Is Reading Marx Necessary?

[danny la rouge]

I shall endeavour to find Capital nd proceed to spend a year reading it

Did you find a copy? How're you getting on? Previous threads, such as this one, might help.

 

[Toast Rider]

Did you find a copy? How're you getting on? Previous threads, such as this one, might help.

Not yet. to be honest, I've not looked so much. Been spending my money on cheap Chomsky books from Fopp instead.

Waterstones didn't have it and I couldn't arsed ordering it online. I'll pick it up someday

 

[Ralph Llama]

It`s not exactly necessary

 

[danny la rouge]

It`s not exactly necessary

Isn't there a ley line you can go and chant at or something?

 

[Ralph Llama]

Isn't there a ley line you can go and chant at or something?

Don`t take it so hard Danny

 

[Pickman's model]

Isn't there a ley line you can go and chant at or something?

the only ley he'd have had this month

 

[Ralph Llama]

You lot(Pickmans, Danny, Butchers) really are nothing but a bunch of crap slightly annoying trolls. I have noticed your attitude, Danny, to OP since this thread - shocking!

 

[danny la rouge]

I have noticed your attitude, Danny, to OP since this thread - shocking!

What?

My attitude to the Opening Post was: Is Reading Marx Necessary? Not sure what's shocking about that.

My attitude towards the Opening Poster (Toast Rider) feels to me like "here's a comrade looking for advice on reading, I'll give it if I can". If it feels different from Toast Rider's side of the exchange, then I'll take that from him/her not you. And if I'm in the wrong I'll apologize.

But for now, I've actually no idea what you're on about.

 

[Ralph Llama]

On the other thread you lying git!(Anarchy-Internet) I did say `since` or did you not understand that either you racist piece of shit! Denial seems to be a common go-to for you. Thank you of curing my U75 addiction though !

 

[bimble]

On the other thread you lying git!(Anarchy-Internet) I did say `since` or did you not understand that either you racist piece of shit! Denial seems to be a common go-to for you. Thank you of curing my U75 addiction though !

Go away, you idiot.

 

[krtek a houby]

You lot(Pickmans, Danny, Butchers) really are nothing but a bunch of crap slightly annoying trolls. I have noticed your attitude, Danny, to OP since this thread - shocking!

Danny's quite a patient fella, actually. Takes time to try and explain comlpicated stuff and recommend reading sources. I wouldn't be so dismissive of him.

I've actually dug out an ancient copy of this which I intend to put on my "to read" shelf (where it will no doubt, gather dust)

 

[danny la rouge]

On the other thread you lying git!(Anarchy-Internet) I did say `since` or did you not understand that either you racist piece of shit! Denial seems to be a common go-to for you. Thank you of curing my U75 addiction though !

So I'm supposed to just guess that you're talking about another thread? Best raise the issue on the thread in question.

Furthermore, if you're making accusations as serious as that you're going to need to point to specific evidence. Not that you can, you crackpot.

 

[Pickman's model]

What?

My attitude to the Opening Post was: Is Reading Marx Necessary? Not sure what's shocking about that.

My attitude towards the Opening Poster (Toast Rider) feels to me like "here's a comrade looking for advice on reading, I'll give it if I can". If it feels different from Toast Rider's side of the exchange, then I'll take that from him/her not you. And if I'm in the wrong I'll apologize.

But for now, I've actually no idea what you're on.

corrected for you

 

[Ralph Llama]

So I'm supposed to just guess that you're talking about another thread? Best raise the issue on the thread in question.

Furthermore, if you're making accusations as serious as that you're going to need to point to specific evidence. Not that you can, you crackpot.

British woman has her holiday to Benidorm ruined "because her hotel had 'too many Spanish people"

This is what triggered me. I have since found that you probably did know I was a Traveller before I posted it on this thread.... so I AM REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT !

 

[danny la rouge]

British woman has her holiday to Benidorm ruined "because her hotel had 'too many Spanish people"

This is what triggered me. I have since found that you probably did know I was a Traveller before I posted it on this thread.... so I AM REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT !

Ive responded in the other thread. British woman has her holiday to Benidorm ruined "because her hotel had 'too many Spanish people"

 

[Humirax]

I wouldn't say that reading Marx is essential, but having an understanding of Marx is a good idea. Reading what others have to say about Marx's thought is worthwhile, apparently Michael Heinrich is a good author to read on this but I have yet to read one of his books. Apparently having an understanding of Spinoza is also helpful as Marx was influenced by him.

But I can't agree that only reading Marx is the way to go, there are plenty of other anti-capitalist thinkers and authors to read, too many to list here and it might be a good idea to read more recent stuff rather than stuff from Marx's time.

 

[danny la rouge]

it might be a good idea to read more recent stuff rather than stuff from Marx's time.

It's certainly a good idea to read contemporary stuff, but did you mean anything by that "rather"? Or is just the way the sentence fell, because i don't think anyone is suggesting reading Marx, or 19th century theory, to the exclusion of all else.

For me, Marx offers the most comprehensive critique of capitalism. But that doesn't mean there's nothing left to say.

It should also be noted that (although I haven't read the entire 50 volumes of his collected writings), in the work he published in his lifetime he said very little about socialist society. Certainly in Capital, almost nothing.

I saw Jeremy Paxman on a light entertainment show claim that Marx "spent hours in the British Museum writing his blueprint for communism, Das Kapital". Clearly Paxman has never read it, because it is nothing of the sort.

(It's also worth reading unfinished works with care, because as published after his death they contain sarcastic annotations printed as if literal, notes by Engels printed as if by Marx, and so on).

Your reading is not complete if you have only read Marx. As an anarchist communist, I'm going to suggest you should also read Kropotkin, probably Malatesta, certainly Bookchin. I'd also suggest Richard Gombin and Paul Mattick. And so much more.

All I have by Marx is Capital volumes 1,2 and 3 (Of which vol 1 is my most read); Grundrisse; the Manifesto; an edited edition of the first part of the German Ideology; and a well-thumbed anthology called the Portable Karl Marx. It takes up just a small section of one of my shelves.

But as a critique of capitalism, it's invaluable.

 

[Humirax]

It's certainly a good idea to read contemporary stuff, but did you mean anything by that "rather"? Or is just the way the sentence fell, because i don't think anyone is suggesting reading Marx, or 19th century theory, to the exclusion of all else.

For me, Marx offers the most comprehensive critique of capitalism. But that doesn't mean there's nothing left to say.

It should also be noted that (although I haven't read the entire 50 volumes of his collected writings), in the work he published in his lifetime he said very little about socialist society. Certainly in Capital, almost nothing.

I saw Jeremy Paxman on a light entertainment show claim that Marx "spent hours in the British Museum writing his blueprint for communism, Das Kapital". Clearly Paxman has never read it, because it is nothing of the sort.

(It's also worth reading unfinished works with care, because as published after his death they contain sarcastic annotations printed as if literal, notes by Engels printed as if by Marx, and so on).

Your reading is not complete if you have only read Marx. As an anarchist communist, I'm going to suggest you should also read Kropotkin, probably Malatesta, certainly Bookchin. I'd also suggest Richard Gombin and Paul Mattick. And so much more.

All I have by Marx is Capital volumes 1,2 and 3 (Of which vol 1 is my most read); Grundrisse; the Manifesto; an edited edition of the first part of the German Ideology; and a well-thumbed anthology called the Portable Karl Marx. It takes up just a small section of one of my shelves.

But as a critique of capitalism, it's invaluable.

I was just referring to the possibility that Marx could be difficult to read for some, I know I have struggled to read Capital myself. Having said that I've had no problem reading the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin which I recommend, aswell as the work of Errico Malatesta (and Bookchin, as you suggested).

 

[danny la rouge]

I was just referring to the possibility that Marx could be difficult to read for some, I know I have struggled to read Capital myself. Having said that I've had no problem reading the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin which I recommend, aswell as the work of Errico Malatesta (and Bookchin, as you suggested).

Yes, Capital isn't an easy read.

I usually suggest people read Value, Price and Profit first. (Though not instead of).

Economic Manuscripts: Value, Price and Profit, Karl Marx 1865

 

[Humirax]

Yes, Capital isn't an easy read.

I usually suggest people read Value, Price and Profit first. (Though not instead of).

Economic Manuscripts: Value, Price and Profit, Karl Marx 1865

Thankyou for posting this, not read it before, I'm not always good with economic stuff either.

 

[Tim Morgan]

To understand why capitalism is shit and to be able to articulate why?

I think it's shit. I've thought it was shit since before I even knew what it was. I've always felt at odds with how society works, it's just...that's how society works and you don't believe it can be any different.

So is Marx the only way to understand why this system's a bit of a shitshow?

While it's entirely possible to know that capitalist society doesn't work for working people and oppressed classes (or it's shit' as you say. Which of course is true), Marxist analysis is entirely necessary to shatter the illusions that we can reform capitalism.

Capitalism is inherently contradictory and, as it expands, in a world far too small to contain it, it continues, with increasing severity, in cycles of crises and war.

Marx is crucial as a jumping off point to overcoming false consciousness perpetrated by the global capitalist superstructure. Only the working class can defeat the rule of capital through conscious, independent political struggle.

Marx, difficult though his German style of writing may be, is crucial to developing the needed consciousness carry to out these historic tasks. We won't succeed by being mavericks, free thinkers and cowboys.

We can be that right now and go on being cannon fodder for capital.

tl; dr; Marx is necessary.

 

[Toast Rider]

While it's entirely possible to know that capitalist society doesn't work for working people and oppressed classes (or it's shit' as you say. Which of course is true), Marxist analysis is entirely necessary to shatter the illusions that we can reform society controlled by the rule of capital.

Capitalism is inherently contradictory and, as it expands, in a world far too small to contain it, it continues, with increasing severity, in cycles of crises and war.

Marx is crucial as a jumping off point to overcoming false consciousness perpetrated by the global capitalist superstructure. Only the working class can defeat the rule of capital through conscious, independent political struggle.

Marx, difficult though his German style of writing may be, is crucial to developing the needed consciousness carry out these historic tasks. We won't succeed by being mavericks, free thinkers and cowboys.

We can be that right now and go on being cannon fodder for capital.

tl; dr; Marx is necessary.

When you say reform society, do you mean reform capitalism?

 

[Tim Morgan]

When you say reform society, do you mean reform capitalism?

That's a reasonable question. I was trying to articulate the idea that our current societal structure under capitalism can't be fixed, but I should have just said capitalism can't be reformed. Will edit for clarity.

 

[Ralph Llama]

While it's entirely possible to know that capitalist society doesn't work for working people and oppressed classes (or it's shit' as you say. Which of course is true), Marxist analysis is entirely necessary to shatter the illusions that we can reform capitalism.

I disagree. Most people understand this. Look at this peasant interviewed after the Spanish civil war :

I believe it is impossible to carry out an agrarian reform without a revolution that dismantles the existing political and social structures. In a country where the land is owned by a small group of people who constitute an influential social sector, you have to fight for the land, you will not be given it voluntarily. In the same way that those who do not have land fight for it those who posses it fight to preserve it

Not hard to understand .

 

[danny la rouge]

I disagree. Most people understand this. Look at this peasant interviewed after the Spanish civil war

It's worth remembering that anarchist organisers had been working in Spain for decades before the revolution. Working class publications, pamphlets, meetings, organisations, conversations; an emancipation culture of many decades.

See for example Bookchin's The Spanish Anarchists - Wikipedia

 

[butchersapron]

It's worth remembering that anarchist organisers had been working in Spain for decades before the revolution. Working class publications, pamphlets, meetings, organisations, conversations; an emancipation culture of many decades.

See for example Bookchin's The Spanish Anarchists - Wikipedia

The idea they didn't know marx is ridiculous.

 

[danny la rouge]

The idea they didn't know marx is ridiculous.

Precisely.

 

[butchersapron]

While it's entirely possible to know that capitalist society doesn't work for working people and oppressed classes (or it's shit' as you say. Which of course is true), Marxist analysis is entirely necessary to shatter the illusions that we can reform capitalism.

Capitalism is inherently contradictory and, as it expands, in a world far too small to contain it, it continues, with increasing severity, in cycles of crises and war.

Marx is crucial as a jumping off point to overcoming false consciousness perpetrated by the global capitalist superstructure. Only the working class can defeat the rule of capital through conscious, independent political struggle.

Marx, difficult though his German style of writing may be, is crucial to developing the needed consciousness carry to out these historic tasks. We won't succeed by being mavericks, free thinkers and cowboys.

We can be that right now and go on being cannon fodder for capital.

tl; dr; Marx is necessary.

Marx didn't ever argue for the crude idea of 'false consciousness'. What he said was that consciousness - the ongoing creative individual and collective understandings of how things work and why they work, how they come into being etc is largely mediated by material conditions. Of course, intellectual activity like reading books or concepts gaining currency because of how they fit conditions is also material, but not essential. To suggest then that a 'true consciousness' can be reached through assent to the propositions of book or the formal positions of a party (say, the SPGB) is of course, absurd and anti what marx argued. That stuff is religion.

 

[Ralph Llama]

It's worth remembering that anarchist organisers had been working in Spain for decades before the revolution. Working class publications, pamphlets, meetings, organisations, conversations; an emancipation culture of many decades.

See for example Bookchin's The Spanish Anarchists - Wikipedia

Oh. If your looking for an anti-state perspective before Marx, it is not hard to find :

The Work we are going about is this, To dig up Georges-Hill and the waste Ground thereabouts, and to Sow Corn, and to eat our bread together by the sweat of our brows. And the First Reason is this, That we may work in righteousness, and lay the Foundation of making the Earth a Common Treasury for All, both Rich and Poor, That every one that is born in the land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the Reason that rules in the Creation.

I quoted Jose Vergara above to show how easily the anti-state perspective can be explained . Saying that this perspective can not be attained without reading Marx is ridiculous . I am sure you are aware of many other pre Marx examples and I have no need to point them out.

The test for this question would be to ask somebody who has not read Marx if they understand the anti-state perspective.

 

[Tim Morgan]

An analogy; a person uses the terms 'introvert' and 'extravert,' unaware that the terms originate as a part of our everyday language with Carl Jung, the psychoanalyst. Someone asks me "is Jung necessary" for those concepts to be available to the person using them. My answer is "yes."

While it's true that Marx himself did not use the terms "class consciousness" and "false consciousness," he did differentiate between a "class in itself," simply having a common relation to the means of production, as opposed to a "class for itself," organised in active persuit of its own interests.