Bertrand Russell BTFOs Marx

Checkmate, gommies.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/8K1CzqG-jrI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

Oh my god wtf. What an evil bastard.

He's being sarcastic, you fuckwits. Russell was a socialist. He just wasn't a Marxist. And, as expected, the Marxists around here can't provide a counterargument to Russell's claims. It's clear that Russell has actually read Marx, whereas most Marxists can't get past the first chapter of Capital.

...

...

You want a fucking cookie?

tell us something we didn't know already

Lmao

Where does he pull either of these "arguments" from? I don't see what Malthus' overpopulation theory has to do with is relevant to Marx and the value and price of labour power ("wages") is determined the same way commodity values and prices are. The whole point is that labour power becomes just another commodity.

Also his claim that class struggle only existed in 19th century Britain and France is downright laughable.

Plus his naive deterministic interpretation of Historical Materialism is not just completely detached from anything Marx "believed in" but makes me question whether he ever even read the introduction to Marx' Critique of Political Economy, let alone any more detailed piece on the topic.

???

Bump.

I don't recall the idea of surplus value resting on Malthus's doctrine of population?

Also, Ricardo's theory of value was applied to prices as much as it was to wages, if not far more. Marx just said wages and prices are how this abstraction of value appears in the real world. Not to mention marx seems to indicate that wages are more determined by class struggle than actual value, I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of the theory of surplus value.

And he misinterpreted Marx if the quotes he listed are accurate. Dialectical materialism simply stated that progress in history was dependant on the stage of development of the MOP of that time and the peoples relation to it.

The part about the population theory is nonsense to. The theory of value also applied to prices(in fact he states several times in the book that commodities are always paid in their full value), with the exception of labour. This is where the theory of surplus value comes from you retard.

Yes, because obviously every Marxist on this board immediately rallied to this thread in attempt to defeat it and was simply blown away by Russell's class collaborationist logic.

I mean what great criticisms:
Real hard-hitting stuff. Next time I go into a debate I'll definitely open it with "y-you're dumb and y-you're h-hateful ;_;"

Where does Marx do this?

He literally starts Capital by talking about commodities, Russell is talking out of his ass.

When Marx used the term "history", he meant it in the more Hegelian sense of social development, not literally ever recorded event.

No, dialectical materialism isn't independent of human volitions, but, rather is an attempt to understand human volition in its relation material conditions and the existing social structure.

What? His chief aim was the establishment of socialism, not "kill da bourgies". A conflict with the old, established order is merely an inevitable result of attempting to establish a new order.

Kane?

Yes, the hard reasoning and science of analytic philosophy.

Also the labels in that picture need to be reversed.

Ad hominem


Ad hominem


Doesn't actually say why


I thought this man was philosopher?

every time

No, Russell was an analytic philosopher.

No, the labels are in the right place.

Aren't abstractions supposed to be sterile?

apparently not anymore :^)

from what i can tell, cont. philosophy is anal. philosophy + a little bit of history, for context

If that's the case, why is there even this kind of competition between them? Wouldn't that just mean they are in different domains, not in direct competition?

Look. Look as he drags the thread off topic into the nebulous domain of philosophy. He thinks this will distract from OPs point and ultimately kill the thread.

As if anyone was seriously replying to Russell being a retard.

everything is in competition because life is finite and we have to do something, else we get bored

why didn't he just use a different word then? my interpretation is different

Because, even though Marx was critical of Hegel, he still hailed from the Hegelian tradition.

I don't really think thats true considering his argument is
As for increasing human happiness, people seemed pretty happy after the bourgeoisie were overthrown, whether in the Paris Commune or the October Revolution, or under Sankara or Patrice Lumbumba. They were in fact happier under the USSR despite the supposed lack of luster he saw. Because they don't want to work for fucking shit all benefit to them and are basically enslaved

Also

Yeah, he's totally read it bro.


God bless the alternative

wew

The French Revolution was a revolution of the aristocrats against Louis XVI because he kept raping their wives. Progressives like to rewrite history to make it seem like a spontaneous uprising of peasant serfs, when in fact Louis XVI had taken steps to phase out serfdom.

Wew lad

Seems like he is just projecting tbh. Did he talk to anyone there and why they participated in the revolution?

An analytical philosopher calling someone cold and overly calculating is like the pot calling the kettle nigger

READ NIGGA READ

Also,
WEW
Sing along with us:
youtu.be/8K1CzqG-jrI

Is phenomenological experience the experience of doing phenomenology?

So far the Analytic/Continental distinction is historical if anything. I don't see why people should care.

K, I gotcha. Enjoy the following refutation:

My objections to Russell are of two sorts: one, that he was dumb and stupid; and the other, that he mad, bro. The doctrine of Marx being refuted, which is supposed to demonstrate the failure of Marx, is arrived at: (a) by shitposting, which Russell and all his disciples explicitly repudiate; (b) by applying Ricardo's theory of value to rare Pepes, but not to the prices of memes. He is entirely satisfied with the result, not because it is in accordance with the facts or because it is logically coherent, but because it is calculated to rouse apathy in pseudo-intellectuals. Russell's doctrine that all Communists have been motivated by Leninism is a rash and untrue extension to world history of certain features prominent in McCarthyism. His belief that there is a cosmic force called Natural Selection which governs evolution independently of Jesus' volitions, is mere mythology. His theoretical errors, however, would not have mattered so much but for the fact that, like Tertullian and Carlyle, his chief desire was to see his enemies punished, and he cared little what happened to actual Leftists in the process.

This shit ain't dialectical fam

It's impossible to answer to each and every shitposter out there. Moreover, it's counterproductive - there are better things to do.