I've been reading historic and heterodox economists for a while out of curiosity and I've finished recently Marx's Capital. I was expecting to find some sort of philosophy, whether about labor or materialism, but all there was was sociology, historical analysis and (flawed) economics.Hence, what exactly is Marx's philosophy ? There's no mention of dialectical materialism in the Capital and the only mentions I could find of it online coming from direct sources are Engel's "dialectics of nature", which is just an unfinished work. Is it even proper to speak of "philosophy" when there's so little ?
>>25378706Marx’s philosophy goes into aspects of time (and space with it), as well as the socially mediated nature reality, building from Kant and Hegel and even Aristotle. Read Marx’s dissertation if you want to see him talk properly about Ancient Greek philosophy.
>>25378717Can you develop more ? I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote a bit on previous thinkers but does it hold to a consistent degree outside of dissertations, critiques and letters ?
Fuck off and stop posting, jeet. Going to shill your shitty website again?
>>25378751Nigger did you see any mention of a website ?
>>25378706Doesn't he lay out historical materialism in the Manifesto? I am no Marx expert but he is a clear and plain-language philosopher most of the time from my recollection. Maybe you're getting too hung up on the names of the concepts instead of their content. Also I think you're mistaken to try and find "Marxism" completely self contained within Marx's body of work alone. Much of what Marxism is was developed by others. If it were any project other than quasi-religious dogmatic Marxian communism then it would have been given a name based on the ideas and not the "originator".
>>25378706See The German Ideology
>>25378706A lot of philosophy concerns propositions or sentences, like does "p" fit in with "x" or "y" or "z" and what are the consquences of believing in "p." Does that mirror reality or work in your experience. What is freedom? But if there's a debate among philosophers then it's because the society itself is contradictory, because for Marx workers are formally/legally free to sell their labor but are not really free because they have to work for capitalists otherwise they starve. But if you overcome that through social practice rooted in "material" reality, then the debate loses its significance. It's like medicine. People use medicine when they get sick, but if you eliminate the disease, then medicine will disappear. Not literally as in "there will be no medicine in communism" but just as an analogy. Or something like that. Marxism might be more of a "critical theory" than a "philosophy" because it's a critique of philosophical idealism. The philosophers are expressing something but can't settle the issue or is limited in some kind of way.
>>25378764>Also I think you're mistaken to try and find "Marxism" completely self contained within Marx's body of work alone. Much of what Marxism is was developed by others. If it were any project other than quasi-religious dogmatic Marxian communism then it would have been given a name based on the ideas and not the "originator".Also this. You get Marxists who are like, Marxism is the ~ultimate consciousness of history~ and they're going to reconstruct Karl Marx's political vision again, but there's nothing consistent about Marx in terms of some overarching vision or whatever. He was just doing whatever and responding to what was going on in front of him.
>>25378794I wouldn't go that far. He was definitely trying to systematically construct a sociology that justified his dogmatic belief in socialism/communism, and he had many genuinely original ideas and substantial contributions. There is definitely a consistency to Marx's own thought, and he was a very intelligent thinker even if you disageee with him (like I do). It is just that Marxism per se does not necessarily conform exactly to what Marx wrote due to it being a socio-politico-philosophical project with hundreds of contributors and real world happenings. Overall I think he and Engels were too egotistical and narcissistic: they very much wanted to be famous leaders of the revolution, as evidenced by their behaviour at the Internationals. This became something of a tradition among Marxists, so they plaster their bust everywhere and name their ideologies after themselves.
Look into Marxist writers instead. Gramsci, Althusser, Lucaks, Eagleton, Jameson...They all build on Marx's foundation
>>25378764>Doesn't he lay out historical materialism in the ManifestoNot really iirc. The theories of history and of classes that he posits is more analogous to sociology than philosophy per se. It's the type of rhetoric, if stripped of its political nature, that you would find in authors like Bourdieu or Hobsbawm imo.>>25378809There might be some philosophy if you really stretch the definition but from what I gather in his writings it looks more like he tried to develop a sort of primitive sociology founded on economic positions. That explains why marxism is so popular amongst sociologists, but it doesn't however focus much on philosophical categories like epistemology or metaphysics. >>25378776>>25378966Thanks, will look into. I've heard about Gramsci, Althusser and Lucaks but I thought they were more heterodox marxists who focused on ideology and critical theory.
>>25378706Read History and Class Consciousness by Lukasc
>>25378706People talk a lot about supply and demand, but somehow food is gonna stay cheap enough that the masses don't ruin the money system. That's the basis.
>>25378706is historical materialism that only material causes matter or the history of humanity is a history of class struggle? neither is true. is the labor theory of value a lower bound on sustainable pricing?marxism is the idea that an individuals value is not in the act of controlling resources or people. it is a philosophy of love of neighbor that builds industrial economies
>>25379663Neither, its a history of mentalities, Collingwood and Bloch were correct
>>25379504>heterodox marxists who focused on ideology and critical theory.they are. I find this the most interesting thing to come out of marxism
>>25379771I've always found it funny that the most pro-eminent marxian authors also turn out to be the ones least focused on economics. It seems like whichever kernel of truth in marxism they based themselves upon had little to do with the quantity of economic literature that Marx published
>>25378706Marxist philosophy is just this>Be Marx>Sees Hegel>Wants Hegel's philosophy>Wants Hegel>Hegel's philosophy only works under idealism>Marx is a raging materialist >Try to invert Hegel's philosophy >Fails140 years later>NOO Marxism is the perfect ideology, even though it has never worked large scale and that it even looks bad on paper. But its perfect trust me!!!
>>25378706
>>25378706>Wtf is marxist "philosophy" ?a mix of cope, envy, seethe and ignorance
>>25378706Read The German Ideology followed by On The Jewish Question. I've heard that The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts is philosophy heavy work but I haven't read that one. You will find Historical Materialism in the above works but I too have yet to find Dialectical Materialism is anything that Marx himself wrote. >>25379663>is historical materialism that only material causes matter or the history of humanity is a history of class struggle?It's the idea that history is fundamentally a history of material circumstances and changes from past to present are understood through analysis of these material conditions. Therefore the focus of historical study shifts away from politics, leaders and ideologies towards economic forces, environmental factors and living conditions of the people. >>25379859>Try to invert Hegel's philosophy>FailsMarx killed off German Idealism. He did not fail
>>25378706Its basically that things and ideas are a product of material conditions.
>>25380247>Marx killed off German Idealism. He did not failYea physically , he literally killed off his opposition. But not metaphysically German idealism is still debated and talked about in philosophy. dialectical materialism Is talked about in 17 year olds discord servers
>>25380267I wonder what mental illness causes this much seethe for Marx inside you. I know who you are and I'm sure that I cannot expect anything other than histrionic hyperbole akin to bitching and crying about faggots and niggers from a low iq chud like you. But I'll still answer the points for the benefit of anyone reading this. >Yea physically , he literally killed off his oppositionI didn't even want to touch this bit of seethe fuelled delusion but to set the record straight, Marx did not obviously literally kill anyone and communists or MLs did not kill German Idealists because German Idealism was already dead and buried by the time Working Class people gained political power via violent revolution (aka socialism)>German idealism is still debated and talked about in philosophy. dialectical materialism Is talked about in 17 year olds discord serversAu contraire German Idealism as an actual philosophical project was destroyed by Marx which is precisely why the last mainstream German idealist philosophers died more than a century ago. And GI today only exists as this old timey thing that no one except students and professors in Philosophy courses care about, only to move on from it. While Marxist thought and it's offshoots pretty much dominated mainstream active philosophy in 20th century and continues to do so. In fact this is the very reason your stupid racist chud ass has such seethe for Marx. Your existence on this thread right nowis a living testament to the failure of German Idealism.
>>25380287>I wonder what mental illness causes this much seethe for Marx inside you.>rest of the post is unironically seething babbleAnd why should I take you seriously lol
>>25380247>Marx killed off German Idealism. He did not failGerman ideology went on to inspire half the Islamist movements currently rampaging through the Middle East and Africa , so not quite. The showdown between Salafi Islamism and Marxism-Leninism will be the great battle of the 22nd century so perhaps Narx might win in the end tho
>>25378706Bad Marxist philosophy is not really Marxist and is actually capital's attempt at attempt at coopting Marxist thoughGood Marxist philosophy agrees with ME
>>25380297Salafism won't even make it past 21st century>>25380296Humiliating concession accepted
>>25380391>Salafism won't even make it past 21st centurySalafi jihadists are on track to be the dominant force in West Africa, the fastest growing region on the planet. They are winning, and I fully expect Salafi Islamists to consolidate control over North/West/Central Africa and the Middle East (and possibly Europe although that’s a lot less likely).
>>25378706Like most Western philosophy, it's just Plato repackaged, this time as materialism. Instead of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, Marx had bourgeoisie, proletariat, communism. You probably already know all this: for Freud it was id, superego, ego.
>>25380391>Humiliating concession acceptedWhatever makes you feel good lol
>>25378706At its core it's simply being a decent fucking human being
>>25380247>It's the idea that history is fundamentally a history of material circumstancesProblem is that Marxists don't have a great sense of what "material circumstances" are. They insist they do, but then they start talking about concepts from the political economists like they are ghosts in the machine. They take for granted things like the "proletariat" exist, and they diminish early Marx's humanist stuff about innate desire for freedom, "species being", alienation etc. even though without that stuff it isn't even clear why communism is some rationally common political conclusion. The Hegel stuff is all brought in with the proletariat, class struggle stuff, which ends up looking like a kind of idealism. The proletariat just needs to understand the logic of its own position, so it can negate itself and drag history forward. Reason has pre-determined what the proletariat needs to do in order to attain the goal of history, human freedom.That is, unless we stop thinking there is rationality in history, or that there even is a possibility of achieving universal subjectivity, or that what people even want is something like "freedom". When you take a lot of that stuff out, it isn't clear what the appeal to materialism is trying to do. But if you keep it in, you see the trajectory. Early Marx was saying yes to Hegelian rationalism, BUT that the concepts weren't self-moving. They were coming from the world in some way, like people finding new meta in a changing game and building language and concepts around their empirical experience of the game confronting them. Something sounds right about that, except what is instantiating the players and their goals? Why are they becoming entangled in certain logics, or necessary appearances? That is where the idealism continues to hide as the prime mover, and Marx got increasingly flustered by this being unsatisfying and just stopped talking about it.
>>25378706Its primarily in his earlier writing, like the 1844 manuscripts and german ideology, and especially his commentary to Hegel's philosophy of right. Ultimately his main work was Capital though, which tried to integrate these ideas with actual concrete economic and historical thought like you mentioned. Many of the more philosophical ideas have been developed into a more refined form by later thinkers like Georg Lukacs. Regarding dialectical materialism, honestly its a term thats never fully developed as a precise logical frame work, and many Marxists have been very fast and loose with the term, but its basically just the idea that society develops through the contradictions internal to its mode of production, and that you find all throughout Capital and his historical works as well.
>>25382012Historical materialism as been defined by Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. "The materialist conception of history is the conception that the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of immediate life."I think what people want, what most people want, is food, clothes, and later, after WWII, entertainment. Old Marx is not even a revolutionary anymore. In Critique of the Gotha program, he states that nobody, including him, knows how exactly communism will work. What's more, in Das Kapital, all volumes, it's clear that Capitalism will fall not because there are strong, motivated revolutionaries fighting it, but it will fall under the weight of it's own contradictions. So yeah. We are back to "material circumstances". That is, a mode of production that cannot sustain itself, reproduce itself, and must be replaced by something else, because it cannot reproduce life properly anymore. Now let's go into a more "experimental" area, certainly more uncertain, that is not about Marx, but personal findings found on 4chan, the natural slave theory from Aristotle, the NPC, the Hylic concept from the gnostics, and also especially, the MBTI personalities known as "sensing" (NPC) in opposition to personalities known as "intuiting" (PC). From statistics, sensing personalities score as being around 70% to 75% of the population. Intuiting personalities score as being 25% to 30% of the population. Intuiting tend to be more idealists. Sensing personalities tend to be more in the moment, so realists. It's not far fetch to imagine that the majority of sensors, living in the moment are quickly fed up by intuitors dreams and visions, even if those dreams and visions could truly mean a better future for everybody, but with delayed gratification. And since sensors are roughly 3/4 of the population, you get why intuitors have not much to say. Sensors attracted to social equality would want practical help for people, day to day help. That means basically giving welfare to people, or public housing. What we call social democracy. Or any other possible variation from the wage labor mode of production (Capitalism). Intuitors attracted to social equality would more reach for the ambitious endgame: Capital abolition. Whatever. I've read Marx, but i'm not even communist really anymore. Because we have to agree that people don't want freedom or empowerment, but certainty and control, in the form of bread and circus. What i'm certain of, is that Capitalism has reached a critical point of the contradiction between valorization and devalorization that makes it impossible for it to reproduce itself anymore. The elite better fix the greater and greater overproduction crisis with a fix patch (algorythms modulating production? ), or there will be a serious production problem in the near future, as Capitalism cannot reproduce itself properly anymore.
>>25378706It's probably rooted in some sort of German read of go manifest power. This one leverages class consciousness to pursue goals. Who cares though. If this commie shit spreads here the only philosophy around is going to be bullet.
https://www.redstarpublishers.org/txtbkMarxPhilwIndx.pdf
>>25383535I dont think "capitalism" is a useful concept. I know Marx didnt use that term, but it is generally treated as synonymous with the "capitalist mode of production" when it is used by Marxists, and I'd say neither are useful concepts though they do slightly different things. Marx's concept is still just bringing in Hegelian baggage. Like what you are saying here about contradictions, that is just Hegel's idealism hiding at the bottom of the whole thing. There isn't rationality working through history, there isn't a cohesive "system" with a "logic" that is governing our world. There is just complexity, people being driven by desire for all kinds of different things that are experiencing their own constraints and working from within contexts that all have their own histories. Institutions, kinship groups, cultural language games that all have their own stories for how they ended up that way.The appeal to "capitalism" outside of a strictly Marxist framework is usually more a political-theological thing than a real "theory". It just serves to periodize the present as under a totalizing regime, and helps its opponents to tell a story about its potential ending and argue for the legitimacy of whatever their regime would be. By contextualizing the present as a totalizing regime that usurped the past, there can be a basic political concept of usurping the present. So once you've convinced someone there is a totalizing regime in the present called "capitalism", you're partway there to convincing them that it should be "overthrown". The next step is to explain how its usurpation of the past held some kind of opportunity or promise that it has failed in, and so you have the legitimacy (translated from the legitimacy of capitalism's usurpation) to now replace it as the true heir to those leigitimizing principles or goals. Alternatively, post-colonial anti-capitalism is often about telling a similar story but emphasizing the tyranny of the capitalist regime, its power being an inherently illegitimate conquest, and emphasizing need for a return to pre-capitalist political organization and kinship groups. These aren't "real" objects, there isn't a system like this determining our lives and the present isn't comprehensively different from the past due to some kind of new "logic". For Marx, that is just him being unsatisfied with the world for not actually being very Hegelian and imagining a world that seemed more plausibly Hegelian. For most average people, theyre just mad about having to pay rent and not having many options, so being initiated into some kind of knowledge cult feels empowering.
>>25384833I don't think that Marx considered capitalism as a usurpation of a transcendental mode of production that could be discovered. On the contrary, when I was reading the Capital, I was under the impression that he argues the opposite : each mode of production emerges from the one it replaces and initiates a new era with specific relations and "social" consciousness.>>25383693I've skimmed a bit through it and it seems like it's reconstituting some materialist ontology to argue marxism from ? It explains dialectical materialism but I don't see how it extracts this system from Marx himself. It looks more like an ad-hoc attempt at systematizing a broader framework to argue from.>>25380247Thanks for the advice. From what I gathered by reading some bits of The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx's philosophy is essentially some repackaged hegelian historicism where :>Reason comes from historical agents rather than working through them and is thus socio-historically situated>Labor, rather than property, is how Man exteriorizes himself>This labor, although a transcendental act, has to exist in a given social configuration because Man is a social animal>This opens the possibility for alienation as labor's "arrangement" ceases to be an efficient way of exteriorization>>25382012Desu this was the impression that I had whilst reading the first part of the aforementionned text. The hegelian reinterpretation looks promising but is left critically underdeveloped. It's not sufficient to properly assert the Capital from.
>>25385034>I don't think that Marx considered capitalism as a usurpation of a transcendental mode of production that could be discovered.Are you referring to communism here, like the future mode of production?What I'm saying about the periodization of modernity as "capitalism" is less about Marx, more about how people understand the word and how it function as necessary to explain how the present could be changed. To clarify the point, it doesn't seem to be the case that people always thought of their present moment the way they do. Sometimes people think of them as in some indeterminate continuity with the past. They may have some theological story about inexorable, historical "decay" or something like that, but it isn't necessarily like "we live in a moment that is qualitatively different from the past and has its own determinate objective social structures and its own logic". And the point of saying that is to question whether or not what is specific about the story of "capitalism" is what it does as a story, that it offers a discourse about power that claims how the past became the present and why that legitimizes a claim to power by people who are positioning themselves as "anti-capitalist". Otherwise yeah, I agree that Marx's history treats the "capitalist mode of production" as coming out of the "feudal mode of production". But this is just the Hegelianism coming in, which is secularized Christian theology. The Christians were Greeks that read Hebrew religious texts and argued "you thought these were your books about your relationship to your God, but actually within them was the truth that they were our books about our relationship to the universal God, and they actually foretold our salvation". Hegel recapitulates the Christian supersessionist move and historicizes Kant's stuff about achieving freedom through the categorical imperative by demonstrating how concepts necessarily resolve themselves through reason into other concepts. For Hegel this happens across time. Of course, Hegel's language is notoriously difficult, especially in translation, so I'm not claiming that this reads exactly like how Hegel would talk about how he demonstrates the logic, but that is the gist of what he is doing.Marx does the Hegelian secularized supersessionist move in his own history and philosophy. He had beef with Hegel over Hegel's thoughts on the modern state as the culmination of this process, but he wanted to keep the structure of Hegel's thought in place because something about it was compelling to him. So he critiques Hegel from the position of "materialism". What I'm claiming is just that "materialism" for Marx is tantamount to saying "my concepts are Real Shit, yours aren't", when it isn't clear that is the case because he basically just says so.
>>25385094>>25385034So to be clear, the idealism I see as still within Marx is that he takes for granted that history is rational and that there are contradictions in historical categories that are necessarily moving it towards some kind of conflict and resolution. This is pure Hegel stuff, Marx hasn't broken with Hegel's core thought in that way. The "materialist" move is to just tell a story about why the Marxist categories aren't just floating out of pure reasoning, that they are objective and confronting the subject who is reasoning about them. It is removing the idealism by one step but doesn't appear to be substantially breaking with it to me, at least.And the tie in to the Christian stuff isn't me trying to say that "Hegel and Marx are really Christians and That Is Bad", I'm just trying to say I think that their philosophies are coextensive with a tradition of European thought that is about universalizing the subject and history under capital t Truth. The Christian theology is a fusion of Greek and Hebrew thought, so it isn't distinctly coming from one or the other. So I'm not trying to pull a reactionary "the Jews did this and all of this is Jewish" thing. I'm just saying that Marx is in a tradition that is kind of about justifying the present and the existence of evil by explaining how evil and the past were necessary for the good to come into existence. They're philosophies/theologies about redeeming the present.
>>25378706marxism is just kike games. when you frame communism under the perspective of jews trying to ideologically poison the goyim it all makes perfect sense. all the conradictions and doublethink make sense because there's no political aim except that of damaging society, while kikes will always support each other through their little mafia ring
>>25383623
"Have you read Marx?""Yes. You, too? I think it's my wicker chair chafing me."
>>25385103>I'm just saying that Marx is in a tradition that is kind of about justifying the present and the existence of evil by explaining how evil and the past were necessary for the good to come into existence.I'm not trying to personally dunk on you, but good and evil is the least understood dialectic in all the combined body of written texts by revolutionary idealists like Marx.>They're philosophies/theologies about redeeming the present."Redeem" is the right word ironically because Marx makes new(updates for linguistic shift and anochronisms) the various remixes of claims to a throne of every major kingdom, caliphate, empire, dynasty, etc etc... so it's palatable to an audience of the 19th century. but it's ultimately no different from the mindset of every backward shithole and the ruler/s of said backward shithole in its insidious pathology that thrives on the very thing Marx and every person before Marx understood best: humiliation, revenge, and honor.If you don't believe me read the divine right of kings or mandate is, THEN read Marx word for word.
Dialectical materialism is a retarded term that is 10% true and useful as a description of what Marx saw himself as doing and 90% mystagogic obfuscation by people who wanted Marx to be their guru. Keep in mind most Marxists in the late 19th century didn't even understand Marx, according to modern "real Marxists." The latter are obsessed with their purified left-Hegelian Marxism and with calling out "vulgar Marxisms," but the problem is that it took like a century to complete the purification process so that it could actually be easy to be a proper left-Hegelian Marxist like Marx himself and avoid being a vulgar Marxist. If you wanted to be a Marxist in 1897 you had to fail to read Capital vol. 1 five times and then finally have someone hand you Anti-Duhring (VULGAR MARXISM, BAD!!!) and a summary of Marx by Kautsky (VULGAR MARXISM, BAD!!!), and you basically just thought Marx was the "socialist Adam Smith." Nevertheless Marx's "dialectical materialism" or historical materialism is on display in Capital from the very start. Notice how he starts with the most "apparent," "closest to ordinary consciousness" form (the commodity-form), and is obsessed with "substance vs. appearance"-type term binaries. He's trying to dig down to the underlying mechanism that causes the "Erscheinungsform" (appearance-form) of the commodity-in-exchange in its seeming self-evidence. This is pure Hegelianism. Marx stole Hegel's historical-dialectical "how things come to seem to be what they seem to be," and rooted it in "materialism" (= the real daily maintenance of the basic material subsistence of human life in communities, and the socio-cultural forms that this maintenance takes over time as the means of production change due to improvements in technology and organization), instead of Hegel's idealism (which literally meant the metaphysically real Idea manifesting itself in history). Hence historical/dialectical materialism instead of dialectical/historical idealism.But try explaining that to some worker who just wants to hear what all the hubbub is about in 1897. The first Russian Marxists vulgarized it (Plekhanov's historical determinism), the later Russian Marxists mystified it (Trotsky's virtually religious essays on "dialectics"), the best Marxists always modified it strategically as needed (Lenin, Lukacs, Gramsci) while claiming total adherence to Marx. Even the best Marxists can't agree on how to interpret vol. 1 of Capital, and nobody reads the other volumes except as antiquarian. These days the Young Marx (only discovered starting in 1920s and really by mid-20th century) aka the starkly left-Hegelian Marx is the dominant reading of Marx, and Capital is read backward through that. Though you can still find some Discord faggot to insist you come to HIS Capital reading group and suck HIS dick while he wears a leather jacket and smells bad (later it turns out he was a serial rapist).
>>25386546marx makes a lot more sense as a confucian than as a hegelian or a calvinist or whatever
>>25385034>I've skimmed a bit through it and it seems like it's reconstituting some materialist ontology to argue marxism from ? It explains dialectical materialism but I don't see how it extracts this system from Marx himself. It looks more like an ad-hoc attempt at systematizing a broader framework to argue from.It's a soviet textbook, not an argument. Marxist philosophy mostly comes from his earlier work like The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, and Engels work after his death based on his unpublished writing. Althusser actually argues against this "humanist" element of Marx and sees it as something Marx ultimate discarded as not rigorous enough, although most Marxist-Leninists emphasize it enormously to the extent that Lenin believed one could not understand the phenomenology in Capital without reading Hegel's Science of Logic first
>>25378706>what exactly is Marx's philosophy ?Marx's philosophy is bastardized Hegel's philosophy, where "spirit" was crudely replaced with "relationship of production" and such, hence all the "dialectics"-shit was henceforth called "materialist".To understand what Hegel was ranting about, you need to understand what Hermetism was.Check 'Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition' (2001):"To make clear the parallels between these doctrines and Hegel's, here is a preview of what I will be arguing in the rest of this book:1. Hegel holds that God's being involves "creation," the subject matter of his *Philosophy of Nature*. Nature is a moment of God's being.2. Hegel holds that God is in some sense "completed" or actualized through the intellectual activity of mankind: "Philosophy" is the final stage in the actualization of Absolute Spirit. Hegel holds the "circular" conception of God and of the cosmos I referred to earlier, involving God "returning to Himself" and truly becoming God through man.3. Hegel's philosophy is *encyclopedic*: he aims to end philosophy, for all intents and purposes, by capturing the whole of reality in a complete, circular speech.4. Hegel believes that we rise above nature and become masters of our own destiny through the profound gnosis provided by his system.5. Hegel's *Logic* is an attempt to know the aspects or "moments" of God as a system of ideas. In a famous passage of the *Science of Logic*, Hegel states that the Logic "is to be understood as the system of pure reason, as the realm of pure thought. This realm is truth as it is without veil and in its own absolute nature. It can therefore be said that this content is the exposition of God as He is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and a finite Spirit" (Miller, 50; WL 1, 33-34).6. Hegel's *Phenomenology of Spirit* represents, in the Hegelian system, an initial stage of purification in which the would-be philosopher is purged of false intellectual standpoints so that he might receive the true doctrine of Absolute Knowing (Logic-Nature-Spirit).7. Hegel's account of nature rejects the philosophy of mechanism. He upholds what the followers of Bradley would later call a doctrine of "internal relations," as against the typical, modern mechanistic understanding of things in terms of "external relations." "1. Marx believes that the 'Kingdom Come' communist stage is inevitable, for some fucking reason (he cannot back it up by appealing to God/Absolute/Zeitgeist/World-Soul, though)2-3. Both Marx & Hegel believe in the End of History. Hegel believes it has already come (liberal state), Marx still awaits communism, where there will be no point to develop anything new anymore.4-5. Marx appeals to human creativity/imagination5-6. Marxoids are very proud of their 'rational' faculties, believing they are fortuitously already pre-equipped with the toolkit necessary and cannot make any perceptional errors. (cannot back it up by appeal to Absolute, though)
>>25386546>>25385094>>25385103Maybe my reading of the capital is wrong but Marx's usage of immanent critique within his work seems more like a method of exposition to reconstitute the system rather than a Hegelian move where the immanent critique actually leads to the next negation.For instance, he shows how there are different values within a commodity, how surplus value is extracted etc but it doesn't lead to the negation of capitalism, it just shows how the inner workings function. I know that he treats the falling rate of profit and the recurring crisis of capital as the element that overcomes capitalism, but it lacks the actual element to bridge the event to the emergence of a new system. Think of it this way : in Hegel's work, Reason manifests itself through the cunning of reason and because individuals are described as withholding certain qualities that ensure the negation. The contingency is evacuated early on. In my reading of the capital however, I found no such things. Marx doesn't explain why crisis must entail the next qualitative change, it just shows how the system shits itself every now and then. This is why I was curious as to how he grounded his philosophy, because to me there is a gap from the socio-economic work to the historicist move that each mode of production leads to the next one through stages.
>>25378706labor theory of value has been debunked foreverthey just want to steal your shit
>>25386853It hasn't really, economics just abandoned any theory of what exactly of what exactly value is
>>25386810>. I know that he treats the falling rate of profit and the recurring crisis of capital as the element that overcomes capitalismIn my understanding the dialectical component negation of Capital comes from the downward pressure on wages which makes the system itself contradictory. >individuals are described as withholding certain qualities that ensure the negationThat quality is pursuit of material conditions of life in Marxism (afaik)
