It's almost like understanding Marxism and the Marxist critique of economics would require you to read and engage with the works of the man who's the namesake of the intellectual tradition you're apparently so fucking curious about, or to literally even attempt to engage with any authors in the Marxist tradition
I blame Karl Marx for that, somewhat. Marx helped kill “utopian socialism” (my favorite kind of socialism). The utopian socialists used to actually dream of the kind of worlds they would create, conjuring elaborate and delightfully vivid visions of how a better and more humane world might actually operate. Some of these veered into the absurd (Charles Fourier believed the seas would turn to lemonade), but all of them encouraged people to actually think in serious detail about how human beings live now, and what it would be like if they lived differently. Marx, on the other hand, felt that this was a kind of foolishly romantic, anti-scientific waste of time. The task of the socialist was to discern the inexorable historical laws governing human social development, and then to hasten the advance of a revolution. According to Marx, it was pointless trying to spend time drawing up “recipes for the cook-shops of the future”; instead, left-wing thinkers should do as Marx believed he was doing, and confine themselves “to the mere critical analysis of actual facts.”
Agree or disagree with what's he's saying here, he obviously isn't just ignoring Marx.
You piss and moan about the guy not reading Marx in good faith, then you're shown he's read Marx, and instead of taking that in good faith you assume he just skimmed some quotes? Get the fuck out of here.
You're more interested in stanning a guy who puts on a fake british accent and talks about how he's "suspect" of Marxism based on a random tweet whilst repeatedly failing to bother engaging with precisely the sort of works that might actually answer the (bad faith) question he's trying to pose.
Agree or disagree with what’s he’s saying here, he obviously isn’t just ignoring Marx.
I also think he's too optimistic and too critical of existing socialist projects, but the point here is that he's not criticizing something he hasn't even read.
It's almost like understanding Marxism and the Marxist critique of economics would require you to read and engage with the works of the man who's the namesake of the intellectual tradition you're apparently so fucking curious about, or to literally even attempt to engage with any authors in the Marxist tradition
deleted by creator
It's easier to debunk idiocy than truly understand a difficult truth.
I've spent years thinking about the implications of relativity and I'm still only like 1/3 of the way to fully understanding it.
He does engage with Marx's writings:
Agree or disagree with what's he's saying here, he obviously isn't just ignoring Marx.
He's engaging with his own caricature of Marx.
He quotes Das Kapital in that excerpt.
I can google "Marx quotes" too
You piss and moan about the guy not reading Marx in good faith, then you're shown he's read Marx, and instead of taking that in good faith you assume he just skimmed some quotes? Get the fuck out of here.
lmao is Nathan holding your family hostage, stop defending objectively dumb tweets, it's not that hard.
lmao you're more interested in punching people on the left than in listening to what they have to say
You're more interested in stanning a guy who puts on a fake british accent and talks about how he's "suspect" of Marxism based on a random tweet whilst repeatedly failing to bother engaging with precisely the sort of works that might actually answer the (bad faith) question he's trying to pose.
Why will no one listen to these well known media figures that run popular magazines?
i think youre responding to the wrong thing njr isnt here
is this a fucking joke
deleted by creator
I also think he's too optimistic and too critical of existing socialist projects, but the point here is that he's not criticizing something he hasn't even read.
More Engels erasure.