Given that this site is primarily composed of marxists(-leninists), what are self-criticism that you have about Marx's works ?
Personally, my biggest problem with marxism is dialectical and historical materialism. Marx himself didn't seem to care all that much after his Theses on Feuerbach but the concept, revived during the IInd International, now has an almost central place in any discussion about Marxism.
My biggest issue with it would be that it is overly general. Most philosophers and scientists already accept the idea that the world is in motion and perpetually changing. The idea that everything is in a situation of interdependence and that only the understanding of a concept in its overarching totality can bring about correct knowledge appears to be already mostly accepted. Positing these through "laws" as Engels puts it in his Anti-Duhring is imo simply creating meaningless and vacuous terms. Apart from making deontological conduct claims to how we should avoid making hagiographies and seek to have a global understanding of a phenomenon prior to assessing claims about it is almost tautological in regards to today's scientific approach and conduct.
I think a big issue as to why it became popular is simply that it's somewhat easy to understand compared to marxian economics, and that it avoids one having to make normative claims. It made sense in the early 20th century to point these out, as materialism was still a relatively "modern" paradigm, but nowadays it seems redundant.
Thoughts ?
>>2790092> Most philosophers and scientists already accept the idea that the world is in motion and perpetually changing. The idea that everything is in a situation of interdependence and that only the understanding of a concept in its overarching totality can bring about correct knowledge appears to be already mostly accepted.Is it though? Consult vid related 29:02 section titled "the revolt against science"
(forgive the poorly formatted ctrl+v from a PDF
https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-3.pdf- The Revolt against Science. The more and more conscious reactionary role of modern capitalism, and the growing ideological revolt against the machine and sense of antagonism to the development of technique, necessarily expresses itself on a wide front in the entire ideological field. A transformation in the dominant trends of capitalist ideology becomes more and more conspicuous. This transformation expresses itself in the growing revolt against science, against reason, against cultural development, against all the traditional philosophical liberal conceptions which were characteristic of ascendant capitalism; in favour of religion, idealistic illusions, denial of the validity of science, mysticism, spiritualism, multiplying forms of superstition, cults of the primitive, cults of violence, racial charlatanry (“blood” and “Aryan” nonsense) and all forms of obscurantism. This tendency was already visible from the outset of the imperialist epoch, and especially before the war. It has enormously increased in the post-war period. The relationship between science and the bourgeoisie has never in fact been an easy one. Only in the first revolutionary period of the bourgeoisie (in seventeenth-century England or in later eighteenth-century France) has there been real enthusiasm. In the nineteenth century, with the bourgeoisie in power, although the enormous profits to be won from the results of science led to universal official recognition, laudations and a somewhat stingy financial support, the suspicion was always present that the development of the scientific outlook might undermine the social foundations. Hence the gigantic battles of the nineteenth century over each advance of science. The leaders of nineteenth-century bourgeois science were still warriors in the midst of a widely hostile social camp. Education was still in general jealously guarded on pre-scientific lines and under clerical control. But what is conspicuous about the present period is that the offensive against science is to-day led, no longer merely by the professional reactionaries and clericalists, but above all by the majority of the more prominent, officially recognised and highly placed leaders of bourgeois science. The main bulk of the officially distinguished, be-knighted and decorated scientists of the bourgeoisie have openly joined the clerical camp. They proclaim with wearisome iteration the reconciliation of science and religion, the overthrow for the thousandth time of the errors of materialism, the limitations of scientific knowledge, and the supremacy of the “higher” aspects of life which cannot be approached along scientific lines. In a spate of lectures, essays, treatises and books, whose popular, vulgarising and often grossly unscientific character betrays their propagandist aim, they endeavour to utilise each new advance of research and discovery, not in order therefrom to reach a more scientific understanding of reality, but in order to throw doubt on the whole basis of science, and on this ground to proclaim the vindication of the particular tribal gods of their locality. These utterances, still further vulgarised, are broadcast amillionfold by all the machinery of capitalist publicity as the “last word of science.” In this way, at the same time as for technical and for strategical purposes science has to be more and more widely employed in practice, a basically reactionary and even anti-scientific outlook is endeavoured to be pumped into all the capitalist-controlled forms of “popular culture.”This transformation in outlook on the part of the responsible leaders of bourgeois science (with the honourable exceptions of a small and courageous minority) was recently illustrated in the treatment of the fiftieth anniversary of Darwin’s death in 1932.This anniversary provided the opportunity for the entire forces of capitalist culture to proclaim, either the complete obsolescence of the theories of the hated Darwin, or alternatively, the complete reconciliation of Darwinism with the religious conceptions which he fought, and the final refutation of the atheism to which he secretly (Darwin’s letter to Marx) adhered. The distinguished scientist and leading authority on Darwinism in England, Sir J. A. Thomson, wrote for general public consumption in the Daily Telegraph (April 19, 1932) under the singular title: “Darwin Fifty Years After: We Now Accept Evolution, Yet Believe in a Creator”:There are some changes in our ideas since the hot-headed days that followed the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.Thus many of us are clear that there is no inconsistency in accepting the evolution idea and yet believing in a Creator who ordained the original Order of Nature in some very simple form. The evolution theory does not try to “explain” things in the deeper sense. Evolutionists . . . leave to philosophy and religion all questions of purpose and meaning. This is a change for the better. The shamefaced “agnosticism” of the nineteenth-century scientists has given place in the twentieth century to proclamation of “a Creator.” This is an excellent example of the “progress backwards” of capitalism in decay. A further example of the transformation was afforded by an inquiry into “The Religion of Scientists” conducted by the Christian Evidence Society and published under this title in1932. A questionnaire was sent to all Fellows of the Royal Society; replies were received from 200. The results on some of the principal questions showed the following proportions:1. Do you credit the existence of a Spiritual Domain? Favourable, 121; Intermediate, 66; Unfavourable, 13.2. Is belief in evolution compatible with belief in a Creator? Favourable, 142; Intermediate, 52; Unfavourable, 6.3. Does Science negative the idea of a personal God as taught by Jesus Christ? Favourable (to Christianity), 103; Intermediate, 71; Unfavourable, 26.Thus, omitting the intermediates, a “Spiritual Domain” (the expression is explained in the book as having been intended to mean the denial of materialism) wins by 9 to 1. “God” (“a Creator”) wins by 23 to 1. Christianity wins by 4 to 1. These are the answers of a representative group of distinguished bourgeois scientists in 1932.We are not here concerned with the philosophical or theoretical significance of this transformation. What is important for present purposes is the social significance and role of thisdevelopment. The general fact of this avowed transformation of outlook of the majority of outstanding official representatives of bourgeois science, the loudly heralded movement against “materialism” and “the limitations of science,” towards “idealism” and religion, is familiar ground. How far this alleged movement of opinion is really true of the best bourgeois scientists, or of the mass of younger working rank-and-file scientists, is less important than the fact that the dominant official influences both in the bourgeois scientific world, and in general bourgeois discussion, actively support, foster, patronise, encourage and in every possible way advertise and press forward this trend. What is not equally clear to all is the direct connection of this ideological trend with the whole process of capitalism in decay. It is at once its reflection, and helps to carry it forward. The revolt against science, which bourgeois society to-day encourages in the ideological sphere, at the same time as utilises science in practice, is not only the expression of a dying and doomed social class; it is an essential part of the campaign of reaction. This is the basis which helps to prepare the ground for all the quackeries and charlatanries of chauvinism, racial theories, anti-semitism, Aryan grandmothers, mystic swastikas, divine missions, strong-man saviours, and all the rest of the nonsense through which alone capitalism to-day can try to maintain its hold a little longer. All this nonsense may appear on a cool view, when some particularly wild ebullition of a Hitler or a Goebbels about blood and the joy of the dagger and the Germanic man and the primeval forest, is produced, as highly irrational and even insane. But in fact it is as completely rational and calculated, for the present purposes of capitalism, as a machine-gun or a Zinoviev Letter election. There is method in the madness. For capitalism can no longer present any rational defence, any progressive role, any ideal whatever to reach the masses of the population. Therefore it can only endeavour to save itself on a wave of obscurantism, holding out fantastic symbols and painted substitutes for ideals in order to cover the reality of the universally hated moneybags. Fascism is the final reduction of this process to a completely worked out technique. In unity with this revolt against science goes the general cultural reaction, the revolt against culture, the revolt against education, the cutting down of education in all capitalist countries, the increasing reactionary discipline and militarisation in the universities and schools, and—the final and complete symbol of the culminating stage revealed by Fascism—the burning of the books.
>idea is created during a time where it wasn’t broadly accepted, nor seen as self-evident and the complete opposite was being pushed
<well ackschually nowadays it’s accepted so that means dialectical materialism is bad somehow
Not to mention that believing that the world is perpetually in motion, everchanging and interconnected still doesn’t fully match the idea of dialectical materialism. It’s like saying a plane and a motorcycle are the same because both have wheels, which apparently makes plane a superfluous term according to your reasoning. And I can’t look past how silly your central argument is and then how verbose the rest of the OP is.
Also, Marx’s works and Marxism are not the same thing, yet you use them interchangably. You also mention both dialectical materialism and historical materialism and continue to refer to both at the same time as if they were interchangable, which displays your ignorance again.
>>2790343you have said why OP is wrong but you have not corrected OP's misinformation for the young impressionable minds browsing the thread
not so much of marxism but of marxists
endless bureaucracy, just another movement completely coopted by neoliberalism. Most marxists are just succdems with some revolutionary language sprinkled on top.
also they're very naive
>>2790357>also they're very naivePeople here keep falling for fake posts on this site its no wonder why they keep coming back
the lack of a coherent (or any) theory of class is really hurting now that the class structure is so confused with the welfare state, bs jobs, unemployables, etc. The huge boost to labor force participation rate produced by women's "liberation" is being undone thx to those categories and its going to lead to qualitatively new class relations in the future potentially inclluding a class of neo-serfs that subsist thanks to the patronage of a chimeric capitalist state. We are not heading toward the emergence of a universal class
>>2790375marx failed to realize that mad max warlordism was a viable future too.
Cant blame him since climate science wasnt well known during his time, but eh
>>2790375any modeof social organization has periods of ebb and flow, of crisis and prosperity. the crisis at beginning of the 20th century was indeed a historic opportunity to move beyond capitalism, but they failed, so capitalism (and its contradictions) has continued to evolve and it will probably be some time until we have stable new class relations,which are a prerequisite for organization, which is a prerequisite for transformative action
>>2790375It took centuries for capitalism to displace feudalism. You are thinking too short term. Lenin will be vindicated in the end.
>>2790343> that means dialectical materialism is bad somehowIt’s not bad, it’s simply intellectually vacuous
> Not to mention that believing that the world is perpetually in motion, everchanging and interconnected still doesn’t fully match the idea of dialectical materialismIt’s an oversimplification but that’s essentially what it is. Marx used a hegelian mode of analysis by taking the political economy in its totality and analyzing its inner workings, rather than analyzing it as ahistorical and immutable organism like the previous classical analysts did. This is the scope of Marx’s usage of « dialectics ». Dialectical materialism would mean in Marx’s work that historical situations are the product of material relations transformed by endogenous change.
Engels then further developed on it by trying to analyze nature as a totality too, and developed his theories in his dialectics of nature and the anti-duhring. What was originally meant as a work of scientific inquiry about how we should analyze nature became sacralized during the 2nd International, where Kautsky transformed it into a much more abstract concept made to analyze everything. This rendered the concept intellectually vacuous as it lost its original novelty. Practically no philosopher or scientist uses it because it’s too broad of an analysis which doesn’t point to anything specific.
> You also mention both dialectical materialism and historical materialism and continue to refer to both at the same time as if they were interchangable, which displays your ignorance again.Yes, because they are used as practically the same thing in most contexts. Nobody uses a theological interpretation of history, and Great Man theory is completely irrelevant in any academic context. Any historical course nowadays is always going to analyze history through the lens of its material relations and intricacies.
>>2790375I think the idea is less so that capitalism inevitably produces socialism and moreso that capitalism can only produce socialism, or ruin
>>2790402We do not have the luxury of centuries of time you retard
>>2790449>>2790402Also, again, hopelessly naive
>>2790435are you baiting?
Marxists are chucklef*cks
>>2790435>It’s an oversimplification but that’s essentially what it is.My point is that it doesn’t even capture the essence, given how you glossed over contradictions as a central idea.
>Yes, because they are used as practically the same thing in most contexts.In what contexts are dialectical materialism and historical materialism practically used as the same? They aren’t. And if people did that that in itself wouldn’t mean it’s right to do so. Dialectical materialism is a metaphysical standpoint that posits that the basis of reality is matter that acts independent of thought and that motion and change is driven by their contradictions. Historical materialism posits that human society is shaped and develops on the basis of human beings acting to fulfill their material desires when interacting with their environment. The two are not the same. And given that Marxist thought is seen as archaic and deprecated in this day and age by the status quo I don’t know where you’ve seen people treat the two as practically the same when most people haven’t even heard of dialectical materialism.
>Kautsky transformed it into a much more abstract concept made to analyze everything. This rendered the concept intellectually vacuous as it lost its original novelty. Which was criticized by other Marxists such as Lukács. That you failed to pay attention to Marxists rejecting such revisionism means you failed to grasp the diversity of Marxist thought and generalized a failing of a section of Marxists onto Marxism as a whole.
>Practically no philosopher or scientist uses it because it’s too broad of an analysis which doesn’t point to anything specific.If you have beef with Kautskyists then take it up with them. By your own explanation this isn’t a way of thought that describes Marx nor all Marxists. Not to mention that your line of reasoning is naïve. You seem to believe that many philosophers or scientists rejecting it is evidence of its faultiness, but that divorces the assessment from its context. We live in a capitalist society whose underlying philosophical and scientific thought is defined by the enlightenment era, Kantianism, positivism and radlib thought like the Frankfurt School and post-modernism. It’s entirely in the hands of the bourgeoisie which thought is mainstream and treated as intellectually legitimate, and that isn’t whatever threatens it.
>Any historical course nowadays is always going to analyze history through the lens of its material relations and intricacies.So much for intellectually vacuous. You speak of something vary broad that in detail could mean many things. “Analyzing history through the lens of its material relations and intricacies” is not guaranteed to match up with the dialectically materialist way of making sense of the world or historical materialism as Marxists think of it, nor both at the same time “for being practically the same”. You’re a pseud and your critique of Marxism simply revealed how little you understood of Marxism.
>>2790449doomers will be turned into fertilizer
>>2790492>The two are not the sameHistorical materialism is literally the idea that history follows a dialectical pattern : immanent contradictions create endogenous change, which itself only reflects the material characteristic of the world.
Also, historical materialism is not simply individuals acting to fulfill their material desires when interacting with their environment. This undermines the very core of it which is that society is fundamentally structured around classes, with relations of production organizing labor.
Both dialectical materialism and historical materialism are dialectical ways of apprehending a given situation, to adequatly represent its totality. They're used almost always together because they're almost derived from one another. Generally, dialectical materialism serves as a framework to explain why society is not a stable organism and is always subject to change because of contradictions. This is further developed by Marx's economic and alienation theories meant to develop said-contradictions.
>That you failed to pay attention to Marxists rejecting such revisionismlol so I criticize dialectical materialism and your first reflex is to say "but other marxists have criticized it too!!!" ?
>You seem to believe that many philosophers or scientists rejecting it is evidence of its faultinessI'm pointing out that it's being treated as an almost dogmatic way of interpreting the world and that it's treated as central in marxist thought when in reality it's not that important and served mostly to dismiss metaphysical critiques in the early 20th century. You're literally seething for what ?
<frankfurt school, post modernismAnon these are literally offshoot of marxism… The frankfurt school's entire epistemology is dialectical. They're one of the rare philosophical groups who have actually expanded on it rather than reiterating it mindlessly. Not that I agree with it though.
>You speak of something vary broad that in detail could mean many thingsCould it be perhaps because that is the case with the object discussed at hand ?
>>2790493I swallowed 10liters of bleach, but that's okay because I'm not a doomer!
> my biggest problem with marxism is dialectical and historical materialism. Marx himself didn't seem to care all that much after his Theses on Feuerbach[citation needed]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/Dialectical Materialism is more Engels and many Marxists take issue with it. Historical Materialism is wound up with his critique of political economy so I really don't see how you can easily separate the two.
>>2790662Like this is straight from the preface:
One nation can and should learn from others. And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement — and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society — it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.
>>2790662Yeah that's kinda true. But there's a lot of overlap with both concepts which makes it a bit dependent on its overarching structure
>>2790742
On the Frankfurt School, for sure its literal point was to just try and 'ascend' ideology and move to some weird 'post-ideology' phase, Its whole output was basically that alll ideology is bad. In practice and praxis it just means all ideology but the ruling hegemony is bad. Its a pro-status quo ideology for the most part.
>>2790645>Anon these are literally offshoot of marxism… The frankfurt school's entire epistemology is dialectical.Claiming the Frankfurt School and post-modernism are just "offshoots" of Marxism is a massive reach that ignores why they are fundamentally antithetical to the materialist core. The Frankfurt School shifted the focus from the material base and the proletariat to cultural superstructure and "critical theory." While they used a form of dialectics, they largely abandoned the "materialism" part of the equation. Calling post-modernism an offshoot is even more illiterate. Post-modernism is defined by the rejection of "grand narratives," and Marxism is the primary target of that rejection. You are conflating a departure from a theory with an expansion of it.
>Historical materialism is literally the idea that history follows a dialectical pattern : immanent contradictions create endogenous change, which itself only reflects the material characteristic of the world.You’re still collapsing distinct categories to make your "intellectually vacuous" point work. Historical materialism is a specific methodology for understanding human history through the development of productive forces and class struggle. Dialectical materialism is a broader metaphysical framework regarding the nature of reality and matter itself. You keep treating them as interchangeable because they are related, which is exactly why your critique lacks any precision. You're stripping the definitions away and then complaining that the terms are too broad.
>lol so I criticize dialectical materialism and your first reflex is to say "but other marxists have criticized it too!!!" ?The point of bringing up Lukács and the internal critiques of Kautsky isn't a "reflex" to dodge your point. It's a direct rebuttal to your claim that these concepts are "dogmatic" or "sacralized." If there has been a century-long tradition of Marxists debating and rejecting the exact "vacuity" you’re complaining about, then your characterization of Marxism as a monolithic, unthinking dogma doesn't hold up. You’re attacking a version of the theory that was largely discarded by serious theorists decades ago and pretending you’ve discovered a fatal flaw.
>Any historical course nowadays is always going to analyze history through the lens of its material relations and intricacies.If the core tenets of Historical Materialism have become so foundational to the study of history that they seem "self-evident" to you, that isn't a failure of the theory—it’s a testament to its accuracy. However, there is still a massive gap between a liberal historian looking at "material intricacies" and a Marxist analysis of the specific contradictions within a mode of production. You’re mistaking a surface-level similarity for a total overlap in methodology. Just because a mainstream historian acknowledges that people need to eat doesn't mean they're applying historical materialism.
0.000% of Communism has been built. Evil child-murdering billionaires still rule the world with a shit-eating grin. All I have managed to do is make myself sad. I am starting to suspect Karl Marx fucked me over personally with his socio-economic theory. It has, however, made me into a very, very smart boy with something like a university degree in Truth. Instead of building Communism, I now build a precise model of this grotesque, duplicitous world.
The emphasis on the proletariat as the revolutionary base when no other bottom and working class has been revolutionary ever outside of Haiti. Ancient Slavery was overthrown by Landlords and not slaves, Feudalism and Orientalism by the Bourgeois and not peasants. The issue is that the petit bourgeois and the managers have even worse ideas for government than the current haute bourgeois who want to liquidate the whole system and exit the planet.
Unique IPs: 23