/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16669253]

>gets refuted before hes even finished writing the book
>still publishes it

[Anonymous No.16669256]

>>16669253
Next time write "marx" in your OP so I can filter you, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16669387]

>>16669253
>refuted
Time to filter this word I guess.

[Anonymous No.16669537]

Are there still people so dishonest they believe Marx wasn’t still refuted even after inventing historical materialism? His conclusion and ideas were the same, it was just cope.

[Anonymous No.16669636]

>>16669537
Marx didn't "invent" historical materialism, he understood his own perspective as reflective of his own moment in history, and was in fact largely borrowed from others.

Viewing the development of society through succeeding modes of production was not unique to Marx, and in fact, originated in - which again Marx openly admits - to "bourgeois" thinkers. While Marx was a socialist, and understood himself in the terms of the socialists of his own time, he also believed that his socialist contemporaries were worse than their bourgeois predecessors. Marx was only making explicit what was implicit in these bourgeois predecessors (Locke, Rousseau, Smith, Hegel, etc) which had been largely forgotten in their liberal and socialist successors.

Again, Marx outright says that almost everything he says is unoriginal. Who you REALLY disagree with isn't Marx but the very foundations that modern civilization is built upon, which is EXACTLY the point of the Marx, since capitalism for Marx is NOT bourgeois society itself but the self-undermining of its premises.

Communism is the OPPORTUNITY to advance beyond modern civilization through its own self-undermining impulses. Anyone who politically opposes socialism MUST also agree with Marx, which is that Communism is the highest expression of society in crisis and thereby its potential self-overcoming through that crisis. The problem is that the opportunity of communism provided by capitalism, the reality of civilization's own destructive impulses, could instead of being directed towards a higher civilization, could simply mean complete barbarism, the desolation of society, was the central point of Marx, the VERY PROBLEM which he sought to critique.

[Anonymous No.16669675]

>>16669256
newfag here how do I filter

[Anonymous No.16669700]

>>16669253
Did he even knew what the Marginalists were doing? It is not like there was an internet back then and he could automatically find about them as soon as they wrote their treatises.

[Anonymous No.16669702]

>>16669636
My point is that most of that thought came after his idealistic socialism was already refuted so he had to switch tactics to reach the same conclusion.
His mature philosophy has the same conclusion, just a different way to reach it so that it is independent from “ideals” and so on. The prolet will revolt independent of philosophy because of material conditions, etc.
Just seems like genuine cope to me, you could apply the same thought process to just about anything and say your conclusion is right, how do you really nail in the idea that his conclusion from historical materialism is the correct one, and why should I believe it?
For context I’ve read The Holy Family, the German ideology, and some other tidbits.

[Anonymous No.16669722]

>>16669702
His socialism was anything but idealistic. He wrote extensive critiques for idealism and what he called "utopian socialism" from the very start.

[Anonymous No.16669747]

>>16669722
You can critique idealism, be pragmatic and still end up being idealistic.
Look at modern Marxists with their "aktually not real communism" every time someone points out a contradiction. At what point does it start to become falsifiable?
Because it seems like never.
And don't get stuck on the "capitalism is shit - look" vibe, because I agree. Marx can be right that Capitalism was doomed to fail, much like a doctor could diagnose cancer. Doesn't mean he has the cure though.
Marxists need to drop communism. In all sincerity. You would be 100% better off with Utopian Socialist slants than the materialist tripe.

[Anonymous No.16669759]

>>16669722
That doesn’t mean his philosophy wasn’t idealistic in the beginning. The Holy Family was a critique of many of the left-Hegelians, but he still aligned with Feuerbach’s views and at the core, it was a work of German idealism.
A core point in his early philosophy was a philosopher would rally the prolet and that would produce gommunism, but that is idealistic thought. It couldn’t defend itself against criticism Marx and others were facing at the time, so he had to change his ideology, but not the conclusion, since he clearly cared more about the conclusion and ideals than anything else.

[Anonymous No.16669773]

>>16669747
>Look at modern Marxists with their "aktually not real communism" every time someone points out a contradiction. At what point does it start to become falsifiable?
Those are not Marxists at all, they're idealistic and still hold liberal worldviews. Principled communists are rare in the west.

[Anonymous No.16669893]

>>16669700
he was basically leading the NEET lifestyle for the last 20 or so years of his life. Engels pressed him consistently to gather and edit his notes for Capital vol. 2 and vol. 3 but instead after Capital vol. 1 Marx was more involved in politics than in economic theory and Marginalists published their treatises after Capital vol. 1 (though not in response to it like Marxists would have you think). Mill's Principles of Political Economy was still the primary source for students of political economy when Marx wrote Volume 1 even though devastating criticisms of the classical doctrine (e.g. the destruction of wage fund theory by Torrens and Walker) existed. You should also bear in mind that Marginalism was a continental project, Anglo version of Marginalism differs markedly from Walrasian and Austrian varieties to the extent that some historians of economic theory doubt whether Alfred Marshall even understood the implications of marginalism. Marx was convinced that the bourgeois economists (or vulgar as he called them) have conspired to remain silent about his treatise, what makes this whole thing even more hilarious is that he never thought about simply mailing it to Mill who was at that time the highest priest of classical economics (he did mail volume 1 to Darwin although there is no evidence that Darwin had ever read it). given that Mill had appended his famously enthusiastic Chapters on Socialism to the Principles I believe there could have been a fruitful cooperation between Mill and Marx although the latter's personality would probably take its toll on the project anyways

[Anonymous No.16670683]

Did Stalin understand Marxism better than Marx?

[Anonymous No.16670763]

>>16670683
No, Stalin was a brainlet who didn't understand basic Marxist theory, read Lefebvre's Dialectical Materialism (a refutation of Stalin's booklet Dialectical and Historical Materialism)

[131A30C !N1gLlSgJrY No.16671835]

>>16669675
install 4chanx