Marx

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!

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.

"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!)

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?

"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..."

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

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"

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

(weber and durkheim aren't philosophers either.)

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

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

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

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.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n07/john-lanchester/marx-at-193

this is good

What's that Engels quote (I *believe* it is Engels) that essentially goes: "one man wants one thing and another man wants another thing. They both struggle and they both get something else entirely in the end. That is history."

it's put a bit better than that.

What are (1) the best brief explanations of his theory of value and (2) the best critiques of it?

I'm for some strange reason reading Capital, but I'm struggling a bit with the concept of socially necessary labor time as the source of value, which strikes me as pretty much the key to the whole thing.

you've understood it

(i.e, it is as silly as it sounds)

Does it just mean cost of production?

Or I guess rather average cost of production?

I guess the thing is there has always been something about neoclassical theories of value (at least in the very crude form I understand them - haven't thoroughly studied econ or anything) that strike me as incomplete and self-serving of capitalists, and Marx is saying that at least the theories of value prevalent at his time were in fact incomplete and self-serving of capitalists, but I guess maybe Marx, while advancing the ball in a lot of ways, got some things wrong? I wish I had studied econ.

Like the whole version of things in which capitalists are compensated for "risk" always struck me as a misnomer -- it seems to me more that they are compensated for the very fact that they have capital (which I guess equates to what Marx calls the means of production). And neoclassical/neoliberal theories don't seem to want to account for or care much about how or why capitalists got their capital, almost presuming that they must deserve it on their merit. And it seems like that relates to what Marx was critiquing in the theories of his time, but I still can't quite get my mind around the socially necessary labor time concept.

Or rather I think I get what Marx is saying it is, but I'm not sure I understand how/why it's the true center of value according to him.