I recently heard that Che had Maoist tendencies and that, among other things, this is one of the reasons he distanced himself from Fidel.

I understand that Lenin provides certain characteristics to specify what he means by imperialism. However, why would this be the final stage of capitalism and the beginning of communism? What scientific arguments does he offer for such a statement?

I am not an expert in theory and I am interested in learning. Please, respond in a scientific manner.

I suppose this question could be extended to more than one intellectual. I'm not sure if it's something innocent or an appeal to authority, but... why isn't someone who is a walking, talking library and who, I have no doubt, has at least out of curiosity explored Marxist texts, a revolutionary?

I'm not an expert in theory. Is it because, being an intellectual, he mentally wanders into issues unrelated to class struggle? Is it because he has personal interests unrelated to the workers' struggle? Is it simply due to ignorance and not having thoroughly and carefully reviewed Marxism?

Just thought I mention here that the Institute for the Radical Imagination is beginning a reading group called Sartre with Marx on January 31st. If your interested you can get the details at https://radicalimagination.info. Seems like there’s a donation but I’m sure if you email they’d let you join.

Hello. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall an old video of Roberto Vaquero (Marxist-Leninist) where he explained that someone had once confronted him about his tattoos, and he responded that it wasn't something anti-revolutionary.

My memory might be false. But... Is there any revolutionary stance regarding tattoos?

I'm sorry if this sounds like a strange or morbid question. I'm not an expert in Marxism. The situation is as follows:

In my city, there aren't any strong communist organizations, and there are several homeless people (many of whom are disabled) who, I imagine, survive on what they can collect in a day.

From a Marxist point of view, what should be done?

I am aware that giving a few coins doesn't actually solve anything, at least in terms of society. On the other hand, I think that if I don't give them a coin, am I favoring contradictions in society and therefore acting in favor of advancing towards socialism?

As I said, I'm not an expert in Marxism. What should be done in these cases?

I've recently noticed the nature of Marxian economics using logic and observations rather than strict assumptions and mathematics.

For example, the labor theory of value is supported by the material fact that workers are needed to bring profits to a company, but orthodox economics would rather utilize presumptive mathematic methods to explain the phenomenon. Marx used objective reality while someone like Smith used theoretics and armchair thinking.

To elaborate, let's compare the methodology of Karl Marx and Adam Smith; Marx would venture out into the great outdoors and apply his dialectical materialism to everyday life. This might be subjective, but it did reveal a lot about our world. Smith on the other hand was the opposite, literally thinking a mystical force would ensure the greed populace was well-fed. We can see drastic dissimilarities between these two, even if they agreed on some things.

Academics can be Marxist, even if modern economic establishmentarians disagree with him. While I'm personally inclined towards Marx's emancipatory politics, the validity of his economic theory require modernization.

Yes, the economic establishment is divvyed up into free-marketeers and social democrats. The disestablishmentarian schools of economics (aka "heterodox economics") tend to fall under the "ignored" or "untested" categories of economic analysis. Marxian economics, hanging onto dear life thanks to people like Professor Wolff, have become a rotting corpse of what it once was.

If we wish to keep the study and application of this revolutionary philosophy alive, we must modernize it with mathematics and empirical evidence. That means giving modern examples of Marxism, applying modern economic arithmetic to things such as the LToV, and arguing against the dogmatically assumptive nature of economics (e.g., "why has science proven that humans are cooperative? What does economic assumptions about humans' nature say?).

I, a leftist, am not an academic, but I do hope that Marx's economics can take hold and prove that leftism is not a counterfactual metanarrative to the world.

I have a few questions related to the future of Marxism:

1. In the event that predictions about AI and robots replacing human workers in the near or distant future come true, regardless of whether such a future is utopian or dystopian, what can Marxism offer to such a society?

In other words, in a society where there are no workers, there will be no working class. What happens to Marxism (socialism, communism) in such a scenario? Does it still serve a purpose, and if so, how?

An example of such a society is capitalism, in which scientific and technological advancements have led to the rejection of the need to employ workers. Instead of earning a living through work, people have a Universal Basic Income (UBI) that allows them to live well, with access to adequate food, housing, and the like. They engage in art, hobbies, and other non-productive and non-service sectors. Those who require additional wealth, money, power, etc. primarily do so through trade - in such a society, the only people who work are essentially capitalists.

(I'm not primarily interested in discussing whether the above or any other utopia (or dystopia) is possible, but what happens to Marxism?)

2. Is it even necessary for AI and robots to physically replace workers - when a society establishes a UBI, does this mean that the working class ceases to exist from that point on?

3. Do Marxists/leftists/communists and other left-leaning options oppose 1 and 2, and if so, why?

Hi all, I've been reading some Lukacs, Markus, and Heller, and I'm interested in any work that gives an overview of the "Budapest School" these philosophically interesting humanist Marxists belong to, so that I can be putting what I'm reading in better historical context. Any recommendations?

Thank you for your time if you choose to give some of it!

Mouffe: "The climate movement must be politicised. In order to deal with climate change we need good policies, but that is not enough; there must be desire for policies. So people will feel empowered to find a better life. The worst approach to climate politics is a punitive one."

https://democracy.uia.no/mouffe-interview-green-democratic-revolution/

I would like to invite you to a philosophy discord server. For teachers, students, and autodidacts.

The purpose of this discord chat is dedicated to the engagement of philosophical discourse and the exploration of ideas in the history of philosophy. Our main goal is to become more knowledgeable about historical thinkers and ideas from every philosophical domain through interpersonal dialogues. We are not a debate server. Argument is a method used by philosophy, but this isn’t to be confused with debate. The latter is competitive in nature, whereas the former is a cooperative endeavor. Philosophy is a group project that aims to determine what is true, and this server is a place for this activity. Here is the invite link for those who are interested in joining: https://discord.gg/BHzbXDVwHR

Invite link is hopefully permanent, so you won't have to worry whether the link is working if you're reading this sometime in the future.

See you all there!

The economics courses at my school are pretty bourgeois, but high-quality. I took 101, but before taking any more - maybe I'd take intro econometrics, or maybe intermediate macro; just out of interest, I'm not an econ major - I'd like to have a some basic understanding of Marxian economics. I know I should read Das Capital, and I intend to as soon as finals are over for this semester, but what I'm wondering is if anyone could recommend a contemporary textbook in Marxian economics that would complement college econ classes? Like, in a class, you have to do apply concepts to data, solve problems with math. If I just read Capital I wouldn't get practice doing Marxian economics, right? Is there a textbook in Marxian economics that I could get actual practice out of, while self-studying? Thanks for any suggestions.

Hi r/AcademicMarxism, I and some friends are running a 8-week Zoom reading group over the summer on Theodor Adorno's Negative Dialectics. Send me a private message with your email if you would like to join, and I can add you to our emailing list where the reading schedule and the Zoom link will be distributed. The reading group is taking place every Wednesday at 7 PM Central, starting Wednesday of this upcoming week. We will plow ahead until we are done with the book, unlike most reading groups that fizzle out near the end. Everyone is welcome, especially those new to Adorno.

others-first paradoxes

In applying this work, we question whether paradox theory could become trapped by its own successes. Paradox theory refers to a particular approach to oppositions which sets forth “a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing [that] depicts how cyclical responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability and [potentially produces] … peak performance in the present that enables success in the future” (Smith and Lewis, 2011: 381). As an organizational concept, paradox is defined as, “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011: 382). As documented by Schad et al. (2016), the study of paradox and related concepts (e.g. tensions, contradictions, and dialectics) in organizational studies has grown rapidly over the last 25 years. This view is reinforced by Putnam et al. (2016) who identified over 850 publications that focused on organizational paradox, contradiction, and dialectics in disciplinary and interdisciplinary outlets. This growth is clearly evident in the strategic management literature as scholars have brought paradox theory into the study of innovation processes (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; Atuahene-Gima, 2005), top management teams (Carmeli and Halevi, 2009), CEO strategies (Fredberg, 2014), and strategy work (Dameron and Torset, 2014). To what degree does this growth represent success? What features of a success syndrome might surface in paradox studies?

To address these questions, we examine several factors that might point to the paradox of success and discuss possible unintended effects of what some scholars have called “the premature institutionalization” of paradox theory (Farjoun, 2017). In theory development, efforts at consolidation are normal as research accumulates (e.g. Scott, 1987) and some consensus on key concepts is advantageous, but this practice could also introduce narrowness and an unquestioned acceptance of existing knowledge. In this essay, we examine three symptoms of the paradox of success as it applies to paradox theory, namely, premature convergence on theoretical dimensions, overconfidence in dominant explanations, and institutionalized labels that protect dominant logics. Then we explore four ramifications or unintended effects of this success: (1) conceptual imprecision, (2) paradox as a problem or a tool, (3) the taming of paradox, and (4) reifying process. The final section of this essay focuses on suggestions for moving forward in theory building, namely, retaining systemic embeddedness, developing strong process views, and exploring nested and knotted paradoxes.