Why isn't communism the same as liberalism? Why didn't Marx become a liberal while writing Capital? Before the critical turn of the enlightenment the purpose of most philosophy was grant intellectual legitimacy to dogmas, or pre-existing state of affairs or beliefs that are taken for granted. Classical political economists and those that came before them (Hobbes, the Physiocrats, others) were similarly uncritical; the categories of political economy were explained, but not criticized. Vulgar economists (most economists today) don't even bother with attempting to understand the categories or the social relations they're made up of, and spend their time building models of different elements of capitalist production for the purpose of making it more efficient. It's no coincidence that "economize" means "to make more efficient", that is the sole aim of vulgar economics.
Where does Marx depart? Marx takes the materialist analysis of the political economists, their categories and terms, and constructs from these building blocks an immanent critique of capitalist production. Capital isn't liberal because Marx takes the materialist analysis seriously, he criticizes without reservation the most basic elements of exchange and the religious affectation of participants in the exchange with its elements (read Marx on commodity fetishism). We can't seriously call Capital, which is the most thorough rupture with political economy ever written, an economics textbook.
>Check reply for more, you know who you are
I’ll give three negative descriptions of communism for you-know-who by providing Marx's perspective:>What differentiates communism from other movements?<The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism. All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf>How does communism resolve the historical contradiction created by capitalism, what is the basic contradiction of capitalist political economy?<The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm>How can you summarize all of this?<Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
The way leftypol interprets communism is liberalism
what capitalists are made of
The more I read Marx the more humanistic I see in his ideas. When I say humanistic I don't mean liberal philanthropic sense but in the communal way, the individual should be elevated by all, and by elevation of all individuals, we elevate the collective. It's a appropriation of the real meaning of individuality not mediated by capitalism, but by humanism, or communism in the Marxist sense.
No. Hegelianism and dialectics negates a log of the presuppositions of the philosophy of Locke. modern liberalism and neoconservatism don’t.
Marx was a humanist just not a utilitarian humanist. “anti-humanism” is usually either peak intellectualist pettiness or just 14 year old atheists that don’t understand what humanism means
everything is liberalism