Anonymous 12-06-23 16:54:39 No. 17860
why does Marxism keep having separate definitions for words from how they're commonly used? isn't this confusing?>In Marxism "revising" doesn't mean coming back to an earlier work and updating it based on new information. It means betraying the "immortal" anti-utopian "science" by doing a deviation. >In Marxism "productive" labor doesn't refer to whether labor is useful, but whether it makes a profit.
Anonymous 12-06-23 17:55:40 No. 17869
Marx didn't come up with the term "revisionism," that came about later when Eduard Berstein tried to pass off his extremely anti-Marxist theories as being Marxist still, claiming that he was just "revising Marx."
Anonymous 12-06-23 18:06:04 No. 17871
>In the Study it is noted that the terms “immanence” and “immanent” are certainly used in Marxism, but that “evidently” this use is only “metaphorical.” Very good. But has he in any way explained what immanence and immanent mean “metaphorically?” Why have these terms continued to be used and not replaced? Purely out of a horror of creating new words? Usually when one new conception of the world succeeds another, the earlier language continues to be used but is used metaphorically. All language is a continuous process of metaphors, and the history of semantics is an aspect of the history of culture: language is at the same time a living thing and a museum of the fossils of life and civilization. When I use the word disaster no one can accuse me of astrological beliefs, and when I say “By Jove,” no one can believe that I am a worshiper of the pagan divinity; nevertheless, these expressions are a proof that modern civilization is a development of both paganism and astrology. The term “immanence” in Marxism has its precise meaning which is hidden in the metaphor and this must be defined exactly; in reality this definition would truly have been “theory.” Marxism continues the philosophy of immanence, but rids it of all its metaphysical trimmings and leads it on to the concrete basis of history. The use is metaphorical only in the sense that the former immanence is superseded, has been superseded, although it is still presupposed as a link in the process of thought from which the new link has been born. On the other hand, is the new concept of immanence completely new? It appears that in Giordano Bruno, for example, there are many examples of such a new conception; Marx and Engels knew about Bruno. They knew about him and there remain traces of Bruno’s works in their notes. Conversely, Bruno was not without influence on classical German philosophy, etc. Here are many problems in the history of philosophy which could be usefully examined. >The question of the relationship between language and metaphor is not simple, far from it. Language, however, is always metaphorical. If it is perhaps not correct to say that every statement is metaphorical in respect of the thing or the material and tangible object indicated (or the abstract concept), since that would broaden too much the concept of metaphor, it can still be said that present-day language is metaphorical in respect of the meanings and ideological content which the words have had in earlier periods of civilization. A book on semantics—that of Michel Bréal, for example—provides an historically and critically reconstituted catalog of the semantic changes of certain groups of words. Many errors both in the field of learning and of practice derive from not taking account of this fact, in other words from not having a critical and historical view of the phenomenon of language: (1) An error of an aesthetic character, which today is being to some extent corrected but which was in the past a ruling doctrine, is that of regarding as “beautiful” in themselves certain expressions as distinct from others in so far as they are crystallized metaphors; the rhetoricians and grammarians swoon at certain words, in which they discover who knows how much virtue and abstract artistic essence. The very bookish philologist’s word “joy,” which suffers agonies as a result of certain etymological or semantic analyses, is actually confused with artistic delight: recently we had the pathological case of Language and Poetry by Giulio Bertoni. (2) A practical error which has many followers is the utopian idea of a fixed universal language. (3) An arbitrary tendency towards absurd word innovations, which arises from the problem posed by Pareto and the pragmatists regarding “language as the cause of error.” Pareto, like the pragmatists in so far as they believe that they have created a new conception of the world, or at least that they have originated a certain science (and that they have therefore given words a new significance or at least a new shade of meaning, or that they have created new concepts), finds himself faced with the fact that traditional words, especially those in common use, but also those used by the cultured classes and even those used by specialist groups dealing with the same science, continue to keep their old meaning despite the innovation of content, and this has reactions. Pareto creates his own “dictionary,” demonstrating his aim of creating his own “pure” or “mathematical” language. The pragmatists theorize abstractly about language as the cause of error (see G. Prezzolini’s little book). But is it possible to rid language of its broad metaphorical meanings? It is impossible. Language is transformed together with the transformation of the whole of civilization, through the flowering into culture of new classes, through the hegemony exercised by one national language on others, etc., and in point of fact continues to use metaphorically the words of preceding cultures and civilizations. No one today thinks that the word “dis-aster” is bound up with astrology, and those who use it in this way are considered to be wrong. In the same way an atheist can speak of “disgrace” without being thought a follower of predestination, etc. The new “metaphorical” significance broadens with the broadening of the new culture, which, on the other hand, also coins new words and borrows words from other languages and uses them with a precise significance, i.e. without the broad aura they had in the original language. So it is probable that the term “immanence” is known, understood and used by many people for the first time only in the new “metaphorical” significance given to it by Marxism.
Anonymous 12-06-23 18:40:11 No. 17876
>>17874 Not related, but I honestly don't "get" dialectics.
I mean, I understand it's about coming to "truth" through the arguing between two different point of views to arrive into a sort of "middle ground" or something.
But I don't entirely get it. For example, what if I grab two completely opposite things: capitalism and communism. I compare them and say "Hmmm, I see, both of them have a point. Maybe the best thing is Social Democracy which is a middle ground between them!!". Obviously this is not correct.
Anonymous 12-06-23 19:20:39 No. 17879
>>17878 Basically, the some elements of capitalism (the technology, working masses, etc.) would be preserved in the synthesis of communism. Some elements (wage slavery, the capitalists and wealth owners, pollution) would be done away with.
Everything contains within it the contradictory aspects that allow for development to a higher form.
Thesis: crack inside of a pipe.
Antithesis: lighter flame
Synthesis: you get high and blow out the waste.
The crack and pipe is capitalist society. The flame is the communists. The smoke is the capitalists and wealth owners. The high is communism.
Anonymous 12-06-23 19:38:00 No. 17889
>>17876 dialectics in the field of marxism is more about identifying the different forces at play that are in contradiction with each other in the real world.
For example, on one side the desire of porkies to get more profit, and on the other the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (leading to neoliberalism, monopolies and imperial policies to try to lessen that contradiction), or the workers wanting to get more of their surplus for themselves / better work conditions (which leads to the importance of syndicalism as tool for workers to be able to bargain with more power, which is the socialist way of solving the contradiction until you change the system altogether, or to violently repress the workers and destroy their organizations, which is the fascist way).
at least thats how I understood it, im a theorylet compared to some people here
Unique IPs: 18