/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6231831]

Is it true that if Marx was around today he'd be a reformist (advocating a more humane capitalism instead of socialism)?

[Anonymous No.6231849]

>if
What are you talking about, OP?

[Anonymous No.6231854]

>>6231831
No.
He was revolutionary to begin with, and was a revolutionary when he died.

The only people who say otherwise are the bourgeois "socialist" reactionaries he denounced in the Manifesto.

[Anonymous No.6232241]

>>6231831
Much of what Marx hoped would happen under socialism has been achieved within the bounds of capitalism, through trade unions and the like. So it is possible that today he might find it more practical to work within the system to achieve more.

[Anonymous No.6232248]

No he would be a failed economist and philosopher who would not be taken seriously.

The former he already was, the latter he unfortunately wasn't.

In all seriousness he would probably still think that capitalism cannot be the final organization of mankind; and i think that's probably true. But if he could see attempts at communist revolution I think he might lose his faggot boner over revolutionary spiral logic material dialectics.

[Anonymous No.6232255]

>>6231831
He'd be a third worldist.

[Anonymous No.6232258]

Marx also thought the revolution would start in a developed nation, and would probably think Lenin ruined everything by starting a halfassed revolution in fucking russia, and forcing capitalism to react.

He'd be an accelerationist, if anything. Capitalism has to play out before Communism can be achieved. The the USSR and resulting concessions to the working class if anything delayed the actual revolution.

[Anonymous No.6232264]

>>6232258
His letters on Russia are probably worth reading as rgds your first point, not sure if they've been published outside of a compilation but they're most likely on marxists.org

[Anonymous No.6232285]

>>6232264
>The file you have tried to access originated from the Marx Engels Collected Works. Lawrence & Wishart, who hold the copyright for the Marx Engels Collected Works, have directed Marxists Internet Archive to delete all texts originating from MECW. Accordingly, from 30th April 2014, no material from MECW is available from marxists.org. English translations of Marx and Engels from other sources will continue to be available.

What do they say? Was he skeptical?

[Anonymous No.6232291]

Most famous philosophers from history wouldn't be taken very seriously nowadays, and that's not to their discredit so much as it is to the discredit of the culture. They might gain a small following if they stuck to their convictions, but it'd ultimately be pearls before swine in a culture dictated by swine.

[Anonymous No.6232296]

>>6232285
>Marxists
>Respecting copyright
>Not being glorious infosocalists

[Anonymous No.6232346]

>>6231831
This seems like the type of shit a liberal who never read Marx would say, actually. Like he has this cartoonish idea of Marx just wanting to improve the regular Joe's conditions as the kernel of his philosophy.

Critique of the Gotha Program can give you an idea of what he feels about reformist movements when done "wrong". They are counter-effective, steal the working classes' revolutionary momentum, etc.

I personally can't say I know enough about Marx to speculate, but let's take Sweden as a reference for reformism. Decades and decades of social democrat government, some of its most radical proponents (Palme for example) conditions extremely appropriated for the development of a welfare system (small and homogeneous population, stability, left ouf of major wars, etc) and what it took nearly a century to build, the conservative-liberals could effectively destroy in one generation. The minute the budget for the welfare programs is reduced in any way, the quality will drop even if briefly, people will no longer be interested in defending it, etc. Now, specially in an age of constant capital flight, It seems like a huge waste of time trying to reproduce that, and Marx would probably realise this as well.

>>6232255
Didn't he support british colonialism in India on the grounds that India would be colonized anyway and at least british rule would lead to development of a modern, capitalist structure? I don't think he'd be on the Chavez team

[Anonymous No.6232352]

>>6232264
>His letters on Russia

give me a break

[Anonymous No.6232453]

>>6232241
You're honestly fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.6232465]

>>6232453
You must be new in Marx threads. We have an unwritten "don't acknowledge" rule towards people who don't know shit

[Anonymous No.6232471]

>>6232465
I'm aware, just been in a shit mood for awhile

[Anonymous No.6232478]

>>6232346
He didn't support the colonization, only that it brought about necessary historical transformations and raising of class consciousness

[Anonymous No.6232480]

>>6232453
Honestly what did he say that was wrong? I think Marx would be very pleased with capitalism under the Nordic model, and even fairly happy with Germany's economy.

[Anonymous No.6232497]

>>6232478
Through british rule, yes. I'm aware his support was circumstantial and he wasn't pro-colonialism though, don't worry

[Anonymous No.6232518]

Just look at Piketty, he's a reformist.

Capitalism has a lot of benefits, we just need to keep it in check correctly.

[Anonymous No.6232548]

>>6232518
Piketty has nothing to do with Marxism though
and he admits that capitalism will go to shit without global regulation, which is idealistic at best

[Anonymous No.6232613]

>>6232480
He said capitalism would grow to the point where it becomes unbearable and eventually give rise to communism. Modern social democracies are either disproving his ideas completely, or merely delaying the inevitable revolution by a few hundred years.

[Anonymous No.6232707]

Marx would be a Neo Reactionary

[Anonymous No.6232791]

>>6231831
Definitely.

[Anonymous No.6232802]

>>6232241
B8

[Anonymous No.6232809]

>>6232346
He'd be on Chavez team for sure

[Anonymous No.6232810]

>>6232296
They probably couldve been seud

[Anonymous No.6232812]

>>6232480
You don't really know much about Marxism do you? It's okay if you don't, just don't delusion yourself with thinking that the Nordic model is anywhere near close to what Communism advocates

[Anonymous No.6232815]

>>6232346
Well venezuela isnt an agrarian country with no industrial infustructure

[Anonymous No.6232817]

>>6232296
The Communists in Portugal just tried to pass a bill in Parliament recognising and legalising file-sharing. It was blocked of course, even by the Trotskysts

[Anonymous No.6232822]

>>6232518
Piketty is a retard

[Anonymous No.6232824]

>>6231831
>humane capitalism

No such thing.

[Anonymous No.6232828]

But what about gay black hitler, you guys

[Anonymous No.6232832]

Marx would probably see the shit that came from his ideology and be conservative

[Anonymous No.6232847]

>>6232346
This is the type of shit i saw in my sociology class a couple weeks ago when talking about marx. The teacher mentioned how he saw the bad things that used to happen and wanted to change it. Then he proceeded to go over how things have changed such as that workers can own means of production through the buying of stocks and shares. The ideology that engulfed that room was unbearable. I swear i started pulling on my shirt, figeting with my nose, and craving cocaine like a slovenian mad man.

[Anonymous No.6232851]

>>6232832

"His ideology" didn't actually survive his death. You got more schizms in "Marxism" than in post-Reformation Christianity. And strangely they all seem to coincide with which ideologue has managed to get the most guns and for how long.

[Anonymous No.6232852]

>>6232346
pretty bad understanding of his writings on India, he thought colonialism was cruel but he wasn't a cultural relativist and believed in historical progress, so he believed industrialization was necessary. It's dialectical.

[Anonymous No.6232857]

>>6232847
Well, rightly so, because stocks and shares don't allow workers to actually control the means of production for the most part. Unless they can actually buy the company, which pretty much makes them capitalists.

It's a really dumb point. The only time when stock ownership equates to owning the means of production would be if a collective of workers owned the majority of the stock in a company (or if you're in a co-op type situation obviously). And that's hugely uncommon.

[Anonymous No.6232895]

I honestly believe if Marx were somehow revived and saw what had been done in his name he would renounce his entire program. There were already indications that he was starting to regret most of what was being done in his name in his own lifetime.

[Anonymous No.6232918]

>>6232857
In Germamy large companies are required to have some worker ownership IIRC

[Anonymous No.6232919]

>>6232851
>You got more schizms in "Marxism" than in post-Reformation Christianity

A philosopher's thought has lead to different interpretations and schools? What an unprecedented phenomenon, anon

>And strangely they all seem to coincide with which ideologue has managed to get the most guns and for how long.

Which is why Stalinism is all the buzz nowadays

[Anonymous No.6232926]

>>6232895
>I honestly believe if Marx were somehow revived and saw what had been done in his name he would renounce his entire program.

pretty prevailing view among dumb people who voted ron paul, nothing new

[Anonymous No.6232936]

>>6232918
I'm surprised people don't look more at things like this as a possible pathway to socialism

[Anonymous No.6232979]

>>6232919
>Which is why Stalinism is all the buzz nowadays

Which it hasn't been since Stalin died. Kruschchev buried that shit in one of Stalin's mass graves as soon as Stalin himself was no longer alive to force his doctrine.

I was pointing out that there is no uniform, monolithic Marxism.

[Anonymous No.6232988]

who /antirevisionism/ here

[Anonymous No.6232996]

>>6232936
Come on, worker "ownership" gives worker incentive and identification with the employer. It works exactly as long as it improves profits, because it allows capitalists to present themselves as human and caring. If it was not cost-effective, they would play the usual "recession" card immediately.

[Anonymous No.6233020]

>>6232707
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/carlyle.htm

...or Carlyle would be a revolutionary. I think he would cream his breeches over the personality cults of the 20th cen.

[Anonymous No.6233025]

>>6232918
And trade unions work with big companies and the government to repress wages, Germany is not a good model.

[Anonymous No.6233031]

>>6232988

[Anonymous No.6233883]

>If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.

He was already showing signs of a change in mind near the end of his life, if he had lived a little longer he probably would've been one of the biggest proponents of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6233886]

>>6233883
I bet you extrapolate trends indefinitely.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6233896]

Who fucking cares? Marxists don't see Marx as a fucking prophet anymore than people who believe in the theory of evolution see Darwin as a prophet.

[Anonymous No.6233920]

>>6233896
The children start threads on Marx's person because we tend to reject those threads as idiocy. Each idiot seeks her own level.

[Anonymous No.6234576]

>>6233883
I assume that finding the context of said quote was too much work for someone who gets all his Marx's sayings and writings from the libertarian blogosphere.

[Anonymous No.6235095]

>>6233883
lol quote of context.
The quote was taken against a reformist who called himself a Marxist. He replied that if the reformist was a Marxist, neither was he.

[Anonymous No.6235114]

>>6233896
Capital is literally the modern day Bible for stupid leftists.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6235124]

>>6235114
It doesn't even have instructions for building socialism, so it's hardly relevant here.

[Anonymous No.6235131]

>>6235114
Stop.

[Anonymous No.6235138]

>>6235131

[Anonymous No.6235142]

>>6235138
But that's wrong. Modern communists do not read Marx and Lenin and modern anti-communists do not understand Marx and Lenin.

[Anonymous No.6235148]

>>6235142
To be fair, communism has been irrelevant as a political force since Reagan won the Cold War, and nowadays it's mostly a LARP'ing thing. But in the context of when he said that, it was an accurate statement.

[Anonymous No.6235150]

>>6235138

Ladies and Gentleman, the man who re-classified ketchup as a vegetable for school diet policy has spoken.

[Anonymous No.6235152]

>>6235148
It were never an accurate statement.

[Anonymous No.6235155]

>>6235152
>were

[Anonymous No.6235158]

>>6235148
I don't understand, if communism is bad would it work in heaven? If it's good why does hell have it? If heaven doesn't need it because everything works fine without it, is he implying that places with problems do need it?

[Anonymous No.6235162]

>>6235142
>Modern communists do not read Marx and Lenin

I agree, but this is only good for the comparison between the bible, because modern christians don't read the bible.
However, I also agree that modern anti-communists have no idea what the fuck they're talking about when the talk about communism. But that differs from modern anti-christians, because some actually know quite plenty about the bible.
So it's a half accurate statement that "Capital is the modern day Bible for leftists", but to call the leftists stupid is silly - stupidity is a relative term, and leftists, though full of ignorance and misunderstanding, can not compare to the thorough mind of delusion
and prejudice of right wingers. Thus, in a relative sense leftists are plenty smart - but smart in this sense is useless as a word.

I refuse to believe the Reaganposter isn't somewhat being ironic though.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6235168]

>>6235162
>because modern christians don't read the bible.
They sure as shit read it more than pre-modern Christians did.

[Anonymous No.6235169]

>>6235158
He didn't know what he was talking about. Of course he didn't, he was a dumb fucking Hollywood actor, what the fuck did you expect?

[Anonymous No.6235180]

>>6235158
He's saying it would work in a place that's already great but doesn't need it but creates hell of places that do need it.
It's a very convoluted way (yet somewhat eloquent) of stating this position. It obfuscates the point with a bit of poetry. Great rhetoric, but when a skeptic hears such things they can only wonder what evidence he has for such bold claims? He does have quite the biased point of view, as the leader of a nation that is enemies with a communist nation - we ought to note that this rivalry has a lot more to do with diplomacy than genuine intellectual or ethical qualms: presidents are not philosophers.

[Anonymous No.6235184]

>>6235168
So it goes with Das Kapital.

[Anonymous No.6235196]

>>6235180
I think that contradicts the whole "communism is against human nature" the right wing has going on. In fact i'm pretty sure reagan said that himself.

[Anonymous No.6235250]

>>6235155
>>6235148
>>6235138
>Ronald Reagan quotes
>on /lit/
do you know what kind of board this is?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6235268]

>Reagan posts

Go to bed Grover Norquist

[Anonymous No.6235428]

>>6235250
just someone role playing, it's rather common around here

[Anonymous No.6236470]

>>6235114
Most "stupid leftists" havent read capital considering how goddamn long, "boring", and just complicated it is. If most leftists read Capital there would be a lot more radical politics going around rather than tax and weaken borders.

[Anonymous No.6236517]

Nigga how the fuck do you expect truth in your ridiculous hypothetical question?