Why is discussion of this man's work prohibited on here...

Why is discussion of this man's work prohibited on here? Every time I try to make an argument or post anything at all against Marxism, I am immediately met by the majority of users saying "gb2 /pol/" or "/pol/ tripfags are leaking". In fact, most of the time, I am banned when attempting to discuss Marxism.

However, I think this is the precise board to discuss such a topic on. Marxism is specifcally centered around a group of texts, and these books are "law" for the Marxist community. Since Marxism has until known proven disasterous when attempted, I think its important to recognize that Marx's ideals exist within a vacuum that assumed human nature does not exist. Precisely why these works are "literature": ideal, non-existing in the real world.

Either the users of this board are either too afraid in an actual debate about this work (hence "gb2 /pol/" being the central argument of all naysayers" or you do not understand how catasrophic for humanity every attempt to create Marxism has been?

I honestly have no idea whether you like Marx or not from this post.

Most Marxists fall into two categories:
1) you haven't eben reddit.
What does it say?
Go reed it.
2) the eternal toldyaso, who explains every event in terms of class warfare and the inevitable decline of capitalism with a certain Jehovah's Witness-esq glee when shit goes wrong.

I'd love to talk about Marx's ideas, there's a great reason why nearly two centuries of people have been enamored with his thought, but a discussion warrants a little less elitism and dogmatism.

>Marxism is specifcally centered around a group of texts, and these books are "law" for the Marxist community
Marx/Engles's works consist of one major economic manuscript (Das Kapital), one philosophical manuscript (The German Ideology), two political manuscripts, (The Communist Manifesto, and Anti-Duhring), and whatever the fuck Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State is. None of these are considered "Laws", by anyone. With Kapital, and Origins of the Family being purely descriptivist, and with every major Marxist (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Deng, Castro, Sankara), making at least one notable alteration to the Economic theory (Labour Aristocracy, anyone?), and the German Ideology has been radically altered by various philosophers since (Sartre, for one), the Communist Manifesto is largely considered an entry-level text, and no-one takes it seriously compared to the others, and the only book that MIGHT, fit your description, Anti-Duhring, has been largely ignored in the righting of other texts that have followed, such as the State, and Revolution, or The Permanent Revolution, or basically anything by Rosa Luxembourg, and before you respond "well those later books are books of laws then", bare in mind that Not all Marxists are Leninists, or Trotskists, or Luxembourgists, or Leftcoms, or Rightcoms, or any one of the million different splinter groups that make up the Marxist movement, and agree on nothing but the fact that Marx's, and Engles's writing was for the most part correct.

>Since Marxism has until known proven disasterous when attempted
Marxism is just a school of economics, based on the philosophy of Diamat. If you mean "Scientific Socialism", then we're in for a much longer argument.

i honestly have never seen that
i have seen good marx threads over the years, some very good
one pops up once a month or so, most others are begun by retard shitposters who haven't read

Dialetical materialism is a fiction

>I think its important to recognize that Marx's ideals exist within a vacuum that assumed human nature does not exist.
"Human Nature" is simply the ideology of the society in which you live, which has been driven so deep into your subconcious from the day that you are born, that you come to see it as the only way that a human can think. Humans act differently depending on how you organise them.

Perhaps, but this is dogma. You have to admit that so far there have been few (if any) successful experiments in social engineering for any ends except propping up an oligarchy.

>describes every society

Name any non-oligarchical society, that isn't a hunter-gatherer tribe.

>human nature does not exist
Well a Marxist would say human nature doesn't exist, it is purely a result of the material conditions in which you live.
"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier

>Marx's ideals exist within a vacuum that assumed human nature does not exist

Even if a universal fixed human nature existed how much longer will it last? Humans have already begun to transcend natural evolution and consciously engineer their biological properties while monetizing the process and subjecting it to the laws of capitalist development. This is all just in its infancy and its logic is embedded in the process itself of the development of the productive forces since no one controls capitalist development it controls us.

Your grandchildren will probably be cyborgs.

We are already cyborgs, it's just that the process of becoming one is continuous and everybody is waiting for a leap(which isn't going to happen).

I have a question for real Marxists

Is economism really inherent in Marx? When I read things like The German Ideology I can't help but think they really were "vulgar" materialists. I know Second International thinkers generally were, but it seems like Marx & Engels were as well.

Is there an argument to be made that Marx's superstructure was more subtle? Not that it can be interpreted as such, but that it was specifically for him?

The Zapatistas and the kurds in Rojava

Because everyone stops discussing Marx and his failed ideology when they grow out of their edgy teenager phase.

Marx is like the hallmark for teenage know-it-all readers, and limp wristed academics.

Marxism is by and for the classroom. It's the type of ideology that checks all the boxes intellectuals like to see. It has been a failure because it's hard to manage from the top of the ivory tower where you can't even see the ground.

It has been successful in preserving its own ideology for the same reason Christianity has: it plays on people's sense of righteousness. For a Marxist the most brutal means will always be justified contrasted to such utopian ends.

Ironically Marxism (and the many philosophies it spawned) is strongest in the most bourgeois institutions, upper class urban academia.

Because people can't have an earnest discussion about marx without ideology poisoning it.

>Is economism really inherent in Marx?
It depends what you mean by economism.

Human society cannot exist without its own self-expansion over time. The product of this self-expansion is I would say identifiable and quantifiable but it cannot be understood purely "economically" (i.e. not measured simply in terms of goods/services/output).

Under capitalism Marx in Captal measured it with the formula S/(C+V) i.e. surplus/((constant capital) + (variable capital)),

This formula is a ratio and since it expresses the "quantity" of social surplus and since that surplus expands from society to society the ratio itself must change: In this development the numerator "S" expands relative to the denominator i.e. it tendentially increases.

This ratio obviously in a sense expresses man's relationship to nature, in the sense of his social reproductive powers. Similar expressions must be necessarily characteristic of all societies. It's characteristic of human existence as an ontological description of activity on the basis of which and through which man goes beyond given situations and progressively develops higher states of the productivity of labor power.

/thread

Too many brainwashed murrikans

So.... Marxists?

Be use we already know that Marx is a moron.

People all over the world hate Marxists though.

samefag

there's literally a thread on Marx up rn you fucking retard.

>German Ideology has been radically altered by various philosophers since (Sartre, for one),
That's interesting and I didn't know that, thanks. Can you tell me about any of the others, or a good piece of secondary literature on DDI?