Every time I speak with a Marxist they say I don't understand Marx because they each have their own interpretation of...

>How about you quote what Marx wrote to prove this alleged Marxist wrong, if he is in fact wrong?
I didn't say any Marxist was wrong. I'm just saying that it is a bad habit for Maxists to say that someone misunderstands Marx whenever the person they are speaking to doesn't have their own interpretation of Marx in mind. See: It's like how there are different interpretations of different passages in the bible. you can't just tell someone to go read that passage and expect them to come back when the same interpretation as you. So it's a bad habit to tell someone to go read the bible and expect that to convert them to your particular religion. I'm not saying Marxism is a relgion, I'm just using this example because it's about different interpretations of books.

>to come back when
to come back with*

There are no different interpretations, there are just different morons.
If you have an issue with the theory, quote the text, and we can discuss it. I am sure that we would come to an agreement, as long as we are both reasonable. The ideologues who want to see their mind reflected in the text will be shooed out as appropriate.

>Every time I speak with a (Insert any belief here) they say I don't understand (Insert any belief here) because they each have their own interpretation of his work. Why is this bad habit so prominent among (Insert any belief here)?

Fixed

>If reading a book gives you an interpretation unique from other people who read the book why should you claim that your interpretation is correct? In that case you should acknowledge that there are various interpretations and explain yours and not just say "you misunderstood the book"
Sounds heretical to me

What is your understanding of Marxism? Lets see if anyone here disagrees with your understanding of it.
The difference is that outside of Marxism it is much more common to give your own interpretation a distinct label. Among Marxists different people label themselves with the same label and claim to believe in the correct interpretation.

>What is your understanding of Marxism?

What Marx wrote is Marxism. People who say things other than what Marx wrote aren't Marxists.

You're avoiding the task and basically saying "go read his writings for the correct interpretation". That doesn't prove there is only one correct understanding of his work.
>People who say things other than what Marx wrote aren't Marxists.
I'm not saying that some of these self-proclaimed Marxists are saying stuff Marx didn't write. I'm saying that they each read what he wrote and interpret it differently. To me that seems like the likely outcome for any set of writings, that each text has a set of plausible readings which yield different interpretations.

You are asking me to analyze thousands of pages in a Veeky Forums post. There are disciplines of academia dedicated to what you want me to do in five minutes and 500 words.

If you are trying to twist what Marx wrote, because you don't like feminists or whatever, you aren't a Marxist. He wrote in simple terms, and is easy to understand, and near impossible to misinterpret due to all the iteration and repetition.

You really should read his work, and you will see that there is no interpretation. What he meant is obvious and it is obvious when people twist it.

Basically I am saying that the problem you refer to doesn't exist, and the way to see it doesn't exist is to read.

>There are disciplines of academia dedicated to what you want me to do in five minutes and 500 words.
>He wrote in simple terms, and is easy to understand, and near impossible to misinterpret due to all the iteration and repetition.
How do you reconcile those two statements? You're saying it is hard to analyze his writings and state what Marxism is according to his writings, but also saying that he wrote in simple terms, easy to understand, and near impossible to interpret.

To me, the first statement seems to be your excuse for not posting what Marxism is. However, your excuse goes against the point you are trying to make in the second statement which makes it seem like you want to keep arguing that point despite seeing how it's wrong.

>How do you reconcile those two statements?
Very easily, an analysis of Das Kapital alone is 1000+ pages just because of how big the book is.
Its just cumbersome and I won't do it for some jerk online because he keeps asking.

Again, you'd know this if you read the book. Just read, for fucks sake. All your questions are made obsolete if you read the material.

>it's difficult but so simple!
okay I'll stop asking you

>strawman

A simple 1000 pages are still more than I am willing to analyze in a Veeky Forums post for a person who refuses to read a book.
Stop making threads about books you didn't read, if you plan on harassing people who know whats in them.

>so simple!

>this book i never read is very complex
Read the book.

>simple!

As far as I know, there really isn't much
>what did he mean by this
about Marx. His ideas are pretty well-defined, particularly if you are familiar with hegelianism. I'd chalk the differences in interpretation up to laymen reading him with a fairly miniscule knowledge of terminology and context. You know, the same way laymen read philosophy and turn out with ridiculous ideas of what the text meant. I never read him personally, though, so take my assumptions with a grain of salt.

its the same with all left wing movements and they do it on purpose

notice how feminism is the same way in that it has no core set of ideals but anyone can be a feminist

It is because it is a weak theory in the sense of Popper, unfalsifiable. Just like most social theory, like feminism, just shift the goalposts all the time