/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15929884]

Adolescence is idolizing Nietzsche and hating Marx without reading him because of propaganda.

Adulthood is reading Marx and realizing he was right and having some contentions with Nietzsche as you outgrow him.

[Anonymous No.15929908]

Reverse is true. A grown man who thinks Marx is right but isn't on the payroll of the Soviet Union is a true idiot.

[Anonymous No.15929928]

hardly anyone will agree with marx on any subject, on the other hand Nietzsche is a mental disability made prose. Both are cope-tier "philosophy". At least Nietzsche has some humor

[Anonymous No.15929949]

>>15929884
You mean
>Adolescence is dismissing Marx because of "human nature" while thinking Nietzsche is that guy who wrote about the Overman which you then aspire to be
>Adulthood is realizing that Marx is even worse than you could have imagined and that his pseudoscience is in many ways just as utopian as the contemporary socialists he criticized, and that all his economic analysis is now outdated as the field of economics has surpassed him, while also realizing that one cannot truly be a Nietzschean due to the many contradictions within his work, and that chasing the ideal that another man has created for you is ironically the least Nietzschean thing to do. By growing beyond Nietzsche, the adult fulfills Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15929963]

Ah I think I know what's wrong, OP.

Those who read Nietzche in their youth ultimately mentally spiral and fall into depression, or they had read Nietzche because they were depressed in the first place.

As such, the depressed younglings are too loathsome to work on and develop themselves and their skills. They go on to become losers on a social, academic, and career level.

And we all know what unsuccessful, dead-end losers read/worship. Marx. He gives them the faint hope that their lack of success wasn't their fault.


Should've read Popper in your adolescence anon :)

[Anonymous No.15929996]

>>15929908
>>15929928
>>15929949
>"hating Marx without reading him because of propaganda"
>everybody rushes to prove OP's point

[Anonymous No.15930004]

>>15929996
>Anyone who disagrees with Marx falls for propaganda, as Marx is infallible
Very scientific and not-cult like, anon

[Anonymous No.15930006]

>>15929884
None of this is true, stop reading modernists when modernism is over. Dialectics and structuralism have been thoroughly disputed and we're already moving past postmodern issues. Read contemporary thought instead, not only is it easier and less antiquated but it also deals with the problems of our own time in better ways. Now stop being a fag OP and read some up to date anthropology and linguistics instead.

[Anonymous No.15930013]

>>15929963
>actually taking any Austrian seriously

HAH

[Anonymous No.15930014]

>>15929996
imagine thinking everyone is an american like you

[Anonymous No.15930015]

>>15929884
Adulthood is realizing you wasted most of a summer reading Capital when you were 17

[Anonymous No.15930019]

>>15929884
Probably the reverse is true.
Marx only impresses teenagers who are beginning to dive into philosophy with social insights. His good ideas are actually really obvious and not even that original. For example, the concept of alienation was laid out even by Adam Smith who of course promoted free markets and division of labour. His very badly formulated ideas about an "economic base" which determines the rest of the totality of society (as written in the preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) are just overly simplistic and really not systematic or rigorous. They're just materialist metaphysics for kids. There might be some value in the "materialist" idea of being actual people who produce the social reality often unconsciously, but then again, that's nothing really groundbreaking that you can't find in other authors with other frameworks.
The Labour Theory of Value? Again, a very poor contribution. He didn't advance it a single step from David Ricardo. Like him, he couldn't finish his system when he had to account for time (differences in capital rotation) or distinct compositions of capital/labor ratios in production.
Honestly, nobody who reads something else besides from Marx can be that impressed with him. That's why only teenagers who are just beginning love him with so much devotion. And if you're an adult, well then you're just not as smart as you think you are.

[Anonymous No.15930020]

>>15929884
this hit home

[Anonymous No.15930021]

>>15929884
You are correct anon.

[Anonymous No.15930027]

>>15929884
Wrong.
Adolescence is hating Marx and revering Nietzsche. Adulthood is synthesizing their thought via Sartre.

[Anonymous No.15930036]

>>15930019
>Probably the reverse is true.
oh please you know im right. no one in their adolescence reads marx. most people in their adolescence are more likely to be edgy libertarian types.

[Anonymous No.15930039]

>>15930013
Kek. This would probably explain why you have enough free time to browse this board.

>inb4 "but you're here too"

No I'm not fgt.

[Anonymous No.15930043]

>>15929996
>everyone who doesn’t like Marx has fallen for propaganda
Maybe some people read him and realized he’s shit?

[Anonymous No.15930047]

>>15930004
>reading Marx in his own words
>holding him accountable for the ego-maniacal bastardization of "muh forced communism" that everyone after him created

Pick one

[Anonymous No.15930054]

>>15929908
Stop mixing Marx and Lenin you stupid fucks

[Anonymous No.15930061]

>>15930043
How so?

[Anonymous No.15930069]

>>15930036
Both are the case, especially in 2020. I'm not american but I have been in the anglo speaking internet for a long time, and a few years ago americans didn't even knew who Marx was probably. Nowadays there's a good portion of american marxists in the internet and they all seem to be really young. That's okay. I also thought that Marx was the greatest social thinker ever. That's because I hadn't even read philosophy yet (really, start with the greeks) nor studied other schools of political economy such as neo ricardians, post keynesians and austrians. Yes there's also the libertarians, a ideology that can be only popular among childish people, but both exist.

[Anonymous No.15930077]

>>15929884
Read Society of the Spectacle and stop wasting your time

[Anonymous No.15930090]

>>15930047
You dont even have to go to the commies afterwards to see it, Marx himself was a pseudo-scientist who switched between activist and 'scientist' whenever it suited him.
>Works of supposed scientific analysis are actually just works of butthurt polemics (German Ideology)
>Class consciousness/false consciousness dichotomy is unfalsifiable nonsense
>Materialist analysis focuses on one part of history while dismissing all that might contradict it (and it's also focused entirely on Western/European history).
>Marx poops on utopians and claims that his is a scientific framework, not a normative one. Still makes statements about what ought to be done.

[Anonymous No.15930102]

>>15930077
B A S E D

[Anonymous No.15930108]

>>15930069
>start with the greeks
nothing of value and a prank on newfags
>neo ricardians, post keynesians and austrians
nothing of value

you have exposed yourself as a newfag. capital is still the most rigorous explication of our economic system. i doubt that you have even read marx.

[Anonymous No.15930173]

>>15930090
>Works of supposed scientific analysis are actually just works of butthurt polemics (German Ideology)

Who claims the German Ideology is scientific analysis? Of course it's polemical, that's the entire point

>Class consciousness/false consciousness dichotomy is unfalsifiable nonsense
>unfalsifiable

So is all of western philosophy now cancelled because it's "unfalsifiable?

>Materialist analysis focuses on one part of history while dismissing all that might contradict it (and it's also focused entirely on Western/European history).

Marx is writing in the middle of the 19th century you dimwit, what do you expect? Your "critique" is that he didn't apply his thoughts on industrial society to backwater Russia? Come on bro

>Marx poops on utopians and claims that his is a scientific framework, not a normative one. Still makes statements about what ought to be done.

I don't think you understand what "scientific" meant in Marx's time. What direct statements did he give? He posited that if the workers could be informed, eventually they would get their shit together and do something about their lives instead of just drudging away in utter misery, drinking themselves to death.

[Anonymous No.15930186]

>>15930173
>All this reddit spacing
>All these reddit opinions
Whats the matter? Did your shitty sub get banned?

[Anonymous No.15930190]

>>15930069
>(really, start with the Greeks)

How can you not realize that's a fucking meme? This is /lit/'s equivalent of the redpill dude.

[Anonymous No.15930198]

>>15930186
>the reddit response copypasta

[Anonymous No.15930210]

>>15930186
Yes the reason there’s so many of these fags is because reddit banned like half of the subreddits on their site a few weeks ago

[Anonymous No.15930213]

>>15930173
>So is all of western philosophy now cancelled because it's "unfalsifiable?
Unironically yes

[Anonymous No.15930222]

>>15930190
>>15930108
>>15930173
All this samefagging is really tiresome.
Marx's economic theories are not that advanced. There might be some value in how LTV explains technical innovation, but the whole thing falls apart when one introduces the very simple fact of different capital/labor ratios in production being incongruent with a single rate of profit for the system. That's why Marx was alive for more than ten years after publishing the first volume of capital but couldn't finish vol. 2 nor 3. And it was the same obstacle that Ricardo faced and couldn't solve. Marx didn't advance a single step from Ricardo besides some obvious fixings to his theory like introducing the "socially necessary labour time" concept as a determination of value. Have you read Capital? How can you answer to my objections?

[Anonymous No.15930225]

>>15930213
>human thought should somehow be falsifiable

[Anonymous No.15930241]

>>15930222
when one introduces the very simple fact of different capital/labor ratios in production being incongruent with a single rate of profit for the system
>a single rate of profit
where are you getting this single rate of profit bullshit from?

[Anonymous No.15930244]

>>15930222
No no, the anon you're replying to can't understand any of this unless they took an economics course.

But it's obvious he didn't take any econ course, because he's a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.15930245]

>>15930225
Science should be. It's why Aristotle's Physics isn't science, but Newton's is. Likewise, scientific socialism isnt science either.

[Anonymous No.15930260]

>>15930225
Read popper you brainlet

[Anonymous No.15930274]

>>15930260
>muh Austrians

Popper is a fucking joke

[Anonymous No.15930282]

>>15930006
>read some up to date anthropology and linguistics instead
Recommend some that I should read

[Anonymous No.15930285]

>>15930241
>where are you getting this single rate of profit bullshit from?
Lmao commies truly are the most illiterate people ever. They don't even read their own authors. The idea of a "single rate of profit" was a common supposition in classical political economy because it was believed to be the congruent with a system of free competition like capitalism.
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/a.htm
Go to "Formation of a General Rate of Profit" at the end. Do yourself a favor and stop being so illiterate. You literally didn't even read the first page of Capital and at this point I doubt you actually ever read Marx and not just some leftypol threads. What a fucking dumb nigger.

>>15930244
It's really pathetic how he doesn't have a fucking clue of what he's talking about. How can marxists be so shamelessly dumb and illiterate? At this point they're the most retarded people discussing politics on the internet.

[Anonymous No.15930295]

>>15930054
Is that why Lenin legiterally block quotes Marx in State et Revolucion to reaffirm Marxist positions?

[Anonymous No.15930307]

>>15930274

What >>15930285 said

[Anonymous No.15930309]

>>15930274
Popper has been criticized a lot, but his objections that Marxism (and Freudianism) are unfalsifiable and therefore not real science remain true.

[Anonymous No.15930331]

>>15929884
Ever tried disconnecting Marx from communism, you fucks?

[Anonymous No.15930352]

Nietzsche is just entertaining, funny and has good prose.
>The sons of Protestant ministers and school teachers may be recognized by their naive certainty when, as scholars, they consider their cause proved when they have merely stated it with vigor and warmth; they are thoroughly used to being believed, as that was part of their fathers job.

[Anonymous No.15930420]

>>15930282
Not him but I went to look in the chart section and theres not a single anthropology or sociology chart

[Anonymous No.15930530]

>>15929949
why is he freaked out at the end? did he think it was a man in a suit?

[Anonymous No.15930542]

18 years old and 19 years old huh?

[Anonymous No.15930586]

>>15929884
Do you even know how they're related?

[Anonymous No.15930594]

>>15929996
Anon you do realize people can read something without immediately accepting it as fact right? Also the only people who would ever agree with anything written marx are slaves content with living in destitute poverty and those who wish to rule over the slaves.

[Anonymous No.15930600]

>>15930420
anthropology and linguistics are probably more about "papers" than books at this time

[Anonymous No.15930978]

>>15929884
when u are 14 and 17 and think u understand the world

[Anonymous No.15931027]

>>15930173
holy cringe

[Anonymous No.15931034]

Childhood is idolizing Batman. Manhood is idolizing Joker.

[Anonymous No.15931052]

>>15930006
>>15930420
>>15930600
I would recommend looking at the analytic philosophy chart on the wiki, it has a part devoted to linguistics. In terms of anthropology there's plenty of textbook-core out there, speaking solely for linguistic anthropology making sense of language by blum is a great introduction and explains a lot of core ideas through case studies. In terms of analytic philosophy a fun starter is cases in intelligence analytics, which uses CIA case files to explain anaylitic methods. Both are really easy starts and give a good grasp on linguistics, anthropology, and analytics. Also a lot of books are subject specific but carry a broad brush, books on archaeological methodology and language change/variation are very interesting. Hope this helps!

[Anonymous No.15931069]

>>15929884
both are wrong. if you started out with the two popular 19th century commentators you are already hopelessly diluded. start with the greeks.

[Anonymous No.15931116]

And being a true intellectual is realizing that the incoherent melange of economics, idealism, and politics that constitute Marxism was an attempt to affix scientific legitimacy to that impotent sense of moral superiority every uncool outsider group or introvert feels toward northern European civilization.

[Anonymous No.15931163]

>>15929928
Nietzsche is the opposite of cope. Reading him makes me seriously depressed.

[Anonymous No.15931175]

>>15929884
Anyone who speaks of “outgrowing” Nietzsche never understood him in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15931189]

>>15930027
Sartre is an utter hack. Not a serious thinker.

[Anonymous No.15931260]

>>15931116
How are they incoherent? Why do you faggots don't ever go into details about what's so wrong with Marxism? Are you afraid of being wrong or some shit?

[Anonymous No.15931265]

>>15931260
It has been done many times in this thread. The marxist's response was utterly pathetic and sad.

[Anonymous No.15931510]

>>15929928
Whether Nietzsche is a cope depends on whether you understand him. For most he is a self-help author, yet once you dispel this illusion the true horror of his world is revealed. This can be summed up in the simple observation that you are, and never will be the "ubermensch", nor are you one of his chosen few. He is laughing at you.

Marx is gay and I will never read him.