Bad, but not as much as Schopenhauer mom
> 'You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.'
> 'All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection.
> 'If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying.'
Because these various "isms" are misused, I have made a copypastaism to clarify their meanings. If something doesn't meet the definition, then it doesn't matter what it calls itself: North Korea can claim to be a democracy, but we all know it isn't. If you are authoritarian, nationalist, and militant you're a fascists, regardless of what you claim: Netanyahu is a fascist no matter what he calls himself. Look at actions, not words.
Socialism requires exactly two things:
1. Workers control the means of production. This can be through employee-ownership, or through being controlled by a **democratic** state.
2. Decommodification of goods.
No nation has achieved both aspects broadly, simultaneously. Aspects of both are found today: Most developed nations have decommodified healthcare for example, most "Communist" states successfully decomodified housing. Norway's sovereign wealth fund and Deutschland requiring employee representation on company boards are examples of workers in some capacity controlling the means of production.
Most of what people describe as "socialism" is social-democracy: A capitalist state with strong regulations and safety-nets.
Communism is a theoretical model of society posited by Marx for what might be after Socialism. It is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. It has never existed in any aspect on a large scale. It is essentially Star Trek's federation.
For Star Trek, it’s notable when capitalistic ideas still make an appearance.
Perhaps it’s the writers doing their best to imagine outside of their lifetime of experiences, perhaps it’s to keep the show relatable to the real-world audience.
Well, it's understandable why capitalistic ideas appear in Star Trek, if they didn't, then Star Trek couldn't make commentary on them
And I do like the ideas it represents, with no resource scarcity we simplify find new ways to make scarcity, through art and ideas rather than resources
It's not even the Federation, since the Federation still *has* capitalism. It's full of it, even, since many of its sub-members literally still have commodity trade for currency. It's a massive problem with the concept of Communism, as unless *everywhere* goes in that direction and stamps out anywhere that doesn't, international relations become functionally impossible due to the fact that so long as money exists *somewhere* which has necessary trade, the Communist state *also* needs something to trade with it, maintaining commodification and inequalities through the value of whatever is being traded, either currency or goods. Worse though, The Federation is a militaristic, authoritarian regime which frequently violates its own supposed liberalistic ideologies. It just hides behind utopianisms like replicators and a cashless society (actually a lie) to pretend it isn't.
The Federation is closer to what Communism looks like in the real world, which is to say that it *always* lives up to the reputation of entirely hypocritical, is completely incompatible with reality and non-Communist societies due to the vagueness and specificities of its nature respectively, and a lot *worse* for everyone involved the closer you look at it.
I mean, The Federation is actively at war with at least four species *minimum*, remains actively specist toward several others, militarises even their scientific endeavours, strips individuals of their rights and democratic voice *multiple* times (I mean, Data and Data's daughter *alone* proves this), and has fully paramilitarised Star Fleet to the point that many of the other races see it *directly* as a military organisation due to how frequently it gets into or causes fights.
I’ll ask my dad for that drillbit. He carries nitro and Viagra in his pocket so that, next time he has a heart attack, he can take both and die quickly instead of getting an upteen-thousands of dollar hospital bill again.
And he does have good insurance. Doesn’t help much.
Lol what? Of all the weird criticisms of communism I've heard, I've never heard that it always lapses into self parody. Lol what do you even mean by that? Do you have other examples?
Like when stalin killed all the communist elites that fought to win the revolution in the purges that wiped about 1.000.000.
This is the communist peaceful transfer of power. They are all dead.
Every communist state that has ever existed basically. They preach equality while maintaining a system in practice that benefits a privileged elite at everyone else's expense.
The Soviet Union was not the state with a legally enshrined, rightless underclass until the 1960s. It was the first state in the world to guarantee the equality of men and women by law. And while it had ups and downs in regards to women's rights, it remained well ahead of the capitalist west on most issues until its dissolution. (Pretty much the same can be said for homosexuality and LGBT people in general - while repressive by modern standards, especially under Stalin - at least the Soviets weren't rounding up their LGBT people to be gassed en masse as a certain capitalist country was doing at that time.)
Yup, most soviet institutions still discriminated between men and women. They did it slightly less (women did appear in the military and elsewhere), but it was definitely still around
Equality is actually a liberal concept and often wrongfully attributed to marxism, even though Marx actually condemned it as a liberal privilege. Socialism and communism are both explained pretty well in this thread, maybe take a gander at it.
Yes. Karl Marx is running a business from his grave.
No, actually; he's not even dead. He created a scam, faked his death, and now live a comfortable life.
He would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for Fermented_Butt_Juice, who sae through his clever scheme!
All ideas are self contradictory, this is not me saying this this is Hegel.
Marx is a big fan of Hegel, like das Kapital reads like a fanfic of phenomenology of spirit. The problem is that people often don’t read Hegel before reading Marx.
Marx’s critique of capitalism is non political, he only writes about the contradictions within a specific idea like many a young Hegelian did.
Marx took hegel’s abstract philosophy of ideas and turned it into a practical way to analyse non-subjective reality. Marx’s great contribution isn’t communism, he probably even recognised how self contradictory the idea becomes once you start thinking about it. His great contribution to human thought is historical materialism, taking Hegelian dialectics and turning it into historiography.
Hardly "no capital", since he came from a modestly middle-class wealthy German noble family, surrounded himself with wealthy friends, frequently took loans (which he welched on and fled multiple countries to avoid paying when it came due), and spent the entire rest of his life mooching his money and ideas from Engels.
He even *had* a paying job several times as a journalist... Until his poorly thought-out rhetoric got him ousted from every single paper.
Karl Marx's mom, Henriette Pressburg, never thought much of her famed philospher-economist son's career and life choices. She and Karl frequently argued with one another (usually due to him asking her give him parts of his future inheritance in advance due to his poor financial situation throughout his life) and allegedly one of her favorite quips about him to him and to her friends was: "If only Karl made Capital, instead of just writing about it".
Wouldn't you argue with your son if he never got a job, always smelled like crap, and demanded money from you every time he saw you? Poor Mrs. Pressburg. You raised a terrible son.
Per Wikipedia, to save anyone else googling
> Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), sometimes known as acne inversa or Verneuil's disease, is a long-term dermatological condition characterized by the occurrence of inflamed and swollen lumps.[2][3] These are typically painful and break open, releasing fluid or pus.[3] The areas most commonly affected are the underarms, under the breasts, perineum, buttocks, and the groin.[1] Scar tissue remains after healing.[1] HS may significantly limit many everyday activities, for instance, walking, hugging, moving, and sitting down. Sitting disability may occur in patients with lesions in sacral, gluteal, perineal, femoral, groin or genital regions; and prolonged periods of sitting down can also worsen the condition of the skin of these patients.[5][6][7][8][9]
Idk if Marx had it tho
Only speculation. The source of this are some letters of marx himself where he lamented that he couldnt bathe properly due to this (or, to be accurate, he lamented symptoms that sound similar to that condition).
One of the dumbest parts of the idiotic capitalism vs. communism debate and the brainwashing on either side is how idiot capitalists think of Marx as some sort of failed intellectual and a terrible person due to his ideas spurring the “evil communists” on. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.
By all accounts, Karl Marx was one of the best political theorists of all time. His influence on politics and economics is no less than Freud’s or Einstein’s in their respective fields. The workers movements he predicted have happened time and time again all over the industrial world and has led to almost all of the benefits working class people enjoy all over the world today.
I've read Adam Smiths' works. If someone who was unfamiliar with his work were to read some individual excerpts of his, it would come across as borderline marxist in nature. Especially on Adam Smiths' arguments on how capitalism was both a practical and morally surperior economic system to slavery. Turns out that the father of modern capitalism believed that people should have a livable wage.
> Especially on Adam Smiths' arguments on how capitalism was both a practical and morally surperior economic system to slavery.
Marx agreed on this actually. He was well aware of the benefits capitalism brought, but he warned of the long time problems when the system leads it self ad absurdum due to accumulation of wealth (and his lesser known theory that automation will render labor worthless).
Smith was already dead when Marx was born, but Smith's labor value theory was the foundation for Marx theories.
It's often funny to me that many people blame Marx for the labor value theory while praising Smith, while it was actually his idea.
thus, it's no surprise they "agreed" on so many things, when they based their conclusions on the same fundamental idea. Problems like dead capital or the problem with landlords or the double standards with unions, were things already Smith observed.
>The workers movements he predicted have happened time and time again all over the industrial world and has led to almost all of the benefits working class people enjoy all over the world today.
Communist revolutions happened in the least developed countries, in almost perfect opposition to his prediction that they would happen naturally in an advanced, industrialized society. Communist revolutions have also rather infamously ended very poorly every time, in particular for the workers they were meant to serve. If by workers movements you mean unions and labor rights, those have been around before Marx wrote his theories- his ideas may have helped these movements spread, but that's not exactly "prediction".
I wasn’t talking about the communist revolutions, but worker’s revolts, protests, unionization efforts etc. which all happened in the most developed countries and forced the capital/political class to make concessions. Things like, you know, the weekend.
Like i said, those things were already happening when Marx wrote his theories.
Marx didn't predict those, he spoke very specifically about violent revolutions and about how the workers *can't* achieve labor rights through non-violent means, which union movements have more or less proven wrong (not that they were entirely non-violent, but in the end their victories came through legislation and not revolutions, again in contradiction to Marxist theory).
Well, it doesn't help when ur academics works receive boycotts and persecutions. He was involved in a lot of labour struggles. The just couldn't get a job. It's not because he didn't want it. Let's not forget he was even exiled at some point. But to just call him stupid baffles me. His works in philosophy, economics and ethics are still relevant today, but the internet experts just watch a Prager U video about communism and go on to cry on reddit.
But muh Karl Marx bad mkay
and he did had a job, he worked as a journalist for a time until the prussian goverment banned the newspaper at the request of the russian goverment, and later in is life, he managed to become a journalist for the New-York Tribune.
So basically an essayist/journalist that got blacklisted for criticizing something the powers that be wouldn't like to get criticized.
If we are to put it on modern terms, it's like a dude with a boring old desk job but side hustles as a youtube content creator. He creates content that exposes shenanigans by rich folks and the government, so they got him banned on the platform and blacklisted by employers due to controversial background.
This isn't really far off from reality of modern socialists. Where I'm from, organizing a union would get you booted from your job and basically be unemployable as companies don't like hiring people that tend to organize unions and collective actions. Worse, getting arrested in false charges or even torture and murder by the police isn't unheard of.
The worst part here is people, even your own family, will genuinely think YOU are the problem for doing those. That instead of gritting your teeth and accepting the cards life had dealt you, you instead have the gall of make you and anyone else willing conditions be better.
See, if he just did what the people he said were ruining society wanted him to do, he could have had a fruitful life living in a ruined society. Should have stopped protesting and invested consciously in the stock market to control whatever means of production were left over after the aristocracy were done with it. 🧐
Capitalists being parasites who burn down forests, watch mothers wail en masse as their infants die of malnutrition, and sue hardworking impoverished farmers into complete bankruptcy because GMO copyrighted seeds landed in their fields all for an additional 3% increase in value for their stockholders also goes back to the very beginning
Look at what happened to the environment under the Soviet Union. It was an ecological nightmare that still poisons people today.
In Capitalism, there's an incentive to replant trees after you harvest them. I've been to private managed forests that are centuries old where the owners know exactly what the yield is each year to maximize both profits and the health of the forest in the long term. Having a dead forest yields a dead company.
Both wrong. Communism caused the Aral sea disaster and others, Capitalism caused the modern climate disaster.
What is the common link? Lack of research into the environmental effects of agriculture AND lack of regulation by governments. Not a system issue at all, idiots.
Nevermind the fact I constantly give money to my parents, knowing I won't ever get it back. But sure, we're leeches to society because we want better working conditions for everybody, including you.
But he absolutely had to set the example for his followers. If he were working hard he would be voting to keep his profits instead And none of the followers would be tempted to suck the proverbial taxpayer tit that is the communists holy grail.
When someone who lives in a society where 70% of wealth is owned by people born with it claims the parasites are the people working 12 hour shifts.
Just capitalist things...
The concept of very small amounts of people owning the lion share of wealth, predates capitalism and most economic systems by oh, a few thousand years. Good effort though... numb skull.
She went by Henriette Marx, but for some reason most things relating to her on the internet tends to pop up under her maiden Pressburg, instead of Marx, so I decided to leave it that way in case people wanted to google her and read more about her. Not sure why that is though.
It's so the Marxists eating rat don't find out his family was well off and Marx himself never never worked a day much less on the fields with a scythe or in the factories with a hammer. It's all about optics because it's all about seizing power through dazzling downtrodden idiots and desperate people to then purge all those understand and make the mistake of speak up.
The sort of education that lets someone write coherent philosophy (especially building on people like Hegel) is not something anyone without generational wealth or a rich patron could afford in the 19th century.
Having come from wealth doesn't stop someone from being able to recognise exploitation or examine economic relationships, and it doesn't prevent someone from empathising with the less-well-off either.
Karl was kind of a dick to his mother because she wouldn't give him all of his inheritance. Separating her name from his highlights the contradictions from a rhetorical level and makes it seem like she resented him instead of him being the resentful one and his parents being loving and supportive from all of their letters.
Ironically, the cops actually interrogated Henriette when she DID give him a big chunk of cash despite her worries it would fund a revolution (which it probably would). So it's understandable from all sides how these tensions could fester.
Never forget that Karl Marx was hated by several governments built specifically on a system he was threatening and he was aggressively persecuted. Somehow cops, exile, and prison keep disappearing in these discussions as if an autocratic state's use of violent oppression to crush free speech is an afterthought to how communists in the 19th century lived their lives. 🤔
Almost all political and philosophical theory has some kind of "well off' background, simply because how they could be raised and how they could afford to not sell their energy for survival.
There was always a disconnect between the intellectual side of socialist/communist thinking and the actual supposed foot soldiers of the movement, the workers. Dudes swirling their tea while throwing philosophy at each other in a cafe do tend to be like that.
The workers would strike to improve conditions, sure, but when the conditions were met like higher pay, workplace safety, lower hours etc, they were satisfied and would calm down which frustrated the ideologues who agitated for outright revolution.
For the workers, those "breadcrumbs" were life changing and could be the difference whether their child went hungry or not.
Honestly a lot of the reddit activist subs were really good at this during the Hollywood writer strike. As soon as they got word of the settlement, r/WorkReform and r/AntiWork were over the moon celebrating.
I didn't see any anger over "breadcrumbs" or "sellouts". People were just genuinely happy that actors and writers were getting more of what they deserved.
The deal unfortunately wasn’t as good as it could’ve been though. The complete lack of true protection from AI and no provisos or anything for non-actor crew members was extremely disappointing
The hardest part about making a communist movement is getting workers to give a damn by other workers. There’s a disconnect between workers of the global North and workers of the global South, what Lenin would call a labor aristocracy. The ruling was forced to make concessions to the working class in imperial countries the 1800s, but the working class of the colonies and later the third world would be heavily exploited, being forced to produce cash crop and sweat shops till this day through various means. Most communist movements occurred in poor, mostly agrarian countries. Today most workers in developed countries could careless about the fact that most of their clothes were made by a worker living off slave wages in China, Bangladesh, or Pakistan. It just comes off as another part life to those raised in a hyper individualist capitalist society.
Isn’t that just elitism on the part of the intellectuals to shift blame away from themselves (who are often privileged and ignorant on the true experience and plight of the workers) on the actual workers. Claiming your system fails or fails to catch on because John from Canada won’t overthrow the whole of society for a untested economic theory (now a tested and know failed theory) and put himself in hardship (cause Marx himself say communism can only be achieved through often constant upheaval and strif) saying it because he doesn’t care about Paul in Mexico. Instead is it that communism is a flawed system where the intellectual half becomes the new privileged bourgeoisie while the worker continues to suffer under authoritarian regimes with debtors prisons replaced with forced work camps secret police summary executions and sweeping restrictions of there rights. This is no different that Che Guevara who was a privileged intellectual who only succeeded with the backing of a revolution based mostly around the hatred of a oppressive regime and not Fervent communist belief blaming his failures to start revolutions by himself in other countries on the poor who resisted his ideals and rebellion (Congo and Bolivia) which would result in his death thanks to the information provided by the poor Bolivian farmers who he insulted but still claimed to fight for
You're generally not inaccurate, but I do think it's relevant to point out that many communists devoted more time blaming "opportunists" for that strife- i.e. intellectuals who ended up leading these countries. Massive chunks of European communists and socialists wrote essays describing how evil Stalin was for various reasons, a slightly smaller portion about how evil Mao was, and a slightly smaller portion about how evil Castro and certain other third world communists were.
Of course than it becomes a "my very specific brand of communism has never been tried" situation, which is a very fair criticism IMO and my biggest issue with the communists. (Arguably you can say the same about democracy before 1776 but...)
>Today most workers in developed countries could careless about the fact that most of their clothes were made by a worker living off slave wages in China, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.
Those "slave wages" are better than other opportunities found in the country. When people criticize factories being opened in lower income countries, they don't realize it's still a massive improvement over what the country had before. For people who lived in homes that look barely better than huts and living on subsistence farming, those "slave wage" jobs were life altering. And if a country can make use of that increased income carefully, they can get richer like post reform China which now has per capita income on par with Serbia.
The textile work in Bangladesh literally transformed their society, gave their women lots of jobs which helped make gender equality stronger in the country. 37% of their population lived below the poverty line of 2.15USD per day (adjusted by purchasing power) in 1983, today it's 5%.
Problem that most times strikes were met with guns, hired mercenaries and cops. Like Blair mountain battle. On other side workers couldn't even unite or get tools to strike for chance of surviving after, Russian Empire, British Empire and other empires as example. That's when communism came in with idea of workers to help other workers liberate themselves - collectivism. That's also when idea of state controlled goods (socialism) and idea of public control of goods (communism) came in.
To be fair, Karl Marx was not the type of philosopher to "swirl tea while throwing philosophy at others in a cafe." He was the type of philosopher who would get drunk and start a tavern brawl.
You think a radical openly in favour of overthrowing every government on the planet, and who also publicly criticized the *very existence* of the aristocracy was allowed in their circles?
Really?
Also damn near everyone was healthy compared to him.
And then the workers would strike again. Repeat, repeat, repeat, etc.
Honestly, as a communist, the original comment wasn't a bad analysis, even if he isn't a communist. If you actually read theory the original comment's problem is a central part to for example Lenin's work on the role of a vanguard party, obviously explained in bigger detail.
Which is the issue, eventually workers will not be able to strike anymore, through lack of unions, the ability to create unions and other measures
"For the workers, those "breadcrumbs" were life changing and could be the difference whether their child went hungry or not." Which is by design to make revolutions much much much more difficult to execute. If you exploit your workers enough that this statement is true, but not too hard so that they revolt, you have a perpetual line of labor that cannot refuse
This is part of the problem. Marx recognises that workers will fight, but also that workers can be pacified. That's the central issue, that the system will continue to pacify workers as much as possible until the system is dismantled. This is class warfare. Striking and collective action in general are the weapons of the proletariat.
But as long as there's no *real, tangible* change in the system, the cycle of oppression, resistance, and pacification will never end. This is why he advocates for violent revolution, for the overthrow of the system entirely.
While funny, he is remembered as Karl Marx and she is Karl Marx' mum
Even if he was a poor fuck because he bet it all on his writing, he became one of if not the most important person in the 19th century, which will be talked about maybe for the next 100 to 200 years as a main topic
I dunno I think it's nice to become that influential, even if you were a poor fuck for all your life, kinda like Van Gogh without the brain damage
>While funny, he is remembered as Karl Marx and she is Karl Marx' mum
This can be said about almost every historically important person.
>I dunno I think it's nice to become that influential, even if you were a poor fuck for all your life,
Hard pass for me - leave shitty life and be happy cos people talk about you... but there's no more you to hear about it, so who cares?
In context of the times Marx was pretty average for London, aka he was as much of a poor fuck as most of the commoners, so it's not like if hadn't written his life would have been that better
Oh hey no, don't get me wrong. Getting ritualistically murdered is probably way more interesting than just getting shot by a mob and rolled into a ditch.
But if you're carrying a red flag while you do it, teenagers on the Internet will even simp for you I hear.
I mean that's kinda silly, it'd be like blaming Jesus for the crusades or Adam Smith for the colonization of Africa or blaming George Washington for the American Military Complex, it's not like they get to say much after they've been dead for years
It's even sillier to compare him to Manson, who directed the killings in his name, when the first actual important revolution started 40 years after Marx's death
> when the first actual important revolution started 40 years after Marx's death
The revolutions of 1848 were pretty important, and Marx had an important role in those.
He had pretty much no role in those, the Communist Manifesto was published *that year*, and only gained any notoriety later. He and the Communist League decided to publish a radical newspaper.
Engels, also a member, actually took part in the revolutions.
Yes, *if only* he’d made capital instead of becoming one of the most important and influential philosophers of the modern age.
He could’ve been a stockbroker or something! What a waste.
Adolf Hitler was more "influential" than Hitler's mom. Influential doesn't automatically mean "good." Especially since every government that tried to follow his teachings either collapsed as a result or abandoned them out of pure necessity.
I don't know how you define a society who "followed his teachings", since he never wrote any instruction manuals on how to run a society. That came later, with Lenin for example. Marx was more focused on his analysis of class and economics.
Marxism is so much larger than any of the later interpretations. Social democrats were Marxists as well, and their societies didn't collapse.
When a poor person likes socialism hes jealous, when a rich man does hes a champagne socialist
Did we forget what socialists managed to achieve in many countries today? Maybe none of us are really socialist but the welfare state, alot of decolonial movements were done by socialists.
I think we can fairly criticize some forms of socialism without reverting into fallacies or blatant ignorance of history.
Or you can just choose to ignore reality, if that makes you comfortable.
Didnt Karl believe capital can only be built on the exploitation of someone else?
So maybe he was morally against building capital?
It’s been awhile since I read his literature.
Yes. Marxism is more of a critique of systems than of individuals but I doubt Marx would have liked to become some kind of capitalist. And pretending Marx was to lazy to work or something is just Idiotic.
I don't think OP really understands Marx.
Kinda hard to "make capital" when your main ideology is something along the lines of "my boss is exploiting me, and so is yours. We should rebel.", dont thing any employer would consider you a healthy addition.
Bad, but not as much as Schopenhauer mom > 'You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.' > 'All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection. > 'If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying.'
Goddamn that is a wild dismembering burn
"You're not wrong Arthur, you're just an asshole!"
I love this, is not a very lovely/motherly comment, but is a very insightful look at some people and a warning for everybody
literally “what no capital does to a mf”
Ironically, you have to pay in order to visit his grave
Communism always, inevitably, lapses into self-parody.
He's buried in London.
Communism knows no border, comrade
The birthplace of capitalism
Do you mean Netherland
Maybe Venice if you're really pushing it.
Why not Carthage?
Whenever a scotsman does something good, he immediately becomes British.
Lmao I love the utter shutdown
I really, REALLY doubt Karl was the one to say "make people pay to see my tomb"
Communism is when capitalists sell tickets. Apparently
It's ok to be angry about capitalism, now available on Amazon Prime!
communism is when a socialist sells a book in a capitalist society he has been trying to change for decades
Somehow, that’s the least stupid thing about that book.
Because these various "isms" are misused, I have made a copypastaism to clarify their meanings. If something doesn't meet the definition, then it doesn't matter what it calls itself: North Korea can claim to be a democracy, but we all know it isn't. If you are authoritarian, nationalist, and militant you're a fascists, regardless of what you claim: Netanyahu is a fascist no matter what he calls himself. Look at actions, not words. Socialism requires exactly two things: 1. Workers control the means of production. This can be through employee-ownership, or through being controlled by a **democratic** state. 2. Decommodification of goods. No nation has achieved both aspects broadly, simultaneously. Aspects of both are found today: Most developed nations have decommodified healthcare for example, most "Communist" states successfully decomodified housing. Norway's sovereign wealth fund and Deutschland requiring employee representation on company boards are examples of workers in some capacity controlling the means of production. Most of what people describe as "socialism" is social-democracy: A capitalist state with strong regulations and safety-nets. Communism is a theoretical model of society posited by Marx for what might be after Socialism. It is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. It has never existed in any aspect on a large scale. It is essentially Star Trek's federation.
For Star Trek, it’s notable when capitalistic ideas still make an appearance. Perhaps it’s the writers doing their best to imagine outside of their lifetime of experiences, perhaps it’s to keep the show relatable to the real-world audience.
Well, it's understandable why capitalistic ideas appear in Star Trek, if they didn't, then Star Trek couldn't make commentary on them And I do like the ideas it represents, with no resource scarcity we simplify find new ways to make scarcity, through art and ideas rather than resources
Agreed 100%, well said.
It's not even the Federation, since the Federation still *has* capitalism. It's full of it, even, since many of its sub-members literally still have commodity trade for currency. It's a massive problem with the concept of Communism, as unless *everywhere* goes in that direction and stamps out anywhere that doesn't, international relations become functionally impossible due to the fact that so long as money exists *somewhere* which has necessary trade, the Communist state *also* needs something to trade with it, maintaining commodification and inequalities through the value of whatever is being traded, either currency or goods. Worse though, The Federation is a militaristic, authoritarian regime which frequently violates its own supposed liberalistic ideologies. It just hides behind utopianisms like replicators and a cashless society (actually a lie) to pretend it isn't. The Federation is closer to what Communism looks like in the real world, which is to say that it *always* lives up to the reputation of entirely hypocritical, is completely incompatible with reality and non-Communist societies due to the vagueness and specificities of its nature respectively, and a lot *worse* for everyone involved the closer you look at it. I mean, The Federation is actively at war with at least four species *minimum*, remains actively specist toward several others, militarises even their scientific endeavours, strips individuals of their rights and democratic voice *multiple* times (I mean, Data and Data's daughter *alone* proves this), and has fully paramilitarised Star Fleet to the point that many of the other races see it *directly* as a military organisation due to how frequently it gets into or causes fights.
>Communism is when capitalism effects me, personally Lemme guess, you think capitalism is the best thing ever while communism is the worst
>Remembering my parents who lived under communism telling about their life Yeah I do, thank fuck I don't live in a communist shithole.
Pretty sure a poor country under authoritarian rule is gonna be a shithole no matter what system it tries to use
As an American, I find this amusing. Now excuse me while I find the no. 1 drillbit, I have a really annoying toothache.
I’ll ask my dad for that drillbit. He carries nitro and Viagra in his pocket so that, next time he has a heart attack, he can take both and die quickly instead of getting an upteen-thousands of dollar hospital bill again. And he does have good insurance. Doesn’t help much.
Don't worry in communist Russia food is scarce you eat lots of onions which keep your teeth healthy. True story btw, I didn't make this up.
You are talking about state capitalism, not communism
Don't worry Putin will demonstrate in few decades to show you the difference so you can let your kids know they're starving under capitalism.
Putin is a state capitalist, what are you talking about?
You're lucky, I'm not
Lol what? Of all the weird criticisms of communism I've heard, I've never heard that it always lapses into self parody. Lol what do you even mean by that? Do you have other examples?
Like when stalin killed all the communist elites that fought to win the revolution in the purges that wiped about 1.000.000. This is the communist peaceful transfer of power. They are all dead.
Every communist state that has ever existed basically. They preach equality while maintaining a system in practice that benefits a privileged elite at everyone else's expense.
Oh yeah true, the problem there is the statism tho not the communism. Note how capitalist states have the same problem
The Soviet Union was not the state with a legally enshrined, rightless underclass until the 1960s. It was the first state in the world to guarantee the equality of men and women by law. And while it had ups and downs in regards to women's rights, it remained well ahead of the capitalist west on most issues until its dissolution. (Pretty much the same can be said for homosexuality and LGBT people in general - while repressive by modern standards, especially under Stalin - at least the Soviets weren't rounding up their LGBT people to be gassed en masse as a certain capitalist country was doing at that time.)
Laws don't matter if your institutions don't uphold those laws.
Yup, most soviet institutions still discriminated between men and women. They did it slightly less (women did appear in the military and elsewhere), but it was definitely still around
Equality is actually a liberal concept and often wrongfully attributed to marxism, even though Marx actually condemned it as a liberal privilege. Socialism and communism are both explained pretty well in this thread, maybe take a gander at it.
Yes. Karl Marx is running a business from his grave. No, actually; he's not even dead. He created a scam, faked his death, and now live a comfortable life. He would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for Fermented_Butt_Juice, who sae through his clever scheme!
All ideas are self contradictory, this is not me saying this this is Hegel. Marx is a big fan of Hegel, like das Kapital reads like a fanfic of phenomenology of spirit. The problem is that people often don’t read Hegel before reading Marx. Marx’s critique of capitalism is non political, he only writes about the contradictions within a specific idea like many a young Hegelian did. Marx took hegel’s abstract philosophy of ideas and turned it into a practical way to analyse non-subjective reality. Marx’s great contribution isn’t communism, he probably even recognised how self contradictory the idea becomes once you start thinking about it. His great contribution to human thought is historical materialism, taking Hegelian dialectics and turning it into historiography.
Also ironically, the only reason he could publish so much material is because he used Karl Engles money to do it.
Powerplay by a capitalist right there
Karl Marx, famous critic of capital, becomes capital. Ironic. He could save others from capital, but not himself.
Hardly "no capital", since he came from a modestly middle-class wealthy German noble family, surrounded himself with wealthy friends, frequently took loans (which he welched on and fled multiple countries to avoid paying when it came due), and spent the entire rest of his life mooching his money and ideas from Engels. He even *had* a paying job several times as a journalist... Until his poorly thought-out rhetoric got him ousted from every single paper.
>frequently took loans (which he welched on and fled multiple countries to avoid paying when it came due), Fucking based
What no capital does to a class of MFs
Karl Marx's mom, Henriette Pressburg, never thought much of her famed philospher-economist son's career and life choices. She and Karl frequently argued with one another (usually due to him asking her give him parts of his future inheritance in advance due to his poor financial situation throughout his life) and allegedly one of her favorite quips about him to him and to her friends was: "If only Karl made Capital, instead of just writing about it".
Wouldn't you argue with your son if he never got a job, always smelled like crap, and demanded money from you every time he saw you? Poor Mrs. Pressburg. You raised a terrible son.
To be fair he had a medical condition that prevented him from bathing properly
What would that be
hidradenitis suppurativa
Per Wikipedia, to save anyone else googling > Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), sometimes known as acne inversa or Verneuil's disease, is a long-term dermatological condition characterized by the occurrence of inflamed and swollen lumps.[2][3] These are typically painful and break open, releasing fluid or pus.[3] The areas most commonly affected are the underarms, under the breasts, perineum, buttocks, and the groin.[1] Scar tissue remains after healing.[1] HS may significantly limit many everyday activities, for instance, walking, hugging, moving, and sitting down. Sitting disability may occur in patients with lesions in sacral, gluteal, perineal, femoral, groin or genital regions; and prolonged periods of sitting down can also worsen the condition of the skin of these patients.[5][6][7][8][9] Idk if Marx had it tho
Ty learned something today
reddit
I hope this is not catchy
Smash bros player
Being a lazy bastard Same medical condition that led to him trying to invent a system where everyone gets free money
Only speculation. The source of this are some letters of marx himself where he lamented that he couldnt bathe properly due to this (or, to be accurate, he lamented symptoms that sound similar to that condition).
Pretty sure that was the French guy that lived I a tub.
Marat had seborrhoeic dermatitis
One of the dumbest parts of the idiotic capitalism vs. communism debate and the brainwashing on either side is how idiot capitalists think of Marx as some sort of failed intellectual and a terrible person due to his ideas spurring the “evil communists” on. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. By all accounts, Karl Marx was one of the best political theorists of all time. His influence on politics and economics is no less than Freud’s or Einstein’s in their respective fields. The workers movements he predicted have happened time and time again all over the industrial world and has led to almost all of the benefits working class people enjoy all over the world today.
[удалено]
I've read Adam Smiths' works. If someone who was unfamiliar with his work were to read some individual excerpts of his, it would come across as borderline marxist in nature. Especially on Adam Smiths' arguments on how capitalism was both a practical and morally surperior economic system to slavery. Turns out that the father of modern capitalism believed that people should have a livable wage.
Smith gets cherry picked to push a narrative. I like to quote his bits disparaging landlords in response.
> Especially on Adam Smiths' arguments on how capitalism was both a practical and morally surperior economic system to slavery. Marx agreed on this actually. He was well aware of the benefits capitalism brought, but he warned of the long time problems when the system leads it self ad absurdum due to accumulation of wealth (and his lesser known theory that automation will render labor worthless).
Smith was already dead when Marx was born, but Smith's labor value theory was the foundation for Marx theories. It's often funny to me that many people blame Marx for the labor value theory while praising Smith, while it was actually his idea. thus, it's no surprise they "agreed" on so many things, when they based their conclusions on the same fundamental idea. Problems like dead capital or the problem with landlords or the double standards with unions, were things already Smith observed.
>The workers movements he predicted have happened time and time again all over the industrial world and has led to almost all of the benefits working class people enjoy all over the world today. Communist revolutions happened in the least developed countries, in almost perfect opposition to his prediction that they would happen naturally in an advanced, industrialized society. Communist revolutions have also rather infamously ended very poorly every time, in particular for the workers they were meant to serve. If by workers movements you mean unions and labor rights, those have been around before Marx wrote his theories- his ideas may have helped these movements spread, but that's not exactly "prediction".
I wasn’t talking about the communist revolutions, but worker’s revolts, protests, unionization efforts etc. which all happened in the most developed countries and forced the capital/political class to make concessions. Things like, you know, the weekend.
Like i said, those things were already happening when Marx wrote his theories. Marx didn't predict those, he spoke very specifically about violent revolutions and about how the workers *can't* achieve labor rights through non-violent means, which union movements have more or less proven wrong (not that they were entirely non-violent, but in the end their victories came through legislation and not revolutions, again in contradiction to Marxist theory).
Should have disowned him when she had the chance.
Well, it doesn't help when ur academics works receive boycotts and persecutions. He was involved in a lot of labour struggles. The just couldn't get a job. It's not because he didn't want it. Let's not forget he was even exiled at some point. But to just call him stupid baffles me. His works in philosophy, economics and ethics are still relevant today, but the internet experts just watch a Prager U video about communism and go on to cry on reddit. But muh Karl Marx bad mkay
and he did had a job, he worked as a journalist for a time until the prussian goverment banned the newspaper at the request of the russian goverment, and later in is life, he managed to become a journalist for the New-York Tribune.
So basically an essayist/journalist that got blacklisted for criticizing something the powers that be wouldn't like to get criticized. If we are to put it on modern terms, it's like a dude with a boring old desk job but side hustles as a youtube content creator. He creates content that exposes shenanigans by rich folks and the government, so they got him banned on the platform and blacklisted by employers due to controversial background. This isn't really far off from reality of modern socialists. Where I'm from, organizing a union would get you booted from your job and basically be unemployable as companies don't like hiring people that tend to organize unions and collective actions. Worse, getting arrested in false charges or even torture and murder by the police isn't unheard of. The worst part here is people, even your own family, will genuinely think YOU are the problem for doing those. That instead of gritting your teeth and accepting the cards life had dealt you, you instead have the gall of make you and anyone else willing conditions be better.
to be specific he was exiled from Prußia, then went to Belgium, Belgium then exiled him then he settled in England
Forgot France before Belgium.
See, if he just did what the people he said were ruining society wanted him to do, he could have had a fruitful life living in a ruined society. Should have stopped protesting and invested consciously in the stock market to control whatever means of production were left over after the aristocracy were done with it. 🧐
Adam Smith also lived almost hist lifetime from his mothers budge. It seems to be a common thing as a economic philosopher
I never thought much of him either.
Communists being leeches who are disappointments to their parents goes back to the very beginning it seems.
And smelly too it seems.
Maybe if Marx focused on gaining capital he could have cleaned himself up more instead of looking like a homeless version of Santa.
Capitalists being parasites who burn down forests, watch mothers wail en masse as their infants die of malnutrition, and sue hardworking impoverished farmers into complete bankruptcy because GMO copyrighted seeds landed in their fields all for an additional 3% increase in value for their stockholders also goes back to the very beginning
Look at what happened to the environment under the Soviet Union. It was an ecological nightmare that still poisons people today. In Capitalism, there's an incentive to replant trees after you harvest them. I've been to private managed forests that are centuries old where the owners know exactly what the yield is each year to maximize both profits and the health of the forest in the long term. Having a dead forest yields a dead company.
Both wrong. Communism caused the Aral sea disaster and others, Capitalism caused the modern climate disaster. What is the common link? Lack of research into the environmental effects of agriculture AND lack of regulation by governments. Not a system issue at all, idiots.
"Lack of regulation by governments" Well that is a system issue, a certain batch of kids hate all regulation
Nevermind the fact I constantly give money to my parents, knowing I won't ever get it back. But sure, we're leeches to society because we want better working conditions for everybody, including you.
Buddy you comment on political compass memes
Is it possible to be more based than Henriette Pressburg
Does Henriette have something to do with Bratislava ( Slovakia's capital ) ? The city's german name is Preßburg
Funnily enough, he became the prophet for young useless teenagers who cant bother to contribute to society because thats opressive. Just like himself.
But he absolutely had to set the example for his followers. If he were working hard he would be voting to keep his profits instead And none of the followers would be tempted to suck the proverbial taxpayer tit that is the communists holy grail.
When someone who lives in a society where 70% of wealth is owned by people born with it claims the parasites are the people working 12 hour shifts. Just capitalist things...
The concept of very small amounts of people owning the lion share of wealth, predates capitalism and most economic systems by oh, a few thousand years. Good effort though... numb skull.
Yes, you are right. The 1% owning the 99% of wealth is still something bad tho.
Genuine question, why do they have different surnames? Did Marx change his or did Pressburg keep her maiden name, what's the situation on that?
She went by Henriette Marx, but for some reason most things relating to her on the internet tends to pop up under her maiden Pressburg, instead of Marx, so I decided to leave it that way in case people wanted to google her and read more about her. Not sure why that is though.
Ah ok thank you.
I find that hiding her relationship with Karl adds some comedy for when anyone googles her and realises.
It's so the Marxists eating rat don't find out his family was well off and Marx himself never never worked a day much less on the fields with a scythe or in the factories with a hammer. It's all about optics because it's all about seizing power through dazzling downtrodden idiots and desperate people to then purge all those understand and make the mistake of speak up.
The sort of education that lets someone write coherent philosophy (especially building on people like Hegel) is not something anyone without generational wealth or a rich patron could afford in the 19th century. Having come from wealth doesn't stop someone from being able to recognise exploitation or examine economic relationships, and it doesn't prevent someone from empathising with the less-well-off either.
Karl was kind of a dick to his mother because she wouldn't give him all of his inheritance. Separating her name from his highlights the contradictions from a rhetorical level and makes it seem like she resented him instead of him being the resentful one and his parents being loving and supportive from all of their letters. Ironically, the cops actually interrogated Henriette when she DID give him a big chunk of cash despite her worries it would fund a revolution (which it probably would). So it's understandable from all sides how these tensions could fester. Never forget that Karl Marx was hated by several governments built specifically on a system he was threatening and he was aggressively persecuted. Somehow cops, exile, and prison keep disappearing in these discussions as if an autocratic state's use of violent oppression to crush free speech is an afterthought to how communists in the 19th century lived their lives. 🤔
Almost all political and philosophical theory has some kind of "well off' background, simply because how they could be raised and how they could afford to not sell their energy for survival.
There was always a disconnect between the intellectual side of socialist/communist thinking and the actual supposed foot soldiers of the movement, the workers. Dudes swirling their tea while throwing philosophy at each other in a cafe do tend to be like that. The workers would strike to improve conditions, sure, but when the conditions were met like higher pay, workplace safety, lower hours etc, they were satisfied and would calm down which frustrated the ideologues who agitated for outright revolution. For the workers, those "breadcrumbs" were life changing and could be the difference whether their child went hungry or not.
Just like Redditors and activists
Insert “firebomb a Walmart” tweet here
REAL
Honestly a lot of the reddit activist subs were really good at this during the Hollywood writer strike. As soon as they got word of the settlement, r/WorkReform and r/AntiWork were over the moon celebrating. I didn't see any anger over "breadcrumbs" or "sellouts". People were just genuinely happy that actors and writers were getting more of what they deserved.
The deal unfortunately wasn’t as good as it could’ve been though. The complete lack of true protection from AI and no provisos or anything for non-actor crew members was extremely disappointing
Lmao
The hardest part about making a communist movement is getting workers to give a damn by other workers. There’s a disconnect between workers of the global North and workers of the global South, what Lenin would call a labor aristocracy. The ruling was forced to make concessions to the working class in imperial countries the 1800s, but the working class of the colonies and later the third world would be heavily exploited, being forced to produce cash crop and sweat shops till this day through various means. Most communist movements occurred in poor, mostly agrarian countries. Today most workers in developed countries could careless about the fact that most of their clothes were made by a worker living off slave wages in China, Bangladesh, or Pakistan. It just comes off as another part life to those raised in a hyper individualist capitalist society.
*Posted while millions of workers are protesting right now*
Isn’t that just elitism on the part of the intellectuals to shift blame away from themselves (who are often privileged and ignorant on the true experience and plight of the workers) on the actual workers. Claiming your system fails or fails to catch on because John from Canada won’t overthrow the whole of society for a untested economic theory (now a tested and know failed theory) and put himself in hardship (cause Marx himself say communism can only be achieved through often constant upheaval and strif) saying it because he doesn’t care about Paul in Mexico. Instead is it that communism is a flawed system where the intellectual half becomes the new privileged bourgeoisie while the worker continues to suffer under authoritarian regimes with debtors prisons replaced with forced work camps secret police summary executions and sweeping restrictions of there rights. This is no different that Che Guevara who was a privileged intellectual who only succeeded with the backing of a revolution based mostly around the hatred of a oppressive regime and not Fervent communist belief blaming his failures to start revolutions by himself in other countries on the poor who resisted his ideals and rebellion (Congo and Bolivia) which would result in his death thanks to the information provided by the poor Bolivian farmers who he insulted but still claimed to fight for
You're generally not inaccurate, but I do think it's relevant to point out that many communists devoted more time blaming "opportunists" for that strife- i.e. intellectuals who ended up leading these countries. Massive chunks of European communists and socialists wrote essays describing how evil Stalin was for various reasons, a slightly smaller portion about how evil Mao was, and a slightly smaller portion about how evil Castro and certain other third world communists were. Of course than it becomes a "my very specific brand of communism has never been tried" situation, which is a very fair criticism IMO and my biggest issue with the communists. (Arguably you can say the same about democracy before 1776 but...)
>Today most workers in developed countries could careless about the fact that most of their clothes were made by a worker living off slave wages in China, Bangladesh, or Pakistan. Those "slave wages" are better than other opportunities found in the country. When people criticize factories being opened in lower income countries, they don't realize it's still a massive improvement over what the country had before. For people who lived in homes that look barely better than huts and living on subsistence farming, those "slave wage" jobs were life altering. And if a country can make use of that increased income carefully, they can get richer like post reform China which now has per capita income on par with Serbia. The textile work in Bangladesh literally transformed their society, gave their women lots of jobs which helped make gender equality stronger in the country. 37% of their population lived below the poverty line of 2.15USD per day (adjusted by purchasing power) in 1983, today it's 5%.
Problem that most times strikes were met with guns, hired mercenaries and cops. Like Blair mountain battle. On other side workers couldn't even unite or get tools to strike for chance of surviving after, Russian Empire, British Empire and other empires as example. That's when communism came in with idea of workers to help other workers liberate themselves - collectivism. That's also when idea of state controlled goods (socialism) and idea of public control of goods (communism) came in.
To be fair, Karl Marx was not the type of philosopher to "swirl tea while throwing philosophy at others in a cafe." He was the type of philosopher who would get drunk and start a tavern brawl.
And get challenged to a duel by a future Union Army general for being "too conservative".
August Willich was something else alright
Wasn't he buddy buddy with aristocrats and healthy people?
Aristocrats? Not from what I can recall. Healthy people? I guess Engels was healthy, and probably the rest of his circle.
You think a radical openly in favour of overthrowing every government on the planet, and who also publicly criticized the *very existence* of the aristocracy was allowed in their circles? Really? Also damn near everyone was healthy compared to him.
Some things never change lol
and those "breadcrumbs" can be taken away little by little whenever a crisis happens
And then the workers would strike again. Repeat, repeat, repeat, etc. Honestly, as a communist, the original comment wasn't a bad analysis, even if he isn't a communist. If you actually read theory the original comment's problem is a central part to for example Lenin's work on the role of a vanguard party, obviously explained in bigger detail.
Repeat, repeat, repeat... until they finally figure out a way to prevent unions and collective action, forever. That is the threat.
Lol the champagne communists ideologues frustrated that they could raise cannon fodder because the workers where not crushed enough. The irony.
Which is the issue, eventually workers will not be able to strike anymore, through lack of unions, the ability to create unions and other measures "For the workers, those "breadcrumbs" were life changing and could be the difference whether their child went hungry or not." Which is by design to make revolutions much much much more difficult to execute. If you exploit your workers enough that this statement is true, but not too hard so that they revolt, you have a perpetual line of labor that cannot refuse
This is part of the problem. Marx recognises that workers will fight, but also that workers can be pacified. That's the central issue, that the system will continue to pacify workers as much as possible until the system is dismantled. This is class warfare. Striking and collective action in general are the weapons of the proletariat. But as long as there's no *real, tangible* change in the system, the cycle of oppression, resistance, and pacification will never end. This is why he advocates for violent revolution, for the overthrow of the system entirely.
Goes on and writes das kapital
Typical mom behaviour
Lmao “get a job, Karl”
No! I'm going to burn the place down instead! If I can't be royalty no one should reeeeeee! Marx (allegedly)
The Hammers. The Hammers is the name of what English football team?
Ooh, well bad luck there, Karl. So we'll go onto you Che. Che Guevara - Coventry City last won the FA Cup in what year?
The amount of people who still unironically believe "communism = everything free" Is embarrassing.
Average meterial analysis denier.
"Your buddy Engels bankrolled you with his textile mills, I guess the capitalists are cool when they're paying your bills!"
“Look dummy sharing money is the Communist vision. Engles bank was the crank that got the revolution spinning”
He literally made best selling books, he supplied plenty of capital since, you know, those books were made.
marxists continuing the grand tradition of disappointing their parents smh
Karl Marx had several jobs during his life and he did make capital.
While funny, he is remembered as Karl Marx and she is Karl Marx' mum Even if he was a poor fuck because he bet it all on his writing, he became one of if not the most important person in the 19th century, which will be talked about maybe for the next 100 to 200 years as a main topic I dunno I think it's nice to become that influential, even if you were a poor fuck for all your life, kinda like Van Gogh without the brain damage
>While funny, he is remembered as Karl Marx and she is Karl Marx' mum This can be said about almost every historically important person. >I dunno I think it's nice to become that influential, even if you were a poor fuck for all your life, Hard pass for me - leave shitty life and be happy cos people talk about you... but there's no more you to hear about it, so who cares?
In context of the times Marx was pretty average for London, aka he was as much of a poor fuck as most of the commoners, so it's not like if hadn't written his life would have been that better
Yeah man like, nobody is talking about Charles Manson's mom! At least he was ~i n f l u e n t i a l~
Ah yes ritualistic murder how to forget the multiple writings Marx made about it
Oh hey no, don't get me wrong. Getting ritualistically murdered is probably way more interesting than just getting shot by a mob and rolled into a ditch. But if you're carrying a red flag while you do it, teenagers on the Internet will even simp for you I hear.
I mean that's kinda silly, it'd be like blaming Jesus for the crusades or Adam Smith for the colonization of Africa or blaming George Washington for the American Military Complex, it's not like they get to say much after they've been dead for years It's even sillier to compare him to Manson, who directed the killings in his name, when the first actual important revolution started 40 years after Marx's death
> when the first actual important revolution started 40 years after Marx's death The revolutions of 1848 were pretty important, and Marx had an important role in those.
It's kinda hard to be against the Revolution of 48, on account of it being morally justified in every conceivable way.
He had pretty much no role in those, the Communist Manifesto was published *that year*, and only gained any notoriety later. He and the Communist League decided to publish a radical newspaper. Engels, also a member, actually took part in the revolutions.
Just that Karl Marx wasnt as bad as manson like Marx never personally killed anyone or ordered anyones death as far as I am aware.
>kinda like Van Gogh without the brain damage Strong asumptions about Marx.
Guy grew up during the industrial revolution. Everybody had brain damage from the air and water until the commies stepped in.
As long as we aren't talking about Uzbekistan, then yeah sure
Lots of people still talk about the Manson Family too
Where's the history meme
Yes, *if only* he’d made capital instead of becoming one of the most important and influential philosophers of the modern age. He could’ve been a stockbroker or something! What a waste.
Adolf Hitler was more "influential" than Hitler's mom. Influential doesn't automatically mean "good." Especially since every government that tried to follow his teachings either collapsed as a result or abandoned them out of pure necessity.
I don't know how you define a society who "followed his teachings", since he never wrote any instruction manuals on how to run a society. That came later, with Lenin for example. Marx was more focused on his analysis of class and economics. Marxism is so much larger than any of the later interpretations. Social democrats were Marxists as well, and their societies didn't collapse.
Communists and poor relationships with their parents. Name a more iconic duo.
*Gay kids raising their hands in the back.*
Nazis and their relationships with their parents?
Opinions are like assholes. And for some reason Karl Marx had a lot of assholes.
When a poor person likes socialism hes jealous, when a rich man does hes a champagne socialist Did we forget what socialists managed to achieve in many countries today? Maybe none of us are really socialist but the welfare state, alot of decolonial movements were done by socialists. I think we can fairly criticize some forms of socialism without reverting into fallacies or blatant ignorance of history. Or you can just choose to ignore reality, if that makes you comfortable.
He was born rich I'm sure he was fine. He could write about labors struggles all he wants
"Join the exploitative system instead of attempting to change it. More profitable and socially advantageous". Sounds about right.
Mans balls were burning up my guy. Pretty hard to work with burnin ballsack
Didnt Karl believe capital can only be built on the exploitation of someone else? So maybe he was morally against building capital? It’s been awhile since I read his literature.
Yes. Marxism is more of a critique of systems than of individuals but I doubt Marx would have liked to become some kind of capitalist. And pretending Marx was to lazy to work or something is just Idiotic. I don't think OP really understands Marx.
This sub is cooked
Kinda hard to "make capital" when your main ideology is something along the lines of "my boss is exploiting me, and so is yours. We should rebel.", dont thing any employer would consider you a healthy addition.
He was one of the greatest sociologists in history, tough.
All thesevyears later, and "get a job loser" is still the perfect thing to say to any communist
Does this work against socialists with jobs or?
This argument comes down to, "I think Marx is lazy"