that stranger at the till give me the cigarettes? Because I gave him ten bucks.
Intrinsic efficacy, in other words, is a useful heuristic, a way to solve problems belonging to a certain ecology. No one needs to know how money works to know that money does work. Even though money only possesses power as a component of a far larger system, we can solve a number of problems within that system simply assuming that money possesses that power intrinsically.
Out of sight, out of mind. This is why financial crises regularly shock the assumptions of so many. Heuristic cognition is largely an unconscious, habitual affair: everyone assumes the stranger is going to run the same routines for the same gold. Instabilities in the system make plain the complex, differential nature of the properties assumed intrinsic."

>>19862619
At the level of the quantum foam everything is illusionary. What you are doing is depriving us of any possible means of communication, and only causing obfuscation. Lasers are a theory that are okay-ish and yet they work. Go be a pseud elsewhere.

>>19858116
/thread

>>19858116
>le just read le history not [philosophy I don't like]
midwit post

>>19862589
>Yet I can't make "private property"
you can. in fact everything you make will be private property by default.
>You don't need a car or a mobile phone to just function in a society, you need them at most to fuction efficiently
you do. by function I mean function on an average level, not that there's not a single person that can stay alive without a mobile phone or a car.
>Never denied this
you said this in response to "any significant hierarchy with marked differences between groups needs to have economic basis." but now I see it's a norm for you to respond with a bunch irrelevant statements
> for he has everyone's life in his hands at the moment he takes harsh decision.
he can only make it in so far as the entire tribe keeps him in that position. he can make decisions himself only once he monopolizes resources and to that extent gains real power over the tribe rather than just being an instrument through which the tribe exercises its own power
>for you redefine hierarchy as simply based on economic factors
are you retarded? I never said that. I only said that a hierarchy pronounced and enough to be worthy of being called "very hierarchical" must rest on economic factors.

>>19862614
>race can and does determine social development and thus it is important for that
nice tautology you retard. and I already gave that Engels quote here >>19861510
>there is no 'result' of historical materialism.
I didn't say that there was result OF historical materialism, but that historical materialism IS a result of "analysis", namely of study of history. here's the summary of this result:
>In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.
>>19862634
didn't read

>>19862917
>in fact everything you make will be private property by default.
Based on what exactly? Why would something I make be private property by default? Because I made this? Or mabe because I chose so?
>by function I mean function on an average level
Kind of moving goalposts, but fine, I'll accept it. Either way, the average is socially constructed, and one can build the same level of social networking or have the same amount of mobility ( or just not need it all) given enough wits and work. Twitter isn't a need.
>you said this in response to "any significant hierarchy with marked differences between groups needs to have economic basis."
I didn't, what the hell are you on about? I implied that a certain position on a hierarchy is linked to a certain economic position, what I denied was that this position is the basis of its existence rather than a possible consequence.
>but now I see it's a norm for you to respond with a bunch irrelevant statements
Yet your posts keep getting shorter and shorter, all the meanwhile you're forgetting a variety of points I've raised.
>he can only make it in so far as the entire tribe keeps him in that position.
Not really, a majority of consent is arguably enough, although it might split the tribe.
> he can make decisions himself only once he monopolizes resources and to that extent gains real power over the tribe rather than just being an instrument through which the tribe exercises its own power
He can make decisions when "democracy" (if it exists) just stops working and the most authoritative member is tasked with deciding on an important matter, such as whether or not to migrate or to stay. The leader is still an individual, and while his power might just be delegated, he can still use it or deviate it in his own interest.
>are you retarded? I never said that.
>I only said that a hierarchy pronounced and enough to be worthy of being called "very hierarchical" must rest on economic factors.
And why exactly is that? If it's because it's a holistic hierarchic superiority I agree, but if it's because of the primacy of the economy then I completely disagree.

>>19863031
>Based on what exactly?
based on law
>Kind of moving goalposts, but fine
no it isn't lol. that's the only reasonable interpretation of what I said.
>the average is socially constructed
no, it's determined by economic fact, namely by the level of development of productive forces.
>Yet your posts keep getting shorter and shorter
"yet"? my posts keep getting shorter exactly because you make a bunch of irrelevant statements.
>all the meanwhile you're forgetting a variety of points I've raised.
I'm not forgetting. if I don't address something then it's either irrelevant or doesn't rise any real challenge to what I said and therefore not worth wasting time over.

>>19863109
>based on law
What law?
>that's the only reasonable interpretation of what I said.
Better say it clearly next time.
>no, it's determined by economic fact, namely by the level of development of productive forces.
If it's determined by fact can you identify it in a consistent and accurate way? How can one ascertain the level of development of productive forces? The fact that I say it's socially constructed also doesn't stop it from being being determined by economic fact, especially considering the two are quite interlinked in Marxist theory. Perhaps you take the negative meaning of "socially constructed" that is so popular among the bourgeoisie you declare to hate...
> my posts keep getting shorter exactly because you make a bunch of irrelevant statements.
Yet you just keep doing it and don't challenge my "irrelevant statements".
> if I don't address something then it's either irrelevant or doesn't rise any real challenge to what I said and therefore not worth wasting time over.
True, that would be the sensible thing to do if what I said was truly irrelevant. That's why, considering the "quality" of your posts, I will stop this discussion here and let you revel in your imaginary gotcha. It's night here, tomorrow I have work and I don't have any mre time to waste on Marxists on a Tatar condensed milk forum.

>>19863252
>What law?
property law
>Better say it clearly next time.
I have. when there's only one reasonable interpretation of a statement then the statement was clear.
>If it's determined by fact can you identify it in a consistent and accurate way?
yes
>How can one ascertain the level of development of productive forces?
by looking at how much concrete useful objects and effects can be produced with a given human effort
>Perhaps you take the negative meaning of "socially constructed" that is so popular among the bourgeoisie you declare to hate...
even a broken clock and so on. I took it like that because you used it like that, like a common retard. you just used is as synonym for "can be changed willy-nilly as long as people really want it"
>Yet you just keep doing it and don't challenge my "irrelevant statements".
yes