I've yet to see someone refute the following core axioms of marxism : 1). The material dialectic2). Alienation 3). Historical materialismIt's easy to refer to the LTV, the TRPF or even the historical iterations that were """marxists""", but I've yet to see one actually show how these seriously refute Marx without adressing the core of his philosophy.
>>18220241Marx’s core axioms only look unrefuted because they begin with a hidden assumption, that humans are isolated economic units rather than members of estates, lineages, castes, clans, and sacred orders. His “material dialectic” depends entirely on a world where organic social structures have already been destroyed, it can only operate in societies that have been stripped down to employers and employees, producers and consumers. In any civilization where inherited roles, spiritual legitimacy, communal obligations, and estate continuity are still intact, the dialectic doesn’t function at all, there is no constant class flux driven by economic contradiction because the logic of the society is not primarily economic. Marx projects the pathology of the industrial 19th century onto all of human history and mistakes it for a universal law.The same error underlies his ideas of alienation and historical materialism. Alienation is real, but Marx misidentifies its cause, it arises not from private property but from the destruction of inherited estates, kin networks, spiritual duties, and rooted communal life, exactly the social world Marx wants to abolish. And historical materialism only works if you deliberately ignore religion, sacred kingship, ritual authority, family structure, and the metaphysical foundations upon which civilizations actually rise and fall. Marxism is not a universal theory of history, it is a description of a deracinated industrial society that already lost the very structures that give human life coherence.
>>18220241easy to refute. I'll not waste me time. do your homework
How do communist assign value Marx?
>>18220252>His “material dialectic” depends entirely on a world where organic social structures have already been destroyed, it can only operate in societies that have been stripped down to employers and employeesWhy would he start from feudalism anon ? Marx recognizes that these structures have been destroyed because of capitalism>it arises not from private property but from the destruction of inherited estates, kin networks, spiritual duties, and rooted communal life, exactly the social world Marx wants to abolishOn the contrary, Marx precisely says in his manuscripts of 1844 that alienation destroys bonds and social life>And historical materialism only works if you deliberately ignore religion, sacred kingship, ritual authority, family structure, and the metaphysical foundations upon which civilizations actually rise and fallHe would argue that these only reflect a need for legitimacy>>18220257>"It's easy to refer to the LTV, the TRPF or even the historical iterations that were """marxists""", but I've yet to see one actually show how these seriously refute Marx without adressing the core of his philosophy."
>>18220241History does not progress in stages towards a refined state of anything,
>>18220241>3). Historical materialismhow does marxism respond to the fact that great man theory explains so much of history?i feel like theres small amounts of validity for both great man theory and historical materialism but im not a marxist
>>18220334HisMat isn't really a rejection of Great Man Theory, or at least Marx and Engles never utilized it in that manner.
>>18220444i thought under historical materialism, that only materialism is a driving force of history and nothing else? or are you saying theyre re-interpreting the great man theory by claiming the reason these men changed history so much is due to material conditions /
>>18220241>axiomsglowie1. Engels wrote the Dialectics of Nature2. fact of life3. historical materialism is just a materialist Hegelianism. many philosophers have already addressed the limitations of Hegel
>>18220241Internet discourse is rather low level so you won't get many substantive discussions on any topic. Much less one that requires a certain amount of previous reading.If you want lengthy refutations of Marxism you can go read Ludwig Von Mises. The good goys at the Mises Institute have uncapitalistically put freely availiable copies of his work up in their website.I think a lot of his theories were hampered by a lack of information, anyway. 19th century thinker, after all. Historical materialism reeks of it.
>>18220481>(((goys)))i need to talk with your manager
>>18220495I will make as many jokes about Jewish economists being Jewish as I wish.
>>18220257how do capitalists? inb4 supply and demand meme,go ahead and supply-and-demand-calculate me the exact price of RAM chips next month
>>18220571Why?
>>18220473>3. historical materialism is just a materialist Hegelianism. many philosophers have already addressed the limitations of HegelIt's arguable it isn't much different from an idealism that is just called "materialism". Mostly because Marx still tries to maintain a lot of Hegel's tools for asserting there is necessary movement of concepts shaping the world. Whereas Hegel takes these concepts in his philosophy, which he says are coming from rational subjects that can follow their logic and negate themselves in the process of apprehending their movement, Marx suggests he isn't looking at the necessary movement of concepts but rather "the world". The basic difference between the two viewpoints is that the Hegelian thinks that it is the rational unfolding of the ideas produced by human subjects that makes the world, whereas Marx thinks the world makes human subjects, which is to say the world shapes the beliefs and identities of human subjects. But since Marx tries to maintain a lot of Hegel's tools, it often isn't very clear that Marx made a big break with him at all. It isn't clear to me, anyways, that Marxists don't function very much like idealists. They tend to spend a lot of time explaining the unfolding logic of various conceptual categories they're very attached to, and insisting that this logic will constrain the freedom of humans to progress in history unless they negate themselves according to it. It seems like a real rationalist materialism would actually be a kind of claim to seeing the code in the matrix, and knowing how the contingent movements of the world is going to change subjects before it does it. But since the world doesn't predictable follow a movement, Marxists have been relegated for over a hundred years to arguing why people should behave according to the rational movement of the concepts Marx analyzed, or else perish in some kind of historical ruin. That just sounds like an idealism.
>>18220621Incidentally, I think the kind of materialism a lot of Marxists THINK the ascribe to would be more like a positivist materialism, the idea that their categories are verified "scientifically". But I think a true positivist materialism would be entirely agnostic about the future. It would probably just observe history as it has happened and try to make a story about the contingencies that made up the world which resulted in the present. But they wouldn't have anything to say about the future, because the movement of the world is unknowable until it has happened.
>>18220334Marx already replied to that. In fact, iirc he precisely wrote about Napoleon and the revolution>>18220473Are you implying that Engel's dialectic rebutes Marx's ?>fact of lifetopkek>>18220481Interesting, can you develop on what they actually said ? I've only heard from them their ECP which only proves the impossibility of getting out of markets, which aren't actually something that necesarrilly has to disappear according to most marxists nowadays (as long as you have "democratic labor" alongside macroeconomic planning)
>>18220621The difference lies in how both saw the movement. Hegel's dialectic is idealist because it relies on the presumption that "conceptual" (like legally) enables the Spirit to accomplish itself.Marx takes that and flips it by affirming that the rational realization of freedom must also take a material form, otherwise it simply isn't there.The two aren't as distinct as people tend to believe. Hegel himself admitted that capitalism and liberalism could technically create unwarranted domination, but he thought that state intervention alongside corporations could grant people enough to escape these forms of dominations.
>>18220620so that i know exactly how much they'll cost
marxists are obviously not physicalists otherwise they would agree that race realism and biological essentialism is true, but instead they go so far into the other extreme that they start arguing genes are not real, see lysenkoism
>>18220628Well he wrote an entire book about history in which he attempts to tackle Historical Materialism. (Among many other things). I'm more interested in history than economics so that's where I gravitated.Right off the bat he attacks the Material dialectic as a contradictory concept. This passage illustrates it best.>Hegel was consistent in assuming that the logical process is faithfully reflected in the processes going on in what is commonly called reality. He did not contradict himself in applying the logical apriori to the interpretation of the universe. But it is different with a doctrine that indulges in a naive realism, materialism, and empiricism. Such a doctrine ought to have no use for a scheme of interpretation that is derived not from experience but from apriori reasoning. Later he adds>For in fact dialectics plays a merely ornamental part in the constructions of Marx and Engels without substantially influencing the course of reasoning.I'll continue.>>18220666That's not what Lysenkoism postulated, though. And they definitely did not deny genes. Learn what you are trying to comment on before you speak on it.
>>18220621"their subsistence is only their being in a one"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe9I0QhV08w [Embed]in good faith, "real rationalist materialism" is confusing bacon with bohme and paracelsus, or the english and germanic realisms.>>18220627but marx-ists are not positivists, they are impatient with their prophesies like the original zealots.>>18220628my statement implies nothing other than engels does not speak for marx on dialectics>topkekalienation is even disparaged in the german ideology
>>18220871>lysenkoism, the belief that genes are so racist that they led to nazism
>>182209011) Nothing said in that speech was strictly wrong, if you peel back the ideology.2) You clearly did not understand the speech excerpt if your takeaway was that genes were racist and they caused Nazism. Try to improve your reading comprehension.3) Wikipedia is a poor source; it is shallow and tendentious. At least try reading blogs/substacks about the topic to supplement it.
>>18220972That excerpt of the speech, I mean. I haven't read the thing.
>>18220241>nooooo the dialectic is true! D:>it's just like thesis-antithesis-synthesis! D:Dialectic is unfalsifiable pseud. Just post-hoc storyfitting, not science. Historical materialism can't predict shit and ignores human nature/ideas as drivers. Alienation is a cope for lazy bugmen who hate work, always has been. Your axioms aren't proven, they are a secular religion.
>>18220983>Historical materialism can't predict shitIt can, insofar as it predicts that conflicts will arise due to objective economic or geopolitical reasons, not because of ideology or religion. Be it trade routes, resources, to save a failing economy, to destroy a competitor - that's what one should look for. Take a look. Historic materialism would predict conflicts from the major competitor of China along its vital trade routes, that is, 1) Libiya/Egypt/Yemen2) Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan 3) Pakistan 4) Malaysia/Sri LankaSo far in 21st century, 3/4 has already seen conflicts, 1) and 2) by USA, 3) by India/USA. 75% accuracy
>>18220636I'm not sure I agree, but I haven't read Hegel in a long time and he is definitely a complicated guy. I agree that concepts enable spirit to accomplish itself for Hegel, but I don't think Hegel deprecates the "material" manifestation of the idea. He just thinks what is important is the directionality from spirit, to the human subject that is apprehending or taking part in spirit through reason. And that history can be understood by philosophizing about this process and observing the ways people have taken part in spirit's self-realization. Whereas Marx thinks that a history of people's ideas can only be understood by looking at the "material conditions", or "the world" so-to-speak, that shaped those ideas. And so Marx thinks world history isn't moved by the self-realization of spirit through ideas. >>18220899>but marx-ists are not positivistsSure, but I think a very large number at least have a self-concept as positivists. They think that their professed belief in "materialism" is like saying "I don't believe in spooky bullshit, only what I observe in reality". But at the same time, they place a lot of importance on convincing people that the arguments in Capital are correct and that people need to start behaving like proletarians to fulfill their role in history. Which to double back, just sounds indistinguishable from an idealism.
>>18220241
>>18220241What does he even want at this point, post modern culture is inherently marxist, whilst the socio-economic system is ran off the ideas of his jewish friends from a different school of thought.
>>18220972marxist retard your ideas are pseudoscience, keep moving the goalpost
>>18220241>picrel is inscribed on his headstone, where he and his ideology are buried for all IRL intents and purposes
>>18221212You are useful only as a warm body for superior human specimens to expend actualizing the 4th reich.
>>18221249>Marxism>BuriedIt basically won. Large amounts of it have been incorporated into succeeding theories. There are several communist states around, including China.
>>18221251>nazi/marxistboth garbage, i only follow the way of non-ideological dictators that only care about power and nothing else, because i support genocide.
>>18221259Dengism is not communism, you can tell because it actually works.
>>18220645Based on current trends you might arrive at a rough estimate.But the CEO of a RAM chip manufacturer might make a racist tweet tomorrow and have his stock market value plummet.You can't predict the future.
>>18220871Meh. I'm not really convinced by Mises' claim. The idea behind contradictions within Hegel's work is that the essence of a thing normally includes what it ought to do or behave like. This is why animals or natural elements don't have contradictions. For Hegel, human individual "freedom" precisely enabled contradictions to form because it allowed for things like desire or an idealized self etc to exist, thus creating a fundamental division between the objective and the subjective. Marx is just a reinterpretation, but this time thinking that rights alone can't suffice in the matter of granting effective "freedom">For in fact dialectics plays a merely ornamental partThat I actually agree with. I personally claim to be more of a materialist hegelian than a marxist because marx is more of a social critique than he is a philosopher. His usage of the dialectic is more implicit throughout his works.>>18221021>Whereas Marx thinks that a history of people's ideas can only be understood by looking at the "material conditions", or "the world" so-to-speakNot quite. Engels wrote about that but he didn't think that the superstructure was only to be influenced by the infrastructure, he admitted that the superstructure could also be influenced by the latter but that it was more common for the base to influence it iirc.>>18220983>Dialectic is unfalsifiable pseudThis is like saying that the division between the objective reality and the subjective consciousness is "pseud">Historical materialism can't predict shitMeh. I can't say for sure but I think that what Marx was doing was more of speculation rather than pure determinism. The whole "scientific" aspect is more a product of 19th century pseudery>ignores human nature/ideas as driversNo it doesn't.>Alienation is a cope for lazy bugmen who hate workAre slaves also lazy bugmen if they complain about being unfree ?>>18221311It is tho. Communism isn't merely the abolition of private property.
>>18221413Tbh I just cherrypicked two paragraphs. For the full theory you can go to Theory and History on the mises institute and read the book yourself. Chapter starts at around page 102 - 155,
>>18221413>Communism isn't merely the abolition of private property.Yes, lmao, it's that AND more. And capitalism isn't when rich fat people in tophats own private property. Dengism is a repackaged stamokap using the communist rhetoric and aesthetics to prop up local bourgeoisie VS their competition. Many such cases.
1) Of course your life is influenced by that which you have. Marx's idea of taking it away however lowers general life quality. It directly punishes success for those who do not try at all. Your incentives switch upside down and now no one wants to be the next big creator, there's no money in it.2) Alienation is cope. You are the master of your means of production, your hands. If you decide to rent those out to work on a machine someone else bought or built, they get to decide who gets to work on that machine and how long and for what salary. You get a free choice to work with him or not, it is directly in your hands to work or walk away. "I am alienated because I consensually accepted this contract, woe is me!" is envy disguised as morality. 3) Class struggle is a problem of governments initiating force on peaceful individuals. Communism's solution of handing the reigns to everyone's life to the government serves to make the problem worse in literally every way. Respect freedom, private property is an aspect of freedom. If you work to build or buy something and someone else takes it away, you are retroactively made their slave for the time you wasted gaining the property.tl;dr: Marx is an okay critic, but has no good ideas of his own.
>>18220241>1). The material dialecticEh, well the intuition behind this might be right (changes in social reality often do come from contradictions and conflicts), but Marxists veer into something that is more like a non-falsifiable theology in disguise since they're saying this dialectic essentially guarantees history will move in a certain arc, but all they're really doing is retroactively applying their "laws" to stuff after they happen, and then saying that's proof history will unfold as they imagine. This is why they like to make really confident predictions but get the rug pulled out from them all the time.>2). AlienationThe concept of alienation have something to it but what do you think human beings essentially are? If you don't believe in the concept of human nature, then how can you say humans have a certain essence that's being frustrated by capitalism? Marx has this theory of "species-being" that humans are essentially social and want to be treated more than a tool. They don't want to feel powerless and humiliated. If they feel the social system does that to them, then that has implications in politics. Okay, I agree. I don't know if that means we're "meant" to live in communism though.>3). Historical materialismKind of going back to 1) here. What this claims is there are objective laws of historical development rooted in material production that necessarily move societies through fixed stages toward communism? Is that right? Well there's a lot of practical failures of that in reality. It claims to be scientific, but what scientists do after their predictions fail is narrow their own theories, like how Newtonian physics can't explain everything but it does work for weak gravitational fields. Marxists often do the opposite of that, they expand their theory like "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism" to explain why Marx's predictions didn't pan out.>>18220627I think this is right.
>>18222198Imo it really depends by what you mean by marxism. Althusser's epistemological break made clear that there were 2 marx : the young one focused on alienation which kickstarted the marxist humanist movement and the older one which only focused on production.China, going by the young marx critique, is definitely upholding the alienation which plagues workers. So it clearly isn't marxist based on the young marx's interpretation. However, for the older Marx, I don't think this is quite true.>>18222263>1) Marx's idea of taking it away however lowers general life qualityIs this the "Marx wants everyone to share" meme ?>"I am alienated because I consensually accepted this contract, woe is me!" is envy disguised as morality.delusional statement. If that were to be truly the case, nobody would work at mcdonald in or other shit jobs. Work isn't always driven by survival, but it often is. Cmon anon, even Hayek recognized this.>libertarian babbleYou should read more about left libertarians and neo-republicans anon. Cohen and Pettit both talked about this iirc but the underlining idea is that anarcho-capitalist tend to ignore that domination isn't only expressed by statist means. I'm not really interested in debating which forms of coercion are "true", because some other anon already made those threads a while back, but the important note you should remember is that, whilst taking the same variables, other philosophers came up with different conclusions than Nozick or Rothbard.>>18222324Kudos, you're one of the first to agree point out good critiquesThe first and third point are spot on, but are also somewhat due to the context in which Marx wrote. The end of the 19th/early 20th century was full of these scientific theories, and people used to believe that these could predict history and practically accomplish anything. In retrospect, it seems a bit naive, but it definitely influenced the writings, especially that of Engels with his dialectic of Nature
>>18222528>Is this the "Marx wants everyone to share" meme ?No, he writes about how free enterprise is exploitative in nature and how the only solution/prediction is violent revolution. This is cynical and anti-life. He was also proven wrong because americans don't revolt against their government because *surprise* their standard of living is too high. So commies call them "opulent" like having a good quality of life is not virtuous by default. Blatant anti life and pro suffering.>delusional statement. If that were to be truly the case, nobody would work at mcdonald in or other shit jobs. Work isn't always driven by survival, but it often is. Cmon anon, even Hayek recognized this.Commie sad he has to participate in his own survival #537548134738124
>>18222545>This is cynical and anti-lifeWhat has this to do with the material dialectic ?>Commie sad he has to participate in his own survivaltopkek
>>18220241I've yet to see anyone prove them.But I want a communist to explain to me how exactly "the workers" can "own the means of production". What does it even mean to "collectively" own something? It means all decisions about it go to a vote? So all decisions about all means of production go to a vote? It's a totally ridiculous claim.The further problem with Marxism is it has no proof of objective morality whatsoever, so any moral claim a Marxist makes such as "capitalism is bad" can be immediately discarded on that alone.
>>18220241I just hate communists because they make my penis limp
Communism insists upon itself.
>>18220252>humans are isolated economic unitsanon he says the complete opposite>His “material dialectic” depends entirely on a world where organic social structures have already been destroyed, it can only operate in societies that have been stripped down to employers and employeesCapital is hard at work doing precisely this
