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even care for Marx and treat him as a historical figure, they still say people still try to make economics idea out of outdated ideas of Marx.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.
bump
>>2826623>vast majority of modern economist doesn't even care for Marxbecause bourgeois economics is religion and economists are its priests
>>2827483also it's a straight up lie they don't care about Marx. bourgeois economics before Marx had a labor theory of value. Ben Franklin, Adam Smith, and David Ricardo all had labor theories of value. Labor theory of value goes back to Ibn Khaldun, and commensurability itself goes back to Aristotle. Only when Marx took this foundation to the conclusion of class struggle, changing modes of production, and social revolution, did bourgeois economists immediately become concerned with cleansing the very field of economics with all traces of the political. The idea labor being embodied in commodities was abandoned in favor of models which reframed everything in terms of scarcity, supply, demand, and the liberty to own property. The idea that labor power is a commodity whose sale is coerced by the threat of starvation was ignored. Bourgeois economics became a religion in response to Marx. It's not that they merely "don't care" for him. They're so afraid of him they made their own field of study less scientific and more pretentious to cover up the obvious.
>>2826623Mind clarifying the following?
- aspects of Marx's work you disagree with
- aspects of Marx's work you agree with
- what needs correction in the disagreement
- what you would add to the agreement
…because otherwise this just strikes me as a vaguepost.
>>2826623"Marxism" is a LARP. Karl Marx was one of many anti-systemic thinkers and people on the side of labor. Starting with Lukacs in HCC, for some, Marx is not an object of worship but a possible ally in analysis.
>>2827528I am perfectly capable of speaking with my own words as well as the words of "non-approved" "authorities". If for example an idiot like you were to say something plainly true, I would not disagree.
>>2827528also notice the little game you're playing
>MARXISM IS A HECKIN DOGMA<here's a bunch of quotes showing that they did not intend their method to be a dogma>BY QUOTING THEM IT PROVES YOU'RE A DOGMATIST!!! I WIN TEE HEE!!!there's no way to prove your unfalsifiable orthodoxy wrong because any citation will be treated by you as dogmatism. you are a malicious little imp playing word games
>>2827514(will OP answer these questions in good faith? if this was intended as a troll thread, probably not)
>>2827535OK sephiroth drop and give me 20 concrete analyses of concrete conditions
>>2827539you want me to say 20 random things that are true and rooted in observation? What would that prove? I can do it but if I put in the effort you'll spit on that effort or call me an LLM or something so I'd rather not just generate a list for you.
instead of attacking "Marxists" for being "Dogmatists" why does OP not simply say where Marx is wrong, where Marx is right, what deserves correction, and what does not?
>>2827545you're such a goon, go back to noah krachvikkk
>>2827133>>2827146bro really thought he could pass off 3 random screenshots from unsourced text that doesn't even say the same shit he was saying as somehow proving his claim
>>2826623they dont its just you being a jackass because you havent done the reading
>>2827557ummm by asking him to do the reading you're LITERALLY a christian who believes sola scriptura. why? because i'm retarded. that's why.
>>2827558wow arent you dogmatically adhering to evidence for a given material conditions? isnt making decisions based on the situation you are presented with kinda like religion/
>>2827557Last time I read 99% of economist don't use Marx theory in their work, as one economist I read said: "we took what Marx was right and add to mainstream economics and cast side what was wrong" Yet many marxist can't accept that many part of Marx are wrong or try to update Marx and move on to a new socialist paradigm, it's quiet insane.
>>282756699% of economists are paid to lie
>>2827483It's like saying that physics is bullshit because it doens't agree with your particular theory that you want to be real, just playing dogmastism in the end. I don't understand how marxist can throw aside all modern economic theory just because it doesnt support marxism, literally acting like some religion fanatic, quiet sad to see.
>>2827568The rational answer would be trying to make socialism out of the modern economic theory, many modern economist dont support free market or believe that the market is totally effiencet and rational, only in places like LeftyPol you see people spweeing bullshit about modern economist because it hurt they particular view of the world.
>>2827566>as one economist I readwho?
>"we took what Marx was right and add to mainstream economics does he clarify what that is?
>and cast side what was wrong"does he clarify what that is?
> Yet many marxistwhich ones
>can't accept that many part of Marx are wrong which parts
>or try to update Marx and move on to a new socialist paradigm, it's quiet insane.this has been done dozens of times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists >>2827573>because it hurt they particular view of the worldno its because its incorrect.
and i can tell you havent done the reading. marxism isnt an economic theory about markets its a political one about revolution. youre entire conception of it is wrong thats why you dont get it
>>2827573>The rational answer would be trying to make socialism out of the modern economic theorythere are many competing modern economic theories, you have yet to specify anything. what was marx wrong about, what was he right about, which modern economists we should listen to, etc. you just make vague complaints about the dogmatism of unspecified marxists being cringe because you have nothing to say about marx.
>many modern economist dont support free market or believe that the market is totally effiencet and rationalok. and? many bourgeois economists before marx didn't think so either. what's your point? everyone who is against "the free market" should be listened to? there are tons of bourgeois nationalists who are in favor of protectionism, limitations on free trade, and so on. marx and engels also criticized those theories as well. they weren't merely against free trade and in favor of protectionism. they were against the bourgeoisie and in favor of class struggle.
>only in places like LeftyPol you see peoplewhich ones
> spweeing bullshit such as?
>about modern economist which ones
>because it hurt does it?
>they particular view which view
>>2827579>marxism isnt an economic theory about markets its a political one about revolution.he's probably confusing political marxism with "marxian" economics which is a purely academic economic practice that claims descent from marx's work
the funny thing about these people who keep saying marxism is a religion is they don't realize how often it is the case that a person comes to their own independent conclusions about our society, how it is structured, how it oppresses the poor, etc. and only after making these observations on their own do they have the "marxist dogmatist" pejorative hurled at them, sometimes even before knowing who marx is. it is then that they begin to show curiosity in marx. rather than being born and raised marxist, many simply discover the issues with class society independently through their own experiences, and become accused of "marxism" for airing their grievances.
>>2827585Main point of it all is that Marx still a useful framework to understand capitalistic society, the problem, however, it that many so claimed Marxist treat the whole of Marx thought and ideas as quasi religion, just see the replies in this thread to see this behavior, the point is: be mentally flexibely and open minded to admit that Marx could be wrong in some point or update the worldview and see if other theorys and ideas are useful to building socialism, not lock yourself up and just keep reading Marx and follow Marx to the letter about everything, that type of acting is no different from a fanatical religious rightoid, the same mental behavior.
the religious element of 'marxism' is just the revolutionary aristocracy arresting, beating, raping, and killing adherents. These adherents directly affected, those in relation to them, or those outside of the situation may or may not uphold this action as a legitimate expression of marxism. This is the religiousity of marxism - faith in the revolutionary aristocracy.
>>2827528Now I'm wondering if academia got that practice from Marxism or if Marxists got that practice from academia.
Either way it's fucking gay, the thinking of others should be seamlessly embedded in your own work, you shouldnt' have to go out of your way to prove yourself to be in the graces of the smart people in the hopes of being taken seriously.
Now that I think of it it obviously comes from Theology, academia borrowed it, duh.
>>2827610Who you gonna prove stuff to if not smart people that actually use their time and effort to think about stuff? Are gonna discuss politics with cats?
>>2827612I'm saying like you can just be normal and speak on your own behalf and work to make yourself understood.
Having to always be building on top of some imaginary edifice of greatness that only makes sense to your peers makes thought sterile and tiresome.
>>2827569>marxist can throw aside all modern economicModern bourgeois theories. Econophysics successfully models capitalists economies using methods from statistical thermodynamics, information theory, access to detailed I/O tables etc. You just want to believe in a free market.
>>2827569>I don't understand how marxist can throw aside all modern economic theory just because it doesnt support marxism, literally acting like some religion fanaticThis makes it sound like Marxists can exclusively cite from dusty 19th century tomes like bible thumpers. Nobody would ever treat, for example, Keynes and Keynesian economics this way, calling them dogmatists regurgitating outdated early 20th century theories.
>>2827585>before knowing who marx is. it is then that they begin to show curiosity in marxpretty much. its like i figured out all this stuff from experience and then marx put all the things i discovered into a nicely organized outline.
>>2827628it is kinda true to an extent. there are people who have done work but its really uncommon and not mainstream. the vast majority of the field have been hiding from marx because they know he is correct and because of the implications
>>2827514NOTICING THAT THIS STILL HAS NOT BEEN REPLIED TO
>>2827574>>2827580NOTICING that these questions were not answered either. OP and OP-like anons seem content to ignore every question
>>2827539>write a bunch of stuff for me that i won't read, will dismiss as dogmatist, and strawman relentlesslyno.
>>2827653actually I'm just responding candidly to a real complaint that real people have in the real world.
I don't care very much if it "contributes to the thread"
or "proves a point"
I'm just having fun with my friends on leftypol and I will not be heeding to complaints of what reasoning I should or should not engage in and what behavior I should or not enforce. Because this isn't your little politburo and you're not my chairman.
I wish we would all just get along.
>>2827741>>2827653Yeah I also got a little sloppy since my post
>>2827610was actually both a reply to
>>2826835>is it dogmatic of me to quote these anti-dogmatic passages"good" effortpost.
as well as the bad evil troll responding to it (How Dare He?)
>>2827528 >>2826623>leftist that go nut when you criticize MarxProbably your criticisms are ignorant and you didn't read or understand Marx.
>>2826623Marx was fairly brilliant philosopher. He was immortalized by Lenin and the legacy of the soviet union/xx century for better or worse. You could stand to read him sometime.
>>2827139The Great Karl hath spoken.
Because people believe in what they want to believe, and work their rationale to justify it, not the other way around. Mythical figures are easy enough to rally around that it's very effective as a post-fact explanation.
Unique IPs: 31