/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>790759
I think if you're class conscious and know the basics it's fine, because then it becomes a never ending purity spiral, like 'can you really call yourself a Marxist if you didn't memorise das Kapital in the original German' etc, etc.

>can you critique X if you dont know about X
of course you fucking cant dumbshit

>>790762
youre thinking of communism lol

yiy can be anything yiy wanna be especially if yiy're gay

yes, economics is a bourgeois simplification of political economy, you can be class consciouss and recognize capitalism flaw's without understanding economics

>>790759
this is all you need to know, no fancy math

>>790759
What the fuck does this picture have do with economics?

>>790883
Lust inducing image. Maybe all threads should require one? I know it gets my attention.

No but you don't need to be. Have a marxist friend you can talk to about stuff you're unsure about.

>>790883
what you really should be asking is, what does economics have to do with the picture?

>>790784
"critique of political economy" is in the fucking title you retarded larper

>>791044
couldn't even read wikipedia award
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy

i keep misreading this thread as "can you be a true mexican"

>>791049
>heh marxism is a political economy and not an explicit critique of it because uhhh this wikipedia article
lmfao a genuine utter mongoloid

>>791053
OP stated he is ignorant on economics, but we know the term "economics" is the bourgeois simplification of the term political economy, OP can become a marxist, and thus a critic of political economy even if he is ignorant on economics, as we understand Marxism
is the criticism of both economics and politics.

if you can't understand this it means you have autism.

>>791044
>"critique of political economy" is in the fucking title you retarded larper

Hello, I am not the same anon you are responding to, but you should consider the following:

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/r.htm#critique

<Critique is the practice of exposing the social basis underlying an argument. Marxist critique is generally immanent critique, that is, critique springing from inside.

<Critique differs from simply countering an argument with a different one or proving it to be wrong, in fact, critique implicitly recognises that the argument it opposes is right, but right in the context of a specific form of social practice which may not be declared.

<Immanent critique accepts the terms of a theory and pursues it thoroughly and consistently until it arrives at contradiction with itself, as must any consistent theory which pretends to be complete. This disclosure of the immanent self-contradiction implicit in a system of ideas opens the way to disclosure of its social basis and interest.

<Critique has its origin with Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason can be said to mark the beginning of modern philosophy. For Kant, Criticism was a “third way” between dogmatism and scepticism. See his Impossibility of a Sceptical Satisfaction of Pure Reason in its Internal Conflicts. Instead of simply considering whether a given statement was true or false, Kant subjected to scrutiny the ‘categories’, the concepts themselves, through which the question was posed. Kant proved that Hume, the proponent of scepticism, was in fact dogmatic, since he denied absolutely, but without proof, the possibility of knowing the cause of things.

<Hegel was the first to develop criticism systematically. Hegel’s critique was based on the understanding that every thought was just one stage in the unfolding of the Absolute Idea; he developed the art of uncovering the internal contradictions within an argument which would lead it, by its own logic, to an opposite position. Hegel saw human history as expressing successive stages in the development of the Idea. Every truth is for Hegel, then, a relative truth, since it expresses one stage in the unfolding of history.

<The Young Hegelians called themselves “Critics”, and Marx ridiculed their criticism in The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism.

<One of the Young Hegelians, Ludwig Feuerbach developed a new approach to criticism which he turned against Hegel. Feuerbach took statements of Hegel and interchanged the subject and object, showing that the sentence made more sense this way. For example, whereas Christianity asserted that the family was an image of the Holy Family, Feuerbach asserted that the Holy Family was an imaginary image of the Earthly family. (See Essence of Christianity.) In his early work, such as Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx uses Feuerbach’s method

<But Marx soon discovered the limitations of Feuerbach’s criticism as a one-sided contemplative materialism.

<Thus, Marx restored a valuable element of Hegel’s critique, in Hegel’s conception of ideas and theories expressing interests in “a particular form of society”. Social relations underlie ideology and provide the key to understanding ideology, but at the same time, ideology provide the clearest possible window into social relations.

<Thus, Marx entitled his magnum opus, Capital: Critique of Political Economy, and in Capital Marx’s aim is to understand the nature of bourgeois society by critique of its expression in the theoretical formulations of the political economists.

"Critique" in its full context is not simple criticism in the colloquial sense.

If none of this leaves any impression on you, you should ask: Why did Marx spend 20 years in the British Museum reading every political economist of note from the 300 or so years leading up to him? Was it merely to "critique" political economy in the colloquial sense of the word, i.e. to dismiss it as a bunch of nonsense, or was he doing something more, i.e. providing it with a deep, immanent critique, springing from the inside, which deconstructs it on its own terms, while salvaging what may be useful? Marx goes into much more detail in Theories of Surplus Value which parts of past political economists he actually agrees with.

>>791144
>whole argument is quoting the marxists dot org glossary
this place is a pseud hellhole lol

sorry retard marx is not an economist nor an activist nor a philosopher nor a leftist nor… do you think he was religious too when critiquing religion? fucking troglodyte

marx expressly describes socialism and communism as 'the antithesis to political economy', and yet people still call him an economist. his little quip at proudhons expense didn't help with this tbf ig

>>791146
>sorry retard marx is not an economist nor an activist nor a philosopher nor a leftist nor
not my argument at all
>whole argument is quoting the marxists dot org glossary
the words not proceeded by a
<insert
are my own. i notice you have not quoted anything i have actually said but have made up things i did not say.

>>791146
>marx expressly describes socialism and communism as 'the antithesis to political economy'
I am only able to find this turn of phrase in his posthumously published Grundrisse, a set of notebooks which he did not intend for publication, which were not very polished, and which would have been inaccessible to Lenin, Stalin, etc. Let's take this turn of phrase in context (I hope you do not get angry at me for once again providing a source and quoting from it, since that seems to bother you):

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch17.htm

< Both grasp that the antithesis to political economy – namely socialism and communism – finds its theoretical presupposition in the works of classical political economy itself, especially in Ricardo, who must be regarded as its complete and final expression.

This supports what I was saying earlier, that Marx's critique is immanent critique, i.e. critique springing from within. Marx does not simply throw out all of political economy. He salvages a lot from it, including surplus value. I was not saying that Marx is, to quote your words that you put int my mouth

>an economist nor an activist nor a philosopher nor a leftist

but I grow bored of this apophatic theology, where you can only say what Marx is not, never what he is.

>>791146
ngl reading the exchange you seem like a bigger dumbass and the bigger asshole. that other anon taught me something and posted sauce whereas you kinda just acted like a snarky prick

>Can you be a true Marxist if you're ignorant of economics
No.

>>791044
When a book has the word "Movie Criticism" in its title, that does not imply that the message must be that all movies suck and that people should stop watching movies (it might be, but do you really expect that). The take that Marx produced in Capital a total refutation of everything in economics is incoherent with the fact that he distinguished better and worse thinkers among the economists. Why even bother with that if it's all bullshit anyway.

>>791144
The special difference in meaning between the words "critique" and "criticism" is a common headcanon in the anglophone Marx fandom, but I have to say in German there is only one word: Kritik. And whether a critique goes after details or fundamental assumptions or logical coherence or lack thereof or whether it tries to psychologically analyze what leads people to have certain theories, whether it is devastating or friendly critique or whatever… is not something you can squeeze out of just that one word, no matter how hard you stare at it. That deep and profound meaning claimed by Anglos who don't speak German just isn't there in one German word or in a few German words forming a title.

>>791197
>The special difference in meaning between the words "critique" and "criticism" is a common headcanon in the anglophone Marx fandom, but I have to say in German there is only one word: Kritik.
But isn't the form of critique being used by Marx on political economy the immanent critique which springs from within? So even if there is only one word, there is still his Young Hegelian origins influencing precisely how he criticizes things. I don't think this is just an anglophone headcanon.

>>791197
> The take that Marx produced in Capital a total refutation of everything in economics is incoherent with the fact that he distinguished better and worse thinkers among the economists. Why even bother with that if it's all bullshit anyway.

Exactly. Lenin says:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

<Classical political economy, before Marx, evolved in England, the most developed of the capitalist countries. Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic system, laid the foundations of the labour theory of value. Marx continued their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labour time spent on its production.

I wouldn't know, but I do know that you can't be a Real Communist if you're only in it because of intellectual curiosity. Likewise, you can't be one starting from abstract moral principles.

>>791146
Mods permaban this bordigger forever

>>791213
>Likewise, you can't be one starting from abstract moral principles.
Why did Marx become Communist? His class position was contrary to it. People say he wasn't some moralist but he clearly empathized with the working class, as well as their historical predecessors, the serfs, the slaves.

>>791246
Is that your final answer?

>>791246
Is there a source for the work in which Bakunin said this quote? And why did you post an image which does not answer the question being asked?

>>791250
>why did you post an image which does not answer the question being asked

Because he’s retarded