Marx and his ideas were/are significant. More significant than vegan condoms at the very least.
-
-
Replying to @_leftcat @Outsideness
They may have been significant at some point I suppose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UnconsciousAby @Outsideness
His ideas still are significant. Honestly, where else can you find a rigorous philosophical account on how the infrastructure of a society conditions/determines the properties of its social formations? At the very least Marx's theoretical ambitions are still significant.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_leftcat @Outsideness
It's precisely at the moment Marx begins formulating dialectical materialism that he leaves philosophy behind and starts calling his project a 'science', which it evidently is not. Are you a strict materialist (in the dialectical sense)?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UnconsciousAby @Outsideness
I'm a materialist, but not in the dialectical sense. Dialectics, for Marx, was a tool which could be applied to thought but not to matter as such. At best treating matter as obeying dialectical laws leads to a cosmological materialism of the sort found in Hegel, Lenin, or Mao.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Marx called his project a science because he was committed to systematically describing forms of social organization in terms of the laws they conform to. His project is scientific in the same sense as computer science is. They both aim to describe systems which were built by ppl
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_leftcat @Outsideness
But it's not a science is it? There is no end to history. Through all it's claims to analyse the 'material conditions of life' Marxism is, at end, an idealist ideology. It supposes a teleology that it cannot justify.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UnconsciousAby @Outsideness
I don't agree that Marx (or any philosophy which could reasonably be called 'Marxist') supposes an unjustifiable teleology, but if it did I think it should be excised at any cost.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_leftcat @Outsideness
What do you call the supposition that a communist mode of production would necessarily follow the capitalist if not a teleology? It isn't at all made clear why that should be the case either.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @UnconsciousAby @Outsideness
Marx isn't making the claim that capitalism will inevitably give birth to communism. He's saying that's what will happen provided certain conditions (conditions which capitalism has a tendency to produce) are met.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
"... conditions which capitalism has a tendency to produce ..." -- Clearly not.
-
-
I think
@EBBerger might have quibbles there1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
