A Theory of Knowledge | How Marx Broke Up With Hegel

[@caesarnemkin6698]

This wasn't really an examination of Marx's dialectic but a video on Althusser's ideas of Marxism.

[@ChristoffelTensors]

Well yeah kinda but Althusser analyzes Marx and thus it’s a proxy but still analysis

[@KarlHoweth]

​​@@ChristoffelTensorsa filter nonetheless unfortunately, hence misleading. I would have liked to see an overview of his debates within the Hegelian milieu directly.

[@ChristoffelTensors]

@@KarlHoweth The Hegelians are assigned to the dustbin. Just as Deleuze and Trotsky are. Althusser, Lê Circle, and Friere are more pertinent to pedagogy.

[@KarlHoweth]

@@ChristoffelTensors nonetheless useful to see the pattern of argument by which Marx broke with Hegelian thought. Dustbin and all that aside... don't need the condescending sectarian lecture.

[@RobinHerzig]

Althusser breakdowns are harder for me than understanding Marx, which is challenging enough already. Gotta watch certain points in the video like at least 3x to grasp it. I'm trying 🙂 Also props for not mentioning Althusser's problematic personal history. Agreed it's got no place in discussions of theoretical constructs

[@themarxistproject]

I've spent years reading this stuff and I'm still trying to get it. I certainly wouldn't expect people to get it all (if I'm even right about it) from one viewing.

[@beatles123]

I disagree. Understanding a person's background helps you understand why they think as they do!

[@ideologically_uncharged8069]

@@beatles123 Agreed. Though, it must be done with some care to avoid poisoning the well

[@themarxistproject]

@MattOnWheels yes, but in Althusser's case, the controversial stuff happened late in life after significant decline in mental health. I dont see how it would connect to most of the ideas he is known for.

[@pure_the0ry]

Hunt and Althusser are wrong. Marx accepted reality as being dialectical because his point of departure were actually existing modes of production which were contradictory and proceeded to develop through internal antagonisms.

[@bigusj]

Also the claim is made that reality is not universally in contradiction, but that’s not the claim--it’s that all labor and all production I.e. all efforts to change the world are in contradiction. There’s a fundamental element missing advanced by Mao but skipped by Althusser despite his appreciation of Mao.

[@mostlytranslucent]

Not a fan of Althusser tbh but this was great regardless, consistently high quality videos from this channel

[@natemarx4999]

Bless this channel.

[@goodluck5642]

Showing this channel to my liberal dad 😤

[@VocalBear213]

god bless marxism? amazing!

[@numbersix8919]

Thanks for this overview from Hegel to Althusser.

[@MrDanMaster]

YES!! This topic is one of my favourites

[@cravinghibiscus7901]

Seeing this all as a vic 3 guide

[@acidic_magpie]

Marxists should have to produce a 2000-word book report on Capital and have it peer-reviewed before getting a license to use the word "dialectics". I hate people misusing that word.

[@B_Estes_Undegöetz]

Generally it’s a good idea to come to a clear understanding of the basic concepts involved as building blocks upon which any elaborate discussion ( like the one in this video) before watching a video as dense as this one! Or watch it once quickly. Go familiarize yourself with the fundamental concepts you didn’t have a basic understanding about, then come back and watch this video again! And, if I may, I suggest anyone watching this video do some basic reading even on Wikipedia or ChatGPT about several of the philosophical concepts that are fundamental to understanding what this video is about. Epistemology is “the theory of knowledge”. To understand it you should first have at least a basic idea and be able to explain to someone else the fundamental philosophical concepts of “ontology” and “metaphysics”. Not Marxist anything at this point … or elaborate theory laden ontology and metaphysics … just understand how it is that ontology comes before metaphysics which comes before epistemology (which comes before politics and ethics). At least in the classical philosophical construction that follows the Ancient Greek traditions this is true. So, now for example, go and read up until you have a basic understanding of the following topics: 1. Ontology 2. Metaphysics 3. Epistemology 3.1 Knowledge as Justified True Belief 3.1.a Theories of Truth 3.1.b Correspondence Theories of Truth 3.1.c Coherence Theories of Truth 3.1.d Pragmatic Theories of Truth 3.1.e Minimalist Theories of Truth 3.1.f Constructivist Theories of Truth 3.1.g Consensus Theories of Truth 3.2 Theories | Methods of Justification 3.2.a Methods of Valid Reasoning 3.2.a.1 Deductive Reasoning & Logic 3.2.a.2 Inductive Reasoning & Logic 3.2.a.3.Theories of Dialectical Reasoning 3.2.a.4 Other recognized methods of justification 3.3 Assume for simplicity’s sake it is given that the knower holds a belief, since this elaborate pedantic schema can get even more elaborate … 😂 4. Ethics / Politics All of this is just basic to the understanding of any discussion of epistemology which is the theory of knowledge. It’s critical first to have an idea about ontology (theory of being and existence) and metaphysics (theory of reality and change) before entering into epistemology. A Marxist epistemology need not be terribly different from a non-Marxist theory of knowledge, but the conclusions that one comes to regarding history and economics and economic class of course are quite different than those that a traditional liberal free-market capitalist would come to. It’s important though to understand what basic choices Marx and Marxists make about ontology and metaphysics and epistemology so that one can understand HOW Marxists come to the conclusions they do when trying to produce actual knowledge from observations, using all the other methods in the unique way they do. Only by having a clear understanding of each of the above categories … a couple sentences or three about each is probably enough, can you truly understand what ontological and metaphysical principles Marxists assume as axiomatic (and why), and how Marxists use deductive, inductive and dialectical reasoning along with historical and current social and political observations to come to conclusions and make their political arguments about what actions should be taken in the pursuit of social justice. Philosophy is fun! Start at the beginning and work your way to Marx and even further! Good luck!

[@psikeyhackr6914]

The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase George Orwell mentioned Chase in an essay about politics. Chase was a member of FDR's "brain trust" and wrote the book A New Deal.

[@ozymandias___868]

Don't know about althusser. But Engels' piece " Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical german philosophy " goes into how marx breaks from hegel.

[@blankname5177]

oh, woah. I need to read his text then watch this video to get this. which is a good thing i would say.

[@B_Estes_Undegöetz]

Thanks for the video comrades! It’s been ages since anyone I know or have talked to (that I haven’t been teaching basic philosophy to) has wanted to discuss ontology or epistemology. 1:20. Most take these things as kind of “given”. Glad to see they’re not and still merit some debate even within the Marxist community. Any discussion of Alain Badiou and how he fits into your understanding? His theory about what remains constant before during and after political revolution is interesting and critical to the idea that total incommensurability can be avoided and revolution does not require a total rebuilding of knowledge from the ontology up.

[@kerycktotebag8164]

im new to philosophy, so if i got this right...?: Hegel = dual‐process monist ontology, singularian‐monist and idealist cosmological assumptions more explicit than epistemology itself concerns itself with Marx = multi‐process‐relational epistemology (if anything is implied about ontology in his desire to write a book about dialectics that goes beyond epistemology, it would be Engels who reflected this), semi‐autonomous non‐singularian yet "soft" physicalist epistemology making room for ideality's feedback, but without abandoning materialism... Just not explicitly fusing "dialectics" and "materialism" into a meta‐theory. Unknown or only implied ontological and cosmological assumptions beyond the scope of this video. Engels = the actual source of making more explicit ontological assumptions that combine the process‐relationality Marx used in epistemology, but taken to the level of process‐relational materialist ontology referred to as dialectical materialism...? I guess i just wonder if Marx thought Engels was correct or incorrect in applying the novel epistemological assumptions of Marx to ontology. I just don't know how to make either argument. Not enough evidence, or at least not enough i know of to stake either claim confidently.

[@themarxistproject]

I can't comment too much on Hegel but yes, the main point is that dialectics in Marx don't really have a steadfast ontological character. As to Marx's opinions on Engels' extension, I'm sure there might be some material out there but I'm not aware of it. I think the big difference between Marx and Hegel (according to Althusser) is the absence of the telos in Marx. Marx's totalities don't have a unifying force pulling history forward, whereas in Hegel there is a supposed final resolution to the dialectical development.

[@itfunes]

But doesn't Marx in Die Grundisse outline his own dialectic? I know that it differs a lot from Hegel’s dialectic and the most common explanations of dialectics in Marxist-Lennist manuals but I found it quite interesting and useful when applying it to my studies.

[@Foreheadsnatcher]

I would like it if you made more videos about contemporary issues from a Marxist perspective

[@juliozz59]

I second this... plus I will extend that as part of agreeing with you I/we can consider contributing to this channel. In any way shape or form one has the possibility.

[@caramelldansen2204]

Both of you should check out Marxism Today on youtube (nee Marxist Paul)

[@juliozz59]

@@caramelldansen2204 Gracias camarada! Thx Comrade madly appreciate it.

[@caramelldansen2204]

@@juliozz59 Don't thank _me,_ thank Comrade Paul! In an environment of revisionism, liberalism and idealism sweeping the online "left" space (especially on KZbin), Paul's channel is a rich oasis from a desert of unprincipled shills. He's obviously not the _only_ one, but I personally think he's the best of a seemingly dying breed on platforms like this.

[@Foreheadsnatcher]

@@juliozz59 will do comrade. Thanks for the suggestion

[@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield]

So is the main theoretical that social concepts/constructs are defined by other elements of society as well as themselves? Is a dumbed down version just “a lot of other things cause a thing”? Or “look at the big picture”? I’m not an intellectual. Need baby food from mama marx.

[@themarxistproject]

Something like "our ideas and the way we think about them are affected by the many activities and forces of life." Knowledge is never separate from political, economic, technical, etc. activities. Honestly this is just not an easy topic and probably can't be reduced to a simple statement. I've included a link to another video and a short essay in the description. They should help add extra context. For what it's worth, I've been reading about this stuff for years and still don't feel perfectly comfortable with it.

[@beatles123]

@@themarxistproject As I am to understand it, with my baby-brain: Hegel believed that if we were simply able to evolve/be dialectic enough, naturally the good ideas will win out and we will be, as a result good people. (he referred to this as something like attaining the "True spirit" IIRC) Marx, on the other hand, believed that Hegel had it BACKWARDS! Good minds don't just shape our society with "Good ideas" - Our society shapes our minds and ideas based on the CONDITIONS we live in, the TIME PERIODS and other things. Looking at it in this very simplified way and understanding the capitalist struggle, it's pretty clear that he was correct on that. There is no great "Human nirvana" state we can achieve as long as we have class distinction. Hegel did not understand this. He assumed people could just naturally "Become" masters of themselves just by having enough good ideas, but he failed to consider that the way we live and society's hold on us can drastically effect that. ....aaaaannnnnnd this all may have been nothing at all like what you were talking about. I told you, I have a baby-brain! lol

[@robertoyoedmondragonheredi2084]

I’d argue that dialectics are ontological (the logic of matter in movement) rather than epistemological. Even Lenin came to a same conclusion in his empirocriticism.

[@robertoyoedmondragonheredi2084]

@@novinceinhosic3531 I wouldn't be quite sure he is 'counter-philosophical' in the broad sense (just as Marx was), rather I'd say he was counter bourgeois philosophy. About the interpretation of Engels, I'd suggest you read in great detail my first comment, I'm pretty sure you missed the point.

[@beatles123]

@@robertoyoedmondragonheredi2084 You are correct. Lenin was anti-bourgeois before anything else, and even HE admitted that Marx did not invent "Marxism", but rather "Bourgeois Intellectuals" did, and that it was up to us to seize it for ourselves and find the truth in their bastardizations. (the last bit being my own phasing, not his.)

[@josephkanowitz6875]

ב''ה, any interest or need for explanation of the philosophical "symptom" as the un-ease (dis-ease) that motivated social discussion and/or dialectical psychoanalysis? This is pretty 101 to the history of the discourse.. historically, but always fun to look at that relative to potential and current. Like a desk job, it makes you feel like you're doing something.

[@josephkanowitz6875]

ב''ה, probably worth remarking that the difficult to define but generally recognizable "desk jobs" perform the allocative decision-making role akin to human "computers" of the slide rule era, while absolute caution and understanding is necessary once fully encoding these roles into systems we'll forget to fully comprehend.

[@speculativescientist]

Put simply, dialectics is the immanent exposition of the subject matter itself. To even have knowledge of something as evidence presupposes a theory that identifies and determines the object to be evidenced. However, a theory cannot demonstrate the validity of its definitions on its own since the contents of definitions given are also themselves presupposed. Only the dialectic of the subject matter is capable of proving itself because each conceptual moment is superceded (aufheben) by another from until the end proves the initial concept, thereby deducing the system as a whole. The dialectic of capital rationally explains the subject matter of political economy by demonstrating how the logic of the commodity generates all the categories that are required to describe capitalism as a whole (which is a historically limited society).

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

The good thing about reading Hegel? Once you did and you go back to reading Marx, the hardest text will be as smooth as honey.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

Jk, some Hegel texts are pretty good

[@Roger22791]

Отличная работа

[@KamKamKamKam]

I think it's inaccurate to claim this is an explanation of Marx's dialectic. It is an explanation of Althusser's dialectic, and it happens that Althusser inherits his dialectical method from Marx, (with modifications) the same way Marx inherits his from Hegel (with modifications). The proof of that is that Althusser himself points to large parts of Marx's work and declares explicitly "I reject those parts". All the parts that are widely acknowledged to be where Marx's dialectical method is most visible (such as Chapter 1 or capital, his Grundrisse, his thesis on Feuerbach, his Paris Manuscripts, etc), Althusser says "I reject those". He even says people should skip chapter 1 of Capital ! I'm not saying Althusser is right or wrong. I'm just saying he obviously departs from Marx. And in this video, the things you presented as being "Marx's dialectical method" are precisely on those particular points Althusser disagrees with Marx. So I think it's quite problematic and misleading to chose that title.

[@themarxistproject]

I did attempt to qualify that this is Althusser's perspective in several parts of the video. It felt a little redundant to say "Marx's dialectical method *according to Althusser*" each time. But yes, I agree that Althusser does depart from Marx in many ways. Ultimately, as I mention early in the video, Marx did not elaborate on his dialectical method. For that reason I think it's pretty valid to consider Althusser's interpretation *a* Marxian theory of knowledge (hence the title of the video). To your other point: Althusser is not simply ignoring parts of Marx. His thesis is that Marx made some critical innovations but, as many thinkers, did not implement them consistently or explicitly. Althusser attempts to make these innovations explicit through what he calls symptomatic reading (which I basically take to mean "reading between the lines"). This is not merely vapid sampling bias on Althusser's part, but rather a method that requires close awareness of the source material in order to identify key elements and the overall object in question.

[@KamKamKamKam]

@@themarxistproject Well, yes and no. Yes, you do mention that it's "Althusser interpretation of Marx", but the title of the video says "How Marx broke with Hegel", and my point is Marx didn't break with Hegel to any such extent, only Althusser did. If the title had been "A Theory of Knowledge: How Althusser broke up with Hegel while preserving the best of Marx" or something like that, I would have said "alright, a bit controversial, but fine". In reality, even all the way to the end (not only in his early texts), Marx was still way closer (in his method) to Hegel than he is to Althusser (who is a Spinozist). I'm not saying he wasn't a good reader of Marx or anything. He certainly was and even managed to innovate in that field. But to the extent that Althusser disagrees with Hegel (because he sides more with Spinoza on those issues, especially the monism you present in the beginning), he also disagrees with Marx. Althusser is a Spinozist who took the best part of Marx and added it to his system. That's great. That's brilliant. But Marx is not a Spinozist, he is a Hegelian, without ambiguity, IMO. And Althusser acknowledges that when he recommends people to only selectively read passages of Marx which are compatible with a Spinozist reading, and to avoid the hegelian passages.

[@beatles123]

@@themarxistproject Comrade, please be mindful when you study later so-called thinkers. We are not Althusserists, We are Marxists. We understand that others have tried to come along and "Improve" Marx, but even so: Marx was right, and we can nit pick his works like the other "Thinkers" that came after him or we can focus on building the future we want. Being critical of what Marx had wrong is one thing, after all, we should scrutinize EVERYONE in our examination of history, but ours is also not a path that needs this much over-complication, either. Our enemies are those that impede the course of our revolution against capitalism, and many post-marx thinkers forget this when analyzing his work.

[@themarxistproject]

@KAM that's fair, I suppose. Personally I think Marx's divergence from Hegel is evident in many parts of his later work. In the essay I linked in the description, I present some textual evidence supporting that position.

[@themarxistproject]

@MattOnWheels the Althusserian interpretation is especially important for what you are talking about since it rejects determinism and emphasizes the necessity of action. Althusser argues that, unlike Hegel, Marx's history doesn't unfold into a necessary pattern, which means we can't expect socialism to replace capitalism without a concerted effort in making it happen. This is actually the main reason I find Althusser's view so compelling.

[@mo_shiota1637]

I wish i understood what you're talking about...

[@MiCajaDelIdiota]

Good attempt at explaining the subject matter. Still, not a clear exposition.

[@bigusj]

I strongly disagreed with the conclusions of “On the reproduction of capitalism” (excepting the concept of ISAs), but this was really interesting. Maybe I’ll give ol murderface another go

[@rinsimon5467]

Creation - Destruction - Re-creation - Creation - Destruction - Re-creation - Creation - Destruction - Re-creation. Think of this as a circle.

[@bobhanley5292]

It's nice to see that we've once again reached the point in history where Mensheviks arise. It beats the 90s for sure. Kinda sneaky of you to insert the whole assertion about epistemology vs. ontology, quoting some unknown american theorist, before that solid wall of althusser, so that the only message most of us will get is the insistence that dialectics is above and not below consciousness, with the vague feeling that denying it means denying althusser. Why not be up front about it? Sure, you can say dialectics, Marxist dialectics is a product of history and is limited. But has the solution ever been to moderate the use of philosophy, to shrink back from its full development? Keep it around as a "useful tool"? No. Recognition of your place in history doesn't change it. Don't we all wish it did? You could go in to work and tell your boss where to shove all his bs. No, until history advances we will have to sit with this knowledge, like the mouzhik who lost his horse in Isaak Babel's story.

[@themarxistproject]

If only I was crafty enough to hide my subliminal agendas that way! Personally, I believe it's far more controversial to assert a dialectical ontology than to treat dialectics as an epistemological framework. It's one thing to say "we understand the world via the dialectical method" and its another to say "reality is fundamentally dialectical."

[@PC42190]

Hot take: Althusser's concept of "overdetermination" is superior to dialectics. Much more sophisticated. Although that's only in philosophy. Scientifically speaking, I think cybernetics and systems theory are good substitutes for dialectics

[@LupisRex]

I dont see why this matters or how it helps

[@themarxistproject]

Always a fair point. Obviously some of this is a bit insular and abstract. But I do think some of this has actionable implications. For instance, it allows us to better analyze/criticize different disciplines (economics, anthropology, linguistic, etc.), what their determinants are, and how their methods/conclusions develop. This is especially crucial for disciplines whose conventional conclusions motivate neoliberal policies (I'm think of economics here). It also helps us elaborate a more grounded form of Marxism that isn't weighed down by determinism or overly reductive schematics. A Marxism that doesn't pretend to know the final outcome of history and doesn't make bad prescriptions based on such a view.

[@fun_ghoul]

@@vchk5330 I don't see why this matters or how it helps.

[@VigiliusHaufniensis]

@@themarxistproject can you make a video on what marxist Argumentats there are against Wittgenstein? Wittgensteins Philosophy theoretically seems to end all ontological debates, but im not sure if i understood him.

[@vchk5330]

@@fun_ghoul open a book

[@fun_ghoul]

@@vchk5330 I was talking about your first comment, brainlet.

[@wertywerrtyson5529]

I’ve heard from critics of Marxism that traditional logic when it hits contradiction stops and look for another alternative while Marxists and Hagelians embrace contradictions. That dialectical materialism is taking a contradiction and creating something new. Like 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 traditional logic would say 3 is the wrong answer and 2 is right while Marxists would create a new answer, it is 4 and this becomes the new truth. I didn’t understand from this video if that’s the case or not but to me it sounds like a bunch of bs. But then I’ve always preferred the British philosophers over the German ones (Analytical over continental) and Aristotle over Plato. I consider myself left but I find it difficult to believe Marxism if it’s based on contradictions and pseudo religion. Some even claim Marxism is a version of Gnosticism that makes me even more sceptical.😊

[@Booer]

A contradiction sublates. When you decide to move, the act of non-moving becomes negated by the act of moving and therefore the contradiction gives way to a motion. Read on the question of dialectics by Lenin

[@ChristoffelTensors]

In no way are you ready for the depth you’re stepping into.

[@numbersix8919]

You should listen to Dr Laurie Johnson's videos! The Maurin Academy are Marxian communitarian agrarian Catholics.

[@numbersix8919]

Don't believe what you hear from so-called critics of Marx here in the anticommunist West. It's mostly lies and distortions. Remember that a half-truth is a whole lie.

[@mavrospanayiotis]

Some critique on dialectic as confrontation between two positions is good since the reduction of reality to dicotomies could be an obstacle to any progression towards any real socialism. Polarized dispute over side problems of society (gender, abortion, race etc.) that can be easily solved in a process of realization of socialism became the focus to avoid any material freedom of humanity as a whole, with a liberal left arguing with a liberal right over topics that doesn't threaten Capitalism per se. We need more models and more dialogue to create a full partecipation and revive our democratic "tools".

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

I'd go farther and claim that thinking, that's the biggest obstacle to progress.

[@mavrospanayiotis]

@@mentalitydesignvideo it's the opposite.

[@CharlesT.P.]

I love Althusser and hate almost all of his critiquers, here in Brazil we have a luckacian that completely ignores his theory just to say that he is from a structuralist culture and it is just like Levy-Strauss and Foucault, completely wrong, I know someone else like that socialist humanist from England, Thompson if I'm not mistaken, another one that doesn't undertand sh*t about what Althusser was talking about, anyway, amazing video

[@philipm3173]

How much is Mészáros studied in Brazil?

[@CharlesT.P.]

@@philipm3173 A lot, almost all of our left intelectuals where influenced by the "late luckacs" and Mészáros came here in some of our universities before he died, his principal books are translated to portuguese and he's not so famous are being translated too

[@mostlytranslucent]

Why do you hate Lukács? Not trolling, I just find his framework much more appealing than Althusser's, and I don't meet many committed Althusserians in daily life...

[@CharlesT.P.]

@@mostlytranslucent I don't actually hate Lucaks, I'm not a fan but he is important for the movement, what I really hate is the luckacians in my country, almost all of them are anti-communist that even hate Leninism and others even says that Lukacs ontology "refutes dialectics"

[@rat4331]

maybe i should learn what dilectic means begore i watch this video

[@B_Estes_Undegöetz]

Generally it’s a good idea to come to a clear understanding of the basic concepts involved in any discussion before watching a video as dense as this one! And, if I may, I suggest anyone watching this video also do some basic reading about several other concepts fundamental to understanding what this video is about. For example, go and read up until you have a basic understanding of the following topics: 1. Ontology 2. Metaphysics 3. Epistemology 3.1 Knowledge as Justified True Belief 3.1.a Theories of Truth 3.1.b Correspondence Theories of Truth 3.1.c Coherence Theories of Truth 3.1.d Pragmatic Theories of Truth 3.1.e Minimalist Theories of Truth 3.1.f Constructivist Theories of Truth 3.1.g Consensus Theories of Truth 3.2 Theories | Methods of Justification 3.2.a Methods of Valid Reasoning 3.2.a.1 Deductive Reasoning & Logic 3.2.a.2 Inductive Reasoning & Logic 3.2.a.3.Theories of Dialectical Reasoning 3.2.a.4 Other recognized methods of justification 3.3 Assume for simplicity’s sake it is given that the knower holds a belief, since this elaborate pedantic schema can get even more elaborate … 😂 4. Ethics / Politics All of this is just basic to the understanding of any discussion of epistemology which is the theory of knowledge. It’s critical first to have an idea about ontology (theory of being and existence) and metaphysics (theory of reality and change) before entering into epistemology. A Marxist epistemology need not be terribly different from a non-Marxist theory of knowledge, but the conclusions that one comes to regarding history and economics and economic class of course are quite different than those that a traditional liberal free-market capitalist would come to. It’s important though to understand what basic choices Marx and Marxists make about ontology and metaphysics and epistemology so that one can understand HOW Marxists come to the conclusions they do when trying to produce actual knowledge from observations, using all the other methods in the unique way they do. Only by having a clear understanding of each of the above categories … a couple sentences or three about each is probably enough, can you truly understand what ontological and metaphysical principles Marxists assume as axiomatic (and why), and how Marxists use deductive, inductive and dialectical reasoning along with historical and current social and political observations to come to conclusions and make their political arguments about what actions should be taken in the pursuit of social justice. Philosophy is fun! Start at the beginning and work your way to Marx and even further! Good luck!

[@josephkanowitz6875]

ב''ה, interesting how AI-generated philosophers leave us with these guys as the last evidence of actual human knowledge.

[@David-rg5cw]

Heard Marx never read Hegel but picked up his ideas from "The Essence of Christianity". Is that right?

[@numbersix8919]

No, Marx as a student was an actual Young Hegelian who read, ate, drank , and dreamed Hegel.

[@samaval9920]

What ?!?!

[@ateu_vermelho]

♥️☭

[@thewickedwitchofse8998]

You are far better off reading Marx's critiques of Hegel in his early writings and see the development from those critiques to scientific socialism. This video seems more an attempt at pretentious "philosophical" musings rather than any concrete demonstration of how and why Marx diverged from Hegel. Do yourselves a favor and dig out the early collections----you'll find a line by line critique of Hegel's IDEAS. Really. Start from his examination of idealism and his move to dialectical materialism will become clear. I fail to understand why some pretentious people try to make a jargon loaded "discussion" and then pretend later they don't understand why people are "confused". Good writing always remembers the audience. Read Marx yourselves. He knew his audience.

[@beatles123]

Well said. Marx was no fool. He knew, and TOLD, why he believed as he did!

[@numbersix8919]

Yes, ma'am!

[@toddhowell7700]

*Promosm*

[@animeis4eva]

Fifth?

[@fun_ghoul]

Looks like, yes. Bravissimo! ✊

[@animeis4eva]

First!

[@Drietfoga]

I understood nothing but I respect Althusser because he strangled his wife.

[@philipm3173]

Off to reeducation with you

[@fun_ghoul]

@@philipm3173 We need not reeducate murder enthusiasts. Lead is still cheap and plentiful.

[@5UM0N3]

Yeah misogyny is hilarious

[@vchk5330]

@@5UM0N3 what do you except from anime pfps

[@HairEEck]

This comment was so absurd and insensitive it became funny

[@DrZhivago-l2b]

dialectics just sounds like BS and no one can come to an agreement on what it means. let's just use the scienctific method

[@VocalBear213]

diamat is the method, let's talk it over in Discord VocalBear#6529

[@Morgan_of_the_Maxilla]

Technocratic brainrot

[@johannsebastianbach3411]

@@Morgan_of_the_Maxilla 😂😂😂😂😂 don’t judge them, Musk is going to take them to Mars (as extraterrestrial miners, but still)

[@djriqky9581]

A lot of things can't even be agreed on....and there are many ways to interpret something based on facts or either bias..... You can't just say a subject is BS because no one can agree on it because everyone uses scientific method and they still can't come to a conclusion on topics like linking together Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics as a coherent theory. This comment is brain rot

[@maxmuller5336]

thanks for god that we are blessed, that marx didnt understand hegel at all, lol. would be that the case, we standing more in a deeper problem, then it is.

[@Booer]

Why is there a little girl in your pfp?

[@gabbiewolf1121]

I remember an argument between two people on Discord over the labor theory of value. One of the people was arguing that it was correct and the other argued that it was incorrect and that it wasn't even a real scientific theory because it isn't a concrete explanatory framework with robustly empirically testable predictions. I know at the time the meanings of science and scientific theory weren't set in stone, but is the terminology of theory and science in Marxist terminology out of date as we know those terms today? Are there good replacement terms to we can avoid confusion like in the argument I described where our opponents may get confused and think we're literally proposing Marxist theories as literal theories in the conventional sense?

[@legobros2020]

Average terminally online non capital reader

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

Labor theory of value is pure ideology ("what should be to satisfy my theoretical ends"). Anyone who tried to run a lemonade stand can grasp that price is set by the perceived scarcity. A kilo of flower milled by slave labor, by oxen or by wind energy is sold at the same price. Announce food shortages in the papers and watch the prices rise. Special apologies to the wind for exploiting it, expropriating the added value and alienating it from the fruit of its labor.

[@numbersix8919]

@@mentalitydesignvideo You've just confounded value with price. Also, you may happy to know, Marx included use value and exchange value, and the price of production as contributing to price. About real scarcity of a commodity (as opposed to hoarding or speculative manipulation), it can be thought of as an increase in the socially necessary labor needed to increase production.

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

@@numbersix8919 but the value (which is gradually taking on supernatural, immaterial connotations) is composed from prices (of man-hour, unit of raw material, overhead etc) - each of which is determined by perceived (and there's only perceived, unless you're omniscient) scarcity. The fun begins when you start replacing the exploited workers, supposedly creating value, with trained monkeys. Or robots. What is the robots' fair share of the profit? Is the monkey alienated from the fruits of its labor? Certainly one could see the problems with his theories from the outset, but the aristocracy had to sic the rabble upon the rising power of the manufacturing capital, so bloody revolutions began throughout Europe, while British, Dutch and Scandinavian royal families sailed smoothly on. Marx did exactly what was expected of him - a self-hating antisemitic Jew who married into the Scottish royalty.