Memes aside, what is your opinion on Marx and his work?
>>473149
An incredibly deep and prolific thinker, and one of the most important in history.
A detailed analysis of history ending up being useless at predicting the future.
>>473179
>predicting the future
THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF MARX'S THEORY, STOP SPOUTING MEMES, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL
>>473166
This. Also widely underestimated. Everyone has preconceptions on him and most are wrong.
I thought he'd be full of feels and "It's an injustice! Damn the man!" when I was first introduced to him. Instead I found an intensely logical individual who wrote about society from a detached perspective.
>>473149
stop looking at marx, look at his financial contributors that made his philosophy possible
>>473213
You're telling me he didn't expected the UK and Germany to form communist societies before the rest, because those where more developed?
>>473213
Interesting, this contracts what I previously thought. Do you have sauce on that?
>>473247
Mind listing them, and the bias you think that they introduced into his work?
>>473308
*contradicts
>>473213
>implying Marx didn't believe the contradictions of capitalism wouldn't result in it's transition into socialism and then communism
>implying historical materialism doesn't just mean economic determinism
>implying this isn't a prediction of the future
kek, maybe you should re-read it yourself.
>>473337
Im not him but to be fair Marx did overwhelmingly underestimated the ability of capitalism's resilience. He didn't see capitalism evolving into what it is today.
>>473149
Overly humanisitic to being with. Engels is a more serious historian. I like the value form stuff, praxis. Should have completed the first outline of capital by taking magic immortality pills.
Also sectarian, badly sectarian.
>>473247
Engels and some work for the New York Tribune? We all know he's bourgeois.
>>473308
Have you actually fucking read Capital? Theses Feuerbach? Contribution to a critique?
>>473350
Actually he didn't underestimate it at all. The whole irony of his book Capital is that he recognizes the insane resilience of capitalism and it's almost chimeric ability to both exist in countries with liberal political establishments as well as in authoritarian political establishments.
He obviously didn't see capitalism evolving into what it is today, but I'm pretty certain that if he was alive, he would still be arguing that the internal inconsistencies between labor and the owners of capital would eventually lead to revolution anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
The fact the believed in this really discredited him imo.
>>473385
I'm not seeing the problem here, brosef.
>>473385
Literally the Marxist version of the Jew.
>>473385
Showed that he was a trust fund baby with a limited view and found a group of people that didn't fit his narrative.
Considering the shitty conditions of the common man at the time, I can certainly understand why he would write the things he did.
>>473398
>never held a job-any job
journalism isn't a job?
>>473420
Many people did write about it at the time though, without advocating for the complete overthrow of the system in place.
I think a system in which workers are adequately compensated for their work, and given praise for the shit job that they do is a much better system than imagining some ideal future where the worker somehow is a magical entity that is way more intelligent and capable of running society than anyone else.
>>473275
Marx's historical materialism is not "predicting the future" it's only a basic explanation of material processes. But remember the last words of the Manifesto: it is "the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains," NOT "the proletariat WILL lose their chains so they can just sit around and just wait for the future to show up".
>>473415
It's funny, because to me that shows he's more discerning and thoughtful then the modern left, who think these are the basis of all leftist agitation, mainly focused on enlarging the state to provide for these people, and then wonder why the bulk of the working class sides against them.
Marx at least understood the proletariat as distinct from simply being poor.
>>473149
>Memes aside
NEVER!!!!
>>473436
No don't get me wrong, I think Charles Dickens was much more empathetic and understanding of the plight of the common man, I'm just saying they came from the same world, they just took different views on it. Marx believed the rich would be overthrown. Dickens believed that if enough good, kind people became rich (without losing what made them human in the process), then the problem would eventually fix itself.
Honestly, I don't think Marx was left leaning enough
>>473436
>I think a system in which the capitalist is a magical entity that is way more intelligent and capable of running society than the workers that actually make society is better than a system where the people making society are running it.
>>473452
Dickens was more empathetic because he lived that shit. Working in a factory as a kid because his father was in debtor's prison, which as a side note is a concept I can't wrap my head around, because how are you going to pay off your debts if you're in jail?
>>473484
Debt isn't ever meant to be repaid. Once it's paid for it's no good.
>>473465
He could be, if he was educated into running a country, and considering he is richer, being educated is far more likely.
But of course, if a capitalist isn't axiomatically met with hostility rivaling the Nazi hatred of the Jews, you have to be a supporter of the current system! Marxist logic everyone.
>>473495
>Debt isn't ever meant to be repaid.
Tell that to Tony when he comes with a hammer for your thumbs if you don't have this month's payment.
>>473415
Honestly me lumpen comrades are pretty proud of the term. Hallelujah I'm a Bum.
>>473423
>journalism isn't a job?
Neither is apparently editing.
>>473436
>I think a system in which workers are adequately compensated for their work, and given praise for the shit job that they do is a much better system than imagining some ideal future where the worker somehow is a magical entity that is way more intelligent and capable of running society than anyone else.
Yeah, this doesn't appear in Marx's works.
>>473447
Yes.
>>473456 (Him)
>Honestly, I don't think Marx was left leaning enough
I agree. His ideology was infected by bourgeois conceptions. Still he backed praxis when he saw it.
>>473500
Tony comes for the weekly interest.
>>473500
>this month's
See, that's the key thing. Tony ideally wants you to pay him every month. Contrary to what you see on TV, Loan Sharks don't just fix you into unchanging payment schedules. They are actually very flexible, which is why they operate illegally.
If you can convince Tony that this month is an exception, you can pay him double next month, and every month, he will happily not smash your thumbs. Because he just doubled his interest rate.
Ideally, Tony will never allow you pay off all the principle you owe him.
>>473521
>Yeah, this doesn't appear in Marx's works.
I never said it did either you fag.
>>473528
I never said anything remotely as retarded as what you're attempting to say, but it's not very surprising that a Marxist uses bullshit tactics in a debate.
>>473149
I wish the people that follow his theories actually read his words instead of parroting the entire "well they haven't tried MY version of it yet"
Otherwise he was a rather prolific thinker who's main failing was listening to his echo chamber too often
>>473521
praxis is the uncritical mans scientific method.
>>473166
>An incredibly deep and prolific thinker, and one of the most important in history.
>>473551
>praxis is the uncritical mans scientific method.
falsification is metaphysical
>>473545
>I never said anything remotely as retarded as what you're attempting to say
You very clearly said that workers aren't as intelligent and aren't as capable at running societies as capitalists. You refer to a "he" when talking about large groups. You took criticism of the infallibility of one class as "rivaling the Nazi hatred of the Jews". You wrote this all down, if you don't like it you can deleted your posts.
>>473578
Yes, but I never said why I didn't think workers are as intelligent or as capable, but you just assumed it's because I consider workers biological untermensch, as is typical of anyone who dares criticize your infallible ideology™.
The reason I framed it the way I did, was because workers do not have the money to become more educated, unless they want to themselves, and they can't acquire political power either, unless they want to themselves.
So, clearly, the biggest reason capitalism still even exists, is because in some sense workers must want it to exist, and I think the reason they do is because they are(at least in the West), vastly more compensated for their work and shitty working conditions than they were in previous centuries.
But of course, anything I say will be summarily ignored as capitalist propaganda, and you will invariably go back to your hugbox and hate on the evil capitalist white man together with all the other social studies majors you drink Starbucks coffee with.
>>473601
>you just assumed it's because I consider workers biological untermensch
Where was this said?
>So, clearly, the biggest reason capitalism still even exists, is because in some sense workers must want it to exist
The reason why beaten wives exists is because they want to be beaten.
When you're able to think outside of strawmen and you can follow a conversation (in print, mind) feel free to come back
The only thing Marx ever excelled at in life was contriving new ways to spend other people's money
>>473739
You've clearly never even touched anything by Marx, much less read it.
