>>821837
He has no credibility among economists, very very little among historians, but for some reason sociology and philosophy still embrace his work.

>>821837
>>821837
He was much more relevant in his times. Now he's just a dead dog.

>>821878
>Now he's just a dead dog.

Not on this board.

>>821973
4chan is full of kids and contrarians and contrarian kids so of course they'll latch on to marxism and communism and other shitty ideologies.
Gotta be opposite of the lamestream to be cool.

>>821982
Don't forget that this argument also implies that Christianity is another shitty ideology (or even that all are).

>>821837
That's a thesis, not an argument.

>>822011
The thesis is shit, therefore whatever argument that is derived from that thesis is also shit.

>>822012
I don't know much about marx, but this statement is wrong. look at evolution, Lamarck = very wrong, Darwin = much better, post Watson & Crick = better still.

>>821852
That's just because he's generally the first philosopher most people learn about in school so kids on the internet embrace his work to feel smart

>>821852
>sociology and philosophy
>>leftist meme fields of study
>>>still embrace marxism
who could have possibly seen that one coming

File: spock_logic.jpg (88 KB, 500x651) Image search: [Google]

88 KB, 500x651

>>821837
I request a counter example for historical review of your argument.

Be aware your response will be fitted into the class theory to determine the validity of your proposed invalidation.

As it stands you provided no example to support your argument; just the invective.

You're trying to disprove an "in all cases 'x'..." style of argument. So the burden is as low as it can go.

>>822097
upvoted.

File: GgnkfTp[1].png (40 KB, 825x635) Image search: [Google]

40 KB, 825x635

>>822097

>>822012
that's not how logic works anon

>>822108
Precisely.

Please leave your comfort zone and use just one counter example from history in support of your argument so I can say you are right on the evidence.