/meta/ - Ruthless criticism of all that exists (in leftypol.org)

This. Marx would have fucking hated these people.
When you see them, just post cites like Book of Gotha 132:5

because their politics is really their theology. they're not "doing analysis" in the way you might impartially investigate the causes of a train crash, they're engaged in pseudo-religion - demonstrating their own knowledge of the scriptures while reinforcing the status of the scriptures and the prophet as the primary legitimate source of knowledge for the in-group.
if they've got their own specific interpretation (such as a microparty's party-line), so much the better - a good way to demonstrate whether one has memorized Marx (suspicious - independent thought alarm goes off), or memorized the party line (trustworthy - good reliable signal of being pliable to party instructions)

much if not all contemporary politics shares traits with religion, it's just particularly apparent with marxist theologians because most other politico-religions realized if you've got short, snappy ideas, you can dispense with the giga-tomes few-if-any read and reach a wider audience. (and, tbf, some other forms of marxism do this. really, there should be a full anthropology of theological-marxists, from those analogous to cargo cultists to weird evangelicals to fire-and-brimstone presbyterians and american-protestant-lawyers…)

>>23812
didn't read

So true

>>23812
Yes, but is this bad tho? Religion can be a great motivator for people.

Also mods please move this to /leftypol/.

>>23808
because Marx would know Marxism best.
Simple As.

Also all ChristComs should take the Althusserian Kautskyite pill

>>23815
It's bad in that there's a gigantic gap between stated and actual aims, and the actual aims are unproductive. Some people join for the stated aims (end the evils of capitalism!), then get sucked in to the organization's actual aims. (help perpetuate our religious faith!)
Some people walk around like saying your 3 hail Marxes before going to bed will, by means of ???, somehow bring them to the Elysian Fields of socialism, rather than being no more useful than repeatedly pulling a lever connected to nothing. They may rationally know that a revolution has to be actively and arduously built with lots of boring work that nobody really wants to do, and naturally they won't do anything like this - unconsciously they're not motivated to build a socialist revolution, they're motivated by membership of the cult of St. Marx. It's about loyalty to the cult's idea of the man, not about following in the spirit of what he was actually trying to do. I like to glibly summarize it as an orthodox religion (as it's focused on correct belief and doctorine) rather than an orthopraxic one (which would be focused on correct action)

If you want to be honest but downcast about it, you can have an ineffective orthopraxy too. A good example is trots and newspaper selling: Going around selling papers is a little ritual like eating the wafer and drinking the wine which is all well and good for bringing you closer to god if you ask a theologian, but a moment's analysis makes clear why it will do nothing to bring you closer to revolution if you ask a materialist. Nevertheless, if you were to frame a future successful left-wing organization (or indeed any political organization!) in religious terms, it would have to be a consequentialist orthopraxy.

>>23808
>posting the exact quote with the logical reasoning of marx in a debate/discussion is the same as quoting muh religious book
>its cultish to trust the reasoning of the founder of your political philosophy rather than some random moron on an imageboard, and looking up what he thought on a matter and his arguments for it is akin to religion
nice strawman fucktard

>>23818
it's amazing the insane things people will say when you put completely different words in their mouths.

>>23816
Marx changed his opinion on a bunch of stuff. So merely quoting him is not doing justice to the development of thought nor the reasoning that led Marx to the conclusion being quoted. Conclusions without the context are useless.

>>23808
i don't think i've even seen this happen
so counterpoint: why do people cite their own feelings like the bible?

Anyways easy solution: argue against the material they cite.

Btw I get the beef with the idea of revisionism, but generally when the word is applied it doesn't mean that someone just disagrees with the holy scripture, it means they've changed course with no reason (which is a very common thing - people get scared/confused/demoralized, and they fall back onto disproved ideas). It's a call for more thorough analysis and critique, it's not a thought stopping mechanism. When people use it as a thought stopping word to protect themselves from criticism just tell them to shove it. It's really not a complex problem. To break it down to its base elements:

Problem: some people are stupid
Solution: tell them to fuck off if they keep pestering without engaging in any real discussion - or just drop your knowledge/critique and fuck off yourself if you're the one pestering and this person wants to be set in their ways

>>23815
i think this thread is fine here

>>23812
I want to agree with you, but some things you say look underdeveloped.
>they're engaged in pseudo-religion
This is forgivable, as knowledge and practice go hand in hand. When we don't know what to do, having some solid knowledge is existentially stabilizing for us. This is a wrong way to approach science, but we're human so it's hardly unforgivable.
>… the primary legitimate source of knowledge for the in-group.
It's not wrong to have an in-group though (or just to put it without the stigma - a group). If a group wants to coalesce around the ideas of a 19th century newspaper article writer, there's nothing wrong with that. It makes sense then that adherence to the purpose of the group determines whether someone is seen as part of the group, and worth talking to while people want to discuss their hobby topic.
Again it's like, for science this is bad. But for humans, it's forgivable. And the two aren't separable. The best course of action if you want a more truth-seeking atmosphere is to push the Marx cult to go all the way, so people try to follow in the footsteps of their prophet and actually engage in analysis for themselves.

Plus it's very hard to have a discourse that doesn't rely on trust at some point. Like I will not go back and read every major scientific and philosophical canon which has brought us to the modern state of scientific understanding. Why? Am I anti-science? No, I'm only human, and even worse only proletarian, I have limited time. At some point we just trust the consensus feed us more or less correct shit. My point in all of this is that people who quote Marx religiously are not that different from someone quoting Darwin religiously. Is it bad for ultimate knowledge? Yes. But even looking at individual scientists you see they are not themselves trustworthy sources on all types of knowledge (sometimes even their own field, when there is a large split in theories). You should stop looking to individuals for complete scientific integrity, and instead look to our collective human practice for that. As individuals we're pretty bad about verifying and knowing everything, being able to re-formulate every argument we agree with inside and out. It would make us less stupid for sure, but it's also okay for people to not know everything yet.

>>23812
false dichotomy. you can do analysis and also quote someone at the same time. For example the other day I pointed to how systemic homelessness in the USA is a form of social murder and then quoted Engels