The concept of Marxism is one I find troublesome. In physics, for example, there's nothing like Einsteinism; because Einstein isn't a God who you worship. He was a human being, and like most human beings he had some important things to say, that we should learn from, and he makes mistakes which you disregard. So you learn from the important things Marx had to say, and you disregard his mistakes.
Marxism, in my view, belongs to the history of organised religion, in that it's a kind of worship of an individual. If you look at Marx himself, and other people who've been working in that tradition, you learn what's valuable and you disregard what's not.
Take say, socialism. Marx had very little to say about socialism; I'm no Marx scholar, but I've read a fair amount and really there are only a few scattered paragraphs about socialism in Marx's work; he had almost nothing to say about it. He was first and foremost a theorist of capitalism; of 19th century capitalism, perfectly naturally, and he developed a kind of abstract model of the capitalist system and its properties, from which I think there's a lot to learn. Any intelligent person should read it and learn what you can from it.
However, to think that it offers a doctrine for today is ridiculous, I can't imagine that Marx would have believed that. He also wrote important things about current affairs, British rule in India for example, but if we were still talking about things like that civilisation would be dead.
Yes, there's contributions, as there is from the rest of our cultural tradition, you learn from them what's important and you disregard what's not useful.
I personally don't give a fuck about Marx the person I only care about Marx the theorist I accept some of the marxist theories because they have empirical evidence backing them
plus there is just no alternative to the Marxist theory of history history without Marxism is like biology without Darwinism
It seems that your main issue lies in the glorification of marx and the god-like treatment he received from contemporary leftists. And with this I agree, the attitude contemporary leftists have towards Marx almost imply infallibility and a construction of his works as dogma, which could be further from the case and nor is it practical to assume the case regardless.
But your articulation of this point seems to be poorely constructed. You seem to focus more on the name given to Marxist thought rather than the given attitudes to It. Marxist thought is a particular strain of leftist thought predicated in large by the works of Marx, thus it is fairly coherent to name the strain of thought after it's founder. The etymology of "marxism" is in no way comparable to Einstein's Theory because Einstein didn't fabricate his own interpretation of physics independent of any other interpretation of physics, rather, he merely added to a pre existing theory of physics without altering any previously founded theory of physics. To the contrary, Marx did in fact establish a wholly different model of leftist thought that doesn't even cohere with any other model of leftist thought during his time. He single handedly constructed the strain of thought and therefore named after the strain of thought he fabricated, much in the same way units of measurement , organs and animals are often named after the scientists that discovered them.
Moreover, it seems very impractical to change the name of a strain of thought that has maintained and been used for over 200 years. Any literature that uses the word "marxist" would have to be altered, and where intellectuals have already become used to reffering to Marxist thought as Marxist, they'd have to suddenly alter the name.
I'm a fan of Chomsky (not an anarchist or anything I just think he makes intelligent contributions), and I'd also consider myself a Marxist. But OP is a fag. There is zero effort here.
Tbh tho, what OP copypasted is often how I feel about contemporary Leninists. They have the best intentions and they're still my comrades, but I think their more dogmatic tendencies can often be a detriment to the Left.
Yes there is, it’s called General Relativity. Marxism doesn’t mean worship of Marx, it means the subscription to and application of Marxist theories of politics, economics, and sociology. In the same way, General Relativity means the same thing for Einstein’s theories of physics. Ironically enough Einstein was a Marxist.
Einstein was an autistic fag and by no means the greatest scientist of recent history.
Einstein was such a sperglord that when he finished his theory he had a massive psychosis from the pure uncut autism
the reason you think einstein is some kind of luminary is because you are a brainwashed western liberal plebe under the yoke of the perfidious anglo, darwin is shit malthus is shit huxley is shit foucault deserved aids
Read Vernadsky, read the Garl but carefully, stop sucking big black nigger dicks. prepare your anis for multipolarity
"Newtonian physics" or "Newtonian mechanics" though?
In most cases it means exactly that.
Personal associations for concepts are encountered all the time in the sciences. In ecological niche theory for example we often refer to two different concepts of niche: the Grinnelian niche (after Joseph Grinnel) and the Eltonian niche (after Charles Elton).
This. Is Chomsky a retard?
but there is, it's called modern physics. because Einstein was right.
Yes, Chomsky is fucking trash.
a bit like how maoist third worldism has nothing to with maos thinking?
Is this Chomskypasta?
Notice that he's talking about Marxism and not Marxian whatever.
We don't do social sciences the same way we do natural sciences. There is no clear-cut "scientific method"; there are multiple scientific methods.
Kids, this is what happens when you believe in mystical Jewery instead of Dialectical Materialism. Your mind will get infested with the conclusion that a thing can happen multiple different ways at the same time.
there actually are multiple scientific methods, the methods of biology are not the same as physics
are you stupid? what she said is not even controversial. It's a fucking fact
Do you use DiaMat when you're examining physics or chemistry?
If your answer is yes, you might be a Lysenkoist.
damn, user. damn
Marxism has very little to do with Marx's writings. Marxists are power-hungry sociopaths pretending to base their theories on "scientific doctrine." They're willing to erase their names from the history books so long as they get to enjoy the material spoils of victory.
Marx was a philosopher, and schools of philosophy are typically named after its founder, e.g.- Hegelianism. There is no cult of personality around Marx, people are mostly interested in the man's ideas and theories, not the person himself.
You don't see shit about Marx indicative of a cult of personality, like, say, fables around him about how, as a young boy, he chopped down a cherry tree and immediately admitted to it because he could never tell a lie.
Thats because he wasn't a utopian like you.
Marxism is just a school of history, the materialist school.
In the humanities there are different schools which represent different paradigms. This happens often outside of the hard sciences. You should read Thomas Kuhn on this.
Also I'm pretty sure I heard Chomsky say that in a video.