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.
Is Reading Marx Necessary?
- Thread starter Toast Rider
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I didn't say that, though. You don't seem to read other people's posts. You might prefer a megaphone platform like Twitter.
But that is what the thread is about. I would not touch twitter or facebook through 20 self installed proxies when it comes to debating politics. I would advise others to do the same.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It's reasonable to assume that if I'm being quoted I'm being addressed.
I did quote you in that post but then quoted Winstanley ... that statement was addressing the thread question itself. Sorry if i did not make that clear.
To 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.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Christ you're a tedious idiot.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Should have gone to specsavers
You can lead a Llama to specsavers but you can't make him see
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
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.
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.
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.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
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.pdf
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's necessary to have read marx to criticise marx. Ralph hasn't. It's that simple. Don't let him steal your time people.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
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).
As Butchers implies, there are criticisms that can be made. But not on the basis of, at best scant, understandings of secondary sources. And there's a great deal to criticize in the way Marx's work was later interpreted, resembling his actual work less as we progress along the line from Engels to Lenin to Trotsky and on. But your focus has been on completely dismissing him, without having even read him. (I know you say you have, but nothing you've said convinces me that you have, or if you have that you've understood it).
And until you actually do any reading, that's an end to it.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
You're not stupid. You're struggling like so many of us do. So don't give up, there are those who are able to digest and fully comprehend and those of us it takes a bit longer to get to grips/appreciate.
From what I can remember over 30 years ago, Marx was highly influential and even his detractors (from various on the left spectrum) would quote/reccommend/acknowledge his output and bearing on modern socialism.
So, to summarise my understanding of what Marx says of capitalism, based on what I've read and heard.
1. Capitalism is a necessary part of social evolution that should be temporary. Necessary in the sense it helps societies grow the requisite industrial basis for the next stage.
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.
3. Profit tends to fall over time and the LTV explains why: increased constant capital reduces variable capital which leads to a lower amount of surplus value. Less profit. Lower wages - and less income for people to buy things with. Marx makes a bunch of novel predictions to support claims that the LTV is true. I won't repeat them here because I can't remember them.
4. That's as far as I got.
1. Capitalism is a necessary part of social evolution that should be temporary. Necessary in the sense it helps societies grow the requisite industrial basis for the next stage.
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.
3. Profit tends to fall over time and the LTV explains why: increased constant capital reduces variable capital which leads to a lower amount of surplus value. Less profit. Lower wages - and less income for people to buy things with. Marx makes a bunch of novel predictions to support claims that the LTV is true. I won't repeat them here because I can't remember them.
4. That's as far as I got.
Ok, your right I have acted like a child on this thread. I have actually been quite snotty about it. Sorry. And your right I did have to google first international
My actual intention got caught up in the thread title and I only ever truly intended to say that reading Marx is not essential for say ... direct action. To be honest (your going to hate me) ... I had this 95% proof speed and this Anarco-Communist lad in my squat waffling on about Marx so I listened to it all on audiobook whizzing my tits off whilst sitting in-front of a search engine and discussing it with him over the course of a day or so. Sounds stupid but speed is really good for the uptake of information (I once taught somebody to use air-crack against wep/wpa networks in 3/4 of an hour who had never used a terminal before) .
Anyway , you have convince me i must have missed something. So this evening I will start reading it and pay more attention then I did when I was a 28 year old punk off my tits on speed. Sorry for being a nob-end.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I couldn't help myself clicking "like".
I know, i know... ... thanks for the pity like. Just having a tea break . I am really enjoying this !
... thanks for the pity like. Just having a tea break . I am really enjoying this !
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
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.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I agree danny la rouge and hope you are feeling better soon. You’ve made some superb points on this thread
Sorry for being a pain again Danny ... and very sincerely ... get well soon.
I am enjoying reading Capital immensely BTW so thank you again.
I am enjoying reading Capital immensely BTW so thank you again.
Surely the right hand side is "capitalism"?
Me too!I couldn't help myself clicking "like".
Which volume, the first one I presume?
"Enjoying" really isn't the word.
Sorry, it is the emotion i am feeling when reading this. And yes I did start at the beginning... it is a very good place to start.
Industrial feudalism is a scientific way of analysing capitalism keeping within the traditions of Marx`s method.
To put it another way Capitalism is the ideal. Industrial feudalism is the reality.
Industrial feudalism is a scientific way of analysing capitalism keeping within the traditions of Marx`s method.
To put it another way Capitalism is the ideal. Industrial feudalism is the reality.
Last edited:
Jesus fucking Christ. Noxion we have been here before .
The difference between Reality - Wikipedia and Idealism - Wikipedia
The difference between Reality - Wikipedia and Idealism - Wikipedia
Last edited:
seventh bullet
sovietwave
You've had a good run but now please stop.
JimW
支那暗杀团
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?
Similar threads
