Marx

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (283 of them)
Marx once said "I'm not a marxist", and that shouldn't be taken as a joke. You shouldn't blame him for what happened after him, when his main attempt was merely to analyze capitalism. It's true he left the part about what happens after capitalism a bit unclear, but perhaps he didn't want to give the workers' movement any restricting ideals what a workers' paradise should be like. It's a pity his followers were more fundamentalist on that subject.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 14 November 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Or, not fundamentalist enough!

dave q, Friday, 14 November 2003 13:49 (twenty-two years ago)

"Terrorism doesn't exist, it's just a word. A 'signifiant' without 'signifié'. Pure ideology" - Jacques Derrida

-Bruno, Friday, 14 November 2003 23:52 (twenty-two years ago)

five months pass...
Ooh, I already said "classic" on this thread.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 07:42 (twenty-two years ago)

three months pass...
I've ploughed through a good bit of Grundrisse and Capital vol. 1, could recite parts of the Manifesto and the German Ideology by heart, but i've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of his ideas belong in the dustbin of history. I'm frankly baffled as to why this pseudo-scientific crypto-religious bunk gets so much love around here

fcussen (Burger), Friday, 13 August 2004 19:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Classic for teaching us new ways of looking at human affairs. Great prophet of capitalism, etc...

Marxism as political, social, and esthetic systems= dud.

Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 13 August 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I would say the view of society as a zero sum class war is pretty unconstructive and dangerous

fcussen (Burger), Friday, 13 August 2004 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

The idea that the crimes of Communism are entirely seperate from Marx's thought is quite irritating too. I mean, for one thing he criticised the French Commune for being too soft on its class enemies.

fcussen (Burger), Friday, 13 August 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

He didn't argue society qua society was zero sum class war. he argued zero sum class war in society was zero sum class war.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 13 August 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, but until you can tell me why the Surplus Value theory of Labour is defunct, I'll stick with him. You can rail against class war, but until the fundamental cause of class war no longer applies, it's kind of not Marx's fault, is it? Like blaming the waetherman for advising people to use umbrellas when it rains.

Dave B (daveb), Saturday, 14 August 2004 08:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, but until you can tell me why the Surplus Value theory of Labour is defunct, I'll stick with him.

I remember my friend who's big into economics once explained to me why it is; I'll get back to you on it. I also remember K. R. Popper talking about how "labour power" is exactly the sort of metaphysical obfuscation that Marx supposedly opposes.

fcussen (Burger), Saturday, 14 August 2004 08:44 (twenty-one years ago)

We await your rubbishing of Marx breathlessly

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 14 August 2004 08:56 (twenty-one years ago)

There's plenty of people who've already done it for me. But then again they were probably all subject bourgeois ideology so what do they know. Can't post now coz I'm too busy selling my labour power to American capitalists.

fcussen (Burger), Saturday, 14 August 2004 09:18 (twenty-one years ago)

It's hard to argue with the 36.6% number for men over twenty in Stoke who are potters by trade

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 14 August 2004 10:32 (twenty-one years ago)

The idea that the crimes of Communism are entirely seperate from Marx's thought is quite irritating too. I mean, for one thing he criticised the French Commune for being too soft on its class enemies.
-- fcussen (fcussen33...), August 13th, 2004.

I know, I know: fortunately the Versailles bourgeoisie had the good sense to knock some sense into the Communards by killing the fuck out of them!

ENRG (Enrique), Saturday, 14 August 2004 11:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, they showed that class war has no place in Communist thought by killing the communards and other assorted members of the Parisian working class. Those pesky commies!

Dave B (daveb), Saturday, 14 August 2004 11:32 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, bad example, but my point re: class war is that you teach it as much to your enemies as your allies. If the only way you address people better off than you is with threats, don't be surprised if they behave how a threatened person naturally behaves; by fighting back. Do you think Mussolini's Marxist background was entirely coincidental?

As for divisions in society, plenty of thinkers since have dealt with these issues without opting for narrow economic determinism or seeing complete overthrow of the system as the only solution. Granted, they might not have been doing it if Groucho hadn't got there first.

fcussen (Burger), Monday, 16 August 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

"if the only way you address people better off than you is with supplication, don't be surprised if they behave how a person approached by a beggar naturally behaves; by lording it over you"

"if the only way you address the pope is in latin, don't be surprised if they behave how a person spoken to in latin normally behaves; by replying in latin."

"if the only way you cook collard greens is with ham, don't be surprised if they taste like how things cooked with ham normally taste; delicious."

"if the only way you read a book is right side up, don't be surprised if the text isn't upside down."

"if the only way you count is with ordinal numbers, don't be surprised if you never reach a fraction."

(also groucho was for total overthrow of the system -- closing scenes of night at the opera to thread!)

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 16 August 2004 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)

"the only hope this country has is nixon's assassination." - groucho marx, 1971

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 16 August 2004 18:56 (twenty-one years ago)

If the only way you address wolves is with treats, don't be surprised if they behave how an animal given tasty cookies always behaves; by never ever biting you.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 16 August 2004 19:09 (twenty-one years ago)

You can rail against class war, but until the fundamental cause of class war no longer applies, it's kind of not Marx's fault, is it? Like blaming the waetherman for advising people to use umbrellas when it rains.
-- Dave B (dave.boyl...), August 14th, 2004.

Actually, this is approaching my point. What reasons is there, besides some Hegelian bollocks, to believe that a dictatorship of the proletariat would put an end to the fundamental causes of class war?

fcussen (Burger), Monday, 16 August 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

an end to classes = an end to class war seems his point, no?

"what reason is there besides some philosophy junk is there to believe that getting rid of sweet and low will get rid of cancer caused by sweet and low?"

"what reason is there besides some crazy 'science' to believe that getting rid of hiv will get rid of aids?"

"what reason is there..."

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 16 August 2004 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

what about a split in the movement?

are the proletariat themselves not creating a division of labour when they elect leaders?

fcussen (Burger), Monday, 16 August 2004 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

are you making any sense? i mean, what are you, twelve? you actually read some texts, right? class != every division between people ever. class = specific relation to means of production.

otherwise we'd be like all "omg its the blondes and the brunettes engaged in class warfare, and the people who are between 5'8" and 5'10" are against them ALL"

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 16 August 2004 20:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, honestly... "I have discovered the problem with Marx, and it is that he is for ELECTIONS!"

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 16 August 2004 20:29 (twenty-one years ago)

class != every division between people ever. class = specific relation to means of production.

i thought division of labour is the whole reasons we aren't still living in communes
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2

fcussen (Burger), Monday, 16 August 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

So marx writes "Their instrument of production became their property, but they themselves remained subordinate to the division of labour and their own instrument of production." but that doesn't mean he wants to abolish all division of labor qua division of labor any more than he wants to abolish all instruments of production.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 16 August 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Francis Wheen to thread.

Dave B (daveb), Monday, 16 August 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

My friend's dad gets annoyed, because his other kid loves being all like "smash the system" and helping organize protests at school. (He's a wiry, short little farmer/carpenter man, with whaler-captain sideburns- if you can imagine what he looks like, this might be more funny.) So, one day he tells me: "I heard Karl Marx had some kind of chronic back problem that made it impossible for him to sit or stand without being in pain. That's why he wrote the communist manifesto, because he was miserable and had to make everybody else miserable." Then I said, "I heard he was a family guy and he loved kids, kind of like Santa Claus. He saw all the poor children going to work in factories and getting their arms ripped off instead of going to school, so he wanted a revolution to get rid of child slavery forever." Win win win!!

Queen Electric Butt Prober BZZT!! BZZZZZT!! (Queen Electric Butt Prober BZZ), Monday, 16 August 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

ten months pass...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1528011,00.html

is marx even a philosopher? also STOP GETTING MARX WRONG -- ie STFU about "dialectical matrerialism", kautsky-boy.

N_RQ, Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:11 (twenty years ago)

He's a philosopher

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:16 (twenty years ago)

hmm. i think he's better than that. i can't think of other philosophers who have done similar. natch in the hands of some people marxism has been made a 'philosophy', but these strikingly get rid of the meat -- economic, political, historical -- of marx.

N_RQ, Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:21 (twenty years ago)

Better than a philospher! Sacrilege!

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:24 (twenty years ago)

I agree with most of Marx's ideas, although again, dislike how they were manipulated in later years. Don't get the dismissal of Engels, though, from what I've read he was a great social researcher, and responsible for some of the good ideas of the Communist regime (seemed to be much more concerned with the subjugation of females than Marx, for instance, which led to several policies under the Bolsheviks which were positive for women, spearheaded by Kollontai).

Coming from a sociological rather than economic background, however, I dig the neo-Marxist vibe, big up to the Gramsci massive and Jock Young before he got kinda reactionary.

emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:38 (twenty years ago)

the engels-hate is an alibi for leaving marx blameless for the errors of the 2nd international and of the bolsheviks, i think.

it is interesting that this happened on radio 4, i think. i mean surely you'd expect someone more middle-class-friendly (soulful despair, or its flipside), like sartre or nietzsche, or hep like foucault (again, is he really a philosopher?), or even zizek.

N_RQ, Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:46 (twenty years ago)

seemed to be much more concerned with the subjugation of females than Marx

He was much more, errrrrrrrrr, concerned with women all round

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:49 (twenty years ago)

is marx even a philosopher?

he's not a very good one. i still don't get how anyone living in the 21st century can take this shit seriously

fcuss3n, Thursday, 14 July 2005 17:58 (twenty years ago)

All of contemporary social theory to thread!

Orbit (Orbit), Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:27 (twenty years ago)

and what about weber & durkheim?

fcuss3n, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

or rawls & nozick?

fcuss3n, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:38 (twenty years ago)

yeah, don't take marx seriously! take weber seriously!

(weber and durkheim aren't philosophers either.)

n_RQ, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

do you ever know what you're talking about?

fcuss3n, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:48 (twenty years ago)

no.

(engage, why don't you? are all sociologists philosophers?)

n_RQ, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:54 (twenty years ago)

no but they are social theorists

i don't really think engaging with you is going too fruitious

fcuss3n, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:56 (twenty years ago)

no but they are social theorists

i don't really think engaging with you is going to be too fruitious

fcuss3n, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:57 (twenty years ago)

ok, fuck off then. (is fruitious even a word?)

n_RQ, Thursday, 14 July 2005 18:58 (twenty years ago)

it means delicious, in a fruity way. like starburst.

latebloomer: occasionally OTM (latebloomer), Thursday, 14 July 2005 19:03 (twenty years ago)

Not to be confused with fruitricious, which means fruity and nourishing.

Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Thursday, 14 July 2005 19:19 (twenty years ago)

Um, I'm not entirely sure about what fcuss3n's arguments actually are, aside from random comments sniping about Marx, but if they mean to hold up Weber and Durkheim as some kind of 'proper' social theory that still works, then they are insane. Weber still has a lot to tell us, despite the problems with his work, but Durkheim is an ass (an ass who admits more of his failings than many give him credit for, but still - an absolute ass). His pseudo-scientific methods left no room for such concepts of, say, operationalisation or falsification (two problems that are also thrown at Marx, admittedly, but Marx at least did not claim that his work was the high ground for such things), in fact Durkheim's entire work is based upon an egocentric, ethnocentric and generally biased reading of all purported 'social facts'.

Oh, and as for the snarky Engels comment above that, then, um, have you actually explored any of his proto-feminist (obviously the phrasing here is too hyperbolic) work? Don't let personal proclivities get in the way of the generation of positive ideas.

emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 14 July 2005 19:32 (twenty years ago)

Richard Rorty to thread. That is all.

blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Thursday, 14 July 2005 19:39 (twenty years ago)

funny this popped up...doing a first read through of Capital now, after finishing the Grundrisse a few months ago (yes I read the Grundrisse first for some reason).

ryan, Sunday, 17 August 2025 00:26 (nine months ago)

While looking up replacement brushes for my Philips Sonicare electric toothbrush I decided to look up the history of the Philips company as I've always wondered why a Dutch company appears to have an English name. I didn't find that out but instead found out that the father of the founder of the company was a first cousin of Karl Marx and that his grandfather, Lion Philips, was a major financial supporter of Marx and a close friend of his.

Peter No-one (Tom D.), Sunday, 17 August 2025 14:14 (nine months ago)

ryan, are you reading the new translation?

rob, Sunday, 17 August 2025 16:05 (nine months ago)

Yes I am! Never read the old penguin one but I have it. Some chapters are in a slightly different order apparently as well—since they are going off the second German edition. Taking a pause after chapter 5 and reading a bit of David Harvey’s Companion to Capital.

ryan, Sunday, 17 August 2025 16:36 (nine months ago)

nice. been wondering about the new translation. I read about half of the penguin and stalled out (was part of a three-person reading group that fell apart) and have been pondering picking up the new one as a means to re-start. I liked the Harvey quite a bit though my real-deal marxist scholar friend has some problem with him that I do not fully understand

rob, Sunday, 17 August 2025 16:51 (nine months ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.