Why is Marx overrated?

[Anonymous No.19738505]

Can someone fucking explain why he is still extremely popular even in 21st century? Even after his philosophy proved to be at odds with reality? Resulting in massive deaths and poverty?
He's still the number 1 popular leftist philosopher. Why can't lefties find another guy to obsesses over?

[Anonymous No.19738517]

>>19738505
Most of the people who claim to like him have never read him, but they have selectively adopted the parts that are exactly what they want to hear.

[Anonymous No.19738525]

>>19738517
Why him? Why can't find someone new? They almost made him a Jesus Christ tier figure.

[Anonymous No.19738542]

He is the foundation of anti-capitalist thought, but defining capitalisim and therefore making it possible to oppose it. So he will always be at the root of any economic opposition to it (not the same as a reactionary-right opposition).

Contemporary society is shit. Young professions slog away with little progression opportunities and even if its not true, the 2008 financial crash left the impression of the ladder being pulled up before they could step on it. Nobody is satisfied, and naturally people will ask why that is. It's the same reason for the rise in the right, it's just a response based on a different set of values.

[Anonymous No.19738550]

>>19738505
He actually isn't. Literally no one reads him. Everyone should though.

[Anonymous No.19738552]

>>19738505
stuff like marx is hard to read and understand. he covers a broad range of complex issues. so people only hear the bits they understand. his fans say that communism was never implemented the way he described. This is despite the fact that people like Lenin and Trotsky were intelligent intellectuals with literally nothing to do but read and study and understand Marx's writings and call themselves marxists. They did EXACTLY what he described. The only thing that didn't happen is the power being handed back to the people because the system was never implemented by the soviets in such a way that it would work. (the idea that the communist party would rule only as long as needed to establish the system but then step down from power in some way). Of course power corrupts so of course it would never work.
Most of the idealists that follow Marx probably should follow Bakunin instead.

[Anonymous No.19738555]

>>19738542
>Contemporary society is shit

All societies are shit, but primitive and contemporary commie ones are specially shitty.

[Anonymous No.19738556]

>>19738542
But his LTV that his entire book is based on proved to be false.
Marxist Socialist experiments of 20th century were massive disasters
It makes no fucking sense to me worship this hack in this current year

[Anonymous No.19738561]

>>19738550
Most leftists literally call themselves marxists and he's gaining traction again these days.

[Anonymous No.19738564]

>>19738542
the only way to make value=labor is total anarchy. unfortunately I think this is at odds with civilization and it's benefits.

[Anonymous No.19738573]

>>19738555

Agreed. But things being more shit in other societies isn't going to stop people introspecting on and being critical of the society they live in.

>>19738556

I think its more memery and signalling of being anti-capitalist. Then again, there are unironic Stalinists and Maoists and their numbers seem to be growing so maybe I'm being generous

[Anonymous No.19738576]

>>19738564
>the only way to make value=labor is total anarchy
elaborate

[Anonymous No.19738597]

>>19738576
maybe i spoke out of turn. but my thinking is that when we had no specialization we had to do everything ourselves, hunt, build shelter etc. this is the only way to receive the value of our labor. do everything ourselves, no corruptable govt that allows middlemen to make a profit. perhaps i am naive. but it's late here.

[Anonymous No.19738601]

>>19738552
>Most of the idealists that follow Marx probably should follow Bakunin instead.
And bakunin's retardation would work because?
I say we shouldn't take any communist/anarchist seriously because they don't understand human nature.

[Anonymous No.19738609]

>>19738601
>And bakunin's retardation would work because?
i didn't say it would work. i meant it would fit better with their idealism.

[Anonymous No.19738619]

>>19738609
But every dumb fuck marxist claims he isn't an idealist but muh materialist

[Anonymous No.19738631]

>>19738505
He was quit simply one of the most brilliant minds of the Victorian age. He was one of the first to try to systematize in the most scientific way possible a defense of the working class for all time. Imagine if socialism had been implemented in the West during his lifetime; there would almost certainly have been neither a First and thus nor a Second World War: both of which were capitalist imperialist wars directed no longer outward, but at the interior of Europe. A European socialist superstate would have been an empire of peace not war. The lessons of Marx have yet to fully realized because the antidemocratic capitalist tragedy is still unfolding.

[Anonymous No.19738642]

>>19738550
>Everyone should though.
No need anymore. There are better and fresher alternatives.

>>19738542
>defining capitalisim
There are better definitions.

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real."

[Anonymous No.19738643]

>>19738631
>most brilliant minds
>most scientific way
is that why all marxist states failed
Guess too scientific for reality

[Anonymous No.19738648]

>>19738631
How is LTV scientific?

[Anonymous No.19738789]

>>19738505
Marxism is produced by capitalism. Karl Marx as a person also isn't so individually important as the school of thought named after him.

Marxism also isn't really a "science" because human beings aren't subjects. We can't arrange a worldwide social experiment to test capitalism, slavery, or communism. The experimentation of political theory is actually very limited and usually serves as a justification of the existing state of things, which is why the majority of intellectuals from every country will try to justify and rationalize the political ideology and structure in their countries. The only exception is when the system is in a deep crisis, so the demand for a major shift in ideology.

In other words, science is a methodology that has no ideology nor moral value in it. The attempt to turn everything into natural science by mathematics, statistics, and linear logic is fundamentally wrong, because like I said, you can't test human beings and you can't have any certainty toward the future. In the business world, the greatest example of assuming certainties of the future is obviously strategic planning or strategic management. But good luck with letting the junior consultants from McKinsey guide your business by their "frameworks."

On the other hand, Marxism isn't philosophy because philosophy is by definition metaphysical, like spirit, moral principles, the clear boundary between good and evil, justice and injustice. You can debate these things for thousands of years and there will be no result due to the limitation of the physical world including our brain structure.

So, Marxism is actually a unity between science and philosophy. Marxism embraces the idea of experimentation from science but also realizes the limitation of it in social science such that Marxism also brings in philosophical guidance but doesn't waste time on debating the metaphysical concepts. And the greatest connection between dialectics and science is actually systems thinking where system-structure-unit generates complicated and even unpredictable chemical reactions, which BTFOs linear logic ("if A, therefore B").

So in that context, you have to realize the complexity of the matter and takes into consideration various components and their structural effect and their systemic effect. That's actually what dialectics is about. Nothing is so simple. Everything is dialectically united in some kinda way if not the unity of opposites, and there is a mutual conversion between quantity and quality, and the law of the negation of negation. Marxism isn't perfect but no political theory in the world embraces systems thinking more than Marxism.

Anyway, that leads to scientific socialism, which is, like I said, a unity between science and philosophy and also experimentation and theory. It doesn't run perfectly but that's the principle it advocates.

[Anonymous No.19738854]

>>19738789
>We can't arrange a worldwide social experiment to test capitalism, slavery, or communism.
We can't arrange testing of the Big Bang in astrophysics either.

>Marxism isn't philosophy because philosophy is by definition metaphysical, like spirit, moral principles, the clear boundary between good and evil,
Eliminativism is not a philosophy?

>So, Marxism is actually a unity between science and philosophy
A unity between astrology and scholasticism

[Anonymous No.19738874]

>>19738648
Being scientific is not the same as being correct. There are scientific approaches that are incorrect, and non-scientific approaches that are correct. LTV is a scientific approach (it attempts to quantify and explain the causes of value in a way that can be observed and checked) that happens to be incorrect (observation shows value depends on more than labor).
It's still scientific.

[Anonymous No.19738884]

>>19738874
That means it's pseudo scientific.
It's not science if it's proved to be incorrect.

[Anonymous No.19738900]

>>19738884
>Source: Steven Pinker
Scientific = Empirical
Pseudo-scientific = Non-Empirical with the drapery of empiricism.

[Anonymous No.19738901]

>>19738789
There's literally nothing scientific about marxism.

[Anonymous No.19738943]

>>19738505
t. Didn't read any of his works

[Anonymous No.19738950]

>>19738943
You did?

[Anonymous No.19738967]

Marxism is dead because the concept of an insurgent revolution is not viable now.

[Anonymous No.19738980]

>>19738505
>Even after his philosophy proved to be at odds with reality? Resulting in massive deaths and poverty?
I think ''Marxist'' materialism,science larping,dialectical and historical materialism,anti-statism,and anti-''nationalism''(check out Adorno's dumb takes on Heidegger) is retarded but the most succesful state today,China,is truly communist,they do truly believe in all of that stuff.
The reason you think Marx is LE BAD is because internet trannies and redditpol users ruined him,stop reading him as ''the enemy'' and read him as a important and relevant socialist writer instead.

[Anonymous No.19738988]

>>19738884
Das Kapital is chock-full of data, as such it is falsifiable. The data is sourced and expressed non deceptively (his critics do not accuse him of deception or charlatanism). So yes the Marx of Das Kapital is scientific, for the reasons stated above.

[Anonymous No.19739006]

>>19738988
All proven to be incorrect. So stop peddling harmful incorrect retardation. Socialist atrocities of 20th century is enough. No one wants to repeat that shit.

[Anonymous No.19739017]

>>19738980
>read him as a important and relevant socialist writer instead.
His relevancy vanished when marxist states failed.
China is basically capitalism with a lot of state intervention. Even they don't call it communist anymore.

[Anonymous No.19739021]

>>19739006
Easy buddy, don't make "science" your new religion, it isn't infallible.
Scientists are pushing forced injections of their cattle now.

[Anonymous No.19739027]

>>19738884
So Issac Newton and Nils Bohr were both pseudoscientists then?

[Anonymous No.19739050]

>>19739006
Why are you so dedicated to conflating "scientific" with "correct"? That's not what the word means, it's a redefinition that makes no sense, and it actively HARMS discussion. "Science" is a mode of hypothesis resolution, just like "dialectic" and "inductive reasoning." There's nothing which says it works better or worse, just that it's more useful for certain kinds of problems that dialectic or reasoning are poor at solving, but on the other hand science is poor at solving problems that dialectic and reasoning are quite good at solving.

Calling something "scientific" isn't a value judgement unless you, yourself, willfully FORCE it to be, and why could it be that you are making "scientific" a value judgement?

[Anonymous No.19739069]

>>19739006
Dude, by that measure capitalism is even more murderous: having genocided entire races since its implementation in the Near World. Do you understand that capitalism was predicated on the violent expulsion of rural labourers and their corralling into insalubrious cities in order to be worked into an early grave? The history of the industrial revolution is one of continuous repression and compulsion, denial of the most basic democratic rights. If capitalism did not depend on a totalitarian police state to function in the 19th century there would have been less impetus for socialism obviously. As it stands socialism is part and parcel of what has come to define the good in the Western democracies.

[Anonymous No.19739156]

>>19739069
Capitalism brought prosperity despite its negatives.
Socialism brought unnecessary deaths, genocides, famines and poverty. Just find another solution. Marxism is totally irrelevant in 21th century.

[Anonymous No.19739169]

>>19738561
Virtually no leftists call itself Marxist outside of your /pol/ sourced Twitter screenshots. Go outside.

[Anonymous No.19739170]

>>19739156
you're so smart dude

[Anonymous No.19739174]

>>19739050
What's the point of shilling a ""scientific"" hypothesis that is proven to be incorrect? What are you marxists even trying to achieve?

[Anonymous No.19739189]

>>19739169
Every leftist who isn't a liberal or anarchist is a marxist.

[Anonymous No.19739215]

>>19739170
Smarter than someone still dreaming of communism in 2022.

[Anonymous No.19739223]

>>19739215
Id just like something besides the capitalist hellscape we are currently enslaved by. doesnt have to be communism. but this shit will only end badly.

[Anonymous No.19739247]

>>19739223
Liberal democratic capitalism is the only solution for mankind.
Stop projecting your insecurities onto the system. The system is not the reason you aren't successful.

[Anonymous No.19739262]

>>19739223
Focus on self-improvement, retarded faggot. No war or revolution will happen. You literally have nothing to worry if you live in any of those western countries.

[Anonymous No.19739277]

>>19739247
then mankind has revoked its right to exist

[Anonymous No.19739278]

>>19739174
Is this a troll? I'm not shilling anything. I'm just saying that your definitions are manipulative. Being scientific and being correct are not the same thing. You're probably not even conflating them out of confusion, but doing it deliberately because you've been pathologized to see anything not "scientific" (read: approved) as obviously false, when the denominations between scientific and non-scientific are more complex and of way less consequence than you make them out to be.

>>19739262
>US actively creating catalogues of everyone who isn't vaxxed while fortifying the white house against attack
>"You western schizos have nothing to worry about!"

[Anonymous No.19739292]

>>19738980
based

[Anonymous No.19739307]

>>19739278
Why the fuck are you derailing this already garbage thread with pointless semantic nignoggery? Your autistic tirade doesn't explain why leftoids are still obsessed with marx.

[Anonymous No.19739310]

>>19739262
Why is the solution for you types always self-improvement? We are an inherently social species that thrive only in healthy, nurtured communities, and who can only experience true change and fulfillment at a macro scale - many intentions for 'self-improvements' are delusional copes with no regard for real conditions and forces. I'm not saying individuals shouldn't strive to be the best they can be, but they are at best resource-poor islands in a vast ocean, and will always be at the mercy of their aggregate associations.

[Anonymous No.19739313]

>>19739278
Exactly, science is constantly changing this is just basic common knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19739314]

>>19738573
>there are unironic Stalinists and Maoists and their numbers seem to be growing so maybe I'm being generous
Literally where? The only Maoists still around are guerrilla soldiers in India getting hunted down as we speak. The 14 year old who embraced Maoism this week but who will be a hardcore Nazi in six months or so doesn’t count.

[Anonymous No.19739328]

>>19739307
Because capitalism will not save a finite earth through its endless creation of worthless garbage

[Anonymous No.19739329]

>>19739310
Because self-improvement actually works unlike any utopian bullshit. No one is stopping you from improving yourself. You just choose to be a nigger.

[Anonymous No.19739338]

>>19739328
What's your solution? A dozen countries tried socialism and all of them didn't provide any results.

[Anonymous No.19739345]

>>19739310
Control what you can. The reality is that China is not coming to save you, and all homegrown anti capitalist movements are too weak to do anything. I’m not saying just ignore such movements. Join CPUSA or vote for socialists or march if socialism is your ideology. Do that. But you must focus on yourself before all of that. You’ll need to develop your skills and personality no matter what situation you are in. And most people into radical politics these days don’t self improve, regardless of if they are fascist or communist. So it’s always worth repeating.

[Anonymous No.19739351]

>>19739310
>Why is the solution for you types always self-improvement
What else can you do? Do you think obsessively reading marxist literature and debating online about abstract bullshit will save you?

[Anonymous No.19739365]

>>19739328
Capitalism has better chance at solving climate crisis because of technology developments it promotes.

[Anonymous No.19739367]

>>19739307
>tirade
Lol
This (>>19739313) is why it's not pointless semantic nignoggery. People unironically thing that science is a "thing" and not a "process." This is the problem. It's extremely deliberate. Science is a process by which information is analyzed. You can critique someone's method for being manipulative or deliberately inaccurate ("bad science") but the conclusion of that process is not science. It's just information, and like all information its truth value is dependent on the strength of the evidence going into it, and that evidence can be scientific (empirical), dialectical, or logical.
Saying that Marx is pseudoscience because it's incorrect is an implicit declaration that what REPLACED Marx IS science and IS correct. That's not true. Marx is scientific and wrong. What we're doing now may also be scientific and may also be wrong.

It's an incredibly important distinction because if you neglect it, the "prestige" of science gets transferred to the information that is yielded from it. That's idolatry. It's EXTREMELY dangerous. Scientific reasoning is a highly efficient process for analyzing empirical data. The results of that process may still be wrong, they're not any more prestigious on a case-by-case basis than wild conjecture.

[Anonymous No.19739372]

>>19739338
I know you hate communism and you're totally within your rights to do so, but you are factually historically illiterate and one of the more embarassing cuckolds for western propaganda i have seen on this board. Socialists states were not all some caricature comic book villain-tier hell on earth, and not all of them collapsed from internal contradictions as opposed to immense external forces. You sorely lack nuance on these topics and it behooves you to have a better grasp on something you seem to have so much disdain for

[Anonymous No.19739387]

>>19739365
Capitalism has ensured our destruction via climate change because profit motive has wholly superseded long-term survival of our species. Oil and gas make WAY too much fucking money for too many people, we are not gonna get off it until the last wells run dry

[Anonymous No.19739393]

>>19739372
People who lived in communist countries wanted capitalism. That's how great they were.

[Anonymous No.19739401]

>>19739393
Source?

[Anonymous No.19739403]

>>19739387
I suppose then that Marx’s whole “these are the stages of development, and socialism is inevitably next” was wrong? By your logic we are headed back to primitive communism or slavery, if we stick around at all.

[Anonymous No.19739418]

>>19739393
You really do type like a CIA-pozzed boomer, man

[Anonymous No.19739428]

>>19739387
No other system proved to be as resilient to crises as capitalism. Everything will be fine in the end. I know you people only pretend to care about climate change to promote failed systems. USSR was notorious for being incredibly unresponsive to technological changes.

[Anonymous No.19739443]

>>19739403
I can't see the connection between that quote or your following comment and what i said about capitalisms contradictions fucking our planet

[Anonymous No.19739445]

>>19739428
That's because the definition of capitalism is "anything that isn't socialism" to boomers. Crises have inflicted wild changes on American society just in the last 100 years, but because GM still exists boomers will parrot "Lol capitalism is so resilient to crises!" even though the structure of government and economy now would be unrecognizable to people living in the 1920s

[Anonymous No.19739447]

>>19739401
This isn’t exactly what he is talking about, but I’d say it’s close enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaogang,_Anhui
It seems irrefutable to me that this is evidence of capitalism, or at least privatizing the means of production, being objectively better than collective ownership. What is the communist response? The only ones I’ve gotten say “oh, we haven’t reached the stage where socialism is viable”, and given Marx though that stage has been reached in his life, that seems like a cope.

[Anonymous No.19739461]

>>19739428
>Everything will be fine in the end.

[Anonymous No.19739464]

>>19739372
What the fuck are you going on about? Socialist countries were authoritarian shitholes on top of being inefficient economic system. They were also culturally repressive as fuck(you do know they criminalized homosexuality and threw trannies into Gulags, right?). You literally had no freedom and on top of that no entertainment either.

[Anonymous No.19739474]

>>19739447
>It seems irrefutable to me that this is evidence of capitalism, or at least privatizing the means of production, being objectively better than collective ownership.
Makes sense to me. Personally, I think it's ambiguous what level of privatization makes something communism vs. capitalism, but if you define capitalism as "any personal ownership" then your point stands.
Personally, I'm not a socialist, or if I was I'm a Bakunin-type socialist. But certainly not a Marxist or Maoist.