Most of Marx's writings are either economic books, critiques of Hegelian thought, or historical analysis. He never left a coherent epistemology or metaphysics, and never really developed an ontology. His only philosophical work that I know of are the Manuscripts of 1844, but they remains very poor in their philosophical content. So why is he considered as one of the major thinkers of philosophy when his thought was as complex and philosophically rich as Montesquieu's thought was ?>dialectical and historical materialismMarx used a hegelian method to analyze history and society, but, apart from the German Ideology, he never really developed it. Even then, he doesn't really present a big and structured account for his philosophical thought but rather relies on a philosophical critique and historical presentation.
because economic and the analysis of economic power relations thought basically replaced all previous social philosophy.
You have down syndrome.
>>25185563But then why don't we consider Adam Smith or Ricardo to be philosophers too then ? Both iirc had political projects (albeit less pronounced than Marx's), both developed economic theories, and both interpreted the world in a specific manner. Yet, nobody is calling them major philosophers of the 19th century.
what is political philosophy for $400
>>25185562Not really required to be a major thinker in philosophy. Someone like Montesquieu can be a significant philosopher without having an epistemology or metaphysics. Although i'd argue Marx's grounding of knowing in labor/action is quite significant epistemologically, even though he never fully worked it out in a published mature work.
>>25185584Isn't Praxis simply the idea that epistemological questions like the Kant's noumena or Hume's Skepticism are simply irrelevant when trying to formulate knowledge, and that rather knowledge should be verified by its reality within society (hence why God or Hegelian idealism is false, as it is not confirmed within society's "practice")>>25185581But then why isn't Montesquieu a major philosopher ? Or adam smith ? At that point you might reject the standard alltogether
>>25185577because marx debunked them and their theories became redundant. Also Marxism is a whole tradition in academia while smith is just a footnote in economics 101 course
>>25185595>because marx debunked them and their theories became redundantCan't the same be said with Marx's theories too ? I mean, not many economists use Marx's LTV nowadays anon. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk "refuted" Marx, and similarly the Austrian School with Mises also adopted somewhat of a philosophical presentation of the world. Yet, they are not considered major thinkers (note that I'm not a retarded austrian economists, but that the comparison is apt)>Also Marxism is a whole tradition in academia Can you elaborate ? Apart from the Frankfurt School and perhaps analytical marxism, I don't see which other academic sources have tried reformulating Marx to the objections he encountered.
>>25185605There are recent attempts at reviving and revising Marx's LTV, namely Cockshott's 'Toward a New Socialism' and Farjoun/Machover's 'Laws of Chaos'.
>>25185605Marx isn't debunked. Crisis theory and Falling rates of profits still hold true and Marx wasn't just a philosopher of economics, his works are deeply connected with how human to human domination operates in our society. His theory of Alienation is another dimension which interests many people, even material dielectics still is one of the best way to analyse contradictions existing in any anthropocentric environment. Almost all of major disciplines from Western Marxism, Post modernism, Critical theory, Marxist historiography, Accelerationism,World systems theory, Post colonial schools.... list goes on and on; owes one way or another to Marx. So no comparing him to bunch of economists which only operated in one domain doesn't work. He is and will remain one of the most important philosopher till there remains scope for human emancipation.
>>25185605>Marxism in academiaSociology owes a lot to Marx. Conflict theory, their ideas of social class, and the dynamics of the latter and so on. Weber took a lot from Marx, and both are considered central figures.Marxist (materialist) historiography is a major form of historiography in the study of history.Anthropology had Marxist paradigms until recently to my knowledge, though the field has had a whole lot going on in the 20th century with other movements.Something could be said about current thought in ecology and evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium, ecological niches and niche partitioning. A few Marxist biologists have written about this, but it’s an active area of research so I’m not going to expand on it more.While talking about paradigms or schools in economics is inherently flawed since economists want their field to be physics for whatever reason, it is worth noting that if there is any unification within the streams of economic thought, it is in Keynesian economics. Most of Keynesian thought was already written (in Polish, unfortunately) by Kalecki, who was Marxist. Keynes also studied Marx, but hated Marxists like an evangelist hating “the gays”, and would only reluctantly agree if at all that his axioms came from Marx instead of his own mind. Marxists see Keynesian economics as a valid and thorough description of the capitalist system, along with all the contradictions that it has.>Bohm-Bawerk and Austrian SchoolThe comparison is not apt. The refutations were in turn refuted by philosophers, Marxist or otherwise, as bad readings of Marx that do not take into account the social and historical dimensions of his thought and only look into economics, oversimplified economics at that which once again tries to appeal to “human nature” and a weird fetishization of physics to try to explain economics.
>>25185661>for whatever reasonBecause it was physicists who revolutionized economics and finance in late 20th century and made them as they are right now?
>>25185592Why wouldnt Montesquieu be a major philosopher?Anway, Adam Smith certainly would (and honestly should be) be considered a major philosopher. This is mainly hindered by the fact that Economics has proclaimed itself to be an 'objective' 'scientific' field, with Smith as its founder and Marx its rejected problem child. But Honestly Economics is way better understood as a subset of philosophy of history / political philosophy that also uses mathematics to calculate/track the effects and consequences of making certain philosophical assumptions or decisions about how human society works.
I don't think you have read him. His ontology was/is core to Marxism in that it contests the ontology of the individual and regards labor and production as a social phenomenon
>>25185562a lot of silver spooned academics from the 1900s who would've faced the wall for contradicting him sucked his dick
>>25185669no wonder economics constantly fails to get things right, it's always transition and transition. Remind me at what point we are on in economists copery? I heard they have started formulating a neo post Keynesian which will certainly fix macroeconomic problems for real this time
>marx>produced a bunch of wank lit I dont care about>got a bunch of people murdered in russia>ruined china forever>nietzsche>caused WW1>plato>destroyed ancient greeceproof philosophy is poopoo and you should just walk with jesus as you go through the garden and he'll save your soul while keeping the devil way down in the hole
>>25185679The physicists who “revolutionized” economics in the 20th century were in turn revolutionized by their own discovery of chaos theory and nonlinear phenomena. Guess what economics is full of? Chaotic, complex, and nonlinear phenomena. Applying equilibrium statistical physics (used to describe materials in carefully controlled situations) to economics is child’s play, attempting to tackle the non-equilibrium, chaotic dynamics is where things fall apart. You have to take structure into account then, and the historical, social and political strata of society can no longer be put in neat boxes like “government” and “consumer”.
>>25185562>Most of Marx's writings are either [...] critiques of [...] thought, or historical analysiswhat do you think philosophy is?
>>25185687sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiitttt
>>25185605Economists have rejected Marx's theory of value based on the fact that it supported a social rather than individually-premised basis for economics. However they have yet to furnish any coherent theory of exactly what "value" is, and until they do, their entire discipline is build on nothing
>>25185687>jesusplato's evil inheritor
Good thread.
>>25185687>plato>destroyed ancient greeceyou do realize kikestianity is unironically watered-down platonism, and that all of the bible collaborators read plato?
>>25185687>devil way down in the holeWhich hole?
>>25185804He also needs to realize all of Abrahamic religion, as well as some parts of Hinduism (via the Indo-Greek Iron Age dialogue) were influenced by Plato.
>>25185562The word 'philosopher' in English just means anyone who thinks about anything.By German or ancient Greek standards, Marx is not a philosopher
>>25185661>>25185660Mhm interesting, I wasn't aware, I thought that these fields didn't really have much in common with marxism.>The comparison is not aptCan you elaborate ? I've heard his arguments but I've never heard refutations to said-arguments. I also mostly agree with Keynesian economics, so I'm interested in which axioms do you think it shares with marxism.>>25185672Conventionally he's not really considered to be one desu.>>25185674He used his ontology for praxis, but it's arguably philosophy and more setting criterias for the object to analyze.
>>25185562Because his thinking created one of the largest and most long lasting political movements in the history of modernity and because he directly influenced a good 70% of thinkers who came after him.
>>25185562It's effectively religious devotion. Communism (in its various forms) is a nontheistic religion.
>>25185562because a lot of retards believe what he had to say
>>25185562because he falls under political philosophy/theory
>>25185804>>25185832I'm pretty sure Socrates was a jew. He constantly argued in bad faith, was extraordinarily ugly, and everyone hated him.
>>25185577We do. Ever heard of the theory of moral sentiments?
