I'm not sure what you're after....

I've read some Marx, ages ago. His arguments are quite solid, even if they err in places. His application of Hegelian dialectics to a more materialist take on nature and "being-in-the-world" are still widely discussed in the field and tend to promote very relevant views on contemporary politics and questions that pertain to social justice. That Communism turned out to be historically problematic doesn't immediately translate into the failure of Marx's arguments.

-->

Hey there, PE!
It's been a while! Hope you're good.

By the way: I have no idea what your comment means...

Cachimbo! How've you been? I'm doing well. :)

That was an arrow pointing to me, i.e. I've read Marx outside of the CM and still disagreed with him at the end of it. Granted, the disagreement is mainly economic; his work with Hegelian dialectics is strong stuff. But from what I can tell I do fit the original post's conditions, hence the arrow

Been good... discretely coming back here to play a game or two, here and there.

But this morning, I'm trying hard not to work hard... so I'm making many comments here.

As for Marx... disagreement shouldn't lead one to think him crazy

"That Communism turned out to be historically problematic doesn't immediately translate into the failure of Marx's arguments..."

Errr...yes it does. It is the difference between pipe dreams and reality. I can devise a system in which You are supreme ruler of all humanity and bestow benevolent love upon all...and yet it will be bound to fail no matter how well intentioned your dictatorship is...but my argument will be sound.

This is a consistent problem with dialogue in these forums: the refusal of the "intellectuals" to separate "nice ideas" from "this is the real way people interact"

You're not hearing me right Krellin.

The idea is that Marx's argument doesn't fail to promote, still today, important theories (and actions) that support, for example, gender and racial studies. That parts of his conclusions ended up impossible to realize in reality does show true limitations of his thoughts, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we therefore have to throw everything away.

Anyone who has that kind of ghost rating deserves to be heard.

@cach - Stopped clocks are right twice per day. If I stick one on a fast-moving vessel, it might even be right more than twice per day if I travel counter to the earth's revolution..but I won't rely on my clock for the time.

Does Marx have some worthy notions? Sure...no argument...but there are better sources for intellectual inspiration than a guy who's primary ideas have failed and failed consistently.

I understand the *need* to study and comprehend failed ideas...but there is also a point in time where you say, "Hmm...mostly failed idea..." I doubt Marx is the only guy in the history of the world to think gender and racial studies were a good idea. and then...what where his motivations for such? Because I'd suggest his followers didn't quite see a noble purpose in said studies, given the treatment of genders and race in Communist regimes is really no better than anywhere else.

????

Not sure I get your point Krellin... It sounds as though you're advocating for the idea that philosophies have a "best before" date or something.

Inspiration comes from a many great places. Marx is one. His participation to the evolution of our thoughts on dialectics (from Plato, via Hegel, up to Adorno and others) as a way to understand our historical being-in-the-world is still determinant and effective today. It's not always about being right or wrong.

And it's not Marx per se who was interested in gender and racial studies. It's rather that his materialist dialectics offer a method to those who think such problems. The method is still relevant in that it still provokes new thoughts that seem to be of value in thinking certain issues.

But heck... I don't give a hoot whether or not you agree! And I'm certainly not about to spend much more time trying to convince you. If you feel like someone's writings should be forgotten in the name of some principle or other, suit yourself. I'm simply more inclined to think that there is no uninteresting interlocutor to those who know how to listen.

Convince me then :-)

Funny man, RedHouse! You first flatter me and then tempt me... You devil you!

The simple point is this: philosophical thoughts and theories are not merely judged by the way they translate into practical realities. That's certainly an important feature to measure their worth, especially where they endeavour to determine the "right" political structure, or the "right" way to conceive of moral value. But it's not the only one. Philosophical relevance is not, like scientific relevance, only measured by the way theories adequately describe reality but, also (and in an important way), by the way a text or an argument is still a relevant interlocutor or source to think reality. On that front, Plato is still fantastically relevant even if his description of reality is obviously problematic. And the same is true of Marx.

It's a question of relevance, not one of adequation to reality.

Nice, Krellin! See how convincing you are when yuo aren't screaming at the top of your lungs?

Nobody let Putin see this tread or he will RPJ all over his keyboard.

"interlocutor"

Fuck you, Frenchy. Making me learn new words in my native tongue.

Damn Yonni... Had no idea that a few months would be enough for you to turn from a very nice guy into a violent Troll!!!

The forum rubs off on you eventually. Of course, I didn't mean a word of it. Except for the part about not know what "interlocutor" meant.
But nice to see you back.

I'll quit derailing this novel and refreshing conversation. ; )

@Cach -- " If you feel like someone's writings should be forgotten in the name of some principle or other, suit yourself"

<sigh...> Show me where I said his writings should be forgotten. I said they have limited use…like a broken clock. If you are going to take the arguments of a guy whos philosophy and belief system have *largely* been a failure, then you had better be pretty darned careful when you start saying, “He ‘’s mostly wrong…but I like what he did there…” because the connotations of “…what he did there…” are potentially bad, since *overall* his philosophy is dysfunctional, as demonstrated by actual history.

i.e. Find someone who’s philosophy you largely *agree with* as a starting point for your intellectual endeavors.

But I never said ignore Marx…I said *understand* him, if for not other reason so that we do no have someone repeat them and pretend they are new, interesting ideas (i.e. modern Democrats…)

re: Dialectical materialism: (From wiki...I know...I know...) is a strand of Marxism, synthesizing Hegel's dialectics, which proposes that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while simultaneously developing internal contradictions and weaknesses that contribute to its systemic decay.

I don't disagree - interesting idea...promoted by a guy that called for a specific system of social order / governing. Why? ALL systems decay, he says, so why promote one over the other? See...again...the wickedness is in the way, isn't it. You want to take some small point and explore it as if it has some true value. Interesting topic dialectic materialism is...in the study of it you will find ways in which Economies and Social Orders fail over time…thus prompting people to say, “What can we do to stop the decay…” thus leading to various authoritarian regimes, according to Marx, in which powerful government protect you from yourself. THAT is the outcome of this “interesting philosophy”. It isn’t a harmless intellectual endeavor…it is part of a larger process of thought by Marx which eventually involves enslaving people.

Krellin: " I understand the *need* to study and comprehend failed ideas...but there is also a point in time where you say, "Hmm...mostly failed idea..." ", which you immediately follow with the thought that those who still turn to him for philosophical support in their work should look elsewhere.

I simply don't think that there is such a "point in time". Maybe especially where the writings of Marx are concerned given their continued importance in world politics. Again, I urge you to see the difference between failed attempts at communist governments and the purport of Marx's argument.

At the end of the day, you've not demonstrated that Marx's argument is so terribly flawed. Mind you, I've not shown why it wasn't. I've merely appealed to "authority" in the sense that I've pointed to some contemporary fields of work that still see his argument as relevant to their endeavours. Admittedly, that sort of appeal is part sophistic, part appropriate (in that it points to experts in the field who practically disagree with your stated opinion). But as far as your point of view is concerned, you've given no proof of Marx's writings failure to provide a rigorous and relevant argument. All you've done is allude to the failure of Communism which, I think you'll grant me, was never the proper application of Marx's theories.

So tell me: why are his theories so flawed that we should look elsewhere (but not to the point of forgetting the guy...)? Why is his case distinct from that of Plato? Why is it distinct from that of any bloody philosopher that's met with some objection or other?

"you've not demonstrated that Marx's argument is so terribly flawed.."

No...it flaw is demonstrated by HISTORY! <ugh...smacks head in to wall repeatedly...>

Dude... I'm sorry... I can't push this conversation further with you. Dialectical materialism is far more complicated than that. It entails phenomena such as "alienation" through appropriation of material reality, for example. And it most certainly doesn't boil down to the claim that every system is flawed... Not to say that the claim isn't made (with important nuances), but I simply don't think you have enough of an understanding of these concepts to be able to argue that they are irrelevant.

And again...

History is no measure of the relevance of a philosophical theory. History has shown that Plato was wrong... Christ... History has shown every philosopher wrong!

Also: history is not a natural object. It is a constructed reality, a meaning determined through interpretation. Where interpretations proceed on different grounds, or under different hermeneutics, history will appear to present very different characteristics.

But please, by all means, keep hitting your head on a wall. At some point, it just might make a dent.

Concerning economics, Marx extended Ricardian economics which means the mainstream economic is terribly outdated just like Ricardo and his e.g. labor theory of value is. The theory of exploitation as an economic abstraction is still useful but people tend to visualize it crudely and emotionally, probably because of the name, but that doesn't mean it's bullshit.

As someone mentioned Hegelian dialectics, that's the biggest retardation Marx took his inspiration from. If we accept the premise that thoughts should be regarded by the fruits of their application, "Hegelian" dialectics (which, through decades of distortion, were significantly different from actual Hegelian dialectics but that's par for the course) was the intellectual biggest murderer of the 19th century. Its extension used to describe mechanistic and uncontrollable world powers clashing in an epic confrontation with unavoidable results is just so Nazi it hurts (mind you, Nazis hated actual Hegel).d

krellin is sad, here krellin, have fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fos4EPUOsHo

Marx attempted to dedicate his crappy ass crappy stuff to Darwin. How crazy is that?

Yes, Marx had brilliant theories that are relevant and can be moderately effectively applied in modern society, but the simple statement that there are periods of nearly stagnant cultural growth followed by quick revolution is simply preposterous. It is a theory based on the time in which he lived and does not apply to social theory as well as many of you would like to make it out to. Such comparison to the Cambrian Explosion just exemplifies and integrifies what I'm saying. You cannot assume that because there was plenty of cultural whatever before and after this simple 'explosion' of human interest that this simple 'explosion' was necessary, repetitive through history, or credible.

If it is not apparent yet that I know very little of what I am talking about, please re-read what I just said.

You might want to use that 3rd paragraph as a standard disclaimer in all your posts.

Uly:

That's an interesting take on Hegel to say the least!

I've always been suspicious of any reduction of history (or of a historical movement) to just one cause or actor. To call Hegelian dialectics a murderer, let alone the biggest one of the 19th c., thus appears as quite the exaggeration.

You're right to point out that Hegel's work was rapidly missappropriated. The debate between left and right wing Hegelianism certainly suggests that much. But the sheer complexity (and obscurity, in some cases) of his writings made sure that it would be a long time before we actually got something clear out of it. As far as I can tell, Hegelian studies today are far more interesting than what Hegel brought about in the 19th. Questions of normativity, for example, can be raised from his texts that are fantastically relevant and useful to philosophical thoughts on the issue today. Understanding Adorno, also, or even some recent Anglo-Saxon philosophers such as Pippin or Danto benefits from due attention to Hegel's offerings. All that to say: don't be so quick to make Hegel what he's not. I won't teach the whole course here, but you might want to read some of Pippin's more recent articles on the subject: they tend to be very clear and quite apt.

But if I'm to make a Hegelian point that actually has to do with what I was saying earlier: interpreting history and the influences at work in its dynamics is an effort of interpretation. Interpretation is, for a large part, an effort to understand particular events in general dynamics, and also an effort to map out these general dynamics by looking to the particular events that make them what they are. This "hermeneutic circle" is very much in line with Hegel's dialectics. And one of Hegel's most important warnings, where interpretation is concerned, is that there is no "absolute beginning": we always have to assume something to get interpretation to lift off the ground. Choosing your starting point, Hegel thinks, you've already chosen the end point. (So the idea is to question the starting point and focus on its (contradictory) assumptions)