Marx and metaphysics

[Anonymous No.23516259]

I understand that Marx doesn't care much about metaphysics or many abstract philosophical questions, but I am still curious what Marxists think of metaphysics.
I lean towards mathematical Platonism (and as such, realism or perhaps idealism), but I recognise that pushing Platonism on normal phenomena is essentially ideology.
Marx talks about labour-power and labour in Capital. It seems as if these things are metaphysical. They have a social character, of course, too.

[Anonymous No.23516274]

I've always been curious about this too, and in my experience, Marxists are either incredibly vulgar scientistic materialists or they flirt with some version of Deleuzean-y, Nietzschean-y pantheism where the liberationist and usually "free love" aspects of leftist political praxis are given philosophical justification. For some reason a lot of them secretly like Wilhelm Reich, not even joking. Some kind of Goethean pagan immanentism that looks like Godwin's sexual liberation but with a bit of dionysianism mixed in. Tantra for trannies, I guess.

[Anonymous No.23516281]

>>23516274
Marxists are not really materialists, don't insult us like that again.

t. a REAL materialist

[Anonymous No.23516285]

>>23516281
Historical materialism is indeed not necessarily metaphysical materialism, but a lot of Marxists are indeed metaphysical materialists, often vulgar ones. Marx included.

[Anonymous No.23516546]

>>23516259
Marx wrote a paper called "on differentiation" which I would say he espoused exceedingly strong mathematical platonist views. He didn't like the contemporary conception of deriatives in math because of it and I believe has some spillover into metaphysics of capital and labor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_manuscripts_of_Karl_Marx

[Anonymous No.23516710]

>>23516259
Depends on which route of who said what, where, and when you want to go, I am obligated to say Anti-Dühring, but I will be frank in saying you will find more answers in The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.

[Anonymous No.23516772]

>>23516546
I don't know calculus unfortunately.
>>23516710
I see. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.23516873]

>>23516772
Ntoa but his Mathematical Manuscripts are good too, although I am not sure how relevant they are right here and now so to speak, Marx preceded some notions and fell short on others, and Hegelian influence is difficult if not outright impossible to deny. The perspective it helps to understand some of his argumentation in Kapital, but that can become double edged, and usually validates post Marx derivations, namely Keynes vs the classicists and Keynes was ruthless in fallacy reduction, and after a certain period in time actual capitalism died off overwhelmingly, outside of here I don't think I have ever had to bring up those sorts of things. Sylvanis Thompson actually dedicated a chapter or 2 to the misuses of calculus and asserted it can be made into convoluted and complex sophistry which gives the appearance of truth to those who do not understand but appears as gibberish to those who do. I highly recommend his treatment on the topic. Marx was in part trying to reconstruct calculus from the ground up, and I have no idea how close he was to modern methods allowing non-standard use provisions.

[Anonymous No.23517223]

>>23516281
Marxists ARE materialists but materialist don't necessarily need to be marxists