/lit/ - Literature

>>23532318
my own opinion, is that no, his work can't be saved.

In general we are all too stupid to pick and choose what should be kept and what should be discarded. I think it's inevitable that if you're a university student who starts to think some of his ideas make sense, which they do, it's too easy to become essentially a cult member.

I mean, once you buy into the idea that everything is meant to keep the capitalistic system in place, then you basically have to question everything about your own life. It's inherently antagonistic. And, unfortunately, Che Guavara and Fidel Castro, and a bunch of other revolutionaries have been utterly romanticized, that it leads people to becoming fanatical.

>>23532331
>we are all too stupid to pick and choose
Speak for yourself. Literal all I do when I read philosophers or political thinkers is discard their stupid ideas and mull around their interesting ones. That's the essence of critical thinking.

If you can't separate out individual ideas from a body of work, then sure, you shouldn't be adopting any ideologies. But you're probably going to anyway because at that point, you're thinking with your monkey brain and not your prefrontal cortex.

>>23532318
His historical materialism holds well and can easily be adapted to modern consensuses. In this regard, he is very influential in shifting history away from the great man theory. Alienation is also good and an important issue in our modern world but chiefly from a psychological perspective.

However I think commodity fetishism is problematic. Its true that as humans we attribute our irrational and subjective attachments to commodities and other objects but in Marx's thought this is flaw to be corrected. Theoretically even people can be commodified, and to an extent are, thus we in our culture it is not acceptable to sell your children because they are too valuable. This also stirs some issues with aesthetics and conceptions of art, which underlies the irony of frankfurt school and modern art and demonstrates the absurdity of his view, literally and figuratively. You won't get anything from it if you don't value marx's ideas.

No. 150 years of continuous screeching have made it impossible to look at his work impartially.

>>23533823
I tend to agree

>>23533790
>His historical materialism holds well
I don't think so. It assumes that humans are essentially just lumps of clay that are molded by economic structures, as humans have no inherent nature. It's an interesting way to read history, and can be a useful tool.

>Theoretically even people can be commodified
They are commodified all the time. I never thought of it, but I think probably the best example of why commodity fetishism can be a problem is the Karen upset at people visiting strippers because "That's somebodies daughter!"

>>23532318
>as a profit
such an ironic misspelling

He definitely set a good framework to work off of

I like the letter they found where the rabbi is thanking him for his work in helping them enslave the goyim and fulfill the prophecies of the talmud. don't worry guys, it's fake and debunked, even though it was published with his other letters after his death by a prestigious literary review journal.

>>23534594
Got a link?

>>23532331
>it's too easy to become essentially a cult member
It's a good cult tho.

>>23534594
He speaks negatively of Jews in all of his works, such as on the Jewish Question and even in Capital, where he makes jokes how commodities are circumcised Jews.

>>23532318
Really the only good things about him are some specific critiques of capitalism, for example the tendency of monopoly because of increasing entrance barriers resulting from technology. Even then this can be (partially) fixed by government invervention (something which he also lacks tackling the effect of in general). His materialistic worldview however is just really, really, really bad. There is a good reason modern economic history research doesn't use it at all. Hell even before Marx some people already had done economic history that wasn't as reductive as his theory. Most of his ideas however suffer from the influence of this. His theory of worker alienation for example does as well. Most people don't derive meaning in their lives from their jobs or what they produce and I think it's pretty fair to say they never have. Most people work for money so they can do something they actually care about and they can still derive more than enough meaning from that. He basically just reduces a person to a worker part of a group of workers not because it makes sense, but because his theory requires it. Quite simply Marx is not worth anything when it comes to economics since everything at this point has been either refuted or done better (especially with the LTV since it is just a version of supply based value which already became outdated in the 19th century). At most he's intereding for some political history.

>>23536280
He was never worth shit as it relates to economics, but as a critique of political economy, it's still valid.

>His theory of worker alienation for example does as well. Most people don't derive meaning in their lives from their jobs or what they produce and I think it's pretty fair to say they never have.
Disagree. His theory of alienation is probably the most valid part of his works even today. This might sound stupid, but until I started my own business I really felt less human. Obligated to dress a certain way, start a certain time, worry about taking personal calls and even police how I spoke at the office to not upset anyone.

I certainly feel like im able to be myself, as now im not worried about putting on an image to avoid being fired or get along with co-workers that I am subtly competing with. Ofcourse, I still have to exagerate to get clients, or do some things that are against my nature. All in all I think tending towards having more ownership and control of your workplace makes for better humans.

>>23536280
No one debunked the labor theory of value.
Bourgeois economics are based on imaginary value and could never do something like account for a total amount of value in an alien civilization, because it depends on hilariously ideological notions of human nature (which forms the basis of marginalism) and they are not proven, but simply assumed.
The Cambridge controversy unearthed many of the problems with neoclassical economics but still nobody has written a good response to it. Yet economists still believe that their fable, that their ideology of how the economy works is 'scientific'. It is pure ideology.
Marx provides a way to measure creation of actual value in its most primitive form and coherently creates a critique of political economy from microeconomics to macroeconomics.

>>23537923
>the labor theory of value.
That was deboonked 5000 years before marx even existed you dumb nigger. Profit/value always comes before labour. Profit/value is the motivator for innovation. why did the unga bunga caveman invent the knife, spear and bow? So he could hunt and kill animals and his enemies easier.

>>23538034
I beg you to read the first chapter of Capital, vol. 1. Just the first!

>>23538041
>No refute
I beg you to get a job even if its just part time just get a job and you will finally grow up and join the rest of us in the real world.

>>23538045
How can you genuinely feel like you're criticising Marx when it is painfully obvious that you've not even read him?
You're an ignorant /pol/chud. That's what you are.

>>23538051
>Again no refute
I will just reply by saying that you will never ever be a real woman. Because i have pretty much figured out what kind of subhuman you are.

>>23538054
Are you trolling or are you genuinely retarded?

>>23538056
>>Are you trolling or are you genuinely retarded?

>>23538059
No it just says a lot about a person who comes to the LITERATURE board and doesn't read LITERATURE.

>>23536280
>Most people work for money so they can do something they actually care about and they can still derive more than enough meaning from that.
This isn't incorrect nowadays but you have to keep in mind the context he was writing in, when people used to work 12-16 hours shifts in factories and coal mines and child labour was still a thing. They didn't have the oppurtunity to do something they cared about.

>>23538082
life is too short to waste thinking Marx is literature. But then I would think dilating an hour every day is a waste of time as well.

>>23538086
To be fair that shit still happen but ironically its in african third world shitholes that are chink colonies. Yeah you heard that right a supposedly commie nationa sets up cheap slave labour in the congo to mine a bunch of shit.

>>23537889
>This might sound stupid
It doesn't sound stupid at all. Marx was absolutely correct about alienation, and every working class person understands this if he really stops and thinks about it. It's also realted to Uncle Ted's concept of the power process. I think they're basically identifying the same issue: that in modernity, most people don't see the value of their work or have much say in it, which fundamentally causes them stress and anguish.

Even though owning a business is extremely labor intensive and difficult, being able to control your life is priceless. And no one seems to question this arrangement which is fundamental to capitalism: namely, that one or a handful of people (capitalists) "own" the business while dozens to hundreds or thousands of people (the working class) run and operate the business. This arrangement is assumed to be the only way or assumed to be the ideal method of organization, and I think the fact that Marx brings attention to this assumption and questions it is extremely valuable, even if all his conclusions aren't correct.

>>23532318
It's possible to sympathise with some of the ideas of nearly any writer/thinker. Marx especially on this site given the book he published in 1944 on the people that dwell alone. Regardless of that, he had fairly coherent things to say about the use of division through identity politics to reduce action of the working classes, it's antagonist is still found today in amazon warehouses

>>23538354
>1944
1844*
sorry I'm as drunk as Marx liked to be

>>23532318
If someone as typically conservative as Roger Scruton can appreciate some of the things Marx said, you can too. There's value to be found in many places, even those as dangerous as communism liberalism or nazism

>>23532318
nigga literally dropped a masonic hand sign on this pic, i dont even want to read ur thing, this shit disgusts me