To all Socialists/Communists...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
W

WHITE DEVIL

Sicc OG
#21
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#21
Actually I'm wrong - Marx was very much a philosopher.

He was very influential, yes, in economic theories, and he is known as an economist to date, however many actually hold that he was primarily a philosopher and his economic contributions were secondary.

In fact all of Marx's economic theory came from his materialist viewpoint - the worldview that, in fact, the structure of reality lay in the independent nature of matter.
 
ColdBlooded

ColdBlooded

Sicc OG
#22
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#22
That's the typical bourgeois cop out. They try to class marx and engels as philosophers as to make the system of communism seem some how less attainable by dismissing the historical/economic/political depth as just philosophy talk.

As if some how being a dialectical matericalist makes you a philosopher or something :dead:

If that's the case you can call me Socrafuckingtes

:cool:
 
W

WHITE DEVIL

Sicc OG
#24
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#24
Well Marx's work very much reads like philosophy, no matter how "bourgeois" a field it may seem. Communism is very much taken from a philosophical perspective about the psychological affects of material lack on the psyche. But it is true he definitely was not "bourgeois", he was not a college-educated, lofty white intellectual liberal, like most of us here. Actually Marx was so un-bourgeois, he wrote all of his treatises and theories with rice paste, and his writing utensil was a straight shard cut from a ceramic bowl, and hardened with the sweat of farm workers and tempered with the blood of work mules.

Marx and Engels were not humanitarians. They did not raise their hands and scream at the bloodied and diseased poor. Theirs was not an urgent, emotional reaction to the situation and culture of capitalism. They simply believed, in a rational, intellectual fashion that capitalism as a system was largely flawed, and the logical, more humane, modern approach to economics was communism, which would eventually phase out its inferior predecessor.

I'd say a dialectical materialist is just as much a philosopher as a nihilist, a Republican, or a cow. No matter how simplistic or base that philo

Economics does play a much, much smaller role in Marx's writing than philosophy. His chief co-contribution was economic, and for this he is known, but the vast majority of his work is theoretical and philosophical, dealing with the effects on the soul of .
 
ColdBlooded

ColdBlooded

Sicc OG
#25
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#25
So did you come up with any of that on your own or did some bourgie cat write that on his website and/or limited circulation book? Thus further proving my point.

Cuz if you did write that, yet you haven't read Marx, how would you even know?
 
W

WHITE DEVIL

Sicc OG
#26
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#26
ColdBlooded said:
So did you come up with any of that on your own or did some bourgie cat write that on his website and/or limited circulation book? Thus further proving my point.

Cuz if you did write that, yet you haven't read Marx, how would you even know?
Click to expand...
Im surprised you missed the two unfinished paragraphs...hah.

No, I wrote it all myself. And I have read Marx, I was only angry that then I had to re-read Marx, as in read, then read again.
 
MEXCOM

MEXCOM

Sicc OG
#31
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#31
WHITE DEVIL said:
Correct punctuation. Mark, the bird is in the tree - Bitch, my punctuation is exemplary. When addressing someone, it is appropriate to precede a comment with a comma.
Click to expand...
I know. I added the comma.
 
W

WHITE DEVIL

Sicc OG
#36
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#36
I still see a somewhat convoluted answer to my question - Is all private property / ownership antithetical to communism, or does confiscation and redistribution only apply to capital goods, services, and income-creating assets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom