[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 69 KB, 220x220, 1592856218816.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15928844 No.15928844 [Reply] [Original]

Why is Marx even considered a philosopher? His ideas are the least sophisticated you could possibly imagine. It's literally soulless trash for people who love controlling others.

>> No.15928861

>>15928844
Not all of it, his point about workers gaining fulfillment from controlling every step of the manufacturing product from beginning to finished produce was pretty profound

>> No.15928881

>>15928844
Nah bro you just don't get it... After capitalism is destroyed the world will be so much better dude....
Me? I'll be on the council of course lmao...

>> No.15928899

>>15928844
Aren't most right leaning people here that actually read trending towards nazbolism / strasserism? It seems like marx in that context is worth reading since pretty much anyone left or right with a brain agrees capitalism is bad and he was one of it's earlier critics

>> No.15928903

>>15928844
he's not. he just added "le tranformation of the world" to actual philosophical ideas he took from Hegel, Feuerbach, Smith, Ricardo and Saint-Simon.

>> No.15928908

>>15928899
its*

>> No.15928929

>>15928899
Marx is hardly one of the earliest critics of Liberalism. Critique of Liberalism goes back all the way to the mid 1000s (albeit the Conservatives had no idea what was coming). One could make an argument that critique of Liberalism was even going on in Ancient Rome (I personally wouldn't, doing that abstracts Liberalism from too much of its historical context and just becomes MERCHANTS BAD).

You're right about the NazBol/Strasserism, but frankly that's going a little far. Just being flat out NatSoc makes you pretty far Left by both European and American standards (Euros are importing American standards, however). In that sense, yeah there's a lot of drawing from the Marxist school of thought, but that's mostly Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Debord, etc.

Pretty much everyone agrees that Marx himself was wrong in many fundamental and crucial ways.

>> No.15928973

>>15928929
>Pretty much everyone agrees that Marx himself was wrong in many fundamental and crucial ways.
Such as?

>> No.15929016

>>15928973
>modes of production. He later added "asian mode of production".
My fucking sides.
>Grand narrative of history based on speculation with a predictive element
>Labor Theory of Value
>Marx ignored cultural factors because he was "scientificist"
Just a few off the top of my head

>> No.15929029

>>15928861
It's literally just a reddit post saying "pasta is so much better when you make it yourself!"

>> No.15929053

>>15928973
The LTV being complete horseshit invalidates basically everything he has to say, right down to to why the workers should even revolt in the first place. The LTV's horeshitness also means that the actual end goal of Communism is completely unworkable.

Additionally, his focus on a very specific definition of "class", which ultimately comes down to "how much money and capital do you have" totally ignores the factors that religion, race, ethnicity, culture, geography, etc play in peoples lives, and the intersections of them with the economic. Marx's focus on "class" not only ignores other factors, but also is too narrow. It also is too focused on the economic, and totally ignores social standing and status.

Finally, Marx is an advocate of Whig History, which is just flat out not how reality works.

>> No.15929105

LTV is correct
https://youtu.be/emnYMfjYh1Q

>> No.15929126

>>15929053
>the factors that religion, race, ethnicity, culture, geography, etc play in peoples lives
all extended from the modes of production and class.

>> No.15929127

>>15929016
I've never seen a critique of LTV that wasn't just people misunderstanding it as an explanation of how pricing works rather than as an ontology of economics with moral implications. Also historical materialism isn't ignoring culture, it's acknowledging that culture needs to be buttressed by material forces to sustain itself, for example it would be retarded to talk about liberalism fucking up the family unit without also acknowledging that happens because capitalism puts economic pressures towards dissolving the structure, if a social conservative for example wanted more women to stay at home and raise children instead of also participating in the work force, you need to address the economic conditions that necessitate dual income households. A critique of politics that doesn't consider material conditions is ineffectual, you can rail about culture all you want and it won't do anything because people will tend towards the culture that material conditions make the most appealing and even the people that actively want to reject materialism still need to make a living and are therefor often forced to comply with liberalism

>> No.15929140

>>15929053
>It also is too focused on the economic
The base of everything is economic. Where do you think food comes from? Who makes your clothes and what you are posting on right now?

>> No.15929144

>>15929126
Yes, and that is why Marx is wrong, because that's not how reality works, and he says it is.

>> No.15929145

>>15929127
reject liberalism*

>> No.15929158

>>15929140
There's a difference between "the economic touches everything" and "the economic deterministically sets forth everything". The latter is simply wrong. It's observably wrong. That's not how the world works.

>> No.15929163

>>15929144
It is and Marx is right

>> No.15929183

>>15928844
>Why is this man with a PhD in philosophy who read the works of other men with PhD's in philosophy and is recognized as a philosopher by all people who have PhD's in philosophy (even those most against his personal views), who wrote systematic philosophical treatises partly responding to other philosophers, partly constructing his own worldview, considered a PHILOSOPHER???
Substitute Marx for anyone else that fits this description and you'll realize why your question could only be asked on /lit/ by anti-academic LARPer pseuds.

>> No.15929185

>>15929163
>a fisherman in punksatawny, virgina, and qiunqao, china have exactly the same language, culture, and religion because they both make $10 a day fishing
this is why literally every marxist state eventually ditched this shit, jesus christ lmfao

>> No.15929187

marxism is just a will to power used by the middle class

>> No.15929192

>>15929163
Not. Isn't.

>> No.15929202

>>15929187
read marx you mongoloid, he literally reads the french revolution to mean the will to power of the middle class. that was a fundamental misreading, but at least know what he says, dumbass.

>> No.15929209

>>15929185
Marx wouldn't say that those people are the same, the way he categorizes people is only tangentially related to their income

>> No.15929217

>>15929163
>you just have to take it on faith
And you tards wonder why people say Marxism is a religion.

>> No.15929236

>>15929202
bourgeoisie are not middle class

>> No.15929249

>>15928844
>Philosopher
>Sophisticated
Awww brainlet frogposter learned some big words

>> No.15929391

>>15928844
>t. never read Marx

>> No.15929401

>>15929016
this is a top tier shitpost lmao

>> No.15929408

>>15929236
>bourgeoisie are not middle class

Is this a troll?

>> No.15929425

>>15929140
>The base of everything is economic.
No.
Any claim that "the base of everything" is one singular thing is inherently retarded.

>> No.15929460

>>15929029
most philosophy can be translated into platitudes, but that doesn’t make it less wise.

>> No.15929490

>>15928899
>>15928844
it’s because he is a materialist so he departed by and large from philosophy and saw people and everything as machines. he is mostly an economist who wanted to asend past morality. however, most people after wanted to attach morality to an explicitly post moral, and “morals-as-a-product-of-a-system“ veiw. this creates an idiosyncratic belief that conflates historical eventuality with moral precedence. this leads to a mental dissonance of deconstructing morals as a product of a system while also doing that same critique from an implicitly moral stance. a have your cake and eat it too scenario. conflating a proposed science with a moral initiative, this tending towards a good bit of misplaced hubris.

>> No.15929499

>>15928929
Literally what do you think Liberalism is? The term only has relevance after the French Revolution. This is like saying that Sophocles is an anti-Capitalist because he calls money evil. Simply ahistorical.

And Marx (or any other writer ever) isn't worth reading because he's "right" but because he develops a new vocabulary and grammar with which to understand the basis of social relations.

>> No.15929511

>>15929185
this is the exact opposite of what the historical materialist method accomplishes, read Capital

>> No.15929518

>>15929499
A system isn't of any value when it turns out the system is objectively incorrect.

>> No.15929530

>>15929499
agreed. though i personally dont like the witgeinstieniab take if “different words and grammer” and would prefer perspective. as the former implies its simply a different linguistic expression while the latter includes that as well as abstract ideas (if you believe in them separate or at least contigent from words)

>> No.15929566

>>15929530
Thought without language is definitely a thing but in my personal experience ideas that you can't articulate into language are significantly more unwieldy

>> No.15929618

>>15929518
You're not responding to me or to Marx with this comment. Pure shadowboxing. If you think Marx is trying to articulate a programmatic system, I suggest you actually read Capital. In literally the preface to the first edition he says,

>Even when a society has begun to track down the natural laws of its movement -- and it is the ultimate aim of this work to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society -- it can neither leap over the natural phases of its development nor remove them by decree.

>>15929530
Not a Wittgenstein scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that his contribution is specifically the idea that language is inseparable from subjectivity

>If a lion could speak, we could not understand him

>> No.15929640

He took idealist concepts and converted to what they were never meant to be, materialist thought.

>> No.15929649

>>15929640
t. never read marx

>> No.15929652

>>15929618
No, it's his system for trying to understand reality. The problem is that his assumptions range everywhere from unfounded to patently absurd, so any further systems based off marxism always fail.

>> No.15929655

literally nobody in history has ever read a word written by marx

>> No.15929664

>>15929655
tru.

>> No.15929671

>>15929126
>Dude trust me, everything is a product of economics even though most humans are not materialistic

>> No.15929684

>>15929640
Read "Filosofia di Marx" by Gentile retard

>> No.15929702

>>15929671
they are. materialism makes up the base of your existence. you take up the food, clothes, shelter, shitpost device, etc that is provided to you for granted.

>> No.15929707

>>15929652
Marx's method shows us that every system fails. Feudalism failed and led to capitalism. Capitalism will fail and lead to communism. Marx spends 99% of his time talking about capitalism and develops a very advanced vocabulary for doing so. If you think his "assumptions" about the relations between labor, commodities, and capital are "unfounded" then all I can say is that you're not reading him closely enough. No liberal theorist before or since even comes close to approaching Marx's rigor.

>> No.15929708

>>15929671
how are most humans ""not materialistic""?

>> No.15929717
File: 670 KB, 1164x1200, lefty_pol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15929717

>these are the "people" telling you to read marx

>> No.15929734
File: 257 KB, 797x590, 1593891743313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15929734

>>15929707
>Capitalism will fail and lead to communism.
lmfao

>> No.15929750
File: 30 KB, 300x250, 2015-fpb-sidebar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15929750

>>15929734
>thinks capitalism will last forever

embarrassing

>> No.15929754

>>15929702
If you're able to take them for granted, then clearly they aren't influencing your decision making that much.

>> No.15929769

>>15928844
what the fuck

>> No.15929774

>>15929750
Certainly a lot longer than any of your communist shitholes ever will.

>> No.15929779

>>15929734
I don't get it, do you deny the fact that previous modes of production were replaced by others? Is feudalism still around in your opinion? Marx simply tried to make a theory around what caused this to happen.

>> No.15929798
File: 1020 KB, 2036x3051, cb6280f0791d261ae1ca5fe4293341153c9987fe53b9b9b49af8004f45157d69.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15929798

Leftism isn't even a threat to capitalism anymore it has been rebranded as IDpol and used to dismantle legitimate working class movements

>> No.15929808

>>15928844
I do not agree with Marx on a lot of things but quite frankly adopting the position that his ideas are the "least sophisticated you could possibly imagine" is something a platinum tier brainlet would do. And it likely indicates you have not even read Marx in depth. His ideas are in fact quite novel and profound for the context in which they were written. Writing him off as useless, dumb, or uninfluential is very arrogant and narcissistic. Go back to /pol/.

>> No.15929810 [DELETED] 

>>15929750
Yeah, I bet Greek chuds thought writing wouldn't last forever either, and considering writing in the Greek world might have been lost during their dark ages, they wouldn't have seemed completely retarded at the time, but guess what it lasted forever. Capitalism is a technology, not an ideology.

>> No.15929818

>>15929754
they are

>> No.15929823

>>15929798
>implying leftism does not inevitably lead to pic related

>> No.15929846

>>15929810
>Yeah, I bet Greek chuds thought writing wouldn't last forever either, and considering writing in the Greek world might have been lost during their dark ages, they wouldn't have seemed completely retarded at the time, but guess what it lasted forever.
What contradictions did writing have for it to be replaced by another thing? You're comparing two entirely different things, it doesn't make sense.
>Capitalism is a technology, not an ideology.
Neither, it's a mode of production.

>> No.15929868

>>15929823
name one marxist leninist nation were this happened

>> No.15929883

>>15929868
name one marxist leninist nation that hasn't collapsed or faded into utter irrelevancy

>> No.15929887

>What contradictions did writing have for it to be replaced by another thing?

None. It was a completely new technology. Just like capital. You're not going to rollback nor replace capitalism any more than you will arabic numerals or double entry bookkeeping.

>> No.15929890
File: 157 KB, 640x426, goal-posts-moving.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15929890

>>15929883

>> No.15929900

>>15929890
but marxism leninism isn't "real" communism right buddy?

>> No.15929903

>>15929774
>certainly

Oh shit, you're certain? Well I guess you don't need to read books anymore, congratulations.

>>15929810
>capitalism is a technology

No? It's an economic system for organizing the means of production and exchange. Not even Milton fucking Friedman would agree that capitalism is a technology. Also it's hilarious that you chose "writing" as your example to prove some point about how technology is supposedly eternal.

>Yeah I bet the Greeks thought Humorism wouldn't last forever... oh wait...
>Yeah I bet the European monarchy thought bloodline aristocracy wouldn't last forever... oh wait...
>Yeah I bet 80s technocrats thought fax machines wouldn't last forever... oh wait...

>> No.15929910

>>15929890
leftism, if it doesn't collapse like all marxist leninist states do, inevitably adapts to woke liberalism. so go ahead, name one that didn't suffer either fate.

>> No.15929913

>>15929750
>>15929707

>he thinks there is a perfect system.

how do you define if something as abstract as a government type “failed” to not fail there must be some critiria of a non failed government. foes failure equal collapse? or does it equal not doing what it sets out to do? noone says the goal of fuedalism is ____. its a gestalt phenomenon of norms and systems that are more or less perpetuated and evolve from multiple interests. there is no failed system as that predicts a unfailed system. all we can say is that one system transitioned to another do to causality. if we can say something is failed we could say communism is a failed system because the USSR fell. and i think that is a preposterous statement. its better to say there is a logical development eather than failures and successes.

>> No.15929982

>>15929913
Pretty crazy how you read my post which says
>Marx's method shows us that every system fails...
and you heard the exact opposite
>he thinks there is a perfect system

Success and failure are not eternal concepts. Something can succeed today and fail tomorrow. Capitalism has succeeded in becoming the dominant mode of global production. And it will inevitably fail, due to its internal contradictions. Maybe you think it will last another 100 years or another 1000 years, but eventually it will have to turn into something new in order to deal with the crises that it has created.

Once again I quote Marx from the first preface to the first edition of Capital

>Even when a society has begun to track down the natural laws of its movement -- and it is the ultimate aim of this work to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society -- it can neither leap over the natural phases of its development nor remove them by decree.

If you think Marxism is about ideological opinions and not about historical materialism then you are simply wrong.

>> No.15929985

>>15928844
>Why is Kant even considered a philosopher? His ideas are the least sophisticated you could possibly imagine. It's literally soulless trash for people who love controlling others.

>Why is Rawls even considered a philosopher? His ideas are the least sophisticated you could possibly imagine. It's literally soulless trash for people who love controlling others.

>> No.15930026

>>15929982
I agree, and may I contribute another thing: Marx's conception of communism was his attempt at formulating a mode of production without internal contradictions, that's why Marx depicts it as what's next to come, but the truth is why don't really know "how" or what "shape" will communism have. Maybe it'll be something entirely different, maybe not, but the truth of the matter is that capitalism have contradictions that won't be able to be overcome unless it changes its fundamental structure, and by doing so it would be no longer capitalism...

>> No.15930170

>>15929982
sorry but i felt the implication of your statement was that communism would be different. and also, the bigger point of what i was trying to say was that success/fail way of thinking of it is innately flawed. not that capitalism has succeded or failed, but to use the terminology itself is reductionistic and leads to a ideosyncratic mindset.