Why are Marx critics so shallow?

>Marx Deserves Better Critics

Attached: ipnb7.jpg (550x696, 103K)

why do people still attempt communism when every attempt thus far has failed

Attached: 5f474fa6cda4bf03d582b2fbddda9ea4-vaas-far-cry-definition-of-insanity.jpg (550x550, 47K)

Jordan Peterson is a creation of the progressive media. It's not that we need better critics of Marx, there are plenty from the Austrian school to the existentialists. These people are routinely ignored and high-school level thinkers (never truly men of the right) are elevated by the left as representatives of the right only to be easily destroyed

Have they?

Because trannies need to be liberated

name one (1) attempt

ted hughes truly is an evil man

lol is this the new "we live in a society" meme?

Marxists have ruined the word "critique."

Attached: 110062.jpg (700x700, 72K)

I'm gonna attempt communism with your mum fgt

Austrian economics is a complete failure

Perhaps but their theory of value is superior to Marx's in all conceivable ways

Why do people make threads about readers instead of about books?

Zizek won

The only answer capitalists have for proles is to say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and the inject them with false consciousness.

This used to work in america up until about the world economy collapsed.
Now the lie is obvious to everyone. And america will just get poorer and browner.

The only people who can properly trigger commies are anarchists

Attached: max painting.jpg (750x548, 68K)

>anarchism
cringe and absolutely bluepilled

Not an argument.

Communism and fascism are dead. What the elite and most everyone have not realized is the only things left are anarchism and accelerationism.

Oh, they want to be critical of the commies in a post cold war world?.....

There is only one man who can do that who isnt an anarchist.

Attached: nick land.png (511x767, 1.02M)

Because in order to be a capitalist you have to have a stroke or be a racist

Because They hear words like "dictatorship of the proletariat" and just assume what it means rather than check.

>The only people who can properly trigger commies are anarchists
This, Marx dedicated half of a book to rant Stirner, but the whole rants wasnt anything more than a huge reee from Marx while Engel fapped thinking about Stirner.

>supposed binary
I'm sorry the debate didn't have 40 people to make sure every ideology got a chance to talk. If you want Zeitgeist vs Segregationist then set up that debate yourself.
>then adds in "Happiness" to muddy the issue further
It's almost like they wanted a topic, but an open one both could explore that played into their psychoanalytics.
>what we need to discuss is serious
Glad that happiness isn't serious to the Zeitgeist movement. Also, the fuck does this guy think philosophy debate is? If you wanna debate green lightbulbs then set it up yourself.

Less than a minute in and this dude is clearly just gonna ignore anything either person said to argue "I would've discussed the green new deal more."

>Why are Marx critics so shallow?
Marx was already fucked during his lifetime.

Attached: 1550771320948.jpg (992x880, 157K)

Feel free to move to Venezuela.

howling

as long as you move to nigeria

why communists act like such little bitches?

it's either that or no critics at all. I'd rather go with shallow.

>economy 70% private
Why don't you?

any school of economics is either a failure or irrelevant except for pragmatics who aren't even a school to begin with

epic meme dude

why would I do that? they're not Marxist

Absolutely not.

Economics as a field has various contributions. Were you there for the thread the other day?

Game Theory has applications within computer science and law-making, as well as high-level decision making.

Not only that, but in general the mathematical economics schools like Irving Fisher's Neoclassicalism or The Lausanne School are trying to mathematically determine the system so we can implement designs to better humanity.

That's the application of any social science.

Cringe

>I didn't even make it through the introduction but I'm mad
oh poor sweetie

The elite need to take the land/deluze pill already and you know it. We in the 21st century bitch

Reject the dogma of representation (idpol) and accelerate capital towards the anti human/post human

Accelrationism gives capitalism a reason to still exist, and it says we are reaching towards a goal of its end in the singularity.

This, Zizek literally admitted Marxism is wrong

>Why are Marx critics so shallow?
cos nobody wanna read that shit

The 20th century is full of people pointing out the limitations of orthodox Marxism. Zizek has been one of them.

That doesn’t make Peterson’s critique meaningful.

>he was right but uh nuh uh!

Attached: 1555984385144.png (1268x700, 871K)

Peterson was wrong. But that doesn’t make orthodox Marxism right.

>Peterson was wrong
About what? Name one incorrect thing he said in that debate

youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

Zizek clearly disavowed all marxist praxis but not marxist theory or marxist analysis of capitalism

>marxist theory or marxist analysis of capitalism
Meaningless

everything is meaningless

And so the leftist comes full circle back to Post-Modern nihilism. Peterson wins again

Attached: derrida.jpg (200x245, 23K)

Peterson is stupider than zizek get the fuck out of here bitch. What im saying is if the capitalist want to rebrand capitalism and want to get rid of the idpol problem stop looking to the past and take the land/deluze pill

Generations of propaganda and suppression of discussion in the public sphere.

>Peterson is stupider than zizek
Debates are not in fact IQ measuring contests, you can be smarter and still wrong

>marxist praxis
Zizek wants a strong Communist state in power globally, he just doesn't think socialist revolution will get us there

60iq take

>Zizek wants a strong Communist state in power globally
If he got this he would immediately become an anti-Communist like he was when he actually lived in a Communist country. He's a gadfly menace and he knows it

reddit spacing

he wasn't an anti-communist, he was a dissident

>Zizek wants a strong Communist state in power globally
so he is a normie globalist
>he just doesn't think socialist revolution will get us there
so he is not a marxist at all

Exactly. Postmodern neomarxists when cornered resort to postmodernism which is their position held at a subconscious level. Among friends the postmodern neomarxist acts mostly like a neomarxist except into cuckhold porn which is fundamentally postmodern

A dissident to Communism...

>admitted
When Slavoj was young he was a dissident, he was never some kind of orthodox Marxist. You make it sound like it was the Peterson's who's responsible for that.

>Marxism is wrong
That's quite a brainlet thing to say, but expectable from people that only care about score of their champion. Where he was wrong? Zizek said Marxism was dangerous at the way it allows for self-instrumentalization, hence muh return to Hegel. He criticized Peterson's attempt of reducing Marxism to egalitarianism by citing Critique of Gotha Program.

>bring up zizek
>everyone calls him a dumb communist
>actually have arguments with some of these people
>they all start screaming that he isnt a communist

Attached: f342g2g5rw.jpg (474x465, 22K)

>That's quite a brainlet thing to say

Only when you carefully construct things so as to make the very possibility of yourself being falsified impossible. If you admit a school of thought is ontologically insufficient you are admitting it as unworthy of identifying yourself in the terms of
The Labor Theory of Value and revolutionary emancipation from exploitation is extremely important to Marxism whatever way you cut it and hide from it, the attempt to hide from the most obnoxious point of a movement is intellectually dishonest

what's a Gotha?

I take it you have never read Marx

It's a city in Gothic 3.

What's wrong with revolution? Presumably if you're a neolib you support revolution since the implementation of democracy and liberalism was done through bloody revolution. Sorry if that hurts your feelings buddy. Just as the liberals overthrew the oppressive monarchs; the workers will overthrow the oppressive bourgeoisie.

LOL yeah, and the Boston Tea Party wasn't an act of liberalism because they were complaining about England. solid take user.

>Presumably if you're a neolib you support revolution since the implementation of democracy and liberalism was done through bloody revolution.
I do (in white countries) because they end well and are exercised in nations already held under authoritarian rule.
Revolutions towards Communist states practically invariably end badly

like fucking clockwork. having an intellectual position is too much for some people; you are either an ideologue or nothing at all

Your statement makes no sense

S-SHUT UP

Attached: 1515723313179.png (240x273, 45K)

>Luther nails 95 theses to the church door
>so... you're saying Luther wasn't a christian...

U are so fuckin stupid. Zizek has never been marxist. You and every other peterson faggot have been screeching about “marxism will be btfo” sonce before this thing started. Its not even a part of their debate. You people project your narrow viewpoint onto anything remotely interesting and fuck it up with your ignorance. Its really frustrating.

Luther wasn't a Christian but thats a separate matter

he was christian but not a catcholic

>Zizek has never been marxist
why does he keep defending Marx then? you think he would have given up on dialectical materialism a long time ago...

Attached: Less-than-Nothing-1050st-298174ca807675b57687a71eb3b15408.jpg (438x68, 14K)

> Zizek has never been marxist

Well then I guess he shouldn't have agreed to a debate defending Marxism

>Luther wasn't a Christian
pic related
Zizek is a Marxist but not a revolutionary socialist, not very hard

Attached: 1555875860729.png (548x502, 335K)

>Only when you carefully construct things so as to make the very possibility of yourself being falsified impossible.
Or when you have wide range of throughs that can be separatly proven right and wrong or when the claims aren't binarily true/wrong. You can say Marx was wrong about X, because there surely are many things about which he was wrong. But when you don't specify, you come out as a brainlet.

Luther was a crypto-kike. Protestantism started with Calvin

>Marxist but not a revolutionary socialist
so he just wants to talk shit about capitalism but not actually do anything?

he just memed about whatever

These kind of takes, also the type in another thread suggesting actual academic philosophy is not real philosophy... I am really curious what you guys think you are doing with your lives.
That's basically most people that read Marx. Very few revolutionaries read books, just like people posting on Yea Forums.

his position is a reversal of Marx's thesis, namely:
>For too long philosophers have changed the world, it is now time for us to interpret it
He thinks we need to continue Marxist critique to the material realities of today (refugee crisis, environmentalism, ect.) rather than simply attempting to repeat the failed projects of the 20th century.

Attached: bordiga.png (500x610, 128K)

It was a debate of personalities not a debate of ideals. Peterson refused to debate the real-deal Marxists.

Yes? That's his fucking job.

how boring. but at least i'll know to not read his books for sure

Marxism was explicitly an intellectual system that built upon itself into an inter-connected and mutually dependent ideological structure.
He was first and foremost an economist with a full analytically detailed model of how he believed the economy to function and his philosophical approach was one that insisted all things in society extend from economy.

You can chip away take some things and leave other things from the periphery of that whole but then you may as well just call yourself a Kantian or Platonist for how much you actually owe to these people. Intellectual identifiers should not just be fucking social clubs

>It was a debate of personalities not a debate of ideals.
No I'm pretty sure the big giant sign behind them said "Capitalism vs Communism"

I guess we have to hold your hand and boil down zizeks entire bibliography since you chose to remain ignorant. Is that what you’d like to happen?

Marginalism? Sure, mixing up exchange value and price is a great starting point for retardation.

If you do boil it down it turns out he's a Marxist in name only

No one cares about the sign, that's just marketting.

i was interested in what he believes in and just asked a few questions. i got my answers. i have no interest in reading sterile unoffensive philosopers. peace

Attached: 1519560407809.jpg (300x265, 57K)

this is the classic post-debate logic by the right:
>Marxism is just X
>listen to a world famous Marxist
>Marxist disagrees with X
>the Marxist is not a Marxist
The truth is, the X you have been sold is a neoliberal meme, the same meme also bought by some of the blue-haired sjw types that people like to screenshot on twitter. If you actually read books, it is easy to recognize who bought the fake news and who actually reads Marx.

Attached: 1555748248174.png (549x2020, 724K)

Zizek is ironically a stalinist and says that he makes this claim partially joking because of the failure of the SU and partially serious because of the success of Singapore.

Half of what Zizek talks about is marketing

Your probably on the wrong board then, you stupid slut.

>Intellectual identifiers should not just be fucking social clubs
you are basically saying unless you take a thinker dogmatically they cannot be counted as an influence (which means in the history of academic philosophy there has never been a Marxist, a Kantian, a Hegelian, a Platonist). Ironically what you want is to turn it into a social club where everyone who calls themselves X agrees with one another, which again, only means you are ignorant of academic philosophy.

>go to debate a flat Earther
>he says the world is round and proves he's smarter than you
>Flat Earthers declare victory

Attached: 1555362725531.jpg (720x734, 61K)

I'm really curious why people think marxists take what Marx has said in its entirety? It isn't the gospel. Marx himself changed his mind about his previous positions (and began speculating on stock exchange towards the end of his life)

>they cannot be counted as an influence
Influence yes, but identification is an explicit step further and rightfully carries with it the full baggage of what you're identifying with

>and partially serious because of the success of Singapore.
i don't think Zizek takes Singapore as a model, that's Nick Land
youtube.com/watch?v=FxaBCg72hxs

he wrote a thousand page book on Hegel and Lacan as an explicit attempt at revitalizing dialectical materialism; find me one person who wrote a thousand page book defending dialectical materialism who wasn't a Marxist, I'll be waiting

Attached: pjt-slavoj_zizek-2_.jpg (620x402, 14K)

Whats retarded is that these two could have had an interesting conversation about eacchothers own cult of personality but instead we have a high-school-student-level debate about the manefesto. Has peterson even cracked kapital? I doubt it.

I'm curious why its so important to still identify as a Marxist if you're not willing to defend his most famous and influential ideas

do you think he doesn't know this? he also calls himself a faithful Cartesian. you simply do not understand philosophy, you are approaching it like affiliation to a political party or something. are you a burger?

Dialectical Materialism is a meme. Try to distinguish it in any way from standard Hegelian dialectics

he does, see
or are you a literal retard who thinks all Marx wrote about was revolution?

Its no use. Even fucking reddit has relegated these comin out the woodwork 25 year old neo horatio algers motherfuckers to their own subreddit as a shit screen. Wrap ur noodle around that- too dumb for reddit. No conversation can be had here.

dialectical memeism is well and all but it's not necessarily communism, being a marxist can mean anything if you develop it enough, italian fascists were marxists too in some sense

>full analytically detailed model of how he believed the economy to function and his philosophical approach was one that insisted all things in society extend from economy.
There are many of such models, but rarely you see an educated person claiming something was "just wrong". Especially not such collosal works like those of Marx. Smith, Ricardo or Keynes were proven wrong/obsolete on plenty of aspects but you won't find many poeple with the audacity to say they were "just wrong".

>He was first and foremost an economist
And a sociologist or a philospher. Slavoj is a philosopher/psychoanalyst/cultural critic, thus he focuses on those points that are in fact much harder to "prove wrong".

>Yea Forums
read the book faggot

Attached: Less-than-Nothing.jpg (641x1050, 292K)

>M-muh dialectical materialism

And so the Leftist goes hiding in his basement

Attached: 1529251076987.jpg (500x582, 39K)

Which is? That capital is the source of all evil? That political economy has to go through a philosophical critique and be overthrown? That capitalism has produced an abundance of wealth that can allow us to live in comfort instead of misery?

I don't call myself a marxist or a communist, but in so far as communism is understood as 'we need to do something' - which the two oddballs Badiou and Zizek do, I would be okay with calling myself a communist.

>read the unconnected ramblings of a madman
no thanks
youtube.com/watch?v=e3LsaJB0_tI

I have, he says he's just in it for Hegel many times himself. He just pretends to be a Marxist because ironically Peterson is right that European Universities are dominated by Marxists and you have to play by their rules to get published and stay fashionable

>He just pretends to be a Marxist because ironically Peterson is right that European Universities are dominated by Marxists and you have to play by their rules to get published and stay fashionable
sounds based and redpilled

>
Which is? That capital is the source of all evil? That political economy has to go through a philosophical critique and be overthrown? That capitalism has produced an abundance of wealth that can allow us to live in comfort instead of misery?
Hitler would say the same as would many before Marx was ever born

It's a retarded notion and precisely -- along with his magnanimity -- why Zizek was the worst person to debate Peterson.
Zizek seems to be totally insular and myopic in his approach to politics; he thinks that everybody should be like him, an intellectual. In reality political movements have to be much more diverse. The role of the intellectual is just as important as the role of the activist and the politician and the propagandist and the revolutionary and the regular voter. If the left was to "stop and think" and "read Lacan" we would essentially be asking our enemies to wait while we load our guns. Marx realised this, that's why he wrote the manifesto in the first place.

Yep. Zizek is riding the tiger though he'll never admit it

YOU'RE A COMPLETE FAILURE

Attached: One+of+my+rarest+yes+i+have+many+wares+chu+_09d7631114f2a417eab6941b1fc66e8a.jpg (720x720, 37K)

>italian fascists
that was explicitly a rejection of Marx; all Zizek does is defend Marx. if this is the best case you can make you have already lost. the only issue you people have is that Zizek has no illusions about the outcome of the 20th c, all the political experiments were failures, including liberal democracy. Again, you have set up a dichotomy where all Marxists must believe X, now running into a case which disproves your shallow (literal meme) interpretation of a philosopher, so you are trying to defend your ignorance by pretending said case doesn't exist. but he does exist, you may not like it but this is a Marxist at peak perfection; look at him in all his splendor.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 13K)

>European Universities are dominated by Marxists
that's not even true for sociology departments, let alone in the ones that actually matter

He actually says he is following the example of Lenin who moved to Switzerland and tried to find out how exactly Marx misunderstood Hegel when the revolution did not happen in 1905.

>read
>no thanks
Yea Forums

>all Zizek does is defend Marx
EXCEPT WHEN YOU CONSTANTLY ADMIT WHEN HE DOESN'T
AAAAAARRARRRGRGRGRGGRH

>Lenin thought Marx misunderstood Hegel
so Lenin's not a Marxist either? wtfffff

I haven't read any Hitler but I have a feeling that no, he wouldn't say the same.
>as would many before Marx was ever born
Not too long before, because, you know, capitalism isn't that old. But I have no problem with that. What I like about Marx is he sat down, learned economics, and at least tried to critique political economy - regardless of whether he was wrong or not. I also appreciate the moral dimension of Adam Smith's project.

Contemporary subversives and reactionaries, on the other hand, do fuck all.

Lenin was literally on the way to turning Russia into a market economy before he died

He was a direct cause of capitalism so it still counts as capitalism

>Not too long before, because, you know, capitalism isn't that old
Thoroughly disagree, I find this to be another Marxist misreading that was disproved by the Analysand school. Capitalism was alive and well since the Early Modern Period

*Annales school, Zizekisms getting into my head

>be Marx
>write thousands of pages analyzing capitalism and historical development
>write a few hundred pages on revolution
>immediately after his death Marxists reject his idea of revolution and come up with an idea about vanguard revolution instead
>be Zizek
>hey maybe the vanguard revolution is wrong too
>FUCK YOU NEOREACTIONARY YOU'RE NOT A REAL MARXIST YOU ARE A TRAITOR TO YOUR CAUSE
the right is slipping faster and faster into sounding like literal tankies and I don't know how to feel about it

okay, just so I can keep track, Gentile was a Marxist but Zizek and Lenin weren't. huh, you should write a paper on this user, if you can prove this that's an easy PhD right there

>Capitalism was alive and well since the Early Modern Period
By which you mean 17th century Holland and England?

>that was explicitly a rejection of Marx; all Zizek does is defend Marx
except for all his revolutionary stuff and definition of the proletariat which Zizek rejects. You are just effectively saying that Zizek is picking the parts of marxism that you like and fascists the ones you dislike, but not arguing why Zizek is a true marxist and italian fascists aren't

No I'd go even further back with the Italian free cities

i guess the whole getting a newer younger wife every 10 years Zizek does should have given a clue

Have you read das kapital? This conversation is literally why “marx deserves better critics”.

>definition of the proletariat which Zizek rejects
not you have it completely wrong; Zizek rejects modern readings of proletariat which conflate them with refugees precisely because that was NOT the way Marx describes them. his take on the proletariat is we need to return to Marx in order correct these utopian takes on revolution. please, please read a book

I'm joking there but you will easily find actual Leftists who will deny Lenin, Stalin, tons of others were not Marxists with varying levels of convincing arguments from my view
The Left throws a very wide or thin net whenever it suits them

That's pretty radical, but still geographically limited.

You are responding to me. Thanks I've been meaning to check out Braudel so I know what I'm reading next. Though I highly doubt he or anyone else will say 15th century economic systems are the same as 18th century systems. I am not claiming to be very knowledgeable but isn't there a real difference between capitalism and mercantilism? The industrial revolution did also change the conditions of economic production - which can't be a minor factor.

It's a classic rear-guard technique of Marxists to claim that anyone who criticizes or even dislikes Marx cannot possibly have understood him.

>The Left throws a very wide or thin net whenever it suits them
apparently the right does too, see: this thread. the dichotomy of who is and isn't a Marxist doesn't actually lie in left and right but rather who will actually pick up a book in 2019.

Mercantilism was a school of economic belief more than an economic system (i.e. Marxism to Socialism) but yes the Italian Republics and to a great extent the Catholic Church itself were exercising systems of Capital venture funds and banking over large economic networks for many centuries before it would become the predominate in-land mode of production

even if that's true, are you really willing to defend this man's reading of Marx?
youtube.com/watch?v=MT82V08nM1A

Which is why there is an onus to have actual definitions of things in any reasonable formality.
Certainly if Lenin did have an opportunity to institute a Deng Xiaoping transition to Captialism it would be difficult to have called him a Marxist any more than the current Chinese government is recognized as Marxist by the Left and Right

everyone does that fampai
>theology isn't bollocks, you just didn't understand aquinas!
>that isn't even real capitalism, you just didn't understand mises!

i'd rather read marx than meme-marx

Why would I have to read Marx to critique Marx? His ideas are nothing but how they exist in the sense of people holding their interpretations of his beliefs. I must only look at the world to understand Marx, in any real sense.

Attached: 1534783774026.jpg (1800x2266, 1.82M)

same could be said about italian fascists, you are just choosing people who you like and calling them "true marxists"

zizek literally says there's no proletariat in the modern world, which means the whole marxist vision of communism is meaningless without new theory who defines a revolutionary subject or a different path to get to communism

yes, a position he got to by following a very close and faithful reading of Marx

Then dont critique Marx but instead those people who have their interpretations that you understand.

Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else.
-Doctrine of Fascism
please stop being a literal retard, thanks

>no proletariat in the modern forst world
Is Zizek a Maoist-Third Worldist now?

Attached: 442e649e5b4f22a4568a7f047f1b464cc84a3be3c02c45c2d9dd74d6cb4e5aae.jpg (400x400, 19K)

Has been listening too much to Badiou

and by accepting that all marxist praxis has failed and makes no sense in the current world, so he is not a communist in any sense. you can say he is "trying to follow communist spirit" but at that point that could mean anything

>It's a classic rear-guard technique of Marxists
Oh, don't attribute a sin to those who spot it. Limited attention span, demand to have it RIGHT NOW and thinking that google will make up for months and years of study are things all too pervasive in our society. It's not only a problem with Marxism, it's just a problem of plebeian audacity.

>i don't like where they took the ideas so they are objectively wrong
k

Marx never once defined communism along the lines of praxis, in fact it's a very, very basic misreading which confirms your general ignorance of the theory
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
-German Ideology

It's the other way around. Peterson didn't do well at all, Zizek did. But I mean this in the sense that Zizek actually destroyed internet Marxism. This has far higher rammifications than people seem to understand. Zizek literally spent the entire debate basically reiterating reactionary talking points better than any actual reactionary I can think of besides Hunter Wallace or, who else, Alex McNabb. By the end of the debate, it almost seemed as though HE was the right-wing one, and Peterson was just some neoliberal faggot shill.

And, what a surprise, Peterson IS a neoliberal faggot shill. That's his entire shtick, it's reframing liberalism in a way that juxtaposes it against the identitarian right and the boogeyman of the identitarian Left in a way that is paletable to Jews and corporations. He has said himself that this was his entire purpose: To pull young white men away from "identity politics," without ever mentioning the fact that every single other group on the planet is identitarian.

We literally just saw the day when a fucking communist got up to bat and more or less defended reactionary politics AGAINST a neoliberal. This is the clownworld equivalent of horseshoe theory, where at this point, Slavoj Zizek and Mike Enoch or Erik Striker could probably sit in a room and discuss politics and not disagree on anything except Jews.

And how long will it be until the Jews come up? Well, if I told you five years ago that Slavoj Zizek would be defending Christianity on camera in a public debate, would you have believed me? What the hell do you think is going to happen in five more years?

Attached: sad anime girl.jpg (702x749, 36K)

>dialectical materialism is true, Marx was right
>dialectical materialism is false, Marx was wrong
>why wont people say this is the same thing

Attached: 2f7.jpg (601x508, 31K)

But I can critique the collective subconscious understanding of Marx at once, and since there is no practical difference between Marx and this entity, except maybe platonic, it makes no difference. If Marx's works disappeared tomorrow, what would be left? This collective understanding. What would then be Marx? This collective understanding. Since this entity has _already_ supplanted the so-called "actual" Marx, his works have metaphorically disappeared. As soon as the first person who was not Marx read his ideas, his ideas changed, in the truest sense of the word "idea".

This never happened. He said you need to read Hegel to truly understand Marx.
>NEP is a market economy

>suggesting actual academic philosophy is not real philosophy
This is 100% true

by that definition communism is simply any change which means it's meaningless

this is a lot of mental gymnastics, to go through. do you do the same thing with Christians? I mean, Paul was already changing Jesus' idea in the "truest sense of the word "idea""

>there's no proletariat
>but we are still totally communists dude

just admit you are too much of a brainlet to deal with continental philosophy, it's okay. Marx was a young Hegelian, start off with easier stuff like Plato.

>He said you need to read Hegel to truly understand Marx.
No he said you need to read Lacan to truly understand Hegel reading Marx

Yes, of course I do the same thing. Do you really believe in the platonic realm? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

see
can someone PLEASE actually read Marx before debating him? literally the only place to go to get halfway decent critiques of Marx today is Marxists, the people on the right should recognize this and try to take advantage rather than screeching in the corner cause they refuse to read anything longer than a pamphlet

I think it's a needlessly high bar of purity for the basic intellectual frames we treat -isms as in political theory which renders the whole think pointless. There's no true Kantian, Marxist, Hegelian, Christian, ect. okay, now where does this get us?

That probably had something to do with the fact that his retard commie bullshit had literally starved ten million Ukranians to death already. They were literally exporting food throughout the entire holodomor.

You will notice that literally every left wing bitching point revolves around the same feminine principle: "Right Wing people (men) please help us, we're too stupid to function without your money!" and every time they get their way, their kids starve to death and they continue bitching about that.

Maybe the adults in the room (right wing men, the only kind of men) should discuss the details and everyone else should remain silent.

Um most of us know Zizek is a racist eurocentric piece of shit that just has a few interesting commentaries on some interesting dudes which he repeats endlessly. Besides, Zizek has been defending Christianity for much longer than five years, was not considered a good marxist in a socialist state, and ran as the liberal democratic candidate for presidency in Slovenia (while quoting Marx rhetorically).
Who are you talking about? Lenin or Zizek? Because the latter has absolutely said Marx misunderstood Hegel. But every Marxist does say you need to read Hegel to truly understand Marx (as well as Ricardo etc.).
Philosophy is what philosophers do. Up until very recently philosophy was used synonymously with science (cf. Nietzsche's Gay Science - which has the exact same meaning as 'joyful philosophy' or whatever). There was just fields of philosophy. Philosophy is now more specialised, as it has become 'philosophy of X, Y, or Z'. Can you say the English we speak today is not English because it is not what Shakespeare was doing? No two eras had the same conception of philosophy, and perhaps no two philosophers do.

>Philosophy is what philosophers do
Stopped reading here

Attached: heidegger.jpg (533x340, 38K)

>implying you've read anything

I'm literally a Phil Grad. Philosophy Academics are to Philosophy what Literature Academics are to Literature

except even Heidegger was rector of the university he taught at

So was Nabokov. Merely incidental