Absolutely. But it is not necessary(outside of academia) to read Jung to understand the concepts now, and the concepts themselves have changed through different schools of thought since Jung first popularised them.
I didn't say that, though. You don't seem to read other people's posts. You might prefer a megaphone platform like Twitter.Saying that this perspective can not be attained without reading Marx is ridiculous
It's reasonable to assume that if I'm being quoted I'm being addressed.But that is what the thread is about.
It's reasonable to assume that if I'm being quoted I'm being addressed.
Should have gone to specsaversTo sum up my perspective on this I would say that Marx (although a very clever chap and highly influential) changed nothing in socialism essentially apart from articulating commonly held believes into academia.
You can lead a Llama to specsavers but you can't make him seeShould have gone to specsavers
so you didn't notice the division from prior-existing notions of utopian socialist thought to what marx and engels described as scientific socialismTo sum up my perspective on this I would say that Marx (although a very clever chap and highly influential) changed nothing in socialism essentially apart from articulating commonly held believes into academia.
so you didn't notice the division from prior-existing notions of utopian socialist thought to what marx and engels described as scientific socialism
you didn't notice the russian socialists' adoption of marx
you're not very observant.
yeh. your opinion might be better informed if you read e.g. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Socialism_Utopian_and_Scientific.pdfMaybe I am just being stupid but I am pretty fucking sure that most forms of socialism before Marx were just as 'scientific' in that they changed according to their enviroment and used history to predict future... it all seems like academic pretence to me. These techniques already existed ... they just articulated them into acedimia.
You've posted three times what anyone else on this thread has, but it boils down to this: you think reading Marx is pretentious. Despite championing Chomsky, who is literally an academic, your criticism of Marx is that he:Maybe I am just being stupid but I am pretty fucking sure that most forms of socialism before Marx were just as 'scientific' in that they changed according to their enviroment and used history to predict future... it all seems like academic pretence to me. These techniques already existed ... they just articulated them into acedimia.
changed nothing in socialism essentially apart from articulating commonly held believes into academia.
Maybe I am just being stupid but I am pretty fucking sure that most forms of socialism before Marx were just as 'scientific' in that they changed according to their enviroment and used history to predict future... it all seems like academic pretence to me. These techniques already existed ... they just articulated them into acedimia.
You've posted three times what anyone else on this thread has, but it boils down to this: you think reading Marx is pretentious. Despite championing Chomsky, who is literally an academic, your criticism of Marx is that he:
I would go into the fact that his insights into commodity relationships, into alienation, into the material conditions for change, and so on, were not "commonly held beliefs", but were novel syntheses (based on existing work, but moved forward and popularised by him), that were a valuable contribution to revolutionary analysis, but since you'll just bluff and bluster*, I'll not bother. (*Like when you pretended you knew what the First International was, but, amazingly, given your verbosity on this thread, didn't).
I'm not well today, but remind me to come back to this. It looks to me like Leninism. There's ways to read what Marx meant by certain passages in the Manifesto. But I'm not well enough to be coherent today.2. Socialism, as a stage prior to communism, requires a vanguard part or 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (not dictatorship in the sense we'd term it) to protect that burgeoning society/revolution.
I'm not well today, but remind me to come back to this. It looks to me like Leninism. There's ways to read what Marx meant by certain passages in the Manifesto. But I'm not well enough to be coherent today.
Me too!I couldn't help myself clicking "like".
Which volume, the first one I presume?Sorry for being a pain again Danny ... and very sincerely ... get well soon.
I am enjoying reading Capital immensely BTW so thank you again.
Well, hard to see what you mean by feudalism. That was basically a system of obligations, usually military, in return for holding land. What's like that now?Jesus fucking Christ.