Early Marx

Lately, I've been reading Marx and right now I'm reading his early philosophical writings. Since I get the general idea of them and they don't seem that important to his major theories so I was wondering if I should just skip them and move on to his political and economic writings. Also, writing, especially philosophy gets really convoluted when its translated from German to English.

Marx started out as a Hegelian, if nothing else it would be interesting to observe the steps in his transformation.

read it all you need to know the hole truth of an idiot.

mattabesta wrote:

read it all you need to know the hole truth of an idiot.

Arnt you aregant, and consumed by american properganda

You're not furthering the cause of socialism by not using spellcheck.

Marx is an interesting viewpoint for the time it was written in, but it definitely needs to be upgraded for practical modern use and it needs to state how it will solve the numerous problems in today's world.

carmen510 wrote:

You're not furthering the cause of socialism by not using spellcheck.

Marx is an interesting viewpoint for the time it was written in, but it definitely needs to be upgraded for practical modern use and it needs to state how it will solve the numerous problems in today's world.

He said himself that his writings would need to be revised as time progressed

RedNation wrote:

carmen510 wrote:

You're not furthering the cause of socialism by not using spellcheck.

Marx is an interesting viewpoint for the time it was written in, but it definitely needs to be upgraded for practical modern use and it needs to state how it will solve the numerous problems in today's world.

He said himself that his writings would need to be revised as time progressed

That's why weakest link theory doesn't go against Marxism, its a systematic theory of Marxist proletariat revolution written after capitalism was internationalized and industrial capital and banking capital had been fused into financial capital; none of those conditions were existent in Marx's time.

oligarch wrote:

RedNation wrote:

carmen510 wrote:

You're not furthering the cause of socialism by not using spellcheck.

Marx is an interesting viewpoint for the time it was written in, but it definitely needs to be upgraded for practical modern use and it needs to state how it will solve the numerous problems in today's world.

He said himself that his writings would need to be revised as time progressed

That's why weakest link theory doesn't go against Marxism, its a systematic theory of Marxist proletariat revolution written after capitalism was internationalized and industrial capital and banking capital had been fused into financial capital; none of those conditions were existent in Marx's time.

Though Marxist theory is doubtlessly open to change, the weakest link theory still goes against Marxism's most base components. You cannot have a proletarian revolution if 75% ofa country is peasantry. You cannot have a proletarian revolution where capitalism (and hence the proletariat) is not developed! You cannot skip a step in social evolution. Lenin's changes to Marxist theory were not "revisions", Lenin completely scrapped the fundamental Marxist components to create a theory that fitted his own opportunistic needs.

That said I don't think Lenin was a "bad man". He had the right ideals in mind. Hell, he was the only one smart enough to realize that Russia needed out of World War one. I think he was naive to think that through whatever means, he could speed the course of social evolution.

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

Though Marxist theory is doubtlessly open to change, the weakest link theory still goes against Marxism's most base components. You cannot have a proletarian revolution if 75% ofa country is peasantry. You cannot have a proletarian revolution where capitalism (and hence the proletariat) is not developed! You cannot skip a step in social evolution. Lenin's changes to Marxist theory were not "revisions", Lenin completely scrapped the fundamental Marxist components to create a theory that fitted his own opportunistic needs.

Weakest link theory can not go against the fundamental principals of Marxism because Marx and Engels never addressed socialist transition in late capitalism as they never got to the point where they developed a systematic theory of proletariat revolution. The stage of the development of capitalism also became largely irrelevant with the internationalization of capitalism in the early 20th century so it is entirely possible for socialism to succeed where capitalism is the weakest(underdeveloped). This also means that proletariat revolution is not most likely to succeed in the more developed countries where capitalism is stronger than in countries in the earlier stages of capitalism but rather in backward underdeveloped countries.

oligarch wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

Though Marxist theory is doubtlessly open to change, the weakest link theory still goes against Marxism's most base components. You cannot have a proletarian revolution if 75% ofa country is peasantry. You cannot have a proletarian revolution where capitalism (and hence the proletariat) is not developed! You cannot skip a step in social evolution. Lenin's changes to Marxist theory were not "revisions", Lenin completely scrapped the fundamental Marxist components to create a theory that fitted his own opportunistic needs.

Weakest link theory can not go against the fundamental principals of Marxism because Marx and Engels never addressed socialist transition in late capitalism as they never got to the point where they developed a systematic theory of proletariat revolution. The stage of the development of capitalism also became largely irrelevant with the internationalization of capitalism in the early 20th century so it is entirely possible for socialism to succeed where capitalism is the weakest(underdeveloped). This also means that proletariat revolution is not most likely to succeed in the more developed countries where capitalism is stronger than in countries in the earlier stages of capitalism but rather in backward underdeveloped countries.

Again there is a fundamental problem. The proletariat of Russia were a small minority at best. The vast majority of Russia were peasants who still lived in rural unindustrialized communities. If you do not have a revolution driven by a vast majority of the proletariat, you do not have a Marxist revolution. At best, the industrial working class of Russia was some 20% of the population with 5% middle class and nobility and 75% peasantry. Although you could call it "weak capitalism", a more accurate description of pre-revolutionary Russia would be "Feudalism with negligible industrial elements." As a resultant there were no real means of production for the masses to seize. Building such means has a terrible social cost. Such a task can only be undertaken by the greed-driven bourgeoisie, who in turn can be overthrown. Any revolution seeking to industrialize an agrarian economy is doomed to oppress the proletariat in the efforts of doing so. Social Evolution.

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

Though Marxist theory is doubtlessly open to change, the weakest link theory still goes against Marxism's most base components. You cannot have a proletarian revolution if 75% ofa country is peasantry. You cannot have a proletarian revolution where capitalism (and hence the proletariat) is not developed! You cannot skip a step in social evolution. Lenin's changes to Marxist theory were not "revisions", Lenin completely scrapped the fundamental Marxist components to create a theory that fitted his own opportunistic needs.

Weakest link theory can not go against the fundamental principals of Marxism because Marx and Engels never addressed socialist transition in late capitalism as they never got to the point where they developed a systematic theory of proletariat revolution. The stage of the development of capitalism also became largely irrelevant with the internationalization of capitalism in the early 20th century so it is entirely possible for socialism to succeed where capitalism is the weakest(underdeveloped). This also means that proletariat revolution is not most likely to succeed in the more developed countries where capitalism is stronger than in countries in the earlier stages of capitalism but rather in backward underdeveloped countries.

Again there is a fundamental problem. The proletariat of Russia were a small minority at best. The vast majority of Russia were peasants who still lived in rural unindustrialized communities. If you do not have a revolution driven by a vast majority of the proletariat, you do not have a Marxist revolution. At best, the industrial working class of Russia was some 20% of the population with 5% middle class and nobility and 75% peasantry. Although you could call it "weak capitalism", a more accurate description of pre-revolutionary Russia would be "Feudalism with negligible industrial elements." As a resultant there were no real means of production for the masses to seize. Building such means has a terrible social cost. Such a task can only be undertaken by the greed-driven bourgeoisie, who in turn can be overthrown. Any revolution seeking to industrialize an agrarian economy is doomed to oppress the proletariat in the efforts of doing so. Social Evolution.

China had an agrarian based economy until market driven industrialization was introduced and now it has a very high industrial growth rate. However, at no point but the first 5-year plans yielded similar results. 5-year plans.

BTW, has someone written a revision of Marx's writings to apply to the 21st century?

carmen510 wrote:

BTW, has someone written a revision of Marx's writings to apply to the 21st century?

Can't remember his name at the moment but the PCdoB.
A good deal of communist parties have adopted similar programs after the collapse of Soviet Union as revolutionary theory is supposed to change in every historical period.
The new program is the principals of actual Marxism-Leninism and not belief of the post WW2 communist movement that the schematic for socialism is exact and universal and modeled after the USSR.

RedNation wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

read it all you need to know the hole truth of an idiot.

Arnt you aregant, and consumed by american properganda

I live in iceland we're split in half.

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

mattabesta wrote:

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

7:2
Sounds pretty close to me.

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

7:2
Sounds pretty close to me.

I've always been good with maths but THAT DOSE SOUND LIKE SARCASM TO ME

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

7:2
Sounds pretty close to me.

I've always been good with maths but THAT DOSE SOUND LIKE SARCASM TO ME

Sarcasm?! Never!

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

7:2
Sounds pretty close to me.

I've always been good with maths but THAT DOSE SOUND LIKE SARCASM TO ME

Sarcasm?! Never!

so you just faild maths?

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

7:2
Sounds pretty close to me.

I've always been good with maths but THAT DOSE SOUND LIKE SARCASM TO ME

Sarcasm?! Never!

so you just faild maths?

So you're not leaving?

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

7:2
Sounds pretty close to me.

I've always been good with maths but THAT DOSE SOUND LIKE SARCASM TO ME

Sarcasm?! Never!

so you just faild maths?

You don't use math in the plural like that.

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

my sisters vote for left parties
my mom votes for a left party
my dad votes for a left party
my grandmothers vote a left party
my mothers dad votes for a left party

my dads' dad votes for a right party
I would vote for a right party.

well kinda in half.
p.s both my step dad and my step mother vote for a left wing party.

7:2
Sounds pretty close to me.

I've always been good with maths but THAT DOSE SOUND LIKE SARCASM TO ME

Sarcasm?! Never!

so you just faild maths?

You don't use math in the plural like that.

what sorry I don´t care.

Marx's philosophy is often split into 2 phases: young Marx and mature Marx. Young Marx was a Hegelian idealist but when he matured is when he developed his scientific socialist theories such as historical materialism and everything in Das Kapital.

Pannekoek wrote:

Marx's philosophy is often split into 2 phases: young Marx and mature Marx. Young Marx was a Hegelian idealist but when he matured is when he developed his scientific socialist theories such as historical materialism and everything in Das Kapital.

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Marx's philosophy is often split into 2 phases: young Marx and mature Marx. Young Marx was a Hegelian idealist but when he matured is when he developed his scientific socialist theories such as historical materialism and everything in Das Kapital.

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

since when has capitalism worked? it only works for the top 1%. thats a failing grade

mononokifool wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Marx's philosophy is often split into 2 phases: young Marx and mature Marx. Young Marx was a Hegelian idealist but when he matured is when he developed his scientific socialist theories such as historical materialism and everything in Das Kapital.

"scientific" sicens needs proof. we have proof capitalism works but none for communism.

since when has capitalism worked? it only works for the top 1%. thats a failing grade

sorry we have 193 capitalist cuntryes and 191 working, the vatican and zimbawmbe excluded and that gives me 99%