/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13316126]

Is there a bigger pseud filter than a person dismissing marx?

[Anonymous No.13316140]

No. Any serious conservative philosopher must embrace historical materialism wholly.

[Anonymous No.13316217]

People who take Marx seriously are economic illiterates

[Anonymous No.13316227]

>>13316126
This is a literature board. Go back, >>>/pol/.

[Anonymous No.13316261]

>>13316227
Philsophy is /lit newfag

[Anonymous No.13316274]

>>13316126
No.

>>13316217
People who don't take Marx seriously are philosophical, sociological, historigraphical, anthropological, and political scientific illiterates.

[Anonymous No.13316282]

>>13316274
Not really. Most dipshit marxists never read Hegel or any philosopher before Karl. Neither did they read any economist. If they would spend any time outside the commie echo chamber they'd realize marxism is retarded

[Anonymous No.13316316]

>>13316282
There is a difference between ‘taking Marx seriously’ and ‘being a Marxist’.

All serious thinkers about human life and society need to come to grips with the event in thought that bares the name Marx, as they do with Nietzsche and with Freud, though being an orthodox Marxist today is fully untenable.

[Anonymous No.13316322]

>>13316126
It's probably not the superlative pseud filter, but it's definitely top ten.
The man's power level was too high for even ten lifetimes, to the point where you can make an entire career (c.f. Althusser) explicating aspects of Marx's work that the he didn't have the time to explain. With the possible exception of Grothendieck, I'm not sure if any intellectual since Marx has so thoroughly left his contemporaries behind in the dust.

[Anonymous No.13316331]

Every single prediction by Marx was wrong. And people still take him seriously

[Anonymous No.13316338]

>>13316331
take a moment to think about why

[Anonymous No.13316359]

>>13316316
only Marxists think taking Marx seriously is still a requirement as compared to any other classical economist and political theorist eg Smith

[Anonymous No.13316406]

>>13316338
Well because the conflict between labour and capital still exists, and as long as it does there is still going to be some resonance with Marx.

[Anonymous No.13316425]

>>13316406
No anon, that's too reductive. The real reason is because of Jews.

[Anonymous No.13316483]

>>13316359
Is this a joke? Smith is a retard by any contemporary capitalist standpoint. If you read his stuff for any purpose other than as part of an effort to grasp the history of capitalism you're a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.13316543]

>>13316483
He still has some uses. See for example what Nussbaum does with him in "'Whether from Reason or Prejudice': Taking Money for Bodily Services".

[Anonymous No.13316717]

>>13316274
Based and true

[Anonymous No.13317169]

>>13316217
>>13316227
>>13316274
>>13316331
>>13316359
Fucking pseuds
No one this stupid would be on /lit a few yeats ago

[Anonymous No.13317175]

>>13317169
Based and yeatpilled

[Anonymous No.13317181]

>>13317169
It's like watching a bull stomp around and chase it's own tail. Provocative, but mostly performative.

[Anonymous No.13317187]

>>13316126
No

[Anonymous No.13317433]

>>13317169
True. 2016 ruined this board.
Get yeatpilled or get out 2019

[Anonymous No.13317554]

>>13316425
Daily reminder that Marx was an antisemite

[Anonymous No.13317564]

>>13317554
he wasn't. you misread him

[Anonymous No.13317591]

>>13317564
No u misread him

[Anonymous No.13317606]

>>13317564
We are trying to break with the theological formulation of the question. For us, the question of the Jew’s capacity for emancipation becomes the question: What particular social element has to be overcome in order to abolish Judaism? For the present-day Jew’s capacity for emancipation is the relation of Judaism to the emancipation of the modern world. This relation necessarily results from the special position of Judaism in the contemporary enslaved world.

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

[Anonymous No.13317609]

>>13317591
let me guess, you think he was criticizing jews and not liberalism in "on the jewish question"? or did you mistake one of his biblical references for antisemitism

[Anonymous No.13317618]

>>13317554
There's nothing more Jewish than being antisemitic

[Anonymous No.13317620]

>>13317606
i see so it was the former. anyway he's criticizing liberalism and its approach of freedom of religion

[Anonymous No.13317629]

>>13317609
>Assuming I'd read the work of an antisemite

[Anonymous No.13317632]

>>13316217
You forgot to say how communism doesn't work because the USSR existed and top it all off with a hollow appeal to human nature to complete the brainlet trifecta.

[Anonymous No.13317639]

>>13317620
He's specifically criticizing the role of Jews within the liberal system, which role has not changed, and has just gotten even more insidious

[Anonymous No.13317644]

>>13317632
all true statements and no amount of equivocating or butthurt can make them untrue

[Anonymous No.13317648]

>>13317644
All of them are incredibly shallow criticisms uttered by thoughtless people as a knee-jerk reaction.

[Anonymous No.13317655]

>>13317648
They are literally true and your meme ideology will never achieve its meme goal precisely because they are true. Of course some posturing retard cares more about whether the statements sound sophisticated than whether they're true.

[Anonymous No.13317657]

>>13316126
>tfw Marx's legacy is literature students calling 19th century novels classist and failed implementations of his revolution idea

[Anonymous No.13317663]

>>13316126
Listen, bucko, I've read all the way through the Communist Manifesto, and I can tell you I've never seen anything more wrong in my life.

[Anonymous No.13317679]

>>13317655
How do you know something's true if you can't even explain why it's true? Which principles in economics do Marxists fail to understand? Which failures of the soviet system are in your view unavoidable to any socialist regime? On what basis do you think that human nature is incompatible with socialist ideals? People like you don't have answers to these questions because you are shallow and thoughtless.

[Anonymous No.13317699]

>>13317679
>Which principles in economics do Marxists fail to understand
You can't abstract the entire production of a society and then assert that every individual within it is creating a per capita average by their labor.
>Which failures of the soviet system are in your view unavoidable to any socialist regime?
You can't plan an economy, it's too complex and you can't predict how large numbers of people will behave
>On what basis do you think that human nature is incompatible with socialist ideals?
All large human societies ever display extreme imbalance of power between a small class and a larger class, all humans display selfish and cooperative behaior, the selfish behavior will always emerge and exploit imbalances creating power hierarchies, power hierarchies entrench themselves further by their nature, leading to cycles of revolt and tyranny.

[Anonymous No.13317700]

>>13316217
>economic
who gives a shit

[Anonymous No.13317705]

>>13316126
Not if they we’re a hegelian
Then they would be correct

[Anonymous No.13317948]

>>13317699
>You can't abstract the entire production of a society and then assert that every individual within it is creating a per capita average by their labor.
I don't see how that's relevant
> You can't plan an economy, it's too complex and you can't predict how large numbers of people will behave
The soviets managed to do a meh job, and modern technology allows us to collect a ridiculous amount of data and process it. We can do much better.
> All large human societies ever display extreme imbalance of power between a small class and a larger class
So what? It's like saying that the EU is a pipe dream because Europeans always fought each other.
> all humans display selfish and cooperative behaior, the selfish behavior will always emerge and exploit
People's desires to get ahead can be sublimated into hierarchies that aren't based on economic dominance.

[Anonymous No.13317963]

>>13317699
>All large human societies ever display extreme imbalance of power between a small class and a larger class, all humans display selfish and cooperative behaior, the selfish behavior will always emerge and exploit imbalances creating power hierarchies, power hierarchies entrench themselves further by their nature, leading to cycles of revolt and tyranny.
what i never understood is why this somehow doesn't apply to capitalism

[Anonymous No.13318074]

>>13316126
Marxists are not as smart as they think they are and insecure about it. Not to mention not as rich as they'd like to be and butthurt about it.

>>13316274
>Marx influenced history therefore his ideas have merit
Is it impermissible to dismiss out of hand the work of, say, Houston Stewart Chaimberlain or Arthur de Gobineau, even though they paved the way for the racial ideology of Nazi Germany? Influential =/= philosophically important

[Anonymous No.13318142]

>>13316126
"Fun" fact:

The Communist dictator of Venezuela Vladimir "Che" Mao killed killed 900 billion Christian martyrs to advance the Muslim domination of the West.

Still think communism is cool?

[Anonymous No.13318151]

>>13318142
The actual facts of communism are shocking enough. No reason to portray those who point them out as boomers, tankie.

[Anonymous No.13318373]

>>13318151
It is pretty shocking that Marxist-Leninist science transformed desperately poor countries into societies in which everyone had adequate healthcare, housing, and education - massively improving living standards on a scale never before or since seen in history.

It's even more shocking when you realize that Cuba has a higher HDI and life expectancy than Mexico, even though Mexico has huge amounts of oil and neighbors the US, while Cuba has been under the most extreme economic sanctions ever implemented in history.

>but muh 9999 megatrillion!!
Good riddance. Bourgeoisie Lives Don't Matter.

[Anonymous No.13318401]

>>13318373
Cuba and the USSR used dictators, which everyone knows is efficient and works well
>Marxist-Leninist science
lmao

[Anonymous No.13318418]

>>13316126
All
>muh economy
posting=brainlet. No one who isn't sunk "versunke" in life gives a single fuck about economics.

[Anonymous No.13318420]

>>13318401
Then how come right-wing dictators like Suharto, Fujimori, Videla, etc, ran their economies into the ground and ended up being jailed/overthrown? Only left wing dictators are efficient at improving life for regular people. Right wing dictators are only efficient at selling their country and enriching themselves and their elite.

[Anonymous No.13318432]

>>13318420
the nazis were pretty based

[Anonymous No.13318456]

>>13318420
The strong must be protected from the weak.

Blessed are the poor.

[Anonymous No.13318470]

>>13318432
They turned one of Europe's richest countries into a bombed out hellscape though

[Anonymous No.13318476]

>>13318470
no they made a based autobahn and tanks you fag. It was the eternal anglo and the slav menace that bombed it

[Anonymous No.13318488]

People that say Marx was wrong because of "human nature." and leave it at that. And people that say human nature is the product of our material conditions.

[Anonymous No.13319112]

>>13318476
Cringe
Fascism has been a consistent failure

[Anonymous No.13319158]

>>13317963
Only brainlet Prageru retards deny this. The only thing i hate more than a communist is a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.13319163]

>>13319112
Lmaoing at retards like this guy

[Anonymous No.13319192]

>>13318373
And then proceed to crash and burn into horribly hilarious displays. It doesn’t help that you don’t know what you’re talking about. What the unholy fuck is Marxist-Leninist science?

[Anonymous No.13319413]

>>13316126
Marx is wrong, because:
1. Dialectics is insane useless shit
2. Primitive quasi-consequentialist ethics.
3. Assumption that people are essentially equal (behavioral genetics tell you to check your IQ or autism)
4. Shitty knowledge of history.

[Anonymous No.13319590]

>>13318142
Yes? Christians are cucks for the jews

[Anonymous No.13319677]

>>13317606
That's taken out of context. If you read the essay, you would know he's criticizing the institution of religion as a whole, not just judaism.

[Anonymous No.13319681]

>>13319413
>3. Assumption that people are essentially equal

Where does Marx assume this?

[Anonymous No.13319683]

>>13317169
just popped in after not looking at /lit/ regularly since about 2011 and you are incredibly fucking wrong. marx states capitalism is the most efficient way of generating growth so someone not knowing that is ultimate pseud filter because it shows they haven't read him. also marx is gay and so are you.

[Anonymous No.13319699]

>>13319413
2. is the only thing you are correct about

[Anonymous No.13319727]

>>13319681
People are segregated solely by the means of productions. Communism strives to remove classes and assumes everything would be cool later on.
This implies that people are presumed to be naturally good and equal. That they wouldn't fuck with each other for shits and giggles and would co-exist peacefully and beneficially.

[Anonymous No.13319753]

>>13319699
As for dialectics - read Popper. Dialectics doesn't work - it can give no future predictions and can only retroactively descirbe things in terms of some vague "contradictions" and "negations" (by mercilessly fucking with word semantics).
Which means it's useless as fuck at best, and plain audacious charlatanry at worst.

[Anonymous No.13319756]

>>13319727
>People are segregated solely by the means of production
People are segregated on a class basis solely by their relationship means of production. People still have different capacities and abilities. Class is treated by Marx as an artificial and unjust barrier against the actualization of those differences, not as the cause of them.

>This implies that people are presumed to be naturally good and equal
How tf does it presume people are naturally equal?

Why do I feel like you're about to tell me that Solzhenitsyn was an individualist, Nietzsche was a conservative and that I need to clean up my room

[Anonymous No.13319759]

>>13319753
>retrospectively
typo, sorry

[Anonymous No.13319775]

>>13319756
>How tf does it presume people are naturally equal?
Because if people are not equal, why egalitarianism? Why do we need to satisfy the needs of all the proletariat? If we aknowledge that some are inferior?

[Anonymous No.13319778]

>>13319727
>This implies that people are presumed to be naturally good and equal. That they wouldn't fuck with each other for shits and giggles and would co-exist peacefully and beneficially.

what's the problem with this logic? i'm not a commie but it makes sense to me that people only go at each other's throats when competing for limited resources.

[Anonymous No.13319784]

>>13319775
Egalitarianism because artificial barriers against actual meritocracy, such as arbitrary class division, for instance, are dumb and counter-productive. Also as difference in ability doesn't necessarily amount to a license for exploitation. People can be conceived of as having equal worth as people without being equal in ability, as they are under almost all civilized legal systems.

[Anonymous No.13319789]

>muh communism

[Anonymous No.13319794]

>>13319778
>competing for limited resources
Like during the Crusades?
People go at each other's throats, when they have no need to cooperate. If they have enough resources, then people have no need to work together. What's to stop people from hating each other then?
You know, between-group xenophobia, "us" and "them", tribes, and shit.

[Anonymous No.13319807]

>>13319784
>artificial barriers against actual meritocracy
Suppose, we achieved communism. Hypothetically, why not exterminate the dumb and counter-productive ones?

>People can be conceived of as having equal worth as people without being equal in ability
Which means, people ARE conceived as equal when in fact they fucking aren't. Which means, Marx is full of shit.

[Anonymous No.13319810]

>>13316126
>tfw the majority of anti-semitic conspiracy theories are only a few steps away from an understanding of the world comparable to the marxist theory of capitalist power structures
>tfw if only they stopped scapegoating and started focusing on the system itself we could be comrades again

Why do you guys continue to channel your anger recklessly and inefficiently at some overdetermined image of le sneaky merchant? Why not put that energy to work towards a productive reinvention of the system?

[Anonymous No.13319817]

>>13319794
the state institutes religion and teaches people to hate each other. it's backwards to think hate is a natural behavior but cooperation isn't.

[Anonymous No.13319822]

>>13319784
>almost all civilized legal systems
For now. But you know, humanism is a 200-year-old concept created by liberals on the pretense that we are equal because God created us equal.
But God is dead, humanism is outdated and being replaced by posthumanism, so...

[Anonymous No.13319824]

>>13316126
i have never seen a discussion on this board where either proponents or opponents of marx have ever actually read or understood a word he wrote. this thread is a great example.

[Anonymous No.13319835]

>>13319817
Fucking tribes crack each others sculls and flay each other's skins. Tribes do not hate the state.

>it's backwards to think hate is a natural behavior
Evolutionary, predators are smarter and more sociable than herbivores. Because they need intelligence to fuck with others.

[Anonymous No.13319850]

>>13319835
>do not have
fix

[Anonymous No.13319859]

>>13316261
/his/ is literally “History and Humanities”
You should discuss philosophy there, especially if you are an amerimutt for which that board has been created

[Anonymous No.13319896]

>>13319824
And there's always one smarmy cunt who think's he's superior to both, and yet can't, for whatever reason, bring himself to correct anyone's misinterpretations.

[Anonymous No.13319901]

>>13319822
>humanism is outdated
For example, this:
https://aeon.co/essays/knowledge-is-a-stone-age-concept-were-better-off-without-it
You are to be judged in courts not by witnesses, but by probability statistics.

[Anonymous No.13319930]

>>13319775
>Because if people are not equal, why egalitarianism?
Marx wasn't an egalitarian. According to him no "equal right" can ever be genuinely equal, because when you make a right equal with regards to some aspects, there will always be many other aspects that you're omitting, making the right unequal with regards to them.
>Why do we need to satisfy the needs of all the proletariat?
Which needs are you talking about?

>>13319807
>Hypothetically, why not exterminate the dumb and counter-productive ones?
Counter-productive with regards to what goal?

>>13319824
Yes, it's pretty sad.

>>13319859
Philosophical discussions on /lit/ are already borderline retarded, and moving them to /his/ would make them ten times worse.

[Anonymous No.13319960]

>>13319896
this issue isn't "misinterpretations," but a lack of basic reading comprehension and even a cursory glance at the source material. try actually reading marx before commenting.

[Anonymous No.13320252]

>>13319810
based

[Anonymous No.13320257]

>>13319960
again, you're taking the time to reply to me (a shitposting devil's advocate) when you could use this time to help correct whatever misunderstandings are being perpetrated throughout this thread. But you choose not to, because its easy to put yourself on a pedestal without giving anyone a reason as to why we should trust you above any of the other awful explanations of Marx's thought in this thread. For all I know yours could be just as bad