Quite a few comments on this video claim that Cockshott is misrepresenting Hegel's work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjja-oNyfdI
Why do you still listen to this crank boomer when he is so obviously wrong?
Still waiting on that Dialectics of Nature video "in due time"https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/04/28/please-waste-no-time-on-hegel/Is Hegel a Waste of Time? A Response to Paul Cockshotthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Yi9jNPSq4
Nobody cares tulcel
If you only want the economic parts, and larp about cybernetic communism, sure, no Hegel required. If you want to think better, to truly understand the breakthrough in thought Marx was on about, then you should try to understand Hegel.
If you just want the economics, just read Anwar Shaikh.
Shaikh and Cockshott literally crosscite their works. Cockshott's modelling of hilbert spaces is included in shaikhs work, while they disagree theres no hard and fast line between them
where did the previous thread go ?
proabably fell off the catalog for good reason, this has been debated to death already
hegel was useful in 19th century, since hegel there have been better instances of logic
someone could list examples of "things you don't know about capitalism because you read capital without first reading hegel"
I would call it more important study notions and concepts of economics before you start reading Marxism. I see college students do not even understand economics concepts
Give me a quick run down of Paul Cockshott
Based Cockshott, boo to Hegel.
Philosophy is gay
This is an old debate and essential to "Western Marxism" (to any principled Marxist this just means a more fanciful variety of revisionisms), notice that he refers to the leftcom Pannekoek's almost 120 years old text. To the western marxists it is an essential point so that they can draw a dividing line between themselves and the Bolsheviks and then go on to pursue their idea of marxism and do so in almost nothing but theory and philosophy. Take a look at history, do you see any revolutionary movement emerging from these strains? You do not. Do you think this is by accident? It is not.
This argument essentially relies on simple, superficial language tricks. Once your example fails, they'll go on to proclaim an essential split between Marx and Engels (because Engels makes the revolutionary implications and conclusions of Marxism much more obvious than Marx, who often leaves the room for interpretation revisionists slip into). Then they can also ignore the role of Feuerbach and his critique of philosophy to restore it, or they will use Marx's Paris Manuscripts to claim his project a philosophical one yet in another thousands of ways.
It is as Lenin discovered, with the victory of Marxism over all forms of explicit Utopian socialism the battle has moved into Marxism itself, revisionism was born. There are battles being waged over every concept in Marxism and you will have to study the works of Marx and Engels yourself, internalize them, to be able to recognize the more clever revisionist paths.
Finally, from what I know, Cockshott himself isn't even a Marxist but a neo-Ricardian.
Do you realize cockshott is an ML? You’re whole rant seems to be targeting some western council communist strawman you’ve invented that doesn’t really bare any resemblance apart from cockshott perhaps mentioning pancake once.
>>495785>Finally, from what I know, Cockshott himself isn't even a Marxist but a neo-Ricardian
Nobody gives a fuck what you know. What does that even mean? He identifies as marxist. If you are telling me he is not, then would you be so kind to give some reference?
he just said he was a neo ricardian
who the fuck reads Ricardo anyway lol
Marx read a lot of Ricardo
>>495849>He identifies as
hilarious coming from a cockshottist