Well, it's provided an entertaining way for the rest of us to procrastinate.
Read post by grad student (post doc?), browse wiki, and then refresh the forums. Learning more here than at work...

Lol...

Yeah... Hoping to defend my thesis in the next few weeks. I have a decent shot at two positions this year as well. Lucky for me, both are in my home town, and one is in my Alma Mater, Université de Montréal (I don't consider McGill, where I've done my doctoral work, my Alma Mater since my experience there has been awful and I've gotten two degrees from the other place).

How work for you? Still in the boonies or back in town?

Good luck Cachimbo!

^^ Shut up, bigot.

"History is no measure of the relevance of a philosophical theory..."

UNless you live in a different world/fantasy land/Utopia, your statement is true. Otherwise, you are just 100% wrong. Your philosophy is of the of the utmost importance to how you get along in this world. Let me use an extreme example: If my philosophy is that all women should be subjugated to men as inferiors, that is relevant to about 50% of the global population in a very negative way.

Marx’s philosophy is constructed to lead to a conclusion, as all philosophies are. The conclusion of Marx’s philosophy is a particular form of government / social construct. He gets to these conclusions by assembling various arguments together – and to him, and by the method he constructs his arguments, he is led to a governing principle that is a gross failure.

I can construct a pretty good argument that women should be out of work, at home raising babies. It will sound reasonable and logical….to some…and the end-point of the argument is a healthy happy economy and strong families and blah blah blah. It happens to be a widely held religious belief…a philosophy that people try to live their lives by and foist upon others. I wonder…are you a strong proponent of the in-depth study of religion? Being such a curious intellect, you must be…you must have all sorts of Biblical research materials and Islamic studies, etc…because these philosophies are just as interesting…and probably more impactful on the global society at this time…than your failed Marxism that you want to hug so tight.

Let’s see how much intellectual integrity you have….are you just another college liberal sucked into socialism/communism by your left wing professors? Are you a true intellect that thinks all philosophical studies have value?

Krellin you did so good until the last paragraph. You really need to strike that whole philosophy from your repertoire and you'll be so much more convincing when you speak.

You guys are so last century.

nice conversation guys! i suppose i asked this because many people (here and general) sound so repulsed just by the mention of Marx himself, so I wanted to see why this was. Did communism turn to be historically problematic for Marx? I'm not sure of that (not that I agree that it is inevitable however). PE definately does fit, what parts of his economics do you disagree with and why? I find his work on wage labour for instance to be very persuasive, as well as his view on the cyclical crises of Capitalism. Also Marx doesn't advocate us ending up with 1 benevolent dictator... Also gender treatment improved in practically all 'communist' countries once they turned communist (e.g. china)

Glad this forum post provoked such interest, and reasoned interest from everyone.

You're funny Krellin... You almost make me think that I missed your rants!

First...
Your use of the word "philosophy" is equivocal. You sometimes use it to point towards something that sounds like "a philosophy of life", a set of values and truths one adheres to in order to give meaning and direction to his actions. Then you use it to point to an intellectual practice.
Now, in the first case, it does seem that the criterion to evaluate a philosophy will be how practical it is, how well it allows you to organize your activities and let you get what you value out of the world and your social interactions. The failures of our belief-systems do in fact suggest that we should look into different systems. Mind you, that's pretty much the sum of some important points Hegel makes (if you want the quotes, let me know!).
As to the second meaning of philosophy...
As an intellectual endeavour, one that has some scientific import (that's another debate, but just give it to me on the grounds that there are, in most "serious" universities and colleges, philosophy departments and faculties), philosophy is probably more akin to a reasonable and reasoned polylogue. That is, its history is the unfolding of a very rich conversation between many thinkers and across time on topics that pertain to the determinations and conditions of our experience of reality. And here, abstraction actually does have a claim to glory. That is, much of what is debated in philosophy are items abstracted from the reality where they are first found. The "game", if you will, is to give an account of those items that is coherent with other such items reputed to be "true". Coherency, then, is a key criterion to determine whether or not a philosophical proposition floats or not.
The fact is: there is no view from "without", no perfectly objective stance we can take on things. Every scientific proposition out there is made from the perspective our humanity affords us, and even our "humanity" is understood from our particular perspective. Who's to say that Hegel or Marx got it wrong in their take on the forces at stake in the unfolding of human history? Sure, we have cases that point to Marx having it wrong, or having overlooked some facets of our reality. But that's not to say that his system is wrong. It's only pointing out limits of its coherence and, simultaneously, of the ways in which it can become something like the philosophy under meaning 1. But within the sphere of its coherence, that is, as a philosophical argument that tries to insist on one fundamental facet of our experience of the world, Marx's shtick is still very relevant. And, yes, true in that sense of the word, true as coherent.

And please note that I've not made "coherence" something like "logical coherence". Logic is certainly a big part of it, but there are various models for logic: modal logic, for example, is quite different from the more traditional, Aristotelian, logic.

As for me...
You want me to reassure you that I'm not that twit in "Good Will Hunting", that dumb ass in the bar that tries to impress girls by citing other people and readings he's done at school. You even seem to hope that I come out as something akin to Matt Damon's character, someone with unrivalled academic integrity. Aren't you the nice guy!
But then, you also seem to assume that I am myself a Marxist...

Marx was one of my very first philosophical reads. When I was ...humm..... about 15 I guess, I endeavoured to read the Capital. I made it through most of it, didn't understand much I would suppose, but I got enough out of it to see how rich his thoughts were. Today, though I can't claim to be a Marxist at all, I still see that wealth in his philosophical offerings. That's not to say I agree with what he's got to say. That's merely to point out that I still consider him a valid and relevant reference, and a fantastic interlocutor (that's for you, Yonni) in the polylogue of philosophy.

As for what I do, or who I am, relative to the intellectual world... Why does it matter? Have I not entertained you enough??? ;-) Can you really say that my words are not my own? Do they not attest of my real interest for the subject at hand? Why would you need my resume on top of it? Some people here know what I do for a living, but I've never told anyone in an effort to prove that I was therefore allowed to say what I was saying. I'm not about to start today.

Socrates:

Marx didn't really see it play out, did he..? I mean, most attempts at truly communist nations were done during the 20th century. Given that he died in 1881 (from memory... too lazy to check!), he kinda missed most of the fun.

It's worth noting, however, that Lenin's take on Communism was explicitly different from Marx's. Same is true of Mao's. They were all "adaptations", pragmatic adaptations of his theories.

I didn't mean to say Marx himself, I mean that I would say history has not yet passed its final verdict on communism...

"Marx was one of my very first philosophical reads. When I was ...humm..... about 15 I guess..."

And therein lies the love affair...

As for what is philosophy...it is either a guiding principle for life...or it is some vain intellectual endeavor. I suspect you are just doing this as a vain intellectual endeavor...and to get a good grade...and show us ((you think)) how smart you are...

I actually have not tried to accuse you of anything (prior to just now)...I have simply suggested that your **appearance** of having some grand affection for Marx is misguided at best...narrow-minded certainly...and dangerous at worst.

As for "what does it matter?" Well...if you are going to foist your views on us...no less than Christians do in trying to put forth all these grand arguments for how noble the pursuit Of Marx’s ideas are…then it is a fair question to ask *why* you want to push these ideas on us – to know if your motivation is purely intellectual, for fun…or because you are trying to persuade. If someone starts to bring up Christian philosophical topics in these threads, they will be *soundly* beat down for even bringing up the ideas. You think yourself better because it is Marx’s religion you push? You aren’t…and it is a fair and reasonable question to ask your motivation, unless you are hiding something.

Yes...I called it religion...

Tell me Putin doesn't worship his political ideology...

Ah! Sorry... misread you.

You might be right! One thing for sure: there are parts of Marx's criticism of Capitalism that seem just as relevant and pertinent today as they did then. I can't be sure that the "solutions" to those Capitalist issues are to be found in Marx, however. But I do believe that whatever the solutions will be, they will likely be grounded on a subsomption of what he suggested, that is, on its integration in an argument that both see its value and its limitations and offers a way to think the opposition that leads to a positive and new idea.

Oh Krellin... you're funny!

Marx as religion... that's a new kind of opium I'd like to try. You certainly seem high on second hand smoke!

The question of this thread was more or less: is the dude relevant even if he was wrong. I questioned the question and also tried to answer it. It could have been Marx, it could have been Kant, it could have been just about any philosopher I have some knowledge of and I would likely have produced a very similar argument. Just replace "Marx" with the name of any other philosopher and you'll see that it changes nothing to my argument -- except, maybe, that it would requires different explanations of their thought.

You seem to have failed to see that.

As for your suspicions where I'm concerned... What can I say? I'm a suspicious character! But again you failed to read me right: all I said is that I had gathered from your line of questioning that you were hoping I was doing this for the "right" reasons and from the right stance. I in fact saw that as a generous take on the expression of my views.

Finally, I thought I had made it pretty clear that I do not claim to be a Marxist, nor a communist. Looks like I was wrong... So let me state it as clearly as I can:

I AM NOT A MARXIST --- which is to say: my own political, social and economical views do not claim to be some new expression of Marx's theories. In fact, I don't believe I've said the first thing about my own views, except maybe where philosophy is concerned as a practice.

You therefore sound a bit paranoid when you claim that I'm pushing Marx's religion... Maybe an effect of that second hand smoke from your new found "people's opium"?

(did you notice, Krellin, that I think you're funny almost every time I read you? I just noticed it myself, that my saying "you're funny" this last time sounded like something I had said before. And I did! You crack me up Krellin! I have no idea where you're from, nor what you do, and I certainly don't mean to judge you as an individual. But as a debater, you're hilarious!)

Marxism isn't a religion, nor do I think religion is defined by the ability to be worshipped. And people that bring up certain ideas should be beat down (in an adult conversation) when they do so.
@Cachimbo, probably my fault, I'm trying to do a lot of other stuff right now and rushing everything on this...
I would say that some of his criticisms seem even more relevant today than they did then, certainly points on things like credit ring eerily accurate today. I think I agree with you, although I'm not sure we will ever find the solution/s unfortunately

"Its extension used to describe mechanistic and uncontrollable world powers clashing in an epic confrontation with unavoidable results is just so Nazi it hurts"

This is so false it hurts me. I've never read a more bizarre misreading of Hegelian dialectics than this. Hegel's dialectic merely describes what is, it is not a proscription for anything. He is explaining the interconnectedness of everything. If somebody can come up with a better description of how ideas develop and are interconnected than the Abstract-Negative-Concrete formulation, let me know. Until then, lay off Hegel.

Hahahaha!

I guess that's another way to put it! Though one could always want to nuance some of the concepts you use, that's indeed the gist of Hegel's Idealism.

Until then, try to understand quotation marks, thanks.

About calling history problematic for Marx...

It seems to me as if it really isn't. Russia would have been one of the last places that Marx would have predicted for a communist revolution, because it was still at best in early capitalism or late feudalism in 1917. Just because some opportunistic sorts took it upon themselves to call their revolution communist doesn't mean that Marx would.

Or, to spell it out, that's how the distorted, "Hegelian" dialectics work, not Hegelian dialectics themselves.

@ Uly:

But I did take you to claim that Marx's view on Hegelianism were of the distorted kind. Was I wrong? Can you clarify what you meant in that paragraph?

"Marx extended Ricardian economics which means the mainstream economic is terribly outdated just like Ricardo and his e.g. labor theory of value is."

Not sure how you on one hand support the theory of exploitation of surplus value and on the other hand claim the labor theory of value is outdated. They are both tied together. Surplus value only makes sense if labor produces value. And this concept is certainly not outdated.

" Russia would have been one of the last places that Marx would have predicted for a communist revolution, because it was still at best in early capitalism or late feudalism in 1917. Just because some opportunistic sorts took it upon themselves to call their revolution communist doesn't mean that Marx would."

I'm always amused at efforts to turn Marx into a liberal or disconnect Marx from Lenin. Also, Marx did in fact say the center of revolution was turning toward Russia in his preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, in 1882. At the time of the original publication of the CM, Russia was the center of reaction and provider of raw materials to the more developed centers of Europe.

I quote:

"The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."

"Or, to spell it out, that's how the distorted, "Hegelian" dialectics work, not Hegelian dialectics themselves."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

"because it was still at best in early capitalism or late feudalism in 1917."

I think people underestimate the level of capitalist development shaking the foundations of Russia from the 1860s onward. It is interesting how similar the development of Russia & the United States is, in that they both experienced accelerated development after the abolition of serfdom & slavery, respectively.

We already led the debate on labor theory of value and it led nowhere so this time, I'll just cite a textbook AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT from Screpanti and Zamagni:

On the subject of value, the debate was reopened in 1960 by Sraffa’s book,
which smouldered under the ashes for a decade and burst noisily into flames
in the 1970s. Today, it seems generally accepted that the dialectic splendour
of the labour theory of value must be renounced. Basically, four reasons are
given for this.

The first, and most important, is that this theory, the last residue of
‘Ricardian naturalism’ in Marx, conflicts with the truly Marxian theory,
which considers value to be a ‘social phenomenon’. We have already mentioned
this in the section dedicated to Sraffa, and will not return to it here.
We will limit ourselves to pointing out that Value and Naturalism in Marx
(1979) by M. Lippi is the work which has most clearly tackled this aspect of
the problem.

The second reason concerns the transformation problem. We have already
spoken about this in the chapter devoted to Marx. Here we will restrict
ourselves to reaffirming the main points. However modest the analytical
claims which can be advanced in regard to the transformation procedures,
it is impossible to avoid admitting that the following propositions are in
general not valid:
(1) It is necessary to know the labour values in order to determine the
production prices;
(2) Given the wage, it is possible to determine the profit rate before
knowing the prices;
(3) In the transformation from values into prices, all the aggregate
variables remain unchanged;
(4) In particular, the rate of profit and the rate of exploitation remain
unchanged.

Marx was unaware of these difficulties. But today they are known to
all, and it is almost universally accepted that, faced with these difficulties,
it is impossible to remain faithful to the labour theory of value, even if
there are still some people content to keep it as an ‘auxiliary’ theory, and
others still searching for the right solution to the transformation problem.

Unfortunately, however, it is not possible to be satisfied with an auxiliary
theory. In fact, there is a third reason which impels us towards the abandonment
of that theory. In general, when one does not wish to be limited to
the cases of single production with only circulating capital, the variables
expressed in terms of embodied labour are not necessarily economically
meaningful. This is the well-known phenomenon, also brought to light by
Sraffa, that, in the presence of joint production and economically significant
price systems, there can be negative labour values—even negative rates of
exploitation in the presence of a positive profit rate.
But the most important acquisition of recent research is that of having
understood that the theory of labour value contradicts the theory of
exploitation. In fact, since the rate of exploitation is not an invariant in the
transformation from values to prices (see section 4.3.4), the profit-wage ratio
may be higher than the rate of surplus labour. This could be interpreted as a
case in which at least a part of the profits has not been ‘created’ by labour—
for Marx an unacceptable thesis. Contemporary Marxists have thus realized
that they must choose: either the theory of labour value or that of
exploitation must be thrown to the wind.