I think a distinction needs to be made on this board between "Marxists" who agree with Marx's economic critique of capitalism and "Marxists" who agree with Marx's statist method of replacing capitalism.
This false equivalence seems to be causing a lot of confusion.
The false dichotomy causes more confusion.
You're either Marxist, or you're not. There is not being Marxist in economics and something else in some other place. You either maintain the methodology or you don't fucking understand it. Marxism isn't about making a hodge podge ideology that is tailored to your special feels.
Piss off namefag, no theory no opinion.
Indeed.
To critique the Marxist method of implementing socialism, is not the same as rejecting Marx wholesale or his criticism of capitalism.
You offer some up an I'll refute it, till then you can wallow in your dumb shit. I've studied Marx and Hegel, I fucking know what I'm talking about.
What is the Marxist method of implementing socialism?
In my experience, that distinction is unlikely to catch on.
Disputing the heritage of Marx from Leninists and other statists seems too much work for something something that is at the end of the day meaningless. Ancomflag is right, Marx is the God of the Leninist Gospel and is useful in that regard, but Marx the man, much like Christ, is remarkably unremarkable.
If this is a question of denominations… I think you'd actually have better luck with anarchists. Certain anarchist groups have and are engaging on a critical examination of Marx's theories and taking what is true or useful for an emancipatory project, for better or worse. In my experience, people who come under the umbrella or marxism tend too often to treat Marx not like a scientist but like a prophet, memorizing quotes and fragments instead of understanding arguments and their logic. To top it off, there is are academics that make a decadent living by trying to twist Marx into some caricatured libertarian of sorts, so "libertarian marxists" become the perfect market for these clowns.
By all means, read Marx, the same way you'd read Newton or Kant. Try to understand, but don't just assume it all they say is true.
Then you'd know that
is completely undialectical.
Piss off, tankiddie.
There is.
It's Marx VS Bakunin
This attitude right here is why the left is so stuck in 19th-20th century thinking. Take what is valuable and strip away that which is not from theory: don't try and jam a square peg into a round hole just because you've put this or that theorist on a pedestal.
Jesus christ, you don't even know the basics. I even wrote an article explaining it to you kids. It's on Bunkermag, get you some learns why don't you?
No, the reason you're still in 17th century thinking is that you don't fucking read or think. Look, it's no one's problem that YOU are too lazy to actually read what it takes to get theory.
Literally everyone here except for Yui and maybe one or two more have any idea what post Kantian thinking is like. You kids are pre-Kantian and expect us to take you seriously.
My gott, you're pure ideology.
Keep indulging in your Kantian philosophical reaction that passes for pseudo-Hegelianism.
Oh, fun fact: Marx rejected the Hegelian project of providing an objective account for subjective phenomena, and never really even realized what he was doing until he read Bakunin's annotated Hegel books.
Look it up.
Hegel's project was a philosophy of freedom. He doesn't care about epistemology, it's a mistake. Marx tried to make Capital in the image of the Logic precisely because it avoided the problems of objectivity and subjectivity.
Your biggest project is apparently being an insufferable faggot.
The cathartic qualities of a philosophical system don't seem really relevant to anyone but the philosopher, by the way that is the reason a philosophy of freedom is useless without a praxis of freedom, which incidentally was Bakunin's contribution to the left Hegelian tradition.
How can you even say Hegel doesn't care about epistemology? For Hegel of all people, Freedom was always achieved in accordance with Reason. Avoiding the contradiction between subject and object doesn't sublate it, it just obscures negation. A lot of ontological confusions, things like the dissonance between Marx's concepts of alienation and fetishism, are guaranteed to come from it.
No, he didn't. You do know that Hegel made a big deal about the theory/practice divide in the Phenomenology right, and that his aim was making a theory that is not separate from practice, hence why it is also a theory that shows the development of practice?
What Hegel was against was claims of what humanity should do in precisely the idealistic sense that anarchists do. "All that is real is rational, and all that is rational is real" means that if you have a >real< theory it is already a practical theory. Any theory without practice is no theory of anything real at all.
The point went over your head. The critique is not that Hegel's theory lacked a concept of practice and then praxis (relation between theory and practice), the critique is that Hegel's praxis is not liberating and therefore his system as it stands fails as a "philosophy of freedom". This realization led directly to revolutionary action.
The insight is not in contradiction with Hegel per se, it's just a conclusion developed from his system which in turn dialectically transforms it, which is why I explicitly said it was his contribution to the Left Hegelian tradition.
As for "All that is Real is Rational", Hegel refers not to contingent reality but what is actual beyond contradiction. The Real, or Actual, is not the Reason of what appears (a very conservative interpretation) but the Reason of what is, that is, the Absolute which contains no contradiction. If anything, looking for a conciliation of the Real and the Actual is what Hegel proposes. This is the purpose of praxis, of practical theory.
You can agree with some of his analysis (i.e. capitalism is bad) without necessarily being a Marxist.
TBH fam I just want to live in a state run by Marxists, that exists for everybody instead of just the wealthy.
I worry that left anarchism would just give way to right-libertarianism. And I think ML-ism is unnecessarily restricting. I don't like the idea of banning political beliefs or killing people based on ideology rather than deed.
Marx didn't think capitalism was bad.
B R A V O
R V
A A
V R
O V A R B