What are your favourite works by Marx/Engels? About to finish capital volume 1 and gonna move on to anti-duhring.
those who havent read him need not enter the thread
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
What are your favourite works by Marx/Engels? About to finish capital volume 1 and gonna move on to anti-duhring.
>anti-duhring
Lmao it's the greentexting marxist troony. This guy makes all the low effort Marx threads but it's not even to troll, he wants to draw people into conversations about Marx so he can write b***hy greentext takedowns to them throughout his entire workday.
I hope you get lots of people ITT and waste another day, wikipedia marxist anon.
this is the first marx thread ive ever made but stay mad i guess
Checked and Got em
That homosexual is so annoying. I notice his style too. I'm glad people are noticing that autistic homosexual.
Chekd kekd bunkertranoid rekt
The German Ideology is brilliant. If IQfycels here bothered to read it I think their world would come crashing down.
Nobody wants to read a 500 page spergout over Max Stirner.
you'd benefit a lot from Part I alone
>eh it's not so good for political economy
lol what. it contains the essence of his entire critique of political economy
>lol what. it contains the essence of his entire critique of political economy
i guess it does, it's just not developed to the level of rigor that one would expect from something like capital
yeah. German Ideology was one of the most transformative reading experiences I've had. Honestly, I think people getting into Marx should start there rather than the Communist Manifesto, it really helps to put his whole project in perspective.
How so? It was just him ranting about Stirner. I know you didn't read it because he just spends his entire time insulting him which reveals Marxism was just a shell game of words his degenerate intentions. Its just so odd that Marxists accuse say the bourgeois's philosophy is a product of their material conditions, and don't act like Marx wasn't just an envious person. Even his father called him a bum and spoiled.
first, it's not just about stirner, and if you say that I don't believe you actually read it and that rather, you are regurgitating talking points from other similar IQfy threads. second, marx and marxists do not claim that their own critique is exempt from the influence of material conditions (a vague phrase I hate using, but you invoked it, so I will) and its idiotic to think that "arising from material conditions" is in itself an insult. sit down and read the essay, think about it, and then get back to me.
Actually, moron, he spends the majority of the book according the Unique and Its Property. You didn't read lmfao. Nobody is talking the bullshit introduction. Marxists.org cuts out the rest of it, and that's only part you've read. You never read it all. You can stop lying.
I have the book, printed on actual paper, homosexual. He talks about feuerbach, Bauer, Hegel, and others before stirner, and there’s a whole other chapter after stirner I doubt you’ve even heard of. And you still haven’t said anything about the content of any section—suspicious.
You've read nothing. Dude, stop larping and get a job. You're not working class or a communist. You're a white bourgeois kid living in the clouds. Get real. You should went to school for engineering instead of gender studies. You're not getting any refunds from Bernie Sanders.
Should have *gone* to school for engineering. You really are illiterate. Once again you are dodging mentioning anything about the text other than the reference to IQfy‘s favorite meme philosopher. You are a moron and I think we’re done here.
You should be filling out job applications at Starbucks.
>buhh le Starbucks snowflake millienials!!!11!
Really good comeback dude.
The fact you keep dodging about your "job" gives us all the information we need to know about you, kek. You literally can't even name a single thing you've done to advance communism besides larping and being a psued on IQfy. You're clearly under 30, and don't have a life. Its so obvious.
tfw you uncritically parrot left-leninists and start preaching protestant productivism while calling yourself a communist
Marxism just proves sociology is a bullshit field. Just read the thread. These people are npcs repeating what their college professors said along with skimming Wikipedia and whatever Vaush said recently lmfao
Do you know what any of those words mean
left-leninists: my term for thinkers who descend from lenin but are opposed to MLs. good examples are trotsky and bordiga. lenin is deficient in many ways but one of them is his inability to break with the productivism of capitalism in his conception of communist society
protestantism: a sect of christianity known for, among other things, a productivist work ethic
productivism: ideology that inverts the priorities between production and human needs. capitalism necessarily makes use of this ideology, which the revealing of was marx's project in capital
communist: someone that seeks the abolition of the "present state of things", i.e. the capitalist mode of production
i'm going to assume i don't have to define the other words in my post
>I'm not the random internet person that lives rent free in your head. take your meds
you're either them or some other person from that platonov guy's twitter circle of reddit leftcoms, and you know it. your distinct typing style is really obvious
Nice. I don’t see how you extrapolated any of that about me from my post making fun of that moronic guy’s Ben Shapiro-tier insult, though. Why do you think I’m opposed to MLS? and I can’t help but wonder whether you just impulsively seized an opportunity to flex some of your new vocabulary. (though unlike many on here you do at least somewhat know your stuff.)
no, i was making fun of the person you were responding to. although the convo chain is so long i might have lost track of whether or not they're a communist. anyway you're good
Sweet. You too!
Nothing is dumber than the Marxist claim that they transcend ideology, religion, morality, and philosophy because they study “the real world.” Reading Marx and Lenin constantly repeat that they aren’t driven by mortality then harshly criticize capitalists for their immoral exploitation of the oppressed is one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever come across. Just let us know how we’re supposed to take Marxism seriously as a “science” when in practice it has always just been idolatry. Worshiping statues of Lenin is just as zealous as having statues of Buddha or Hindu gods.
>Reading Marx and Lenin constantly repeat that they aren’t driven by mortality then harshly criticize capitalists for their immoral exploitation of the oppressed is one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever come across.
what's embarrassing is that you can't comprehend that one can at the same time condemn something morally and also explain it scientifically, not based on the moral judgment
That’s not the point. The point is that Marx and Lenin pretended as if their moral judgment never existed to begin with.
Show me one example of this
this is what I mean. it's a ridiculous claim that a person's morality is whatever the objective tides of history are because they literally can't prove it. Marx and Lenin claimed their morality was whatever the morality of the proletariat was since they would inevitably revolt, but not only has there not been a global revolution but they never even agreed with most workers anyways since many were still religious or overall degenerate. It's nonsense. The real reason they were socialists was because they morally sympathized with the oppressed, not because of any stupid shit about supporting the scientific movement of history
>this is what I mean
mean by what? are you the anon who claimed that Marx and Lenin pretend to have no moral sensibility, failed to provide textual evidence, and then got proven wrong with Lenin's own words?
>it's a ridiculous claim that a person's morality is whatever the objective tides of history are because they literally can't prove it
it's not about individuals, but about general tendencies within classes. and they have proven it: you can start with part 1 of The German Ideology, and don't forget to see chapter 9 of Anti-Dühring
>Marx and Lenin claimed their morality was whatever the morality of the proletariat was since they would inevitably revolt
no they haven't
>but not only has there not been a global revolution
so what? there have been non-global revolutions, and there will be a global one. if you're trying to disprove the claim that something will happen by observing that it hasn't happened yet, then you might be moronic
>but they never even agreed with most workers anyways since many were still religious or overall degenerate
and? at times when the revolutionary movement is weak, most workers are going to have beliefs practically indistinguishable from those of their oppressors. you should really read part 1 of The German Ideology before trying to participate in those discussions
>The real reason they were socialists was because they morally sympathized with the oppressed, not because of any stupid shit about supporting the scientific movement of history
why not both? the pursuit of truth and assisting the process of history can be just as personally motivating, if not more, as mere moral indignation
>That isn’t a total rejection of morality, though
who said it was? are you illiterate? I swear this board's average IQ drops by like 40 point in America's prime time. I wonder why
hey reddit leftcom. how do you respond to the hayekian claim that planning is too cumbersome to take the place of markets?
why would I respond to any "hayekian claim"
>Lenin himself doesn't reject morality.
where have I said he does?
>You're just straight up lying.
what have I lied about?
what am I wrong about?
>You might be moronic if you think 100 years of failed communist revolutions is proof communism is inevitable.
I don't, but you are moronic because you don't have any better arguments so you have pretend that I do think that
>why would I respond to any "hayekian claim"
because most people are convinced by it, including most of your precious proletariat who will totally automatically become communists any day now. they might not know about hayek etc, but they are convinced that the collapse of the ussr proved socialism is infeasible, which is the pop version of hayek's claim
>because most people are convinced by it
they aren't, they accept bourgeois ideology because that's a practical requirement for living in this society. they don't know who Hayek is, have never seriously evaluated any of his claims, and will never have interest in doing so.
>who will totally automatically become communists any day now
no, most proletarians will never become communists
>they might not know about hayek etc, but they are convinced that the collapse of the ussr proved socialism is infeasible
and?
>and?
they think socialism is infeasible, therefore will settle for socdem bullshit or "market socialism" or what have you, because communism relies on concious production, and most people think conscious production is infeasible due to reasons equivalent to hayek's critique of ussr style state planning
replace "socialism" and "communism" in this post with "communist society" since i know you'll nitpick that phrasing
the entire reason communism exists in the first place is because capitalism keeps pestering a social class with exclusion from wealth, with crises and with wars where its members are sacrificed for someone else's benefit. there's no "settling for capitalism" for them. Hayek or some state that hasn't existed for decades don't even enter consideration when put side by side with daily uncertainty and misery. settling for capitalism is only possible for someone in a comfortably middle class position, who will be insulated from the majority of the negative effects of the functioning of capital until the day it stops functioning for good.
>Hayek or some state that hasn't existed for decades don't even enter consideration when put side by side with daily uncertainty and misery.
i don't think this is true sorry. when i talk to most other working class people they talk of communist society as a pipe dream, usually citing the failure of the ussr as proof. neoliberalism has shoved that attitude down people's throats
>settling for capitalism is only possible for someone in a comfortably middle class position, who will be insulated from the majority of the negative effects of the functioning of capital until the day it stops functioning for good.
unless i seek out communists, i only see working class people ever demand better welfare benefits, they very much settle for capitalism. there's nothing about being oppressed that necessitates abolishing that oppression, the working class have been oppressed for centuries and can continue for centuries. ideology's primary function is convincing the oppressed that their oppression is natural or necessary, and therefore winning their complacency with the mode of production. if every working class person was an automatic communist by virtue of their class position, capitalism would be overthrown overnight
also your claim is strange cause it implies settling for capitalism isn't an option for the upper class
>i don't think this is true sorry
it is
>when i talk to most other working class people they talk of communist society as a pipe dream
it doesn't matter what they say about communist society at a stage where they can't even put together a larger strike
>unless i seek out communists, i only see working class people ever demand better welfare benefits, they very much settle for capitalism
no they don't, I already explained why this isn't permanent and as such doesn't constitute any settlement
>the working class have been oppressed for centuries and can continue for centuries
capitalism wasn't even properly established in large parts of the world until the last decades
>ideology's primary function is convincing the oppressed that their oppression is natural or necessary, and therefore winning their complacency with the mode of production.
reciting the function of ideology doesn't prove that it will be able to fulfill it indefinitely
>if every working class person was an automatic communist by virtue of their class position, capitalism would be overthrown overnight
no shit
>also your claim is strange cause it implies settling for capitalism isn't an option for the upper class
no, you just might be a bit autistic
>it is
my everyday experience says it isn't. you're welcome to cite some data that says otherwise
>capitalism wasn't even properly established in large parts of the world until the last decades
that's compatible with what i said. unless you either think marx lived within the last few decades or that the working class were not oppressed in his day
>no shit
well you seem to be claiming that there's no "settling for capitalism" for the working class, which means you think the working class is somehow destined to inevitably overthrow capitalism, which would require them to be communists because communists are those who want to abolish the current state of things
>no, you just might be a bit autistic
i frequently see you describe academics as "autistic", so i'm going to guess that's your stand-in adjective for rigorous argumentation/reading comprehension when you don't like it. i know it's scary but the other person being smarter than you might not be due to them having some sort of mental abnormality, it might just be because they are more careful thinkers than redditors who go around indiscriminately calling their opponents "pb" and "moron"
The exclusion from wealth is as old civilization. Civilization has always have losers and have nots. Communism wasn't an idea that came originally from Marx; it was Jacobin non-sense like it is today. The scum of society will always invent moronic ideas to that will give themselves unlimited state power. Its a movement for low-lifes who believe they are entitled to plan humanity's purpose instead of god.
Lenin himself doesn't reject morality. He was explicit in this:
>But is there such a thing as communist ethics? Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants.
You're just straight up lying. Lenin was the same moron who said the US postal service system is example of socialism. You're just not an intelligent person. Bordiga also had these really stupid views; where he liked communism to what the US did - basically war communism.
>where he liked communism to what the US did
no he didn't, bordiga basically hated everyone and withdrew completely from political activity. i think he had at least an ounce of sympathy towards mussolini, mostly because mussolini was telling everyone that he was reading bordiga and thought what he wrote was good.
lenin wasn't a moron, he strikes me as a midwit especially with his arguments with kautsky who was also a midwit but he definitely wasn't some moron. i think you're just quoting lenin out of context.
anyway, who cares about arguing for morality. this isn't religious philosophy. all arguments for morality stem from weakness.
Nah, Bordiga wanted Bukharin's policies of war communism before he became Stalin's useful idiot. You don't know your Soviet history. You're a dumbass. Don't talk to me. You clearly don't have the intelligence or education to understand these topics.
bordiga was anti-stalin you moron. he opposed the soviet union. what the frick are you talking about? he was fricking expelled from the third international and the communist party of italy.
Bordiga wasn't anti-Stalin. He just mad he couldn't be Stalin. You're a dumbass. have a nice day and get the frick out the thread. People like you should be shot.
you are literally not saying anything in this post. bordiga didn't support war communism. shut the frick up.
war communism was expropriation of grain to feed the army.
are you illiterate???? he called bordiga 'stalin's useful idiot': in other words a pawn for stalin— when again bordiga clearly wasn't when he opposed stalin from the getgo.
I didn't call anyone a stalinist.
>SHUT THE FRICK UP
War communism was communism. They abolished money, private property and expropriated landlords. It was used to starve the country. It failed, and that's why Lenin did NEP. Get your head out of your ass, you moron. Communism failed. Stop larping on the internet.
not worth the reply
Nah, Bordiga[subject] wanted Bukharin's [predicate] policies of war communism before he[subject] became Stalin's useful idiot.
learn how to write.
also Bukharin never became stalin's 'useful idiot' bukharin was part of the right opposition
you people are really dumb.
>Doing this much damage control because you can't read
Wow
>Bukharin was not Stalin's useful idiot
You fricking moron - it was Stalin who allied with Bukharin against Trotsky. You're still proving you have no idea what you're talking about. You keep exposing yourself of not knowing anything about Soviet history.
>it was Stalin who allied with Bukharin against Trotsky
and? this doesn't mean anything. you don't even have wikipedia tier knowledge of soviet history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Opposition
go read the case files of the moscow trials.
>Stalin and his "centre" faction were allied with Bukharin and the Right Opposition from late 1924, with Bukharin elaborating Stalin's theory of Socialism in One Country. Together, they expelled Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and the United Opposition from the Communist Party in December 1927. However, once Trotsky was out of the way and the Left Opposition had been illegalized, Stalin soon became alarmed at the danger posed to the Soviet state by the rising power of the capitalistic Kulaks and NEPmen, who had become emboldened by the Left Opposition's illegalization. Sensing this danger, Stalin then turned on his Right Opposition allies. Bukharin and the Right Opposition were, in their turn, sidelined and removed from important positions within the Communist Party and the Soviet government from 1928-1930, with Stalin ditching the NEP and beginning the first Five-year plan.
You literally can't read. Holy shit, you keep proving how wrong you are. It doesn't mean anything? He literally helped Stalin get rid of main opponents, and he turned on Bukarhin using the same methods you fricking moron. Holy shit you are dumb.
you are just stating facts without any interpretation of said facts. again, I will be leaving this discussion because it is unfruitful.
again, I suggest you read the case files for the moscow trials.
that bukharin cooperated with stalin against trotsky doesn't indicate he was some pawn for stalin as was said 10 posts ago.
i am not a communist. i never argued for communism. i only argued against the interpretation of historical events.
this is my last response, I have wasted enough time with you morons.
>that bukharin cooperated with stalin against trotsky doesn't indicate he was some pawn for stalin It literally does because was used by Stalin to remove his opposition groups. He literally formulated the socialism in one country theory with him. He had no problem with Stalin's repressive methods until it was used on him. Again, you are complete moron. You have no idea what you are talking, and you keep doubling down. You're a fricking idiot.
>NAH DOOD BUKHARIN WASN'T STALIN'S USFUL IDIOT
Yeah, that's why Bukharin is killed by him after using him to kicking out Trotsky. hahaha you fricking dumbass
>Bukharin's policies of war communism before he became Stalin's useful idiot
>So low IQ you can't even interpret basic reading comprehension
stop posting
>before he
refers to the subject of the sentence. learn how to fricking write. i'm not going to reply to any of you any more because it's a waste of my time.
Learn how to fricking read. Its not my fault you are illiterate and don't know anything about Soviet history. You're so moronic you didn't know Bukharin was the one who sided with Stalin, and used him to eliminate Trotsky along with the Workers Opposition. You are so stupid. How haven't you killed yourself for being such a moronic person? You have to be the stupidest communist on IQfy right now. You can't read. You don't know anything about Marxism or even Soviet history. You're a massive moron talking about subjects you have no idea on.
You just exposed yourself for being historically illiterate. Socialism in one country was Bukharin and Stalin's theory - that's they allied against Trotsky you absolute moron. Jesus Christ, internet marxists are so stupid. No wonder you fricking homosexuals mocked and bullied everywhere. Frick off, moron. Get off IQfy. Nobody is impressed by a dumbass like you without a job.
>he called bordiga 'stalin's useful idiot'
He didn't call Bordiga Stalin's useful idiot. He called Bukharin Stalin's useful idiot. Holy shit you can't even fricking moron. No wonder you've been wrong this entire time.
Are you illiterate? Where does Anon in that post say Bordiga was a Stalinist? He's right you're a dumbass. You can't even fricking read LMAO
>then you might be moronic
You might be moronic if you think 100 years of failed communist revolutions is proof communism is inevitable. Its also stupid - knowing how powerful propaganda is one the mind; you morons will fail again and use sophistry to refine communism like every other time you fail.
It’s ok anon. When the recession and food crisis hits early next year and all your friends become communists you’ll realize Marx was right and capitalism will inevitably unravel into communism.
Trust the plan.
M.
Someone earlier in the thread said that Marx and Lenin claimed to have transcended morality, and I was responding to him.
they didn't. the only thing they said is that Marx's scientific findings, and consequently the communist program, aren't based on moral judgments. they never, ever said that the treatment of proletarians doesn't clash with their sense of morality. and you have to be pretty fricking autistic to seriously imagine that they would. but feel free to prove me wrong with quotes.
I'll even make it easier for you by disproving what you said with regards to Lenin, so that you only need to bother with Marx. here's Lenin "pretending as if his moral judgment has never existed to begin with":
>We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.
>We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/02.htm
zzz lenin
That isn’t a total rejection of morality, though, it’s a rejection of what they saw as bourgeois morality, (metaphysical, idealist)—it fits into their broad critique of western philosophy.
You're correct and
is wrong.
>We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.
Literally from Lenin himself. These people are full of shit.
homie, you claimed here Lenin rejected morality. And you got BTFO'd here
congratulations, you've managed to be the biggest moron in this entire thread. you're saying I claimed Lenin rejected morality in a post which starts with me asserting that "Marx and Lenin didn't pretend as if their moral judgment never existed". and you're then saying that I got BTFO'd by a post which only proves my point, further by citing from the text I have cited from myself to prove my point.
I don't even know what to tell you. if you're pursuing anything in life that that involves reading, then maybe you should just give up and find the nearest bridge
But you did claim Lenin didn't have morality, and now you're backtracking like you're doing now about Bukharin. You are an idiot with low IQ getting BTFO'd people who know more about Soviet history than you. Take the L. Internet troony Marxists like you don't know about Marxism or soviet history. You just skim wikipedia articles, and repeat what you are told on /r/leftcommunism. You're an idiot and you should go back. Lenin lost, the USSR is gone - nobody gives a frick about you and your stupid ideas. Get a job and stop wasting peoples' time with your autism.
>But you did claim Lenin didn't have morality
where?
>like you're doing now about Bukharin
I haven said a word about Bukharin. do you think Anonymous is my username?
Black person you're so stupid. First you claim Lenin didn't have morality. I quote him saying he did. Now, you the moron, is claiming you didn't say that we literally quoted you fricking saving that. Then, you say Bukharin wasn't an idiot for Stalin - then didn't know it was Bukharin who allied with Stalin to remove Trotsky's opposition group. And Bukharin realized this, and so did the Right Opposition, after they allied with each other too late after being kicked out of the party. You are a dumb frick.
>I didn't anything about Bukharin
Dude, you've been samegayging this entire time. Everyone knows who you are - you idiot. You have the same type style and everything.
See
,
You keep going and going. Lenin said he explicitly was a moralist.
You said here they rejected morality here
.
Their judgements aren't scientific - you moron. Lenin admits that his morality is a function of what the working class supposedly feels from pauperism. Anyone reading the thread could see this - but instead of pretend to be illiterate when confronted with the facts.
>You said here they rejected morality here
I'll even make it easier for you by disproving what you said with regards to Lenin, so that you only need to bother with Marx. here's Lenin "pretending as if his moral judgment has never existed to begin with":
>We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.
>We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/02.htm
no I haven't, you're just moronic
>Their judgements aren't scientific - you moron.
their scientific judgments are scientific judgments and their moral judgments are moral
seriously, take your meds and frick off. you're too stupid to be having this discussion
It makes the scientific explanation appear highly suspect. If one has the nose for smelling out moral pretense a la Nietzsche.
>you're either them or some other person from that platonov guy's twitter circle of reddit leftcoms, and you know it. your distinct typing style is really obvious
bro, I can imagine that if you're a neet, your obscure discord channels, twitter circlejerks and whatever can seem like the entire world, but they aren't. if you don't actually take your meds, you're going to descend into gangstalking levels of psychosis and start suspecting your local cashier of being that one particular twitter user with 20 followers
>I don’t see how you extrapolated
extrapolating everything to be meaningfully and directly connected to their obscure little obsession is textbook psychosis, even if early stages
even donald parkinson can recognize you guys from how you type. it isnt hard. platonov/dr_red_terror is the easiest cause they start all their posts with "Lmao"
I hate that guy’s writing style so much, and dr_marx’s too. those two are the originators of the communist-supervillain-monologue writing voice I see all over the place now
yes they suck. i think the guy in this thread is dr_marx btw. and i saw platonov/dr_red_terror in a thread last week:
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S20467991#p20468148
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S20467991#p20469150
lol that's both just me there and here, and I'm not your boogieman you schizo. seriously get your meds. this is the last time I'm doing you the courtesy of dispelling your delusion. from now on, if you want to keep feeding into your obsession, that's on you
>Donald Parkison
That guy is a massive lolcow. I'm surprised he isn't on kiwifarms. All these homosexuals are SA goons and ChapoTrapHouse adjacent people. These are people with graduate degrees, no jobs, are in the DSA that run blog mills for non-sense. They paint themselves as the intellectual left. Its so funny. Did Parkinson change his ideology again? Last I checked, he was a leftcom, then he was a Neo-Kautskyite homosexual and now he's probably a Stalinist at this rate.
yeah i don't like him. but the way the reddit leftcoms harass him is deranged
shouldn't be surprised - killing and eating each other is what commies do
sure buddy, some literally who you're obsessed with discovered the word lmao
didn't say that, said they start all their posts with it
doubt
Everyone knows you're a psued already that hasn't read any Marx. Why keep going? You clearly don't have a job; you're spending all this time on IQfy talking about utopian garbage instead of working.
If you had actually read the German Ideology you would know that Marxist socialism is not utopian, and I could ask the same of you: what are you doing larping as a literate, thinking person on here? Do you have a humiliation kink? Is that why you keep directing the conversation away from the actual essay in question?
Why are you talking about German Ideology, a text you didn't read, when the subject is about your job and so called communist credentials? We don't care that you read Wikipedia on the subject. We know you've never read Marx. That's obvious. No one who reads Marx comes to IQfy, and debates like you do. You do this all the time. We know who you are. You clearly are just a homosexual from twitter, reddit and discord without a job like Dohreen. Why even pretend here? Nobody is buying your non-sense. Stop pretending.
In your opinion, do people who have actually read Marx debate like you: drop one meme reference then backpedal into talking like a moronic right wing podcaster when someone calls them on their homosexualry?
I'm literally asking you a simple question, and you keep dodging this, what have you done with Marxism besides larp on the internet? You can't even answer the question because your knowledge of Marx, just like your personality and life, is so surface level deep. There's nothing interesting about you. You're just another NPC repeating whatever someone on Twitter says with a lot of retweet and likes with a dash of Wikipedia. You don't even any skills or talents. You're a literal nobody acting like you're the next Lenin lmfao.
I never said anything about my communist credentials (a term you introduced, not me, even though you prefaced it with «so called»), nor did I claim at any point to be «the next Lenin» or anything of the sort. I also don’t think I’m dodging this question quite as badly as you’re looking for excuses to talk about anything except the essay that was the starting point of this discussion, considering you only just brought it up. I’ll make you a deal: I’ll talk about my job if you can articulate one coherent argument against a point Marx makes in the German ideology. And a follow up question I have for you is: what are you doing to realize your politics (which I somewhat doubt you’ve even thought about, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt).
You keep dodging the question. And you've admitted you're larper. You don't even read Marx. You're literally defending your poor understanding of his work, as you just skim Wikipedia, and avoid even discussing the practical applications of him. Its clear this is just a hobby for you because you don't have a life or any friends.
Repeating yourself again
Anything substantive or outside of the fact that he talks about stirner.
You do. You're arguing anyone who doesn't adopt your solipsistic interpretations of him isn't a real Marxist. This is largely how Marxism works - its why you have millions of different ideologies and parties like trannies have flags and pronouns. You have a very nihilistic philosophy, and you tell people to read Marx because you're a psued and you want to evade actually having an argument or having to articulate your points. You're largely coward. That's why you come here to debate instead of doing it publicly. I doubt you are even a member of a communist party or have done any political. Arguing online is just a hobby for you because you're an autist with low self esteem and no real friends. You need the attention from people here.
This and the Holy Family are very good starting points. Materialism is the strength and shortcoming of Marx's contribution.
Materialism resolves into spirituality. A world ridden of commodity and exploitation (wage labor) is a better world spiritually.
If you want to please Jesus, going to the Church each sunday morning is not enough. You'll have to live according to his word (acts of the aposles, chapter 4).
>I think their world would come crashing down.
Right...
Marx was wrong and a dumbass.
>The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies
to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc. of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. -- real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.
>In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.
Refute him.
>words, words, words.
dont need to. refutes itself .
illiterate moron detected
Fricking carnal israelite. The refutation is simple. To claim that the intellect as unspiritual, fundamentally material is a contradiction, because it necessarily severs the connection between thought and truth. Yet the premise that the ideas are fundamentally material (no matter with how much satanic mendacity it is spun)—this is a truth claim which, like all truth claims, can only present itself to consciousness as a truth independent of material factors.
Basically Marxism falls into the contradiction of every relativism: it is self-defeating.
>carnal israelite
but I though the israelite was insipid, not carnal
You have wildly misread those two paragraphs kek holy shit. He's doing the exact opposite of 'severing': he's explaining the form of 'spiritual' or 'idealist' thought by way of the material conditions underlying the consciousness that constructs said world view.
To cure you of your moronation here, I redirect you to two solid theorists: Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton. I wish you luck.
>he's explaining the form of 'spiritual' or 'idealist' thought by way of the material conditions
Which is the same as severing thought from truth. Explaining the higher (truth, being) in terms of the lower (untruth, matter, non-being). If thought is just a material condition then no thought is true because there is no "true material condition" (truth is an agreement of two terms), ie thought is severed from truth. Go read some Aristotle, he refutes Marx's entire intellectual confusion in about 5 pages in Nicomachean Ethics in the section on Distributive Justice and the determinant of money value.
marx is not a relativist LMAO. his philosophy was an an attempt at creating an objective science and his materialism was hegelian af.
>then no thought is true because there is no "true material condition"
this is the kind of idealism marx is critiquing you moron.
>Go read some Aristotle
you read Aristotle you mouthbreathing frick.
considering that Marx is a 19th century aristotle, the philosophy of historical materialism is the negation of the very thing you are arguing marx is arguing for.
idiot.
bruhs im too stupid to understand this wtf is he saying
Instead of acting based on our thoughts, we think based on our actions.
>The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behavior.
Okay, so one's thinking is a product of their material conditions? Then there's no reason for most people to be a communist or pursue communism since there is nothing in material reality to drive them towards it, This would imply Marxists would have to do it themselves. Which would also mean communism has no basis in reality because they're essentially forcing people to accept what they believe through rhetoric. Why does Marx need to even write books, and discuss such things if material reality will shape their thoughts? Humans are inherently self regulating if material reality creates their thoughts, and intuition alone is enough for them understand their interests. Our instincts, essentially our ideas, are adaptations to the best way they can to our environment. They don't require philosophy or instruction. It seems as if communists are looking for solutions to problems that do not exist.
>In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven
I don't see how Marx can say this because his analysis is apriori here. The assumption our senses are enough to understand our material reality is a huge assumption on one's genetics. Its also rather naive to assume our empirical judgements can't be manipulated by our methodology - i.g. our ideology can most certainly make us ignore evidence that do not confirm our priors (or what do we even consider onto-logically evidence) - which is the problem we began with. For our empirical evaluations to be valid; they must meet apriori assumptions from our heads on what we consider the validation of our beliefs. This is why even statistics have confidence levels, and why hypotheses are also considered an approximation of the truth and not the truth. Again, there is no way to even test this theory because there are no human control variables that could control for environmental variables to test this, and we have no objective proof our senses, or even our experiences that accept them are real besides what comes from the heavens - our heads. Marx doesn't escape metaphysics by declaring it stems from material reality, because like all ideas, that simply comes from his head. You can easily be skeptical of the ideas of others because there is no way to perceive reality across minds as similar because of all the genetic variations between us, and personal experiences from material reality we have, create prior assumptions that are bias our own thinking. Marx claims to be empirical, but even his own analysis does not correct for these confounding factors that create uncertainty in a material analysis.
>Then there's no reason for most people to be a communist or pursue communism since there is nothing in material reality to drive them towards it
yes there is. capitalist production inexorably produces and unites a propertyless proletariat, which is driven to revolt by its exclusion from the wealth it produces.
>Why does Marx need to even write books, and discuss such things if material reality will shape their thoughts?
Marx writing books is part of the process of material reality shaping thoughts. Marx didn't write down his personal inventions, but simply described and explained the historical process materially unfolding before his eyes.
>Humans are inherently self regulating if material reality creates their thoughts, and intuition alone is enough for them understand their interests.
sure, that's why communist consciousness proper doesn't reside within the entire proletariat, but within its small section, the communist party. Manifesto:
>The Communists [...] have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
the masses act more like you describe: instinctively, based on their immediate need and their progressive realizations which reveal only what's one step ahead, and not the entire path.
>Our instincts, essentially our ideas, are adaptations to the best way they can to our environment. They don't require philosophy or instruction.
what a useless platitude. when people go on a trip, they usually take a map with them. those are much more likely to reach their destination than those who don't.
>The assumption our senses are enough to understand our material reality is a huge assumption on one's genetics.
it's not an assumption. it's an observed fact proven by the myriad of successful applications of knowledge gained through our senses. if you refuse to accept this, then don't reply to me using an electronic device.
>Its also rather naive to assume our empirical judgements can't be manipulated by our methodology - i.g. our ideology can most certainly make us ignore evidence that do not confirm our priors
communists don't assume that, that's why they constantly analyze the real world to see if it really conforms to their understanding. they have no other choice: after all, they're after achieving actual changes in the real world, and those can't be achieved from their underpowered position, unless they really understand how the world actually works and use that to their utmost advantage.
when communism suffers a setback, communists spend decades analyzing the real events to find out what went wrong, to a degree unmatched by anyone else. which you'd know, if you bothered to read some of their work.
frick off elitemeats. i'm sick of you barging into every marx thread with your dumb bordigist bullshit
the telltale sign of a bordiguist
I'm not the random internet person that lives rent free in your head. take your meds
the post I was responding to was longer then mine though
>This is clearly false because there wasn't any socialist revolutions in the west.
there were. and even if there weren't, that wouldn't prove anything, because the fact that the proletariat is reproduced and pushed onto a revolutionary path, i.e. one that must end up in a revolution if followed, doesn't imply that at any given point in time they must've already reached the revolution. that'd be like saying that the heat death of the universe theory must be false because the universe hasn't undergone a heat death yet
>The implication here is that Marx's own biases are independent of his philosophy.
that's not the implication because Marx doesn't have a philosophy. he overcomes philosophy and turns to science instead, i.e. to the study of the real world
>All Marxist communism really is is an idea from his head.
no, communism is a real movement of a real class and Marxism is the name for a body of knowledge of and relating to that movement -- knowledge which would've also been true of that movement had Marx never been born
>Its not relevant anymore it died with him
no it hasn't, the proletariat is still being reproduced, it still struggles against capital, and it still remains true that the only way for it to end its struggle with success is according to what Marx described
>This literally sounds no different than Gnosticism.
how so? because it says that there are things that some people know and others don't? is quantum mechanics gnosticism?
>You're telling me that only a small group of people know what 8 billion plus people would need?
no, people are pretty well aware of their immediate needs
>Why would a communist party be necessary if they know what they need?
because knowing what you need and knowing what you need to do to reliably secure what you need are two different things.
>Why would they need care about Marx when they figure out things on their own?
that would be just another person or group repeating all the work of Marx but under a different name. the result would be the same. the only reason the proletariat needs Marx in particular is because he had already completed some of the fundamental work.
>This sounds really cultish.
more like not-reinventing-the-wheel-ish
>you don't map out of your life.
sure you do. people make plans as to the general outlines of their future such as getting an education and then a job in a particular field, or saving up for a house, or when they'll have kids, or whatever. I think you might be projecting your nihilism and neetdom onto others a little bit here.
>You're making an assumption, a really stupid Hegelian one, that there is some world spirit guiding people towards a central goal.
I'm not. I'm stating the objective fact that the study of the real world shows that the proletariat won't stop struggling until it abolishes itself as proletariat. and it also shows what steps broadly the proletariat must take in order to achieve that goal. this doesn't assume any world spirit, just that things don't happen at random but are predictable as to their general outline.
>No one is responsible for being here. No one asks to be born. Life doesn't have a default purpose, and we choose maps based on our preferences - Marxism is a map many people will never follow.
sure, only some of those who land in the proletarian class position and whose preferences are thereby directed towards struggle for the class interests of the proletariat. nobody is asking the petty bourgeois or IQfy neet losers to be Marxists, that's for sure (although many of them will still ultimately follow the proletariat once it appears powerful enough, because they're spineless)
>Its an assumption - an ontological one that assumes our senses are giving us accurate information
it's not an assumption, it's a fact proven in practice, especially throughout the last few hundred years. you keep responding to me using one of the many tangible pieces of proof
>you don't have the ability to know everything, or know what other people know
so what? the fact that I don't know everything doesn't mean that I know nothing.
>You just tell people to "read"... because you want them to accept what they read and be indoctrinated by your arguments.
no, I typically tell people to read because I want them to not bother me asking shit that was already explained in depth elsewhere. either that or because they themselves ask what to read to learn about a particular thing
>You don't seemingly accept the fact that people can reject your judgements
why would you think I don't accept that fact?
>You suffer from a poor understanding of linguistics..
your post is getting a bit unhinged there near the end. maybe you could explain what any of this has to do with linguistic
>even philosophy because you don't read anything besides Marx and you think it ends with him.
there has been plenty of philosophy up to that point, so still plenty to read there
>t. I'm stating the objective fact that the study of the real world
Historical materialism isn't an objective fact. Its an assumption. You can't even test it as a theory because we can't have a control for humanity. We can't test the materialistic conception of theory. You're leaving out the fact genetics, religion, nationalism, culture, language, personal experiences influence peoples actions and not necessarily the mode of production. Hadrian didn't burn the israelites for money. Putin said he invaded Ukraine for nationalist reasons. Brain-dead mechanical materialism like this ignores the nuances of human interaction.
>only some of those who land in the proletarian class position and whose preferences are thereby directed towards struggle
Yeah, and this is why you're a cult. You believe people are only proletarian if they accept the planks of the communist party's programme. Manichaeism is accurate here.
>it's not an assumption, it's a fact proven in practice
Not really, no. Its Scientism. Facts to you are just data points that your methodology accepts. There's no controls here. Just your assumptions.
>no, I typically tell people to read
Because you don't read Marx, and this is what Marxists do because they don't to elaborate their terrible arguments. You literally called out for this. Everyone knows who you are. You do this all the time.
>why would you think I don't accept that fact?
See the point above. Everyone knows who you are, bro. This is clearly all bullshit.
No? There weren't any socialist revolutions in the West. This is just wrong. Clearly false. They all happened in the East. And the Russian revolution wasn't even really a revolution; it was a coup.
>that's not the implication because Marx doesn't have a philosophy.
He does have a philosophy. This is also wrong. Historical materialism is a philosophy - its literally his philosophy. Just its just unabashed atheism. It didn't overcome philosophy; he just tried to replace it with his a new one - a terrible one with no basis in reality. One that has failed every time.
>no, communism is a real movement of a real class
This is just vague non-sense and a truism. It means nothing. Doesn't even make any sense with your defense of the communist party. A real movement needs a group of secretive intellectuals plotting the future? Idiotic.
>no it hasn't, the proletariat is still being reproduced, it still struggles against capital,
This is Manichaeism essentially. The typical trite about of good versus evil - the proletariat vs bourgeois. Infantile, black and white thinking that presupposes your morality is universal and has to be followed.
>how so?
You're literally saying a group needs to exist to tell people what their interests are - its dumb. And you think this knowledge resides only in a small group and everyone is condemned to even being a useful idiot or counter-revolutionary. Like the Gnostics, really. Its so convenient too that a group just so happens to be people like you, and totally isn't about your obsession with political power and social engineering. We're just suppose to believe your intentions are genuine concerns about peoples' suffering.
>no, people are pretty well aware of their immediate needs
Then they don't need Marxism. Marxism was not invented for their needs, but the need for a specific group of people who need chicanery for political subversion.
>knowing what you need and knowing what you need to do to reliably secure
Are you suggesting people have to read Marx to do this? Naive. I've never met a working class person who needed Marx to do a 9-5 job or pay their bills. Or be a hunter. Most people will live their lives without ever reading Marx because it is unnecessary for survival.
>that would be just another person
No, this is just you retroactively applying your dumb ideology to people without anyway of falsifying it.
>more like not-reinventing-the-wheel-ish
Communist society is essentially re-inviting the wheel. You are essentially recreating social contract theory; a contract most people have rejected historically. Money, class and the state isn't going anywhere in your life time.
>sure you do. people make plans as to the general outlines of their future
Not really, no. People are told what to think - conditioned by their society through culture, family, religion. There really is no plan for life besides the ones people make for themselves. Someone groomed you into Marxism. You aren't born a Marxist.
There was a socialist revolution in Bavaria.
huh?
Those weren't socialist revolutions. Those were coups staged inorganically by the Bolsheviks. That's why they all failed and didn't have popular support. The Bolsheviks got away with it because they shot all their opposition groups and used chemical weapons on them. Lenin specifically banned the Workers Opposition and free elections. There no was no revolution - it was Bonapartism by wanna be neo-Jacobins.
What do you define as a coup? The army taking over without worker’s support?
They didn't have worker support in Russia. They lost the elections. Russia wasn't a country with a large base of workers. It was like 80% peasant. The Bolsheviks did not have the interests in mind of most people, but a small minority of intellectuals. The Cheka was made in response to their unpopular support. Russia was extremely anti-israeli with constant pogroms. The idea the Bolsheviks could be popular there is delusional. A guy who uses chemical weapons on peasants isn't a popular leader.
>They didn't have worker support in Russia.
They absolutely did. Their power in the workers' and soldiers' councils is why they were able to take the cities. The Provisional Government suppressed them after the February Revolution but allowed them to come back because they were the only ones with the discipline and mettle to put up resistance against the Kornilov guys who were trying to carry out a counter-revolutionary coup.
This is just false. They didn't have any power. They lost several elections - the Socialist Revolutionaries had a clear majority. Lenin carried out a coup, and a overthrew the provisional government. Lenin said the bourgeois rigged the elections like all communists do. Its just lies and bullshit.
>Lenin said the bourgeois rigged the elections
And he was right. They literally did rig and continue to rig. Case in point, the 2020 election of Biden.
I was talking about Bavaria, which is in Germany… I don’t know what that has to do with Russia unless you think Lenin magically started unrest in Bavaria.
>Those were coups staged inorganically by the Bolsheviks.
There was an active counter-revolutionary coup in the making by future White Army types. Look up the Kornilov affair.
That coup failed though? Only difference was that the Bolshevik one did not. That was because they won the war it provoked though their methods of terror and suppression opposing liberal and non-Bolshevik socialist parties.
>No? There weren't any socialist revolutions in the West.
there were, but, as I said, your argument is wrong either way, so w/e
>Historical materialism is a philosophy
because?
>This is just vague non-sense and a truism. It means nothing.
it means that there's a proletarian class, which, due to what it is, is constantly being pushed to unite and fight for its class interest
>A real movement needs a group of secretive intellectuals plotting the future?
no, it needs an organ which will be concerned with keeping it together and indicating its general direction. just like any movement that gets anywhere instead of standing around for a bit and then dissolving in anarchy
>This is Manichaeism essentially. The typical trite about of good versus evil - the proletariat vs bourgeois.
tomorrow's football game is basically Manichaeism. the typical trite about good versus evil - Italy versus England.
how can you reproach me with being ignorant in philosophy, when all your "philosophical" assertions amount to this sort of embarrassingly vapid analogies
>And you think this knowledge resides only in a small group and everyone is condemned to even being a useful idiot or counter-revolutionary.
how is someone who fights in his own class interest a useful idiot?
>We're just suppose to believe your intentions are genuine concerns about peoples' suffering.
idgaf about people's suffering, I'm not Caritas
>Then they don't need Marxism.
they do, because knowing your immediate needs is not identical with knowing what you need to reliably secure them
>Marxism was not invented for their needs
it was discovered from their needs, by asking the question of what must happen for those needs to be fulfilled on the whole and persistently
>Are you suggesting people have to read Marx to do this?
they don't, but that'd be the easiest
>I've never met a working class person who needed Marx to do a 9-5 job
there are many working class people who can't meet their needs despite doing a 9-5 job. or who regularly lose that job due to the vicissitudes of capital
>Most people will live their lives without ever reading Marx because it is unnecessary for survival.
I'm not talking about mere survival. some people in concentration camps living on 500 calories survived. but people typically aim higher than that. especially, they don't like to lose what they've historically earned
>No
yes, you still haven't shown a single thing in Marx that doesn't derive from how the world really is, and is rather his invention
>You are essentially recreating social contract theory
more reddit tier namedropping of philosophical concepts. this is getting boring
make plans
>Not really, no... There really is no plan for life besides the ones people make for themselves
so they do make plans? you should start cutting your posts shorter because they tend to get completely incoherent at the end there
>You aren't born a Marxist.
truly revolutionary insight, philosophy might not yet be dead after all
>Historical materialism is a philosophy
>because?
because it analyzes immaterial social relations and suggests a course of action (praxis) for the revolutionary class.
marx not being a philosopher is one of the weakest arguments one can make, he only critiqued (and rightfully) the masturbatory nature of philosophy.
>yes there is. capitalist production inexorably produces and unites proletariat, which is driven to revolt by its exclusion from the wealth it produces.
This is clearly false because there wasn't any socialist revolutions in the west.
>Marx writing books is part of the process of material reality shaping thoughts.
Yeah, its his own solipsism. This is just an tautology of my argument. The implication here is that Marx's own biases are independent of his philosophy. All Marxist communism really is is an idea from his head. Its not relevant anymore it died with him, and you just have people debating interpretations of him endlessly with only appeals to authority. This literally no different than protestant nominalism.
>doesn't reside within the entire proletariat, but within its small section, the communist party.
This literally sounds no different than Gnosticism. You're telling me that only a small group of people know what 8 billion plus people would need? That's kinda ridiculous.
>based on their immediate need and their progressive realizations
Again, you're going to say 8+ billion people are all just going towards communism, but then argue a communist party is necessary? This is non-sense - you can't combine Marx's voluntarist arguments for revolution with historical materialism without being contradictory. Why would a communist party be necessary if they know what they need? Why would they need care about Marx when they figure out things on their own? This sounds really cultish.
>they usually take a map with them.
This analogy doesn't work - you don't map out of your life. You really don't know what you're doing here. You're making an assumption, a really stupid Hegelian one, that there is some world spirit guiding people towards a central goal. Its not like that all - humans are entrophic. No one is responsible for being here. No one asks to be born. Life doesn't have a default purpose, and we choose maps based on our preferences - Marxism is a map many people will never follow.
>it's not an assumption. it's an observed fact proven
Its an assumption - an ontological one that assumes our senses are giving us accurate information; that material reality is real or the best evaluation of reality. It clearly fails the information problem - you don't have the ability to know everything, or know what other people know. You're just assuming from your own dogma and calling it fact from your own cultist perspective. You just tell people to "read" , which I have and I found it garbage, because you want them to accept what they read and be indoctrinated by your arguments. You don't seemingly accept the fact that people can reject your judgements because Marxism is closer to a religion than a science. You suffer from a poor understanding of linguistics.. even philosophy because you don't read anything besides Marx and you think it ends with him. Its sad, and shows your anti-intellectualism and your inability to critically think.
>All Marxist communism really is is an idea from his head.
Jesus Christ this has to be the stupidest fricking thing I've read on this board kek. You should take the time to read his works. He very clearly lays his methods, beginning with a 'revamping' of Hegelian dialectics. I'm stunned someone would accuse Marx of solipsism kek. Of all the legitimate criticisms of him, this is not one of them. Truly a 50iq moment dawg.
It is just an idea from his head. His conception of communism is just some non-sense he came up with. His books are garbage. I've read them. Even Hitler read Marx, and said they were garbage. He's just not a good writer, and Marxists like you don't even read him lmfao. You stop pretending you're knowledgeable on the matter - you just skim wikipedia and post on twitter and leftypol all. You we know what you homosexuals look like and do in real life. You get doxxed all the time on kiwifarms. Not even sure why you're pretending you're working class either. You're just the typical, jobless pseudo-intellectual humanities major with the arrogance of having a below average GPA from a state university. Like literally nobody cares what you believe or say. You don't even make more than 30,000 a year.
>His conception of communism is just some non-sense he came up with.
My guy, you've never read Marx. Stop larping. Here's a primer:
>Marx's view of history, which came to be called historical materialism, is certainly influenced by Hegel's claim that reality and history should be viewed dialectically. Hegel believed that the direction of human history is characterized in the movement from the fragmentary toward the complete and the real (which was also a movement towards greater and greater rationality).
>Even Hitler read Marx, and said they were garbage.
Imagine having Hitler as your authority on the legitimacy of philosophical projects holy shit. this is just said.
My guy, you've never had a job or read Marx. And you're not working class. Just stop posting. And you just out yourself a redditor gay with the spacing.
>Imagine having Hitler
Hitler literally spend his entire adulthood debating members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Like kid, he knew more about Marxism than you. That's why he so easily defeated it. You guys are really pathetic, and can't even debate. You just come here, you pretend you know what you're talking about, and you look for ways to get the last reply in. You're just pathetic.
My guy, the glorious and victorious Soviets stood over his charred remains. Some 'victory' kek.
My guy, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The Revolutions of 1989 made your entire ideology irrelevant. Its only rich, white kids who push communism on IQfy because you live in the west. Its never people from communist countries. Its just white kids like you who watch too much Chapo Trap House, Red Scar and Jimmy Dore. You're just not an interesting person or intelligent at all. Your ego is better than your head, and there's no justification for it. You have no accomplishments and you are a literal nobody. Always will be.
Class character isn’t everything. Otherwise Engels could have never coproduced with Marx or organised workers.
>Class character isn’t everything
So why idolize the working class when its clear you're just conceptualizing them as a unified mass? By admitting this, you're admitting you're in a cult. To you, people are only real proletarians if they subscribe to your beliefs.
>idolize
I don’t think Marx does that. He just says they’re the first class able to overthrow class-based systems, which have only existed with the rise of agriculture and moves away from primitive communism. It’s developmental like Hegel’s idea of history, or Spengler’s, except class takes a more fundamental role as a mover of history.
>To you, people are only real proletarians if they subscribe to your beliefs.
Yeah there is a thing called class consciousness. Some workers are lumpen or just outright reactionary, but they can be won over or represented.
Class consciousness, the way you're using, seems no different than magic. Its just some bullshit you made up as an excuse as to why there is a contradiction between your interests and the interests of the so called working class. There's nothing scientific about it. Its post-rationalization.
>scientific
The way we understand science in English now is very different to Kant, Hegel, and Marx (who borrowed the word Wissenschaft from their philosophy). Their use of the word science is more like System. But it can be translated to (Fine) Arts or Science, when these weren’t necessarily opposed as they might be seen as today.
That's a funny way of saying,
"Well damn I guess you're right, Hitler didn't defeat the marxists."
I look forward to you learning Mandarin when the glorious CCP finally buys up your company kek. Now tell me more about how exactly Marx was a solipsist considering this anon just linked you a wiki entry detailing all his influences here
Oh no no no. Sad to see.
>My guy
Cringe homosexual zoomer, why not just talk in a normal way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influences_on_Karl_Marx
You are the biggest moron in this thread. Damn.
>words, words, words
Take the unironic chudpill and ignore both of these posters.
Been debating Marxists for years here, and I've only grown to hate them more and more. I've probably been anti-communist, anti-Marxist for longer than they've been a communist lmao. I'm aware of Amadeo Bordiga - he wasn't a very smart guy either. Camatte was right about him and his loony group of latter day leninists. These people are just rackets and gangsters collecting dues and social clout from groups small enough to be desperate for social rejects like him.
Sir, this is a Wendy's and those are too many words.
>Okay, so one's thinking is a product of their material conditions?
TIL that Freud was a fraud and copied Marx
Marxists already refuted him, specifically Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. Turning to false consciousness and psychopathology reifies values as superstructural entities. All of Marxism post Marx is copes explaining why The Revolution, which should have been *historically guaranteed* due to material conditions, never happened. Also hilarious that a Marxist superpower developed in the European state with perhaps the WORST material conditions for socialism, Russia, due geopolitics and socialist agitation. Socialist vanguardism was of course another flagrant contradiction of the apparently natural and inevitable unfolding of socialism due to material conditions.
>He doesn't know what neo-Marxism is.
Russia was the first to become communist because communism and socialism are just ideologies. They aren’t material realities. There’s never been a socialist system or a communist system, every developed state operates in the capitalist mode of production.
Well he's right in the main, and who can refute that the bourgeoisie are fundamentally materialistic in their thinking. However, I'm convinced (it should be obvious) that we have not fully delved into the psychic abilities of man. And that within such abilities may lie certain telepathic ones that may, at times, have a metaphysical or, rather, quantum effect on materiality. These hypothetical mental abilities do not invalidate the wider material course of history more the most part, but that does not mean they are always insignificant.
His epistles
I like his later unpublished writings written in a kind of English-German-mongrel language where he laments about immigrants, colonialism, archaic indo-european society and Black folk
notes on james mill is the goat imo. althusserians do not interact
shit havent heard of that, but really into the political economy side of marx atm so will look into now.
eh it's not so good for political economy, it's more on the humanist side of marx. but the grundrisse is probably my 2nd favorite and it's good for political economy
ah igy, i like the humanist stuff too, just on a capital (and related) kick atm. when i read EPM1844 a while back i really liked it as a good mix of pol econ and humanist stuff w more focus on alienation etc
yeah i'm getting into capital too and loving it. despite what althusserians say i feel like learning his humanist stuff first has really enhanced my understanding of capital; marx's project in capital us to show what an inhuman inversion capitalism is, where the priorities between productivity and human needs are backwards, and humans are nothing but slaves to this economy
not familiar with althusser at all or his takes on marx, qrd?
althusser thinks that humanism is bourgeois ideology leftover from hegel and that marx progressively broke from this ideology, one of his beefs with it is that it starts from individuals and then explains society from that vantage point. he points out that in capital, marx does the reverse: he starts from society (the commodity) and then analyzes how it affects individuals. he thinks the method in capital is what allows marx's critique of ideology to work, because a big part of ideology is projecting behavior of people in the current mode of production onto people in general (for example, smith says it is human nature to "truck, barter, and exchange", and you can see this from neoclassical economists because they start from the "utility-maximizing individual" which inevitably gives rise to exchange, or they'll say that a neanderthal's hand axe is a type of capital)
althusser thinks that the break started with the german ideology (influenced by stirner), and that marx progressively moved away from humanism and toward a critique of ideology. he thinks there's still some humanism in capital but it's almost gone, and the one text that most althusserians claim is completely rid of idealism is critique of the gotha programme. i agree with althusser's account of how marx critiques ideology, buf disagree with him about this being incompatible with humanism (after all, marx's view of human nature is pretty clearly a negation of smith's, and holds up much better to empirical evidence); a good book on this is "marx and human nature" by norman geras
i bring up althusser preemptively because internet marxists seem to be disproportionately althusserians for some reason lol
i get you, and i might be wrong here but is starting from commodity then expanding to cover entire economies not more similar to starting with an individual then expanding to cover entire societies? like start with the smallest possible cell of a totality (commodity/individual) then move to a greater explanation encompassing all that comes before?
the idea is that starting from the thing that defines this mode of production is the way to analyze what is historically specific to this mode of production. when you start from individuals, you have to assume some things about how those individuals act. hence economists tend to assume humans naturally engage in commodity exchange and capital accumulation, due to them (the economists) being blinded by ideology. humans exist in all modes of production, so you can't learn anything about a mode of production qua mode of production by starting from them. so instead marx starts from what defines this mode of production, the commodity.
however imo marx's account of human nature gets around this problem because of the notion of alienation; alienation gives reasoning for why humans now don't act like they do in classless societies, where they can meet their transhistorical human nature
That's completely trivial and unrelated to any real point. You must really take marx as a complete prophet if so much depends on how he starts his analysis. How could you possibly care about that.
the 18th brumaire 🙂
anti-duhring is for people that want to skip reading capital so you don’t need to bother with it
check out the manifesto if you haven’t already; also the civil war in france, wage-labour and capital, and value price and profit
oh didnt know that about anti-duhring, i thought it was much more philosophical exposition than covering similar basis to capital
yes, it’s either that or critique of the gotha program whenever there’s a dumb argument and people wanna pit their misreading of marx’s politics against another person’s misreading of marx’s politics
if you want “philosophical exposition”, on the israeli question is a nice short read that gives a clear view of his break with the “left-hegelians” and also critique of the philosophy of right
For me, its the Critique of Critical Critique
The Ego and Its Own
Engel's greatest work
The letter from Marx to Engels where he begs for money.
I don't read text by losers for losers. Waste of trees
who?
the Eighteenth Brumaire was pretty interesting I guess. He didn't really say anything that isn't either verifiably false or a part of common knowledge nowadays though
>words, words, words, the thread.
I hate marx troons like you so much holy shit. this is unreal. just shut the frick up okay. nobody cares about these subversive and proven to be destabilizing ideas.
If nobody cared about them, then why are they subversive and destabilising? They must get support in some way.
I have not read, but entered the thread. What are you going to do about it?
OP here, i will welcome you my friend because of ur pleasant image.
WORDS.
WORDS.
WORDS.
How terminally online are you people that you recognise each other’s Reddit Twitter posts from accounts without even a hundred followers?
Certified hood classic
Jannies can you prune this thread? It’s just losers gossiping about internet “Marxists.”
>losers gossping by internet Marxists
Its literally internet losers who are Marxists who come here on IQfy and IQfy all the time pushing the same garbage to shill. The morons brag about it because this is a slow board. /misc/, they don't come there, because they get chased off the board.
>/pol/, they don't come there, because they get chased off the board.
/misc/ is literally too dumb to troll because their posters include people who are literally mentally handicapped
how much do you wanna bet there's a discord server where they co-ordinate posting guenon and evola threads awful frog OPs and then deflect by projecting it onto the marxist boogeyman
WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS. WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.WORDS. WORDS.
I genuinely think leftist online spaces are a microcosm of the mentally deranged or merely autistic. I used to just find the Leftbook spaces of 2015-2018 bizarre, too, but it seems it’s leaked to every platform.
I tried reading Anti-Duhring. I got through some of it. It starts very interesting, from a metaphysics/ontology perspective, but it starts getting too pseudoscientific after that. Engels did well to publish the best bits as Socialism Utopian and Scientific, those really are the best bits.
Capital of course, duhring, their letters which are pretty funny sometimes
Other than that idk, the german ideology is good too, most of his work is good. Same for engles
>unironically reading Marx/Engels
holy cringe
Did you time travel here from Reddit in 2017?
marx makes lit seethe like no one else thx you karl
have a nice day israelite
I greatly enjoyed Engel's Ludwig Feurbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. The section on Hegel and historical dynamics (ie. what actually drives historical change) were far more insightful that the caricature of dialectical materialism that most Marxists push.
Marxism is still a crock of shit that's weighed down by its adherence to outdated early 19th century economic theories and late 19th century mechanistic materialism, though.
none. also almost no one ever read a damn thing by duhring
2 people
Him
now here is a question from someone who is a newbie in the critique of political economy.
now, the differentiation between productive and unproductive labor is made by marx in various economic manuscripts. labor is productive in so far as it 'valorizes' capital—in other words produces surplus value and 'adds' to capital.
now the proletariat as a class, are they specifically productive laborers, or are unproductive laborers proletariat as well?
yes the proletariat are the class that sells their labour as a to valorise capital, and in the marxist sense labour is productive only in that it valorises capital, ie public sector workers are not "productive"
"That worker is productive who performs productive labour, and that labour is productive which directly creates surplus value, i.e. valorises capital."
"This makes it easy to pass over in silence the differentia specifica of this “productive worker”, and of capitalist production — as the production of surplus value, as the process of the self-valorisation of capital, which incorporates living labour as merely its AGENCY. A soldier is a wage labourer, a mercenary, but he is not for that reason a productive worker."
quotes from productive and unproductive labour by marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm
forgot to add if the proletariat ceases to sell its labour it ceases to exist.
"And conversely of course, as soon as labour ceases to be productive, i.e., as soon as it fails to expand capital, then that labour will not be employed, and other things being equal, it will cease to exist."
so that labor which is unproductive falls into the faux frais of production
so is someone like a bus driver, a proletariat? anon here says yes
yeah you guys are right i was fricked when i wrote that, that anon is correct
Honestly frick Marx. The world would be infinitely better if he had never been born to spew his theories. I understand that ohhh everyone's nuanced and I'm sure he had kernels of good ideas in his books but at a certain point you need to weigh the positive to the negative, the damage his ideas caused in the last century alone should say far more than most people attribute to him.
the bible caused just as much damage if not more yet jesus was pretty swell
>the bible caused just as much damage if not more
How so? Western civilization didn't exist until the Bible was circulated.
>How so? Western civilization didn't exist until the Bible was circulated.
western civilization hung jesus on a cross.
Is this thread really gonna go to 310 replies before the 53 posters stop?
i liked his critique of phenomenology of spirit because its clear from reading it marx only read half of the book, and all the points he brings up in his critique are addressed in the half he didnt read lol
Socialism utopian and scientific by Engels is very very good. Incredible experience reading it. G
Engels was the better writer of the two unfortunately
The German Ideology is brilliant. If IQfycels here bothered to read it I think their world would come crashing down.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm
You should read "Economics for Business" by John Sloman so you understand how an economy works (Marx doesn't, which is why. communists starve to death)
The system of economic contradictions, what is property?, The unique and its own, God and the State