/edu/ - Education

Afaik analytic philosophy is a minor tradition in China and most Chinese analytical philosophers aren't committed Marxists. The trend in Chinese philosophy these days revival of interest in classical Chinese philosophy, the problems of modernity etc and analytical philosophy isn't very welcoming of that kind of revival.

>>25039
Analytical philosophy is essentially an anti-marxist project and analytical "marxists" are not really Marxist. People will tell you things like the analytic-continental divide doesn't really exist but they are generally analytics and what they really mean is that they think modern philosophy supersedes it.

Whats really going on is that a bunch of British anti-communists got together with American red scare losers and invented a school of thought where philosophy was solved with Kant and that Hegel never existed so that they don't have to contend with Marx.

Analytical Marxism strips everything meaningful and revolutionary from Marx claims that it is mumbo-jumbo and then fiddles with numbers in an endless circle jerk.

You wont really find much about Analytic philosophy under Marxism, from within AES states, especially China, because they correctly understand dialectics to be core to Marxism and know that rejecting it is to undo the whole thing in favor of formalized abstract idealism.

>>25039
>yet another "marx critiqued religion, philosophy and political economy so give me recs on mixing marx-ism with religion, philosophy and political economy" thread

its all so fucking tiresome

<… philosophy, far from abolishing the dogmas of theology, only restored and mediates them through the negation of rationalism.

>>25045
>they correctly understand dialectics to be core to Marxism
youre doing everything youre critiquing op of doing lmfao youre just as retarded

<le AES states
religious schizoid

>>25049
see the part there where engels says "constructed into a neat system" thats the formalized abstract idealism im talking about

and "the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually" is dialectics

>>25048
Just because Marx said something does not mean the issue is settled or that Marx was even correct or that some Marxian theories can't be extrapolated or extended in innovative ways.

>>25048
>>25049
Marx didn't understand what philosophy was and neither do you. Dialectics? Philosophy. Materialism? Philosophy. Fucking logic? Philosophy. If you think you can do without philosophy, you are sorely mistaken.

>>25045
I consulted Deepseek, and it seems to disagree. The conclusion it drew is that Analytical Marxism is not a completely different science than more conventional or Dialectical Marxism, but instead, simply another way of understanding the same core concepts.

What do you think of this?

Analytic Marxism = controlled insanity psyop. Their thought experiment is "what if there were nothing in the world but 'Marxism'?" A system designed to destroy ideas cannibalizes all that exists when it not restrained by anything.

Analytically, Marxism refutes itself. There isn't a real "analytical Marxism" without devolving into controlled insanity. What they're trying to do is destroy the very real insights Marxism produced when it was doing what it did well; destroying extant ideas and deconstructing them. Analytical Marxism is British controlled insanity to call in the death that they always wanted.

IMO Marxism as a whole is a historical artifact and should be understood as such. It's a useful historical artifact to understand why the 20th century turned out the way that it did, but without a proper theory of what really happened with "capitalism" your knowledge will always be left in the dark. Every time someone works to create that understanding, now that we have hindsight to see what the world turned into and now that humanity can communicate with each other freely for the first time ever, it is violently terminated, lest anyone get ideas contrary to the ruling ideas.
I can't say if we will be mired in this dark age forever, but in all likelihood the destruction done to humanity during the 1990s is irreversible. It is only a matter of time before living memory dies and the children will be so thoroughly destroyed that there is no history, no past, and no future. Whatever exists in the further future will be a greatly diminished humanity, forever incapable of asking where it came from. That history was overwritten for the sake of Eugenics.

I'd also say on philosophy generally, you should not confuse philosophy for genuine knowledge or the totality of potential knowledge. Philosophy was the investigation of self-important idiots that occasionally inveighed on matters of religion, genuine science, and the world we live in. If you really love knowledge, you would see in philosophy there is no love and very little knowledge, except knowledge of malevolence and a pale shadow of humanity's total knowledge of the Evil. Yet, humanity develops its systems of knowledge, and those systems exist as knowledge for its own sake rather than knowledge pertaining to science or knowledge pertaining to an unseen world that was once the domain of the gods. That is what philosophy really is—knowledge for its own sake, "for itself". That always turns inward on itself eventually. We are seeing in the 21st century what it means to live in a society of untrammeled Law, as I have understood it; where the Law devours everything in sight and insists nothing can exist outside of it.

The "philosophy" of the future, if the concept can be revived, will be largely about repudiating the disastrous "solutions" to philosophy created in the 19th and 20th centuries. We would first have to discover first principles and ask what, if anything, we really want to know. Do we want to place science on sounder footing? Systems thought was an attempt to do that, but it was turned into extreme faggotry by Fabianism and their ilk who only want humans smart enough to push the torture button.

Ultimately the answer lies in judging religion for what it really is, rather than insisting it was based on nothing. There was a belief that you could abolish God by decree, and that was ultimately a seed planted by Christianity and its erroneous belief regarding the gods and knowledge of them. The pagans were right, as Julian the Apostate stated explicitly; human beings have innate knowledge of the divine by virtue of what it means to "know", to possess a consciousness that can in any way ask this question about the universe they sense and react to.

Analytical Marxism rejects Hegelian language and the importance of labor time, and emphasizes methodological individualism and game theory.
>The only major Analytic Marxist I've read at length is Paul Cockshott
The only overlap here is loathing Hegelian language.

>>25066
I consider Cockshott an Analytic Marxist because he's heavily influenced by Analytic philosophers like Popper and Russel and has denounced Hegal, although strictly speaking, I'm not sure if he's actually genealogically related to the other guys I'd place in this category.

>>25068
That doesn't contradict what it told me. It's a very different method than traditional or dialectical Marxism, but it's still examining the same subject and, as far as I can tell, coming to the same conclusions about class relationships.

>>25071
his revision of marx as a newtonian rather than a hegelian is his flaw. marx is clearly dialectical.

>>25071
>still examining the same subject
ok miasma theory and geocentrism must be equally valid alternative interpretations too then

are you saying disease is good and celestial bodies dont rotate? come on man they both come to the same conclusions its simply another way of understanding the same core concepts

>>25048
Good now do one about how we shouldn't mix Marxism with post-colonialism and colonizers are historically progressive.

>>25071
>I consider Cockshott an Analytic Marxist because he's heavily influenced by Analytic philosophers like Popper and Russel and has denounced Hegal
Anon you never do yourself any favor by speaking out of your ass online. It always comes down to you needing to study whatever you want to grapple with. Stop wasting yours and other people's time.

>>25075
>>25076
>come on man they both come to the same conclusions
In your example they don't though. In this example, we both agree about germ theory and heliocentrism, we just arrived at those conclusions from different directions.

And that's my point. If two different methods produce the same results, are they not equally valid?

>>25078
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/08/21/a-comment-on-a-lecture-about-hegel/
I could have sworn he mentioned he liked Popper's notion of falsifiablity in the comments of a post (he mentioned Turing in the same sentence), but apparently that isn't real, something that mildly concerns me because, as far as I'm aware, my brain generally doesn't make up memories wholesale.

>It always comes down to you needing to study whatever you want to grapple with.
That's why I started this thread. I want to learn more about Analytic Marxism, and I'm asking you guys where I should start.

>>25071
>he's heavily influenced by Analytic philosophers like Popper and Russel
I don't recall him ever talking about these guys.
>>25082
>I want to learn more about Analytic Marxism, and I'm asking you guys where I should start.
Maybe G. A. Cohen? Though I honestly don't see the appeal.

>>25082
>If two different methods produce the same results
they absolutely do not produce the same results. that is the problem

>>25084
How do they not produce the same results? This is a serious question.

This thread is further evidence that all academics are grifters not unlike the people posted on ISG regularly.

>>25056
There's only one "marxism" and only one "communism", moron.

>I consulted Deepseek
Bleak.

>>25082
they both conclude disease is bad and bodies rotate

>>25069
<wrongly characterizes intellectual activity as occurring in isolation from the struggles constitutive of its social and political conjuncture, and at the same time does little to intervene in that conjuncture
so if they are the same results where are the AES analytical marxist countries?

>>25086
in what sense do you think they produce the same results in any way?

im trying not to be rude but it seems like you just dont read the posts responding to you so im not really incentivized to answer, so instead of assuming, why dont you tell us where you are getting these ideas

>>25087
>There's only one "marxism" and only one "communism", moron.
So why do different AES states look so different?

>Bleak.
It's the only thing that will give me a straight answer. All you guys have done is make fun of me for asking the question to begin with. Deepseek will at the very least respond to what I said in good faith.

>>25088
>why dont you tell us where you are getting these ideas
Based on the small amount of Analytical Marxism I've read. I'm open to being wrong, I just want to know why I'm wrong.

>>25039
G. A Cohen is the main one, apparently it's technological determinism rather than class struggle as a reaction against the periodic crises of capitalism