Honestly, why people treat Marx as some kind of religious figure? Every time I interact with a leftist that go nut when you criticize Marx, why? Why the dogmatism around Marx? It's genuinely confusing to me, I read that the vast majority of modern economist doesn't even care for Marx and treat him as a historical figure, they still say people still try to make economics idea out of outdated ideas of Marx. Anyway, my main point is: will the left move on from Marx someday or they will forever trap under marxism? Why leftist are so dogmatic?
>>2826623Because it's larp. There was a brief period of time from the 1930s to the 1960s in the West where your local communist movement genuinely believed in what it was fighting for, but this is now gone as the movement has collapsed with the USSR's demise.
It also doesn't help that apart from the "major" communist parties that have just become reformists, the rest have not constituted a new force and have remained scattered on various dead ideologues (stalin, mao, trotsky etc)
Becauae das kapital and much of marx's writtings still can apply today
>>2826644The movement had belief, the people in charge were like please URSS tell me what I should do I don't actually want responsibility just a comfy job where I can also delude myself into being on the side of "good" and the guy in charge of directing those parties were like "uh I dunno, work with le system XD"
>>2826623Who else should the left dogmatically adhere to?
most leftists are not genuine marxists. they just view the world as good guys vs bad guys
Because nothing will ever fix the fact that they were molested as children and they can’t accept the fact that they’re just broken people and would still be broken even if they got everything they ever wanted, it’d be like the dog catching the car
<Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience […] the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood. When we returned to Germany, in spring 1848, we joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of getting the ear of the working class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it. When Marx founded the International, he drew up the General Rules in such a way that all working-class socialists of that period could join it – Proudhonists, Pierre Lerouxists and even the more advanced section of the English Trades Unions; and it was only through this latitude that the International became what it was, the means of gradually dissolving and absorbing all these minor sects, […] Had we from 1864, to 1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our platform where should we be to-day? I think that all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organisation […]
Friedrich Engels, Letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, January 27, 1887
<It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life.
Lenin, Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism (1910)
< Marxism is anything but rigid and dogmatic, and has always been about adapting to the ever changing objective conditions of each era, using what ever is available toward revolutionary goals.
He Zhao, The Long Game and Its Contradictions, 27th October, 2018
<Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, it is a guide to action and a creative theory. So, Marxism-Leninism can display its indestructible vitality only when it is applied creatively to suit the specific conditions of each country. The same applies to the experience of the fraternal parties. It will prove valuable to us only when we make a study of it, grasp its essence and properly apply it to our realities. Instead, if we just gulp it down and spoil our work, it will not only harm our work but also lead to discrediting the valuable experience of the fraternal parties.
Kim Il Sung, On eliminating dogmatism and formalism and establishing Juche in ideological work, Speech to Party Propagandists and Agitators December 28, 1955
is it dogmatic of me to quote these anti-dogmatic passages?
>>2826623Whether it's Marxism or religion or any ideology the same mechanism is at play. Most people just want being right without actually having to figure out stuff by themselves. So they latch to whatever or whoever say stuff that clicks with them without actually trying to understand or engage or build upon whatever they latched on. Any slight against the figure become a slight against themselves.
>>2826837but i think marx was wrong about some things and right about others but still consider myself a marxist because it is the movement that my views are most compatible with? You have to compromise your sense of individuality and allow yourself to be absorbed into an existing movement to get anything done.
>>2826836All the money in the world can’t unmolest you
>>2826865I'm not molested though.
>>2826835(OP will ignore this)
>>2826623Because he basically is. When I swear to my friends that something is true I say "My hand to Marx". He was completely and totally vindicated, he's basically the closest thing we have to Jesus as Atheists. Respect him, motherfucker.
>>2826865lol i've noticed an uptick in rightoids just accusing you of being raped/molested when they have no real arguments. it's real sicko shit. reveals what depraved little sociopaths they are
HEHEHEHEHE I IMAGINED IN MY HEAD THAT BAD STUFF HAPPENED TO YOU, THAT MAKES YOU INCORRECT HEHEHEHEHEHEH
>>2827109rare penisblast W
>>2827111>rare fuck you faggot
>>2827114i don't give a fuck about his shitty theory about cybersocialism because it's already been superceded, so if he says something of value, then that's good
because people are intellectually lazy and they like to take shortcuts. it's not hard for most people to notice that our society is fucked up and unfair, but understanding exactly why it is that way requires a lot of research and a lot of thought, studying science and philosophy and world history and economics and language and psychology, examining and analyzing and identifying patterns, being open to all kinds of new ideas and information that might be confusing or strange or scary to you, overcoming your own ego that tells you that you already know everything you need to know, etc. a lot of people don't want to do that stuff, they want to believe that there is one book that has all the answers and all they have to do is read that one book and then they will know everything.
>>2827089>lol i've noticed an uptick in rightoids just accusing you of being raped/molested when they have no real arguments. it's real sicko shit. reveals what depraved little sociopaths they are also they're literal schizo idealists. they make up a thing in their head and that becomes reality.
>>2827109>>2827114big words from some retarded academic who doesnt even understand value lmao
>>2827124for the audience, what doesn't he understand about value?
>>2827126are you serious? cuckshitt actually thinks value can just magically exist without exchange and realization, lol
>>2827128> cuckshitt actually thinks value can just magically exist without exchange and realizationcite him saying this pls
>>2827129im not gonna try to find shit from years ago from some random academic jfc
the gist of it is that cuckshit basically thinks that value existed throughout history and doesnt understand its a specific result of a social environment, falling into the same trap that people like ricardo and smith do in presenting functions of the value form in past historical epochs
>>2827130>im not gonna try to find shit from years ago from some random academic jfcok so just to be clear you don't have a source
>>2827129>>2827130wait nvm it wasnt that hard to find one of the many times he did this shit LOL
bc hes a midwit academiabrain he turns value into some transhistorical thing and calls it epic bacon "science" (no positive knowledge is to be gained from this)
If more leftoids openly rejected Marx, that would be a good thing for the communist movement.
>why people treat Marx as some kind of religious figure?
Because I am one and you have to take everything I say literally!
>>2827133I don't really see what you claimed he said in any of those 3 images. Not even reading charitably between the lines in your favor produces the interpretation you provided above.
the irony is, the way people talk about marx as if he were some kind of prophet or leader was probably the last thing he ever would have wanted. but he probably wouldn't be surprised either. it's easy to talk about collectivism but it's hard to actually think in collectivist terms when you are programmed your whole life to think in terms of Great Man theory, when all your history books and economics books and even the very language you speak and think in are all heavily based on that framework.
>>2827152he wasn't a prophet, but he was a leading founder of the 1st international workingmens' association, and I don't think a secular leader is the same thing as a religious prophet. see above:
>>2826835 >>2827135elaborate your reasoning
>>2826871>>2826871That's so funny since that last bit is exactly the reason western europe (Germany, England?) remained capitalist in the 20th century.
Communism has no bigger enemy than Leftists.
>>2827152>>2827152I think the thing about Marx is that he described very clearly and concretely the nature, trajectory and rationale and dimension of some really foundational economic and social phenomena.
So it kinda makes him the Newton of the Humanities,
and if you find like real geeky like committed math bros and engineers who are also a little into history it's also very natural for them to worship him a little bit, because he made life just that much easier for people who need to figure out and then communicate and then apply these things in real contexts with real people.
Marx kind of made that possible but with political economy (not voodoo economy of astrologysing the will of the free market), but also like real world organising, a much less idealistic understanding of history and institutions and the social space, and radical politics of many different kinds, and labor organization and many other things i'm probably forgetting.
It's why rightoid talk about "cultural marxism", it's because it's understood that it's a profoundly different foundation for thinking about these fundamental bits that define what's important and how best to get there.
So it has a lot in common with religion because it has a very broad and coherent all encompassing mapping of the world.
Was Marx a bit of a tryhard in that regard? Should he have kept his cool and just shut up occasionally? From a human perspective probably yes, I mean imagine having people having very strong convictions about your person and your thoughts and your work on every continent on the globe? Yikes!
But the world would be much worse off for it and we would get along less and be bickering over much pettier shit if it weren't for Carlos Marcos.
Unique IPs: 18