[ 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: 375 KB, 639x910, Karl_Marx_001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4775486 No.4775486 [Reply] [Original]

Who are the greatest Marxist philosophers (or to make it more general, writers) living today?

>> No.4775497

>>4775486
I'd say Christopher Hitchens but he is dead now.

>> No.4775502

>>4775486
Zizek

>> No.4775504

Badiou

>> No.4775507

>>4775497
>hitchens
>philosopher
totally totally ebin :^)

>> No.4775520

>>4775502


zhish

>> No.4775537

>>4775507
Prove me you've read any Hitchens or any philosophy. What is your favourite essay and why? What sort of philosophy have you studied yourself? Have you even read Marx? If not, get the fuck out of this thread.

>> No.4775541

>>4775497
but hitchens is a blairist philosopher

>> No.4775549

>>4775486
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFW6EjxP2K8

>> No.4775560

>>4775537
I study it at uni, m8. Hitchens is not a philosopher. There is nothing systemic or (formally) logical about Hitchen's work. He is a very good writer and commentator, but there is nothing about his work that is philosophical, in the traditional or academic sense.

The man has even claimed that 'you can't prove a negative'. Anyone who makes such a claim absolutely cannot have even the most basic understanding of logic or deductive argument (more or less everything academic philosophy rests on).

>> No.4775567

>>4775486
there are none

just read dead guys like adorno

>> No.4775571

>>4775560
Maybe he rejects logic? Idk anything about Hitchens other than that hes witty

Some people really do reject logic though, I dont understand how the position works but its a thing.

>> No.4775572

>>4775560
>I study it at uni, m8. Hitchens is not a philosopher.
>>4775486
>Who are the greatest Marxist philosophers (or to make it more general, writers) living today?
>I study it at uni
>or to make it more general, writers
>I study
>at a uni
Really.

>> No.4775579 [DELETED] 

>>4775571
G.K. Chesterton, in 'Orthodoxy' (ch. 2, I think), writes about how the extremely logical are likelier to go mad.

Here's an excerpt: "Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms. He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. Now, as I explain in the introduction, I have determined in these early chapters to give not so much a diagram of a doctrine as some pictures of a point of view. And I have described at length my vision of the maniac for this reason: that just as I am affected by the maniac, so I am affected by most modern thinkers. That unmistakable mood or note that I hear from Hanwell, I hear also from half the chairs of science and seats of learning to-day; and most of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one. They all have exactly that combination we have noted: the combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason with a contracted common sense. They are universal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation and carry it very far. But a pattern can stretch for ever and still be a small pattern. They see a chess-board white on black, and if the universe is paved with it, it is still white on black. Like the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint; they cannot make a mental effort and suddenly see it black on white."

>> No.4775590

Zizek I guess.

You should read Karl Korsch though.

>> No.4775597

>>4775579
This is a bit vague, but intriguing. Is that text worth reading as a whole?

>> No.4775604

Can anyone supply any advice on reading Marx? I know I SHOULD start with the pre-Socratics (possibly even Hesiod) and slog my way all the way up to continental if i REALLY want to understand him. Seriously though, I tried to start on my Hackett version of his selected writings and it was exceedingly difficult but I'd like to get familiar with him.

>> No.4775869

>>4775604
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

>> No.4776692

>>4775486
http://gegenstandpunkt.com/english/en_index.html

>> No.4776782

>>4775486
No philosophers I can think of.
But there's a guy out there at least somewhat related- Richard D. Wolff.
Check him out, you won't be disappointed. Cheers.

>> No.4777322

>>4775486
jameson

>> No.4777326

Agamben and most critical theorists. Sociologists within the conflict school are almost assuredly Marxist. Some economists are marxist or have Marxish-tendencies.

>> No.4777333

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yoqjABeBM

>> No.4778110

>>4775486
Given that academic (and party) Marxism is ideology, none of them.

>> No.4778200

>>4775560
>systemic

I'm relatively sure you are misusing that word.

>> No.4778216

>>4775560

You haven't read any Hitchens, Marx or philosophy and your entire knowledge about them is summed up in one world 'logic' which you're probably clueless about too, mate.

>> No.4778252

>>4778110
>Given that academic (and party) Marxism is ideology, none of them.

It's all ideolog anon

>> No.4778264

>>4778200
Relative to what?

>> No.4778266

>>4778264
relative to being entirely sure, yfr.

>> No.4778269

The dwarfish colossus from Sardinia, Signor A. Gramsci

>> No.4778272
File: 35 KB, 700x700, 1364661921661.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4778272

>>4778266
Why not just say partly sure then? If you're going to complain about other people's diction, then at least don't be "relatively sure" about things.

>> No.4778288

>>4778272
Maybe it sounds weird in English, I'm not sure. Not my mother tongue, I said 'relatively sure' because I didn't want to cheat and look it up.

>> No.4778294

>>4778272
Don't be a pedantic faggot.

>>4778288
It's perfectly fine.

>> No.4778411

>>4778252
>It's all ideolog anon
praxis

>> No.4778420

There are no good Marxist philosophers or writers because people who are good at either of those things tend to be at least 40 and, in this day and age, by the time you get to about 28, you realize how incredibly stupid Marxism is. It requires that you have more heart than brains.

>> No.4778428

>>4775486
no one is "marxist" anymore

many philosophers discuss marxian theories though, he's a canonic author of philosophy.

>> No.4778429 [DELETED] 

>>4778420
go home American

>> No.4778446

>>4778429
Funny, because Marxists tend to be middle class American suburbanites. Grass is always greener.

>> No.4779441

>>4777326
Agamben is a discipline of Foucault, hence non-Marxist.

>> No.4781121

>>4775486

Lots of people are Marxists in that they use some of the ideas Marx came up with (especially in Capital), but few people are Marxists in the sense that they intellectually and politically align themselves with 20th century Marxism as-such.

>> No.4781281

>>4778428
author of philosophy
hmm, is there a word for that? maybe, philosopher?

>> No.4781463

>>4775486

I've been very influenced by Martin J. Sklar and David Harvey, and Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe ("Hegemony and Socialist Strategy").

Are you people serious with Hitchens?

I know this board is pleb, but come on...

I'm not as familiar as I should be with the Frankfurt School, but they're all dead!

>> No.4783077

Not really sure on philosophers but some interesting writers:
David Harvey
Micheal Roberts
Guy Standing

There is a really good Marxist blog called ChurlsGoneWild as well.