considering the average "discussion" on this place im convinced 99% of posters here have not read even the fucking manifesto (but have gladly wasted years of their lives reading shit only relevant to academics)
>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf>>2604680>(but have gladly wasted years of their lives reading shit only relevant to academics)Nobody here has read anything at all for years. /leftypol/ is reclining
>nooooo you can only read what I say you should everything else is bad noosee
>>2592427 >>2604699The whole point of Marx is to use your own agency and praxis to test his claims against the real world. If you aren't verifying his work against actual material conditions, you are LARPing as yet another speculative thinker.
The distinction lies in the fact that the natural sciences are predicated upon the exact processes of praxis and verification. Scientific theories are validated through concrete, replicable methodology. Conversely, these standards of verification cannot be applied to philosophy, as its claims lack the capacity for substantiation in concrete terms. This inherent lack of verifiability is precisely what defines a proposition as 'philosophical' rather than 'scientific'.
Philosophy is basically what happens when you can't actually prove your point. For example, Questions about God are mostly philosophical because they're essentially unfalsifiable. You're just vibing at that point because there is nothing to confirm or deny what you're saying.
>>2604680>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.Ok even if he's right, simply declaring this isn't going to stop people. Also he wrote this in 1848. Today Anticommunism is literally the point of everything the international bourgeoisie do. So a "serious examination" of anticommunism is essentially what they call Opposition Research. Most of Lenin's pamphlets take anticommunism quite seriously and examine it in great detail.
>>2604752kek. OPs point proven.
>>2604703Marx is a philospher, "philosophy" is an umbrella term that can apply from Marxism to Plato and multiple different branches (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic, etc), you dont know what you are talking about and are trying to make being ignorant and anti-intellectual a virtue.
Also the concept of science you are using is not the one Marx uses, you are tring to make Marx into a positivist, which is a position (a philosophical one) he himself rejects, you would know this if you werent a pseud.
>>2604703>Scientific theories are validated through concrete, replicable methodologymost "science" is literally just mathematics
>>2604779i did not "prove" OPs point. i have read the manifesto. I showed how Marx's argument was made in a particular historical context, and how later communist thinkers took anticommunism quite seriously, and made thorough examination of it for opposition research. You did not counter the argument you just vomited up some chanbabble
kek and said a smug dismissal after. anyone with more than two brain cells who can follow an argument can see that.
no your a stupid
>>2604780Marx and Engels weren't the dumbasses that philosophy students and academics nowadays try to make them out to be.
<dood literally everything is philosophy!This is retarded nonsense that only philosophers themselves spout. I've even seen morons calling critique of religion religion following the same idiotic logic. Hell, you see religious types rebranding their dogma as 'science' all the time, but it fails the peer-review of actual reality every single time. Whether you slap a 'scientific' label on something is irrelevant.
>you dont know what you are talking about and are trying to make being ignorant and anti-intellectual a virtue.You're free to believe in your philosophical, purpose-driven view of reality, just like any religious person or philosophy student believes in theirs. Communism can do just fine without your pseudery.
<muh positivismNo one serious subscribes to Popperian dogma. He undermines the epistemic authority of science. By insisting that all scientific knowledge is merely provisional speculation, he detaches the field from its empirical foundations and reclassifies it as a branch of skeptical philosophy.
>>2604794You have no argument. You confuse anti communism with anti communist arguments. The second is what Marx polemically said merit no investigation because they start from a false premise: Idealism.
>>2604808science literally comes from philosophy btw
>>2604827That's irrelevant to the discussion, the same can be said about how communism comes from capitalism. You're treating the conditions for thinking about reality as if they are the same as the conditions of reality.
We should stick to how-questions, not why-questions. How-questions get us investigating and figuring things out, while why-questions mostly just lead to pointless philosophical hand-waving and navel-gazing.
>>2604868i cant talk to empty-headed philistines like you
>>2604811analyzing enemy propaganda and its ability to reinforce false consciousness is important, that is my argument, no matter how much you insist I don't have one.
>>2604876you have less to say than he does
>>2604790no it isn't. if you read mathematical papers and from other natural sciences, there's a clear difference. but reductionist takes are midwit's silver bullets
>>2604780positivism does not create knowledge, it lacks the dialectic which lies in the scientific method of theory - experiment/praxis - critique/revision of theory - maybe new methodology - new knowledge - new experiment/praxis etc
>>2604703>>2604808>>2604814>>2604868>>2605217Marx and Engels may have said they have nothing to do with philosophy, but if you've actually read their stuff critically (which you should be, because we have a century plus of foresight), as opposed to absorbing everything they say as if it's religious scripture, you'd know that no, they have quite a bit to do with philosophy.
The only reason they
said they didn't care about philosophy was that they were extraordinary confident in the philosophical positions that they had. They thought that materialism, moral nihilism, and their own idiosyncratic form of Hegelian dialectics were so obvious that they refused to hear otherwise.
>>2605042Once again: you prove OPs point. You fight against a strawman and defend your position fervently while not contributing to the thread in any meaningful manner.
OP mocks idiots, quotes a Marx polemic dismissing Idealists and you go on to babble about how analyzing anti communist propaganda is important.
Marx and Engels were both westoid treatlers and it took Asian working hands to turn their writings into anything workable
>>2604680Mao zedong once said that you have to read but only read a few books. Therefore I can justify not reading the manifesto because it's too long but it's probably right. Philosophy is made up and got debunked by Engels-Stirner and by Popper and Wittgenstein. Religion is made up by plays on human fears on whats there after death.
>>2606379If you think the manifesto is too long try reading Capital, it fucking sucks and it has none of the humor of the Poverty of Philosophy or The German Ideology
>>2606383Idk man its too long and kind of boring can you recommend one of the books thats fun
>>2606386Did you not read my post? Poverty of Philosophy, The German Ideology, and Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte are the fun Marx texts, he falls apart without something to make fun of
>>2606388Thanks anon, have a great day, are there other ones you can recommended
>>2606093you said i don't have an argument, so I explained what my argument was. I don't see how my argument involved a strawman. you're just making assertions without elaborating or providing evidence. I am not proving OP's point. I am not strawmanning. I am not without an argument. You have made 3 accusations without evidence so far. Will there be a 4th?
>Ok even if he's right, simply declaring this isn't going to stop people. Also he wrote this in 1848. Today Anticommunism is literally the point of everything the international bourgeoisie do. So a "serious examination" of anticommunism is essentially what they call Opposition Research. Most of Lenin's pamphlets take anticommunism quite seriously and examine it in great detail.
<kek. OPs point proven.
>i did not "prove" OPs point. i have read the manifesto. I showed how Marx's argument was made in a particular historical context, and how later communist thinkers took anticommunism quite seriously, and made thorough examination of it for opposition research. You did not counter the argument you just vomited up some chanbabble kek and said a smug dismissal after. anyone with more than two brain cells who can follow an argument can see that.
<You have no argument. You confuse anti communism with anti communist arguments. The second is what Marx polemically said merit no investigation because they start from a false premise: Idealism.
>analyzing enemy propaganda and its ability to reinforce false consciousness is important, that is my argument, no matter how much you insist I don't have one.
<Once again: you prove OPs point. You fight against a strawman and defend your position fervently while not contributing to the thread in any meaningful manner. OP mocks idiots, quotes a Marx polemic dismissing Idealists and you go on to babble about how analyzing anti communist propaganda is important.
Because it's called opposition research.
Marx sometimes dedicated entire volumes to attacking specific idealists, analyzing and tearing apart their works (like Stirner). Engels the same (Durhing). Lenin the same (Kautsky). OP treats us to one out of context quote that apparently says Marx, Engels, and Lenin wasted a lot of time.
OP just ridiculed midwits and lo and behold, the midwits come in droves to ramble incoherently. you are clowns.
>>2606432They need to justify their careers, papers, books, the thousands and years spent in college, etc. somehow.
>>2606455I have no formal education in any of this, let alone a career. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be arguing with people on Leftypol of all places.
I'm sick of this weird anti-intellectualism. If you have something capable of running a web browser and the free time to post on a site like this, you can study these topics in-depth for free. I'm not being elitist, you're being a fucking moron.
>>2607231>I'm sick of this weird anti-intellectualism. If you have something capable of running a web browser and the free time to post on a site like this, you can study these topics in-depth for free. I'm not being elitist, you're being a fucking moron.Especially since anti-intellectualism runs completely contrary to Lenin, who's entire point in
What Is To Be Done is that the workers never spontaneously develop consciousness that goes beyond narrow trade union consciousness and require leadership from highly educated, organized, armed, and motivated cadres of professional revolutionaries who explicitly make it their mission to develop the proletariat beyond trade union consciousness. Part of this process is refuting the reactionaries and idealists, not simply calling them stupid doodooheads:
<Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism is combined with absorption in the narrowest forms of practical activity.
<Class consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships between all the various classes and strata and the state and the government-the sphere of the interrelations between all the various classes.
<To Bring political knowledge to the workers the Social-Democratss must go among all classes of the population, must dispatch units of their army in all directions >>2607236>not responding to a specific anon<not necessary since most posts aren't even adressing OP>cannot quote or respond to any argument actually made by any other anon<not possible since you idiots don't adress OP >posting for attention<?>not interested in discussion on a platform where only discussion is possible<see above. you idiots never adressed OP in the first place and instead 'discuss' non sequitursSee, the problem is the following: OPs shitpost stated A. He quoted a Marx shitpost that stated B. You then started to argue for statement C, which doesn't logically follow from neither A, nor B.
Thus, engaging with C doesn't have merit in relation to this thread. Which is where we go full circle and why i say you guys prove OPs point: you are actual midwits who can't understand: you don't have to further examine the content of an inference when the inference itself is not logical.
>>2607231Anti—intellectualism should be a crime punishable by summary execution by any revolutionary movement, anti-intellectualism is the spring waters from which bourgeois idealism and medieval metaphysics flows, anti-intellectualism is inherently anti-communist, any “communist” anti-intellectual ought to be treated like a state-backed infiltration agent and shot on sight in any revolutionary situation
>>2607231>>2607234>>2608665>muh anti-intellectualismIs there anything more pathetic than calling yourself an "intellectual"?
< That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they're not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies. I cannot see how you can speak of the ignorance of the masses in Germany after the brilliant evidence of political maturity shown by the workers in their victorious struggle against the Anti-Socialist Law. The patronizing and errant lecturing of our so-called intellectuals seems to me a far greater impediment. We are still in need of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc., it is true, but if the worst comes to the worst we can always buy them just as well as the capitalists buy them, and if a severe example is made of a few of the traders among them — for traders there are sure to be — they will find it to their own advantage to deal fairly with us. But apart from the specialists, among whom I also include schoolteachers, we can get along perfectly well without the other “intellectuals.” The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check.< The biggest obstacles are the small peasants and the importunate super-clever intellectuals who always think they know everything so much the better, the less they understand it. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm
>Lenin, who's entire point in What Is To Be DoneIt's incredible that you think philosophy is "revolutionary theory", lol, also the vanguard is just the most advanced part of the proletariat, dipshit. Feels like most of this shithole doesn't even conceive of communism as the activity of the proletariat. It's just a "system" to be "implemented" by them and their fellow intellectuals. Fucking embarrassing.
>>2607234I can quotemine too.
< The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned…https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm
< These “socialists” or “true socialists”, as they call themselves, regard foreign communist literature not as the expression and the product of a real movement but as purely theoretical writings which have been evolved — in the same way as they imagine the German philosophical systems to have been evolved — by a process of “pure thought”. It never occurs to them that, even when these writings do preach a system, they spring from the practical needs, the conditions of life in their entirety of a particular class in a particular country. They innocently take on trust the illusion, cherished by some of these literary party representatives, that it is a question of the “most reasonable” social order and not the needs of a particular class and a particular time.< They detach the communist systems, critical and polemical writings from the real movement, of which they are but the expression, and force them into an arbitrary connection with German philosophy.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch04a.htm Manifesto is a trash introduction to Marx. It's the most dated of his works and treatlerites will claim that most the points in its program have been accomplished so communism is pointless, while conveniently ignoring that it was class struggle by organized labor that won them. Value, Price and Profit is a clearer introduction to Marx's work and better illustrates how workers are still getting fucked.
>>2608879Technically there are still some points that arent really implemented even in the most advanced countries today.
>>2608877you are a mass tor baiter and i wasn't quote mining but you are. your quotes do not function as a counter to what I was saying, and you add no additional text from yourself to aid
>>2608876nobody called themselves an intellectual. they spoke out against anti-intellectualism. you derived the additional
>implicationbecause you are a shitty mossad CIA LLMslop mass tor baiter and one of many who have utterly ruined this site.
>>2604680>convert [boring egostical wankfest] into 6 bullet points pleasereading books is so 2020
Unique IPs: 19