Marxism and Materialism

Hey everybody. Don't shoot me for this, but I saw this in a different thread:

If that's true, then why bother writing philosophy? I know that obviously no sane Marxist is going to say, "Well, don't bother ever thinking again, just move your body around and do stuff." But if thought *qua* ideology/philosophy has no political relevance, then why would you go around writing books of philosophy?

I am not trying to agitate here. I'm sure that a more nuanced understanding of Marxism will make this clear. So educate me.

Other urls found in this thread:'s_problem

Philoshophy can very much give a materialist deduction of your environment, hence his idea of dialetical materialism

Okay, so now for the next step: how does this "active thinking" of Hegel's dialectic square with writing books of philosophy? Is Marxist philosophy a fundamentally new and different thing that is politically relevant, unlike all of the other philosophy?

It's not so much that those things aren't relevant it's more that those things are directly formed and shaped by our material conditions
So if you want to really change society ideology and thoughts alone cannot do it

So culture and ideology are adaptive, like biological traits in evolution?

I don't think it is, Stirner's writtings are politically relevant to egoists, Proudhon's are relevant for marksocs and so on

however Marx was able to criticize capitalism unlike any other philosopher before him

well they are manufactured, so yes, the ideological system has to adapt in order to remain relevant
have a fun lecture

Yes we form ideas and justifications for things as they are and can only really conceive of things like God or Capitalism because of what we perceive and experience in the material world around us

What do we mean by "manufactured", here? As in, somebody consciously puts it together?

I dunno, this one looks like it will fall afoul of Kant. The brain has some hardware that just kinda grows there, doesn't it?


Ideology is not hardware it's software
Explain how one forms the concept of colors of they are born blind and are never introduced to the concept?

that is very hard to rationalize, have a better one's_problem

Okay, granted, to an extent. See below.

True, but all the same, there is a blurry line between hardware and software.

Think of it this way: a person born blind can't form a concept of color, but how could you experience anything without it being filtered/assembled/constructed by your mind in the first place? Experience is needed for any conception, of course, but experience by itself doesn't account for thought (or even for itself).

Most people here do hate philosophy unless it's nihilists, crypto-nihilists, or Hegel.

The truth is that Holla Forums is a walking bundle of cognitive dissonance that doesn't want to admit they want communism due to feels reason and MUH HUMANISM, so they endlessly dickride Stirner (who famously caused Marx to have an autism meltdown) and pretend they are simply egotists who wants communism out of self-interest (which clearly explains why they get so butthurt over exploitation in some bumfuck third world shithole).

Big difference between philosophy and scientific materialism

Whoa, what? Source?

You seriously don't know that story?

I'm new to this kind of theory.

Marx also had an autistic meltdown because of Big Daddy Produhon lel

Seriously, though, I can't find anything on Google. Link me up?

The German Ideology


Meant to say >thought, feeling, ideology and beliefs
Are all material conditions

Basically with the Enlightenment you had all these fedora tippers like the young hegelians (marx & co) who laid the foundations for materialistic world views. Along came Stirner who made fun of all of them for being unable to take their materialist worldview all the way to its conclusions ("our atheists are pious people") and proceeded to lay out just such a world view in his work The Ego and its Own, which wikipedia explains it well enough imo

Marx couldn't deal with the fact that Stirner's work irrefutably showed the real consequences of materialism (for example Stirner basically said people like Marx had simply replaced "God" with "Humanity", but it's still the same spooky bullshit), so he proceeded to write like 500 pages of nothing but polemic, ad-hominem insults against Stirner, more pages than Stirners own work was, but didn't even end up publishing it ("The German Ideology"), probably because he noticed how retarded it was.

Pic related is kind of in the realm of non-serious history, since i've never seen sources for all his claims and supposed quotes, but the author (LSR project) has written on that stuff extensively and he basically argues that everyone who read Stirner was unable to refute him, but because they couldn't accept his conclusions they therefore tried to sweep him under the rug, never to be mentioned again. Pretty spooky tbh

This Stirner guy sounds like a boss. Will read him.

So you view Stirner's conclusions as the ultimate outcome of materialism, then?

no you won't lol

Reading "The Ego and Its Own" right now, actually.