5 ms·

It is not a mere coincidence that discussing Marx’s Capital is never the point. They are approximately equivalent in their influence on humanity, but only one

It is not a mere coincidence that discussing Marx’s Capital is never the point. They are approximately equivalent in their influence on humanity, but only one of them offers a critique of the immediate situation.

seneca 5y ago
> It is not a mere coincidence that discussing Marx’s Capital is never the point. > They are approximately equivalent in their influence on humanity, but only one of them offers a critique of the immediate situation. And only one of them lead to the death of millions of people. There is a reason some things are discredited. People don't generally spend time debating the points of Mein Kamf either.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I’m surprised to see “this book is dangerous” as a reason why a book shouldn’t be discussed in intellectual spaces in a place like HN.
  - zepto 5y ago
    It’s not that it’s dangerous. It’s that it has been tried and shown not to work. It certainly merits a history lesson and a post-mortem discussion, but that’s about it.
    - _lqaf 5y ago
      This is an oft-repeated nonsense line to dismiss some really interesting philosophy. Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes. (I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?) Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat?
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > Marx was not writing a plan of action Then he failed his own "the point is to change it" test.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes. No - what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes. If there is one thing a political system should do, it is this. > I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?) I don’t think it should be discarded, but I do think that we know enough about the problems of capitalism that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription for our times. > Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat? Have you considered that free thinking means doing your own thinking? That means being able to recognize when an ideology is past its sell by date and not fetishizing a particular historical figure as being uniquely insightful.
        _lqaf 5y ago
        > what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes What a weird test. No system of government does, and Marx was not writing a system of government. I guess it is time to throw out all political theory, though. > that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it. > means doing your own thinking ...Which apparently can only lead to your conclusion? That's hilarious. > and not fetishizing I'm not the one with the fetish here.
        zepto 5y ago
        > What a weird test. No system of government does I’m surprised you don’t think it’s important for power to be accountable. It’s ok if you don’t, but I think limiting the power of tyrants is an important political principle. >> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription > Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it. Who said it should all be discarded? It seems like you might be remembering a past argument with someone else. >> and not fetishizing > I'm not the one with the fetish here. Ok, I’ll bite. What do you think I’m fetishizing?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - seneca 5y ago
    Sorry, that's not the point I meant to make. The poster I was responding to was saying that the point of intellectual discussion groups is never to discuss Marx. I was pointing out that that is because Marx's theories have been thoroughly shown to lack merit. It's not so much that they're dangerous as that they were discussed, quite a lot, and then acted on. Those discussions and actions lead to some of the largest events of human suffering in history. I'm not sure what more discussion there is to have at that point other than "how do we make sure that doesn't happen again". I've read Marx myself. I've also read what little of Mein Kamf I could manage to get through. I don't believe in banning books or ideas, but I do think it's ridiculous to ignore history and pretend that proven bad ideas ought to be given another chance.
civilized 5y ago
[flagged]
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  That’s just dodging the parents point though, which isn’t the implementation of whatever is in the pages of a text but that the text itself doesn’t get as much discussion intentionally because it’s more relevant than other works that serve as feel good dopamine hits for the intellectual.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Well at least I got this interesting comment out of it!
zepto 5y ago
The big difference between Marx and Plato is that Plato’s political theories have never been empirically tested.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
The big difference is that (early-middle) Plato mostly asks questions and poses problems, whereas Marx expounds doctrine.
ksdale 5y ago
You don't think anyone ever discusses Marx?
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
Huh? Why can't people discuss Marx's Capital? Whether or not you agree with his political philosophy, his historical work in Capital is fantastic and I recommend everyone read it at least from an economic history perspective. > but only one of them offers a critique of the immediate situation So you're a socialist. The whole point is that not everyone is, or maybe some people _are_ and they need to read the Republic and then Capital to come to that conclusion. Reading groups are all about access to new ideas, they aren't meetups of political groups. But there's so much more. Read Rousseau to understand the Social Contract, Bakunin for anarchy, etc

seneca 5y ago

> It is not a mere coincidence that discussing Marx’s Capital is never the point. > They are approximately equivalent in their influence on humanity, but only one of them offers a critique of the immediate situation. And only one of them lead to the death of millions of people. There is a reason some things are discredited. People don't generally spend time debating the points of Mein Kamf either.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
I’m surprised to see “this book is dangerous” as a reason why a book shouldn’t be discussed in intellectual spaces in a place like HN.
- zepto 5y ago
  It’s not that it’s dangerous. It’s that it has been tried and shown not to work. It certainly merits a history lesson and a post-mortem discussion, but that’s about it.
  - _lqaf 5y ago
    This is an oft-repeated nonsense line to dismiss some really interesting philosophy. Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes. (I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?) Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      > Marx was not writing a plan of action Then he failed his own "the point is to change it" test.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes. No - what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes. If there is one thing a political system should do, it is this. > I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?) I don’t think it should be discarded, but I do think that we know enough about the problems of capitalism that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription for our times. > Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat? Have you considered that free thinking means doing your own thinking? That means being able to recognize when an ideology is past its sell by date and not fetishizing a particular historical figure as being uniquely insightful.
      - _lqaf 5y ago
        > what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes What a weird test. No system of government does, and Marx was not writing a system of government. I guess it is time to throw out all political theory, though. > that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it. > means doing your own thinking ...Which apparently can only lead to your conclusion? That's hilarious. > and not fetishizing I'm not the one with the fetish here.
        zepto 5y ago
        > What a weird test. No system of government does I’m surprised you don’t think it’s important for power to be accountable. It’s ok if you don’t, but I think limiting the power of tyrants is an important political principle. >> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription > Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it. Who said it should all be discarded? It seems like you might be remembering a past argument with someone else. >> and not fetishizing > I'm not the one with the fetish here. Ok, I’ll bite. What do you think I’m fetishizing?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- seneca 5y ago
  Sorry, that's not the point I meant to make. The poster I was responding to was saying that the point of intellectual discussion groups is never to discuss Marx. I was pointing out that that is because Marx's theories have been thoroughly shown to lack merit. It's not so much that they're dangerous as that they were discussed, quite a lot, and then acted on. Those discussions and actions lead to some of the largest events of human suffering in history. I'm not sure what more discussion there is to have at that point other than "how do we make sure that doesn't happen again". I've read Marx myself. I've also read what little of Mein Kamf I could manage to get through. I don't believe in banning books or ideas, but I do think it's ridiculous to ignore history and pretend that proven bad ideas ought to be given another chance.

civilized 5y ago

[flagged]

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
That’s just dodging the parents point though, which isn’t the implementation of whatever is in the pages of a text but that the text itself doesn’t get as much discussion intentionally because it’s more relevant than other works that serve as feel good dopamine hits for the intellectual.
- civilized 5y ago
  Well at least I got this interesting comment out of it!

zepto 5y ago

The big difference between Marx and Plato is that Plato’s political theories have never been empirically tested.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

The big difference is that (early-middle) Plato mostly asks questions and poses problems, whereas Marx expounds doctrine.

ksdale 5y ago

You don't think anyone ever discusses Marx?

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

Huh? Why can't people discuss Marx's Capital? Whether or not you agree with his political philosophy, his historical work in Capital is fantastic and I recommend everyone read it at least from an economic history perspective. > but only one of them offers a critique of the immediate situation So you're a socialist. The whole point is that not everyone is, or maybe some people _are_ and they need to read the Republic and then Capital to come to that conclusion. Reading groups are all about access to new ideas, they aren't meetups of political groups. But there's so much more. Read Rousseau to understand the Social Contract, Bakunin for anarchy, etc