Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)
Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)
It’s both, criticism of capitalism and the inevitability of the communist revolution were part of the same philosophy. I suppose you could make an argument that a non-communist dialectical materialist is also a Marxist, though I’ve never seen it used that way in practice.
That’s my argument
Sometimes capitalists spout marxist shit and it is recorded. Marxist capitalists are the worst because they have an understanding of the contradictions their counterparts dont. More commonly there are non communist Marxists in philosophy.
I agree that almost all Marxists are communists, I just felt your initial response was a simplification that lost more meaning in the simplification than it necessarily needed to.
I only got my undergrad in philosophy so I’d certainly defer to someone with more experience in the field, but I’ve only ever heard the term with regards to his economic theories.
:gulp:
I have no formal training in philosophy maybe I need to read less philosophy if philosophy undergrads aren’t being exposed to it
Nah, undergrads read almost zero Marxist literature, almost 100% from Marx and just a tiny bit from Engels. The rest is memory-holed from history.
I think Marxism is functionally but not technically inherently communist on the grounds that it avoids discussion of moral values and things like that.
I’d argue you’re just describing vulgar idealist(as opposed to materialism, not cynicism) philosophy.
Remember idealist/materialist in a philosophical context is, in its most common use, a metaphysical distinction. Marx’s use of “idealism” is based on this but isn’t the same.
But an important element of Marxism is that it ascribes strategy based on a) class position and b) conflict-aversion. If you are a prole or you just want to play it safe, even as a member of the bourgeoisie, it tells you that socialism is the best way to accomplish that goal, but it’s by the same framework that it can give a capitalist insight on how to practice capitalism with still-more-brutal efficiency if that is what they want.
Isn’t it extremely common to accept only some of a person’s ideas? Most modern historians and sociologists would agree that history is mostly driven by material forces rather than by ‘great men’ or supernatural forces. Doesn’t mean they have to be communists.