Marxism II

[Byzconia]

Bruh

If you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything.

Comparing it to Hobbes and Locke is a bad look,

Not really, it's just acknowledging that political philosophy is a thing that Smith wrote (which I never denied), but just because Smith and Marx both wrote philosophy doesn't mean their philosophies are equitable.

insofar as those fellows did legit pose differing ways of organising society and generally meaned to work towards them in their own fashion. In any case, the thing with moral philosophy is that it's full of ought's, plenty of imperative for how a fella ought to behave, and it's a real gateway drug to some truly revolutionary and controversial behaviours, like telling future statesmen to their face that the production and distribution of goods and services is more important for a nations economy than stockpiling gold.

Look, let's uh, let's drop the matter of "scientific". As you say, the 19th century was a bit of a funny time for the term. And their use of it was, um, well it was more scientific than the folks they took it up to oppose, but the 19th century was a funny time. Anyways, why on earth would Marx have to make himself airtight?

Pointing out that his solutions to the problems of capitalism were mostly wrong isn't the same thing as saying, "Well, it wasn't perfect so it's bad derr." This is a strawman.

Why on earth would we expect that?

No one does.

Look at it this way: have you been structuring your posts insofar as what posterity will think of your legacy? And more importantly: what circle of hell is reserved for you, for the devilry you will inspire? How will you assauge your guilt for the incendiaries driven by your impassioned defense of Smith?

It's not really "impassioned." My "defense" of Smith is that he's not Karl Marx, a person I don't even particularly dislike, I just think the comparison is asinine.

You see the problem, no?

No.

It's not like Marx expected people to call themselves Marxists

No, he expected people to call themselves Communists, his name just happened to get attached because of his influence. Again, by comparison, Smith expected no such thing. While he definitely wanted people to agree with him (as many people do), he certainly didn't want anyone going around calling themselves a "Free Marketist." Had someone announced themselves to him as such he likely would've laughed in their face at the insanity of it. This isn't a "defense" of Smith, it's just pointing out that he didn't write out a manifesto and then go around saying that the people who disagreed with him just "lacked class consciousness."

and major in marxist studies at a vietnamese university or anything. Dude made maybe a couple bucks on Capital vol 1 and was probably happy it was getting some readership outside the immediate IWA bureaucracy, who all read what each other wrote as a matter of course. The first time he ever met "marxists" was a group of about 100 splitters from some other party, and he openly quarreled with the lot on like indirect taxation or some shit.

Yes, I know the whole "I'm not a Marxist" bit, everyone here does. It's not relevant.

You know how it is, a lot of folks who got big on the basis of their writings don't live to see any of that shit, and I doubt any of them were telling themselves on their deathbed "whatever, 20 years from now Penguin will pick it up and I'll be famous".

Also irrelevant.

Well, it helps in establishing my point:

Finally. Christ.

that a lot of what we call marxism has little to do with the fellow named Marx, and Marx himself not being particularly special as far as 19th century revolutionaries go.

Bullshit he's not, he's literally one of the most famous 19th century figures on Earth. Dude had basically the same level influence that Jesus Christ does (for a time, at least), so he is "particularly special," that's just not inherently a good thing. Look, I'm not stupid, I know it's idiotic to blame one dude who died centuries ago for other human beings using their ideas to be shitty (see the aforementioned Christ, Jesus). I know that and it's not what this is about. It might be true that Marx's ideas got more attention than he expected, but it's the attention he wanted. You don't create a whole ass political ideology and not expect people to follow it. Smith didn't create capitalism, he just observed its formation and liked it (mostly--he also pointed out flaws and ways they could be fixed or mitigated, because he was a rational human being unlike most of self-proclaimed followers). And yes, I know Marx didn't technically create the idea of communism, but he did create his own variant of it that he labelled "Communism," clearly wanting it to become the complete and definitive version. That's the difference I'm trying to point out, Smith wasn't trying to create an ideology, Marx was.

Which, not to toot my own horn and give myself spectral clairvoyance, he himself would probably agree with.

Yeah, good for you, you're about the 20 billionth person to ever say this about Marx.

[Sanghyeok]

Any ideas for our third survey?

[Kubra]

Bruh

If you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything.

Comparing it to Hobbes and Locke is a bad look,

Not really, it's just acknowledging that political philosophy is a thing that Smith wrote (which I never denied), but just because Smith and Marx both wrote philosophy doesn't mean their philosophies are equitable.

insofar as those fellows did legit pose differing ways of organising society and generally meaned to work towards them in their own fashion. In any case, the thing with moral philosophy is that it's full of ought's, plenty of imperative for how a fella ought to behave, and it's a real gateway drug to some truly revolutionary and controversial behaviours, like telling future statesmen to their face that the production and distribution of goods and services is more important for a nations economy than stockpiling gold.

Look, let's uh, let's drop the matter of "scientific". As you say, the 19th century was a bit of a funny time for the term. And their use of it was, um, well it was more scientific than the folks they took it up to oppose, but the 19th century was a funny time. Anyways, why on earth would Marx have to make himself airtight?

Pointing out that his solutions to the problems of capitalism were mostly wrong isn't the same thing as saying, "Well, it wasn't perfect so it's bad derr." This is a strawman.

Why on earth would we expect that?

No one does.

Look at it this way: have you been structuring your posts insofar as what posterity will think of your legacy? And more importantly: what circle of hell is reserved for you, for the devilry you will inspire? How will you assauge your guilt for the incendiaries driven by your impassioned defense of Smith?

It's not really "impassioned." My "defense" of Smith is that he's not Karl Marx, a person I don't even particularly dislike, I just think the comparison is asinine.

You see the problem, no?

No.

It's not like Marx expected people to call themselves Marxists

No, he expected people to call themselves Communists, his name just happened to get attached because of his influence. Again, by comparison, Smith expected no such thing. While he definitely wanted people to agree with him (as many people do), he certainly didn't want anyone going around calling themselves a "Free Marketist." Had someone announced themselves to him as such he likely would've laughed in their face at the insanity of it. This isn't a "defense" of Smith, it's just pointing out that he didn't write out a manifesto and then go around saying that the people who disagreed with him just "lacked class consciousness."

and major in marxist studies at a vietnamese university or anything. Dude made maybe a couple bucks on Capital vol 1 and was probably happy it was getting some readership outside the immediate IWA bureaucracy, who all read what each other wrote as a matter of course. The first time he ever met "marxists" was a group of about 100 splitters from some other party, and he openly quarreled with the lot on like indirect taxation or some shit.

Yes, I know the whole "I'm not a Marxist" bit, everyone here does. It's not relevant.

You know how it is, a lot of folks who got big on the basis of their writings don't live to see any of that shit, and I doubt any of them were telling themselves on their deathbed "whatever, 20 years from now Penguin will pick it up and I'll be famous".

Also irrelevant.

Well, it helps in establishing my point:

Finally. Christ.

that a lot of what we call marxism has little to do with the fellow named Marx, and Marx himself not being particularly special as far as 19th century revolutionaries go.

Bullshit he's not, he's literally one of the most famous 19th century figures on Earth. Dude had basically the same level influence that Jesus Christ does (for a time, at least), so he is "particularly special," that's just not inherently a good thing. Look, I'm not stupid, I know it's idiotic to blame one dude who died centuries ago for other human beings using their ideas to be shitty (see the aforementioned Christ, Jesus). I know that and it's not what this is about. It might be true that Marx's ideas got more attention than he expected, but it's the attention he wanted. You don't create a whole ass political ideology and not expect people to follow it. Smith didn't create capitalism, he just observed its formation and liked it (mostly--he also pointed out flaws and ways they could be fixed or mitigated, because he was a rational human being unlike most of self-proclaimed followers). And yes, I know Marx didn't technically create the idea of communism, but he did create his own variant of it that he labelled "Communism," clearly wanting it to become the complete and definitive version. That's the difference I'm trying to point out, Smith wasn't trying to create an ideology, Marx was.

Which, not to toot my own horn and give myself spectral clairvoyance, he himself would probably agree with.

Yeah, good for you, you're about the 20 billionth person to ever say this about Marx.

Lol I literally quoted you saying that the modification of the musket is importance. And with that sort of response, what does one say other than "bruh"?

Ah, so smith wrote political philosophy, you say? And why are they not equitable? Does it have something to do with *muskets*?

Lol uh, calling your defense of Smith "impassioned" is more a turn of phrase, you feel? Future terrorists will probably not be inspired by your forum posts, wouldn't you agree? Do you see the point there a bit more clearly? Now hopefully you can tell me: why is the onus therefore on Marx to make himself airtight, and why do you not feel such a similar imperative?

Oh yes, Marxism is quite the thing, isn't it? But, as we discussed in another thread, isn't it funny the things we call Marxist that have nothing to do with Marx? Recall stages of development: this is an extremely consequential concept, because it truly guided Soviet foreign policy in ways affecting even present geopolitics in the developing world, principally China's present theoretical economic framework. But, as we said, it had only a passing relation to Marx the man. We might talk about things like Diamat and Histmat, two ostensibly formal methods for interpreting philosophy and history adopted as a general guiding method for a lot of folks, but then we find out that most of that stuff came from Engels. We might talk about the vanguard party, only to find we're merely reading Lenin postulating about advancedness in class-conciousness. Alas, whither Marx?
So you know what? Let's go for a demonstrative approach: apart from the manifesto, a document espousing the position of a short lived political party composed of a dozen people, tell me which writings in which Marx tries to establish a definitive "ideology". Won't you show me how wildly little I know about Herr Marx?

[Byzconia]

Lol I literally quoted you saying that the modification of the musket is importance.

Yes, because what I said was, "As long as there's a musket involved, that's the only thing that matters!" It's not like context is a thing that actually matters or anything, but you go ahead and keep punching that strawman.

And with that sort of response, what does one say other than "bruh"?

Literally anything else? Or nothing? Preferably nothing.

Ah, so smith wrote political philosophy, you say? And why are they not equitable? Does it have something to do with *muskets*?

And now this is just getting retarded. I fucking hate it when you commies do this--you latch onto one random word that's actually not that important and act like it's the smoking gun that wins your whole argument for you. Christ.

The reason they're not equitable is because Smith wasn't writing a manifesto, like I've already told you 800 fucking times. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote instead of just scrawling for "gotchas" you'd have gotten that by now.

Lol uh, calling your defense of Smith "impassioned" is more a turn of phrase, you feel?

No.

Future terrorists will probably not be inspired by your forum posts, wouldn't you agree?

Asinine.

Do you see the point there a bit more clearly?

No.

Now hopefully you can tell me: why is the onus therefore on Marx to make himself airtight,

Never said it was, and already iterated that I never said such. If you can't respond without putting words in my mouth, then just don't respond at all.

and why do you not feel such a similar imperative?

Maybe because I'm not writing a fucking political manifesto that I'm actively encouraging other people to follow?

Oh yes, Marxism is quite the thing, isn't it?

Quite the dumb thing, yes.

But, as we discussed in another thread, isn't it funny the things we call Marxist that have nothing to do with Marx?

I guess? It's just how the meaning of the term has evolved over time, like how a lot of the things we associate with Christianity have nothing to do with Jesus. You can argue in terms of prescriptivism all you want, but no one cares. And none of it changes that many of Marx's ideas were still wrong, regardless.

Recall stages of development: this is an extremely consequential concept, because it truly guided Soviet foreign policy in ways affecting even present geopolitics in the developing world, principally China's present theoretical economic framework. But, as we said, it had only a passing relation to Marx the man. We might talk about things like Diamat and Histmat, two ostensibly formal methods for interpreting philosophy and history adopted as a general guiding method for a lot of folks, but then we find out that most of that stuff came from Engels. We might talk about the vanguard party, only to find we're merely reading Lenin postulating about advancedness in class-conciousness. Alas, whither Marx?

Word salad.

So you know what? Let's go for a demonstrative approach: apart from the manifesto, a document espousing the position of a short lived political party composed of a dozen people,[/quote]
Irrelevant.

tell me which writings in which Marx tries to establish a definitive "ideology".

"So, apart from the document where Marx explains his ideology, please tell me a document where Marx explains his ideology."

Needless, but sure: Critique of the Gotha Program.

Won't you show me how wildly little I know about Herr Marx?

Also asinine.

[Kubra]

Lol I literally quoted you saying that the modification of the musket is importance.

Yes, because what I said was, "As long as there's a musket involved, that's the only thing that matters!" It's not like context is a thing that actually matters or anything, but you go ahead and keep punching that strawman.

And with that sort of response, what does one say other than "bruh"?

Literally anything else? Or nothing? Preferably nothing.

Ah, so smith wrote political philosophy, you say? And why are they not equitable? Does it have something to do with *muskets*?

And now this is just getting retarded. I fucking hate it when you commies do this--you latch onto one random word that's actually not that important and act like it's the smoking gun that wins your whole argument for you. Christ.

The reason they're not equitable is because Smith wasn't writing a manifesto, like I've already told you 800 fucking times. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote instead of just scrawling for "gotchas" you'd have gotten that by now.

Lol uh, calling your defense of Smith "impassioned" is more a turn of phrase, you feel?

No.

Future terrorists will probably not be inspired by your forum posts, wouldn't you agree?

Asinine.

Do you see the point there a bit more clearly?

No.

Now hopefully you can tell me: why is the onus therefore on Marx to make himself airtight,

Never said it was, and already iterated that I never said such. If you can't respond without putting words in my mouth, then just don't respond at all.

and why do you not feel such a similar imperative?

Maybe because I'm not writing a fucking political manifesto that I'm actively encouraging other people to follow?

Oh yes, Marxism is quite the thing, isn't it?

Quite the dumb thing, yes.

But, as we discussed in another thread, isn't it funny the things we call Marxist that have nothing to do with Marx?

I guess? It's just how the meaning of the term has evolved over time, like how a lot of the things we associate with Christianity have nothing to do with Jesus. You can argue in terms of prescriptivism all you want, but no one cares. And none of it changes that many of Marx's ideas were still wrong, regardless.

Recall stages of development: this is an extremely consequential concept, because it truly guided Soviet foreign policy in ways affecting even present geopolitics in the developing world, principally China's present theoretical economic framework. But, as we said, it had only a passing relation to Marx the man. We might talk about things like Diamat and Histmat, two ostensibly formal methods for interpreting philosophy and history adopted as a general guiding method for a lot of folks, but then we find out that most of that stuff came from Engels. We might talk about the vanguard party, only to find we're merely reading Lenin postulating about advancedness in class-conciousness. Alas, whither Marx?

Word salad.

So you know what? Let's go for a demonstrative approach: apart from the manifesto, a document espousing the position of a short lived political party composed of a dozen people,

Irrelevant.

tell me which writings in which Marx tries to establish a definitive "ideology".

"So, apart from the document where Marx explains his ideology, please tell me a document where Marx explains his ideology."

Needless, but sure: Critique of the Gotha Program.

Won't you show me how wildly little I know about Herr Marx?

Also asinine.[/quote] come now friend, if I can't jest, it's not my revolution. To be sure, you really did say the big problem was making ones political philosophy and trying to use force to bring it about, before we came now to the topic of making a political philosophy in general, rather than simply "observing", as you say. The muskets schtick is merely emblematic of this shift, no?
All I have sought is to figure out what is exceptional in Marx, a devilish quality for which we can lay all (or most) failures, of which most other men (such as Smith) did not have. But here we are, putting Marx on trial for having written a manifesto of all things. Really now, what is more common than a party publishing its platform? And we are to laude Smith for the act of not having done so, to make of this the exceptional quality? What is it we are after, a disavowal of a general sort of political approach or of politics in general?
I cannot stress this enough, the manifesto was a party platform. It was "his" only insofar as he was commissioned to write it by a leadership committee who in the end had to light a fire under his ass for it to even happen. The extent to which the words are "his" is only insofar as he suggested them to said committee, who were the final word on whether or not they would be adopted as part of its platform.

but now, I must admit a grave misreading on my part that has certainly muddied the waters here. You're right, you did not shift blame to Marx from marxists, my misreading was senselessly seeing it as such. That has but us through a lot of useless struggle, and I do apologise. Mea culpa, these nights shifts take a lot of clarity out of me and I really ought to recognise that and slow tf down. There's no need to continue on this matter, your interpretation there is I think correct and yes, it's not a terribly good look for marxists, at least as far as some of the really bad shit is concerned. Let's be honest, it can't be said that the murderous methods of industrialisation and wacky pseudoscience in the soviet union and China and such were without theoretical precedent.

Now that aside, you say many of Marx's ideas are wrong. That is perhaps right, it is most certainly right, but I'm curious: which ones? That "word salad", as you called it, contained many important Marxist ideas, but they're not the sort we can call Marx wrong over, insofar as they have only a passing relation to the fellow.

Before we begin on the matter of the critique of the Gotha programme, I must ask which sections in particular you think emblematic of such. It's best we are of one mind, no?

[Sanghyeok]

Yes, because what I said was, "As long as there's a musket involved, that's the only thing that matters!" It's not like context is a thing that actually matters or anything, but you go ahead and keep punching that strawman.


Literally anything else? Or nothing? Preferably nothing.


And now this is just getting retarded. I fucking hate it when you commies do this--you latch onto one random word that's actually not that important and act like it's the smoking gun that wins your whole argument for you. Christ.

The reason they're not equitable is because Smith wasn't writing a manifesto, like I've already told you 800 fucking times. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote instead of just scrawling for "gotchas" you'd have gotten that by now.


No.


Asinine.


No.


Never said it was, and already iterated that I never said such. If you can't respond without putting words in my mouth, then just don't respond at all.


Maybe because I'm not writing a fucking political manifesto that I'm actively encouraging other people to follow?


Quite the dumb thing, yes.


I guess? It's just how the meaning of the term has evolved over time, like how a lot of the things we associate with Christianity have nothing to do with Jesus. You can argue in terms of prescriptivism all you want, but no one cares. And none of it changes that many of Marx's ideas were still wrong, regardless.


Word salad.

So you know what? Let's go for a demonstrative approach: apart from the manifesto, a document espousing the position of a short lived political party composed of a dozen people,

Irrelevant.

tell me which writings in which Marx tries to establish a definitive "ideology".

"So, apart from the document where Marx explains his ideology, please tell me a document where Marx explains his ideology."

Needless, but sure: Critique of the Gotha Program.

Won't you show me how wildly little I know about Herr Marx?

Also asinine.

come now friend, if I can't jest, it's not my revolution. To be sure, you really did say the big problem was making ones political philosophy and trying to use force to bring it about, before we came now to the topic of making a political philosophy in general, rather than simply "observing", as you say. The muskets schtick is merely emblematic of this shift, no?
All I have sought is to figure out what is exceptional in Marx, a devilish quality for which we can lay all (or most) failures, of which most other men (such as Smith) did not have. But here we are, putting Marx on trial for having written a manifesto of all things. Really now, what is more common than a party publishing its platform? And we are to laude Smith for the act of not having done so, to make of this the exceptional quality? What is it we are after, a disavowal of a general sort of political approach or of politics in general?
I cannot stress this enough, the manifesto was a party platform. It was "his" only insofar as he was commissioned to write it by a leadership committee who in the end had to light a fire under his ass for it to even happen. The extent to which the words are "his" is only insofar as he suggested them to said committee, who were the final word on whether or not they would be adopted as part of its platform.

but now, I must admit a grave misreading on my part that has certainly muddied the waters here. You're right, you did not shift blame to Marx from marxists, my misreading was senselessly seeing it as such. That has but us through a lot of useless struggle, and I do apologise. Mea culpa, these nights shifts take a lot of clarity out of me and I really ought to recognise that and slow tf down. There's no need to continue on this matter, your interpretation there is I think correct and yes, it's not a terribly good look for marxists, at least as far as some of the really bad shit is concerned. Let's be honest, it can't be said that the murderous methods of industrialisation and wacky pseudoscience in the soviet union and China and such were without theoretical precedent.

Now that aside, you say many of Marx's ideas are wrong. That is perhaps right, it is most certainly right, but I'm curious: which ones? That "word salad", as you called it, contained many important Marxist ideas, but they're not the sort we can call Marx wrong over, insofar as they have only a passing relation to the fellow.

Before we begin on the matter of the critique of the Gotha programme, I must ask which sections in particular you think emblematic of such. It's best we are of one mind, no?

Which parts of his works do you disagree with specifically?

[Kubra]

Irrelevant.


"So, apart from the document where Marx explains his ideology, please tell me a document where Marx explains his ideology."

Needless, but sure: Critique of the Gotha Program.


Also asinine.

Which parts of his works do you disagree with specifically?

Marx had a bit of a productivist bent as a result of, well, existing in the 19th century. He tends to assume a static state of commodities, as well as conceiving fixed capital in something of a Malthusian fashion, where its productivity goes up arithmetically. These two points are important, because he says some bits in passing that suggest otherwise but the actual elucidation of his system doesn't leave much space for it.
And of course the same goes for joint stock companies, which Marx says pitifully little about, but hellI can hardly blame Marx for that. Economists struggled with that question until very late, to say nothing of the Marxist ones.

[Cocuryeo]

Any ideas for our third survey?

Third survey...as in?

[Sanghyeok]

Any ideas for our third survey?

Third survey...as in?

We have surveys here asking about various subjects.

[Sanghyeok]

Third survey released, it is about class divides.