you read 600 pages of JBP’s insane lovecraftian theory to do your 30 page review of it but then refuse to read some damn marx
Holy shit, it's laughable to claim the guy hasn't read Marx. As you pointed out, if there's one thing everyone should agree on about him, it's that he does the reading required to write about something.
Where is all this hate coming from that people are willing to make outrageous shit up out of thin air?
Anyone on this thread actually contribute to Current Affairs or listen to their podcast? Nathan is very likable. I don’t get where this mean person bandwagoning is coming from.
I've actually spoken to him as he was working his way through Capital. He just finds the underlying foundations and axioms entirely unconvincing; which a) I agree with and b) not really a juvenile criticism.
My criticisms of Marx are of the same nature but different in the specifics than NJR's. For one, I don't think dialectics are a fundamental aspect of reality, because, why would anyone not following in the intellectual tradition of Hegel actually think that?
If he really did read Marx, then I worry about how he could have gotten his conclusions so wrong
If you think anyone who reads Marx must come to the "right" conclusions, you're treating Marx like holy scripture, not political theory. And he doesn't disagree with Marx (he's a socialist, after all) so much as he disagrees with how Marxism is too often treated on the left -- i.e., as unchangeable holy scripture, not a theoretical text that is open to criticism and that should be updated periodically for application in new times and places. Again, this take is consistent with Lenin and Mao (and others) re-framing Marx to better speak to their immediate circumstances.
Jordan Peterson also claimed to have read Marx
How do you expect to get anything done if you treat fellow socialists the way you'd treat some chud grifter? If you went to a meeting, would you treat another socialist as if they were someone actively hostile to socialism, or would you treat them in good faith on the most basic of matters, like whether they've actually read a book they claim to have read?
Holy shit, it's laughable to claim the guy hasn't read Marx. As you pointed out, if there's one thing everyone should agree on about him, it's that he does the reading required to write about something.
Where is all this hate coming from that people are willing to make outrageous shit up out of thin air?
Anyone on this thread actually contribute to Current Affairs or listen to their podcast? Nathan is very likable. I don’t get where this mean person bandwagoning is coming from.
It really is bizarre. I can't imagine how people think making shit up about one of the few notable socialists in the country is good for socialism.
deleted by creator
I've actually spoken to him as he was working his way through Capital. He just finds the underlying foundations and axioms entirely unconvincing; which a) I agree with and b) not really a juvenile criticism.
deleted by creator
My criticisms of Marx are of the same nature but different in the specifics than NJR's. For one, I don't think dialectics are a fundamental aspect of reality, because, why would anyone not following in the intellectual tradition of Hegel actually think that?
If you think anyone who reads Marx must come to the "right" conclusions, you're treating Marx like holy scripture, not political theory. And he doesn't disagree with Marx (he's a socialist, after all) so much as he disagrees with how Marxism is too often treated on the left -- i.e., as unchangeable holy scripture, not a theoretical text that is open to criticism and that should be updated periodically for application in new times and places. Again, this take is consistent with Lenin and Mao (and others) re-framing Marx to better speak to their immediate circumstances.
How do you expect to get anything done if you treat fellow socialists the way you'd treat some chud grifter? If you went to a meeting, would you treat another socialist as if they were someone actively hostile to socialism, or would you treat them in good faith on the most basic of matters, like whether they've actually read a book they claim to have read?