> it all sounds like delusional charity work to me.
To me, it sounds like a constructive alternative to Sunday morning sermons.
I'll never tithe in my life. Where does that money go instead? Well, where did it go originally? 90% of tithing these days goes to supporting a developed world middle-class lifestyle for folks who give one lecture a week and spend the rest of their time providing constitutionally protected unlicensed mental health services.
So, there is a business model here. Professors are paid so poorly that individual tutoring for the intellectually curious in the professional class could provide meaningful additional income. $60,000/(24 x 3 x 3) = $277/student/class for a typical 3+3 load. But I'd happily pay $500 to take a 3-4 person class with a good prof on a topic I enjoy. $500 x 4 = $2,000 per seminar. Which is quite a lot of money when you're only making $60,000 -- especially if you're already prepped to teach that seminar. And my guesstimates here are actually high for the humanities at some institutions!
I'd happily pay $500/mo to attend intellectually engaging seminars with a small group of like-minded folks, even online. And I view that as morally equivalent to tithing, since it's achieving roughly the same thing (sponsoring someone's life-of-mind).
So, there is a market for the idea outlines in thep ost.
(The Plato's Republic thing feels pretty off-topic; I also think it's over-rated fwiw, but if others want to read it more power to them.)
While you can read the republic as a political discussion, and I won't blame you if you do that given how piecemeal antique philosophers are often taught in contemporary academia, but in context it really is more of a discussion about the nature of justice, rather than a political manual. That is what he is trying to do, explore a just society would look like, and through it, trying to find the nature of justice. That is actually still a fairly interesting discussion.
Justice is very much part of the zeitgeist, but how many actually stop to ask what that even means? What does it mean for a society to be just, for a person to be just? If we can't produce an answer to those questions, how are we ever going to produce justice, or be just?
Plato's critique of democracy isn't something we should reject on the account that it's a critique of democracy. He makes a few good points, it's not some intellectual check mate, but it's something any follower of democracy should have answers to, they are problems any democracy needs to work toward solving. If there is any take-away from Plato, it is that we get closer to truth by asking questions, by exploring murky half-thought thoughts and figuring out where they don't quite add up.
I don't get it. You think people shouldn't read The Republic because they'll inevitably misunderstand it? Studying Plato isn't going to turn everyone into a Peter Thiel, if that's the concern.
FWIW, The Republic has a lot of things to say about other subjects besides politics. Things like art, and education, ancient Greek society. I read a really interesting book a few years ago, Preface to Plato, that argued Plato was mostly criticizing the traditional, oral culture of Greece, with its emphasis on rote, formulaic learning. (That's a crude summary of the argument, but anyway...)
Huh? Why can't people discuss Marx's Capital? Whether or not you agree with his political philosophy, his historical work in Capital is fantastic and I recommend everyone read it at least from an economic history perspective.
> but only one of them offers a critique of the immediate situation
So you're a socialist. The whole point is that not everyone is, or maybe some people _are_ and they need to read the Republic and then Capital to come to that conclusion. Reading groups are all about access to new ideas, they aren't meetups of political groups. But there's so much more. Read Rousseau to understand the Social Contract, Bakunin for anarchy, etc
That’s just dodging the parents point though, which isn’t the implementation of whatever is in the pages of a text but that the text itself doesn’t get as much discussion intentionally because it’s more relevant than other works that serve as feel good dopamine hits for the intellectual.
Sorry, that's not the point I meant to make. The poster I was responding to was saying that the point of intellectual discussion groups is never to discuss Marx. I was pointing out that that is because Marx's theories have been thoroughly shown to lack merit.
It's not so much that they're dangerous as that they were discussed, quite a lot, and then acted on. Those discussions and actions lead to some of the largest events of human suffering in history. I'm not sure what more discussion there is to have at that point other than "how do we make sure that doesn't happen again".
I've read Marx myself. I've also read what little of Mein Kamf I could manage to get through. I don't believe in banning books or ideas, but I do think it's ridiculous to ignore history and pretend that proven bad ideas ought to be given another chance.
This is an oft-repeated nonsense line to dismiss some really interesting philosophy.
Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes. (I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?)
Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat?
> Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes.
No - what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes.
If there is one thing a political system should do, it is this.
> I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?)
I don’t think it should be discarded, but I do think that we know enough about the problems of capitalism that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription for our times.
> Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat?
Have you considered that free thinking means doing your own thinking? That means being able to recognize when an ideology is past its sell by date and not fetishizing a particular historical figure as being uniquely insightful.
> what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes
What a weird test. No system of government does, and Marx was not writing a system of government. I guess it is time to throw out all political theory, though.
> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription
Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it.
> means doing your own thinking
...Which apparently can only lead to your conclusion? That's hilarious.
I’m surprised you don’t think it’s important for power to be accountable. It’s ok if you don’t, but I think limiting the power of tyrants is an important political principle.
>> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription
> Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it.
Who said it should all be discarded? It seems like you might be remembering a past argument with someone else.
I think it’s more that you simply don’t have a good response to the points, and making an accusation of bad faith is a cheap way for you to avoid facing that.
I’m not making anything up. Let’s take a look at what you wrote:
Me:
> what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes
You:
>> What a weird test. No system of government does
There is no difference between limiting the effects of the machinations of assholes, and holding power to account.
> Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes.
The Communist manifesto is literally a plan of action. It calls for an authoritarian government in which all financial assets, credit, real assets, and land are centralized and controlled by the state. It calls for seizure of all personal property of anyone who wants to leave the country. It calls for conscripting the public and forcing them to work in agricultural and industrial armies, also controlled by the state. It calls for state monopolization and control of the press and all forms of communication and transportation, etc. From the Communist Manifesto:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Given that this comment is almost all a direct quote of Marx himself, and is otherwise an entirely factual and non-judgmental statement, it is curious to see it downvoted so heavily.
It’s especially odd, given that this thread is about whether or not we should read Marx. I’m very curious about who thinks this should be downvoted and why?
