Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 23:55:55 No. 668578
how about try reading him and see for yourself
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 00:01:58 No. 668591
>>668578 already have. I'm more interested in reading commentary about his current relevance.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 00:05:45 No. 668596
>>668591 they didn't make any predictions per say, they just looked at how capitalist society worked and moved as a totality and broke it down for proles to study and realize their own class unity
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 00:30:54 No. 668663
>>668571 If you read Marx and Engels and understood them, you would not find it hard to describe how their ideas are relevant to the present world. Rude sage.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 05:05:20 No. 669011
>>668571 Their epistemology is AFAIK unbeat.
The basics of how society works is an amazing starting point. You might say its "outdated" but only in the sense that good sociology is based on marxs breakthroughs.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 05:06:41 No. 669018
>had a friend ask me how the work of a 19th-century theorist is still relevant in the 21st century
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 11:53:12 No. 669182
>>668663 >If you read Marx and Engels and understood them, you would not find it hard to describe how their ideas are relevant to the present world. Damn you don't have to call yourself out like that.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 11:56:58 No. 669184
>>669018 No one actually reads Darwin anymore especially not to learn actual biology. He's only covered for historical purposes.
<Nuh uh what about Darwin he's not outdated! Lol what a way to defeat your own argument.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 12:32:13 No. 669194
>>669184 >Anthropologist Opinion discarded
also textbooks especially first year ones are, well I wouldn't say garbage but charitably lies to children because the truth is too complicated for their tiny little brains or just churned out for the captive student $$ One thing that shockeded grandpa here back in the day was how hard it was to find a copy of
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex I had to go to the state library and hassle the librarians in the special access section and read it in a special secure section
I wouldn't be surprised if so few people have studied it up till now that there's multiple entire doctoral thesis waiting to extend on his work and insights
Here's your chance lads and lasses with the intertoobz you can easily access this book that used to be treated like the vatican library treats heretical texts online with a simple search
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 12:38:40 No. 669198
>>669194 >Thinking Darwin understood more about evolution than modern biologists who have 200 years’ worth of fossils to study, can carry out genetic studies, can simulate population development with computing technology, and can even catalogue new species that have evolved in real-time, even due to human activity So this is the raw brain power of tankie dogmatists?
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 12:49:39 No. 669203
>>669184 "Your friend" is you, I assume. I'm not convinced you've read Marx yourself, at least beyond the Manifesto. I can demonstrate the "relevance" of thinkers I largely disagree with as long as I've read enough of them and there's some connection with the material.
Regardless, you're asking questions that aren't essentially connected to one another. Even supposing something like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall were incorrect, that wouldn't mean Marxism is irrelevant, insofar as people continue to read Marx and use his ideas to make sense of their "life-worlds." Relevance would have to be found there prior to any general reconsideration, or else this supposed friend would dispute or ignore any evidence offered.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 13:28:06 No. 669224
<how many of M&Es predictions have been vindicated over time? >that the tendency towards monopolies would continue, and intensify; >that the boom-bust cycle of capitalism would continue, and that the capitalists would never be able to eliminate it (for reasons Marx explained in depth);
>that peasant-type (semi-feudal) agriculture would slowly give way to capitalist agriculture; >that capitalism would more and more become an international system; >that the class struggle would continue and grow; >that the Union would prevail in the U.S. Civil War (because of the much more advanced capitalism of the Northern states);
>that the workers would not be able to hold on to power in the Paris Commune (the the very first working class revolution, in 1871);
>that the working class could only hold onto power, after seizing it, by establishing its own proletarian dictatorship over the defeated bourgeoisie (a lesson Marx summed up after the Paris Commune, and
proven correct by subsequent history); and, late in his life,
>that the first successful proletarian revolution might well take place in Russia. Taken from here:
http://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/MLM_sci.htm Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 13:45:51 No. 669238
>>669203 >"Your friend" is you, I assume. Not OP. Why don't you stick to the topic.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 13:47:42 No. 669240
>>669184 >No one actually reads Darwin anymore especially not to learn actual biology. Literally all modern biology still operates within the framework of his theory of evolution by natural selection though. It would he absurd to say thay his ideas are not relevant today.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 14:00:38 No. 669248
>>669238 >Why don't you stick to the topic. I did. Why don't you try reading past the first paragraph.
Ismail 2022-01-01 (Sat) 14:34:28 No. 669268
IMO asking whether Marx is "still relevant" doesn't make much sense. Take the case of surplus-value. I can't think of any critic of Marx who is like "ah yeah surplus-value totally made sense in Marx's day, but alas, it no longer does because [whatever]." Evidently if one thinks the concept is wrong now, one is going to think Marx was just as wrong about it in the 19th century.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:03:47 No. 669767
>>669727 If people are talking about shit that defies basic physics, why would "read newton" not be a good advice? Obviously newtonian physics is better learned in other mediums, but still.
If you apply the same analogy, people get dismissed with "read marx" because they fail to grasp basic concepts. Marxism and related fields have 150+ years being developed all around the world. Many science programs, especially soft sciences teach sanitized concepts that come directly from marxists. Others teach theories that produce the same results as previously existing marxist research but developed with alternative reasoning.
Say what you will about Marxism but few breakthrough schools of thought have produced as profound an effect on knowledge and real life as Marxism. For that alone, "read marx" is crucially important. Just like everyone gets taught about the breakthroughs of Darwin, even if his ideas aren't entirely compatible with new discoveries.
Not teaching marxism, and not going out of your way to learn it is a serious handicap.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:13:24 No. 669772
>>669767 Going off the analogy, if I said how can something orbit a planet and someone said Read Newton and someone said Read Einstein, I'd say the first is better advice even if the classical model of physics is outdated.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:16:30 No. 669774
>>669772 >Going off the analogy, if I said how can something orbit a planet and someone said Read Newton and someone said Read Einstein, I'd say the first is better advice even if the classical model of physics is outdated. Are you really going to read a book by Newton? I mean literal fucking book written by Newton? Who does that? Nobody.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:16:35 No. 669775
>>669772 (me)
But of course, the best advice is one that doesn't pretend a big massive archaic text written for a different audience a prerequisite for understanding concepts.
Read Marx I think is a good idea for people who are advanced or invested enough, but for random people online they're not going to read Marx just to know why gamer girl bath water has more value than manufacturing food.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:23:54 No. 669783
>>669774 The best source to learn marxism is secondary material but ultimately reading it yourself. The same is not true with Newton. We have much better didactic material than Newton himself.
>>669775 What do you suggest then? If you have a better advice for learning Marxism, I'd like to hear it.
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:26:53 No. 669787
>>669775 >y gamergirl bathwater so expensive? Oh if that's all they want to know going to sleep while leaving this →
https://youtu.be/xCR0eZazFhA ← playing in the background while going to bed should suffice to give them the gist of it
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:29:06 No. 669789
>anyone that isn't "advanced enough" shouldn't read Capital glowingciawojak.png
everyone in this thread needs to get a job and spend the first hard-earned dollars of their lives on this:
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&kn=0140445684 Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 23:29:41 No. 669790
>>669784 This is true of Newton, but there are few comprehensive texts on Marxism (none that I know of) as there are for classical physics. The analogy is imperfect because Marxism is a soft science, and uses non formal reasoning, whereas classical physics is highly abstract and formal.
Marxism also covers enormous ground in many many areas, whereas classical physics is greatly reduced in scope.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 00:22:32 No. 669841
>>669772 >Going off the analogy, if I said how can something orbit a planet and someone said Read Newton and someone said Read Einstein, Funny thing is physicists don't do that. Ask any rudimentary physics question anywhere and see if they don't try to give you a summary answer at least. Only pseud Marxists answer every question with "read Marx" "have you even read Marx?"
Unique IPs: 19