In all honesty what did he get wrong?

In all honesty what did he get wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

He couldn't help but be limited to the use of 19th century social evolutionist anthropology, which is virtually rejected completely within contemporary anthropology as hopelessly outdated. As such, his materialist conception of history missed that culturally quantifiable hierarchy existed before the emergence of class, and also contributed to the emergence of class itself. Bookchin improves upon this, modifying Marx's dialectic much like Marx modified Hegel's.

I wasn't aware of this. So does Bookchin stray away from materialism when addressing human history?

getting butthurt at Stirner. But thats it.

Das Kapital is super well made and I haven't finished it. I'm going to finish it in a year.


No, Bookchin builds his dialectical conception of history on top of materialism, keeping what is good in it, and also moving beyond it at the same time. Bookchin's dialectic is a fusing of both materialism and culture, sublating both idealism and materialism and transcending them both through his dialectical naturalism.

That sounds like absolute bullshit.

Into the trash it goes.

Throwing an autistic fit over Stirner.

But really I'm just saying this because I'm interested in the argument that Marx was making against Stirner. Then I hear things like Marx interpreting Stirner as an idealist, and the book is filled with strawman arguments against small out of context quotes. What the fuck was Marx so ravaged about?

You being a brainlet and not understanding something doesn't mean it's bullshit :^)

He didn't foresee advanced financial schemes, world war, and advancing workers' rights leading to conditions that would thwart the rise of communism.

And he trusted socdems

All you did was tie a bunch of jargon together. You didn't really say anything.

His theory is 130 years old, so it needs to be rethought and revised.
DiaMat is not a science, not an exact one at least.
Capitalism is much stronger than he thought it was.

he didn't read BASIC economics nor did he read rothbard

Don't forget that he didn't watch Molyneux.



polite sage

sort of agree tbh


He showed his/the proletariat's hand and the ruling class has managed to adapt all the better for understanding capitalism.

Saint Max had a point in criticizing Marx as being spooked.

If your read Marx you might come across a phrase such as the "Asiatic mode of production", you silly Bookchinite, or even letters like this in which he affirms that ancient → feudal → mercantile → capitalist are but a particular sequence found in western Europe, with its own intricacies that are not dogmatically confluencing: /

Marx also never advocated vulgar unilineal evolutionism (savagery → barbarism → civilization). Quite the opposite actually. In Capital he expounds upon facts such as how nomadic tribes are the first to develop the money form as their products are easily alienable. Historical materialism deals in modes of production, not modes of management or even means of social evolution (this always requires a biological or even moral framework, one history utterly ignores with its invariant driver of matter).

Where is the modification, exactly? Everytime a Bookchinite comes here with his 20-meme large folder of ebin flowchart jpegs he fails to even give a functional description of what "dialectical naturalism" means.

This is also beyond retarded. Marx noted that hierarchy already exists, separate of societal class, in the sexual division. And Marxists after him like Benjamin noted that communism, both when it was primitive and if it will be modern/scientific/future communism, will not to do away with hierarchy. Quite the contrary, communism will let the teleology of natural hierarchies actually be duked out in a world absent of economic objects mediating it all.

Now please unload the rest of your shitty memes. I'm sure people will start taking Bookchin seriously the 300th time and that since you started you've converted plenty to the new prophet of radical liberalism.

Trying to predict the future. And thinking the state will ever go away. And being anti-nationalism.

Underestimating the greed destruction and cruelty of humans.

pick two

Absolutely nothing.

Egoists are Ancaps of the left though.

I picked only one though.


The family was probably a big thing but I think that was mostly Engels.

He didn't expect the complete collapse of proletarian solidarity and the information control the bourgeoisie has to suppress dissent (though this is a phenomenon which has started since the internet).

I seriously find it frustrating that this man has written so much on market economies and gets remembered as THE DICTATER OF SOBIET 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧JEWGOSLAVIA🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Oh right the whole part about "if we just let all the people of the world migrate an masse they will become solidair." That was pretty much wrong when it concerned economic migration.

Literal mongoloid. "Dialectical naturalism". What is matter if not inclusive of nature, a material category? All that is dialectical is materialistic, but all that is natural is not dialectical. Only sensuous creatures like humans, animals and actual organisms are capable of showing dialectical properties, because they can actually be interacted with and influenced as such. A fucking rock isn't dialectical, nor is nature is a whole (either nature in a historical framework, or the notion of nature as such). Nature is nature; man interacts with nature, but nature does not respond with anything but its own rigid dogmatic natural laws. Man is not locked into its evolutionary by any natural laws. All natural laws it carries are wholly interacted with.

Bookchinfags are worse than even the Yugoflags.

We're not all boring an-nhils. But I'm of the opinion that Stirner's philosophy is useless without socialism to prop it up. Really the only part we disagree on is race and nation.

Diamat as a "science" is a thorougly Stalinist invention. I wish people just read Marx without making assumptions about marxism.

Also, Bookchin was a total hack and not worth anyones time. I guess most smart people on this board have already noticed that.


said this is a mid-Comintern development and distortion. Marx's method is better described as "materialist dialectic" than dialectical materialism, and what most mean by dialectical materialism is utterly different from that:

Well, Bookchin shilling has been a thing on this board for around a year, and it's still at best two or three spergs with the same completely ineffectual style of posting. I remember a while back one of them was supposedly gonna go to Rojava with the boots on the ground, though I doubt that's actually happened since Bookchinites online are already saying Rojava is "not real communalism", or only "communalist in small and certain ways".

So yes, I'd say that nobody here is stupid enough to fall for their BS.

don't generalize whats unique. ancaps are all the same that is extremely retarded people.

Marx understandably didn't write much about fiat currency. The section of Capital about the money commodity is now hopelessly obsolete.

This is so stupid. If fucking fiat currency invalidated LTV, it would go beyond that and it would indeed mean the end of economic crises, but the very same world-systemic crises keep occurring, and in the exact same way as before: profit rates cannot be sustained. Watch this, please, and the same goes for anyone else:

I never claimed that it invalidated the LTV. It just would be nice if he had written about fiat currency instead of just dismissing it out of hand as the delusion of aristocrats.

But it was and still is an aristocratic delusion. MMT today tries to flimsily proclaim that fiat money bypasses the need for labor to produce value, but that's wrong. What it does is create a delayed value production first (this money-capital will lose value if it does not turn a profit off of actual social labor) and second MMT and other fiat memers ignore the fact that labor time is spent and substracted in the printing of that money, that money itself having value because of that. Please listen to that podcast ep. it sums it up better than anything else could.

human nature

is a spook

Marxism works on the basis that everyone knows what they're doing and everyone does what they should and executes the plan. People are too stupid and pathetic to make it work, and the world just doesn't work like that anyway - plans always fail.

Have you ever even bothered reading a single text by Marx, let alone come across such a term as "consciousness" or even "theoretical understanding", or the greater flow these things coalesce into: history, and the relevance of thought and compulsive belief in reaction to historical circumstance? Marx literally says that the difference between a bee and a man is that a man acts like an architect: he thinks before acts; he imagines a potential solution before attempting it, and through trial and error finds new ways.

Sounds like we could use a "cultural revolution" of sorts.

All we need is a dire situation.

saint max was a predecessor of the pomofags, someone who stays totally within the realm of language. that chapter of the german ideology is marx making fun of Stirner for being an idealist autist. Marxism is a philosophy of action that goes beyond muh free floating unique nothingness and deals with how to go about changing the world, realising philosophy and erasing the distinction between materialism and idealism in praxis. Stirner's idea of praxis was running a milk co-op for godsakes

Is there a decent written explanation anywhere? My internet connection might not quite be up to the task of playing a video.

And failing at it, literally getting cucked and dying to the sting of a bee.

Also 150 years later there's edgy autists that found a way to have an alternative to the usual Randian phase through his written masturbation fantasies.

ive hacked ur ip and am coming to ur house to kill u

Politically, he didn't predict that social democracy and authoritarian social democracy (fascism) would prolong the life of capitalism through state intervention, he underestimated how long capitalism would last. As for everything else, its not so much that he was wrong, but that he died before he completed his work. He originally intended to write 12 books about economics, he only wrote capital vol 1. and the other 2 volumes were edited from his notes by engels. So things like crisis theory, trade & the world market etc. werent that well covered. This is where the so called transformation problem comes from, his writings on transformation from value to price were incomplete, therefore they were open to attacks. Furthermore, he didn't predict that the revolutions would happen in underdeveloped countries like Russia, China, etc. rather than western Europe and america. Finally, although there is no way he could have known this in the 19th century, he didn't predict climate change as a major issue. We might not make it to communism if porky destroys the planet first.

the fact that he died before he finished everything is so goddamn depressing. Do we at least know what they were going to be about?

Actually alot of modern marxist economists combine MMT with marxian economics

There should be a rule of thumb; each system lasts for a millennium or two at least - such as slavery and feudalism, so will be the same for capitalism.

Dialectics does seem to have a huge blind spot when it comes to determining when something is going to happen. It is great for the who, what, where, and why, but when is another story.

socialism, in his theory of it.

Fuck off cultist

That is complete bullshit.
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Frederick Engels

"Scientific" socialism is used as a term exclusively to speak of a socialism defined through historical materialist thinking, rather thana a socialism defined through ahistorical blueprinting. Marxism as immortal science is ridiculous bullshit not found in Engels or even Marx.

He also didn't predict WMDs and MAD, which should have been pretty easy to predict when you think about it.

this is just hyperbole though. whether it's immortal or not, Marx and Engels were both very clear that Marxist analysis is a science.

will humanity last another millennia though?

The concept of selfish virtue is retarted. Only someone who has zero thought words others could support such a thing.

Marx thought capitalism would be just another phase of development, but it turns out it's actually humanity's twilight.

How could anyone have been expected to predict MAD before the theory of relativity had been formulated?

Einstein's discovery of Relativity didn't enable the atomic bomb. You can thank people more like Marie Curie and Enrico Fermi and Wolfgang Pauli.

It's simple historical materialism: industry is enabling larger and larger manufacturing, building, etc. so it must must also enable larger bombs, and there should be a point when said bombs become a mutually-annihilating threat.

wrong about the first communist revolution starting in London.

Culture, communication and informational sciences have become extremely important since his time.

So you're saying it's…. human nature? :^)

t. hasn't read Stirner
altruism and self interest aren't polar opposites

he was a fucking class collaborationist opportunist fuckwit

He couldn't kill the forehead man.

some wealth inequalities really do come out of ability inequality, productivity inequality, problem solving capacity inequality etc

also wealth comes largely out of intellect, not physical labor, one engineer for example can transport or do thousands of times more units of labor than some illiterate peasant

'to each according to his need' is 300% utopian and absolutely fucking retarded, put yourself in the shoes of the guy that is supposed to go around fulfilling everyones needs instead of a guy that's supposed to get all of his needs fulfilled

read a fucking book nigger, by far this is the worst argument in the whole thread.

back to Holla Forums

Literally nothing of what you just said describes Marx's theories.

He got wrong the part about social being determining consciousness rather than consciousness determining social being. Trading Places isn't real, you can't take Eddie Murphy off the street and put him in a CEO job and he'll magically become a great leader. Great leaders are formed by transformational life experiences unrelated to or orthogonal to class and class conditions, by self-reterritorialization, by actually reading theory and learning from great leaders of history, by dutifully committing and sacrificing oneself to a higher purpose, by having faith in a supreme Being, even if they believe themselves to be that supreme Being, and by overcoming the fear of death.

crises are necessary milestones in the transition from capitalism to communism. each crises necessitates additional measures by which to constrain capitalists and transfer more wealth and power to the democratic state, which cannot but inevitably be controlled by the worker for the worker.

It works in a bad cop/good cop process. Bush comes in, cuts taxes and regulations, capitalists go out and innovate, lead development of a lot of new tech and production, then oh what do you know you partied too hard now we have a crises, guess we better slap a lot of regulations on you now, the people demand it. Oh by the way thanks for producing these smart phones, we're giving them away to every poor person for free now. Oh what's this? some new technological developments? Lets let Trump and the capitalists have some fun again, go out and design and build some new shit for us, then when the system inevitably squeezes your shit in again after a few years when the market is saturated we'll step back in and give a bunch more of these new toys to poors.

well all im saying i have never in my life saw an example of personally responsible marxist
they all seem to operate on "there's infinite resources out there, free shit for everyone" basis, always first to redistribute the wealth but never the ones to create any, always the ones to criticize a thing but never to fuck off and build a better one

Can you restrain your stupidity even for a single fucking second? Is there ever an instant in your day when you aren't babbling like a fucking jackass? You are a worthless idiot that should be shot in the back of the head and dropped into a dark chasm. Do something useful for once in your misbegotten life and just end it.

good argument, socialism wins

yup, this is Marxism.
world view destroyed

You aren't worth arguing with. You're hardly even worth a bullet. You're an ignorant shitdumpster that the world would be better off without.

he would never win in an argument against the milkman tbh because the milkman is not wrong.
he never criticized Marx's theory just his ideology.

So what you're saying is that by merging rigorous understanding of history and materialism with fundamental ethics and pragmatism…

He thought Germany was anything other than absolute trash.


this tbh