Was he the single most influential European of all time?
>>852334
me
>>852334
Isn't it obvious?
>>852388
>not octavian
>>852391
Julius was the OG Caesar, even Octavian for all his greatness was influenced by him.
>>852334
Charlemagne was the most important,
he started the idea of Kingdoms which would
dominate all of Europe
>>852388
This desu, senpai.
Imagine if your name became the word for leader for thousands of years.
>>852388
>turned an autocratic state into an autocratic state that was slightly more honest about it
There were even better Romans than him
>>852446
OP didn't say best European.
Why is a non-American wearing Stars and Stripes?
Howdy.
>>852334
I just saw this painting the other week at the military history museum in Vienna.
He's certainly a very influential one, but this is a subjective question. My vote goes Julius Caesar or even Hitler tbqh, since his actions directly caused the largest and most catastrophic war ever.
>>855371
>this is a subjective question
nigger
that's not what subjective means. Changing the subjects only changes the answer insofar as they refer to things like "most influential in religion" or "most influential in economic change" etc.
you're using the degraded cop-out version of "subjective" that just means you want some wiggle room to avoid the question.
The one who influenced even people in China. He was truly an world class intellectual.
>>852334
To be honest, the first person to learn to farm in Europe (Somewhere in Krete) was pretty important.
>>852334
Yes.
>>855389
>>854322
You are very powerful
>>855449
UUUU
>>855428
>thread about influential people
>"lol no the guy who's thinking spawned world-wide revolution and rebellion wasn't influential"
People like you are why Hiro wants to delete /his/
>>855459
>"He is truly a world-class intellectual."
>Not bait
>>855476
Nobody said anything about his intellectuality, just his influence. And he had a huge impact for sure.
>>855476
>guy who articulates a enough economic theory to start new systems based on it
>not a world-class intellectual
Following this thinking, Adam Smith and John Keynes aren't world-class intellectuals either.
>>855428
>>855476
You dropped this.
>>855492
>Nobody said anything about his intellectuality
>"HE WAS TRULY AN WORLD-CLASS INTELLECTUAL."
>replying to baitfish posters
you all are dumb.
publicly crying about trolling attempts is the hot new way to kill threads since you're not breaking any rules in doing so.
>>855496
>guy who articulates a enough economic theory to start new systems based on it
No offense, but Karl Marx did not engender any new economic theory, he merely critique political economy, which plenty of people did during, before and after his lifetime.
>>855502
>>855529
Fair enough. I've only gone through Das Kapital, but his thinking on economics as a basis for social change that Saul Alinsky and other Communist-influenced authors then expanded on is noteworthy nonetheless.
>>855558
The problem is that Marx didn't leave any blueprint for how that state would look like, and even if you can find any such blueprint in his writings, they do not have positive consequences.
There is a reason that every single state in history that has tried to put his theory into practice has become a famine-ridden and authoritarian shithole, and it's not simply because humans are corrupt.
>>855597
>Marx didn't leave any blueprint for how that state would look like
>if you can find any such blueprint in his writings, they do not have positive consequences.
I like that you're so ignorant of Marx you assert literally mutually exclusive understandings of his work IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
Constantine for making rome christian. Send the world right into the dark ages.
>>855623
Well, what I meant to say with that sentence is that, even if Marx himself didn't leave a blueprint, some faggot years down the line might've tried to any way.
I know he listed certain qualifications that would be necessary for a post-state communist society, but tbqh, that doesn't seem enough to me, pic related.
>>855646
>USSR
>Abolition of private property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_History_of_the_Soviet_Union#Individual_property
Stop. Just, fucking, stop. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You're ignorant beyond belief. Just stop talking about shit you don't understand. Please.
No, Socrates is.
>>855448
In Economics, he is not very influential. He is influential in politics and other areas. In Economics, he is only taught in History of Economic Thought. And mostly because of his influence in politics.
Marxists are as niche as Austrians and Post Keynesians.
>>855674
What's your objection here exactly? That the USSR didn't abolish private property?
>>855696
Yes, they did not abolish private property, as long as you mean the only version of private property that anyone ever actually thinks about. What I linked stated exactly what I mean, "this distinction has been a source of confusion when interpreting phrases such as 'socialism (communism) abolished private property'; one might conclude that all individual property was abolished, when this was in fact not the case."
>>855743
But I never said, nor did the pic I posted that they abolish *all* kinds of property.
But since we're on the topic, distinguishing between personal and private property is really retarded anyway, because it's extremely authoritarian to say that I couldn't loan a friend my car for 100 bucks, just because you guys don't like the concept of rent and that a person can own "a means of production".
>>855683
Depends, my school offers classes on Marxism. But they're not in the economics department.
Marx is influential in the same sense many other thinkers were influential. Most thinkers throughout all of history don't have their ideas put in practice. But a fuckload of people have read Marx, a fuckload of people thought about him and reacted to him. That's influence, this idea that an idea must be practiced to be influential is literally >middleschool tier.
>>855771
You didn't actually know that before I posted it, let's be honest here.
>>855793
>You didn't actually know that before I posted it, let's be honest here.
Are you actually going to say anything substantive or are you going to shut your ears and scream racist/fascist, like the average commie?
>>855775
As I said, he is not influential IN economics. He influenced many people. But not economists.
>>855771
Forgot to mention, Marx in the manifesto did mean the stronger version of abolition of private property. So the Soviet Union did something different than Marx intended.
>>855809
>Marx in the manifesto did mean the stronger version of abolition of private property
Right, so he's even more insane than I originally thought then.
>>855674
>W-wait! You still got to keep the clothes on your back, s-so that means the Soviet Union isn't communist!
Move along, commie.
Judging from the shitstorm in this thread, it has to be Marx for sure lol
>>855894
Yes, Marxism is certainly alive and prospering today. Communism will be a fucking footnote in history.
>>855820
>>855836
I wish people like you could realize how inane and stupid you sound, 24/7 constantly. There's this certain subset of the internet and America in general who all seem to have this same list of beliefs:
- Karl Marx is the sole person responsibility for millions of murders at the hands of socialist governments
- There is no nuance in the slightest, every leftist government is Marxist, and Marx desired these leftist governments
- Literally everything Marx said is wrong
- Marxism has invaded the universities
This is always fueled by a shitstorm of "facts", quotes, and opinions from other anti-Marxists, never references the source texts, and always depends on dubious interpretations and sources.
You guys are exactly what's wrong with democracy. You're demagogues who judge everything by a uninformed handbook of shortcuts to "knowledge" about great thinkers. Before you ever ask, no, I'm not a fucking communist, Marxist, or socialist, I'm educated in the history of philosophy, enough to know that your entire conspiracy theory about Marx is just plain wrong. There a million great critiques of Marx, some of which I readily believe and espouse as my own views, but you manage to avoid all of them because you're from /pol/ and literally read nothing but what could pass for Nazi literature.
Stop talking about Marx, or treat him fairly. You don't have to be a socialist, there's no "degeneracy" afoot, there's nothing to lose except your literally Nazist views about the world. By the way, treating an author fairly, understanding the context, and judging from a detached view? That's the western tradition which worked so well during the enlightenment and romantic eras.
>>855922
Hes' still read, taught, and grappled with by millions of people. He's more relevant than any Austrian-school economist by leagues.
>>855937
Bullshit. There is nowhere where his ideology has been practiced succesfully while free economies and capitalism is practiced amongst the most leading nations of the world
>>855942
*tips fedora*
Your lack of education and inability to grasp more nuance than a fifth grader is showing.
>>855942
Good one.
Alinsky updated parts of Marx's thinking for urban American and made a checklist of how to start and run a successful movement for change.
This has worked for hundreds of urban communities seeking unity and proactive government aid. Obama used Alinsky's thinking in his 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Trump is currently using the same core elements.
Forget everything you've ever heard about communism. These social doctrines Marx had work when applied right. Political beliefs attached to his thinking are not implicitly tied to his social doctrines.
>>852334
Napoleon
Augustus
Caesar
Constantine the Great
Charlemagne
>>854322
>>855639
Some quality bait here.
Constantine making the Empire Christian, from a purely administrative standpoint, basically changed almost nothing other than centralizing authority around the holy sites. The ''Dark Ages'' happened because we lost access to our records once a central idea of education collapsed.
Influential =/= successful or good or anything of the sort. Whether you think Marx's ideas are good or not has nothing to do with how influential he was. I'm not a socialist or communist but if you think the founder of one of the most important political ideologies of the past two centuries isn't influential then I don't know what to tell you.
>>855933
>Y-you can't say anything mean about him, It's unfair
>Y-you're dumb though, that's fair!
>>855933
>Before you ever ask, no, I'm not a fucking communist, Marxist, or socialist
Right ...
Some anons deride Marx and your response is a long winded rant about the characteristics of hundreds of millions of people including two ANONYMOUS people on the internet for daring to say a negative comment about him.
Yup. I hope you're a communist, because if not I suspect you're Marx's girlfriend.
>>852334
Jesus
>>856409
>european
>>856413
>implying Jesus isn't a proud Briton from Northampton
>>856417
>implying jesus wouldn't get extra attention from the TSA
>>856413
Jesus was british
>>856318
>implying he was upset about negative comments
>implying he's not upset about unchecked ignorance
the whole problem with marx is that he's great at diagnosing problems, but never offered much in terms of solutions. he's like a doctor who can tell you that you have cancer, but suggests treat it with leeches or something. unfortunately, his followers were left to interpret his ideas and, naturally, didn't always do a good job. the problem is that people seem to think that the ruthless authoritarianism that so often is used to characterize marxist regimes is somehow the direct product of his ideas, when, really, countries like russia and china have long histories of absolutism and anyone saying that marx is directly responsible for millions of deaths is vastly oversimplifying history in a way that does a disservice to everyone.
the failure of the post-cold war period is the inability to recognize that capitalism has deficiencies that you just cannot ignore indefinitely and the west's overall failure to synthesize positive aspects of marxist thought - giving workers more control over the means of production, the social safety net, anti-imperialism, anti-monopolization - is pretty much the root cause of a lot of modern maladies. people on the right who just want to say that he's completely irrelevant are probably only a bit worse than the people on the left who accept his ideas without really questioning them. i'm always reminded of churchill's remark about democracy being a terrible system, but the best we've managed to come up with so far. feels like marx was the first to articulate that capitalism is also a pretty terrible system, but was unable to come up with a good substitute.
>>852334
napoleon is certainly up there on the list, but you could make an argument that classical figures like caesar, augustus, alexander, or even plato are of comparable influence. napoleon was a scrupulous reader and student of the classics, so it's natural to connect him to the romans, a lot of whose ideas he borrowed.
>>857051
>Someone says something I don't like about a person
>oh the ignorance! If only they studied him more they would like him, I swear!
>>856261
>>857172
There's a difference between "Reagan's policies were shit" and "Reagan spent too much time fucking prostitutes to do his job well". Most people make comments of the latter in regards to Marx. I don't give a single fuck up or down what opinion you have of him if you don't say blatantly erroneous shit.
I don't know why I'm bothering to reply though, you're just going to shit another half-assed reply of voided content.
>>>/pol/
>>855449
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY
>thread degenerates into Marx shitposting.
>>857148
>DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
What do you think that is if not a coercive police state?
>>856540
>Jesus was british
t. alfred babcocke
It's Gutenberg
>>852334
No, he is.
>>852388
Either Julius Caesar for the way everyone else in power acted afterward.
or
Issac Newton for being influential in the Scientific Revolution.
>>855683
>Marxists are niche
>almost half the planet was socialist during the cold war
>>858780
>b-be nice to your oppressors
>>856540
>imply brits are European
They live on an island in the Atlantic. They are a tumor that has long done what they can to keep the European man down.
>>859373
In our day, Marx is not important in economics.
>>858780
Have you ever read about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Or did you just hear the name and though "I d-d-definitely don't need to read about this right? Its got dictatorship in the name. I-i-it must be authoritarian". Read about Marx's conception of what a dictatorship is please. It differs significantly from the modern perspective.
>>859409
And don't you forgot peasant
>>859450
what is this? a polandball comic for ants
>>859441
It's a good way to tell if someone's never read what they're criticizing when they think dictatorship of the proletariat is a literal dictatorship with a dictator.
>>859373
In Economics, Marxism is niche. Most economists have very little contact whatsoever with Marxism or any reaction to Marxism.
Microeconomics had no Marx influence. Macroeconomics didn't either. Econometrics obviously didn't.
>>859465
sorry chap :(
>>859476
>in the study of capitalist economies: marxism is niche
No way! For real?
>>859474
Nobody fucking READS Marx, they just react to shit other people misinterpreted or lied about him.
>>859492
t.bourgeois economists on marxism
>>859476
Dude, nobody disagrees with the exact statements, but if you're saying because economists don't read him he was important, then you're an idiot.
Nobody at all reads Darwin. Nobody except people with fascination for obscure history. That doesn't mean he's not influential
>>859450
>316x960
Bloody hell.
>>859492
>in the study of capitalist economies: marxism is niche
>No way! For real?
I thought Marx studied capitalist economies?
>>859508
Economists don't try to refute Marx or anything like that. They just ignore him.
>>859516
Marx was very influential, but not in Economics.
Darwin would be comparable to the Marginalists, that were contemporaries of Marx but were not influenced by him. Nobody reads Walras or Jevons, but they were very influential in Economics.
>>855807
are you fucking retarded read the german ideology & das kapital nigga
political economy -> econ due to western autists
eric wolf has a couple articles on this as well & marxists are p far from irrelevant (p much every historian of capitalism, economic thought, etc.) see wallerstein et al
yo also pleb niggas r downplaying my boy engels his critique of political economy inspired decades of work with marx check that shit out it's lit af
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm
shit's absolute fire nigga destroys malthus n adam smith aka the biggest fuccboi of a political economist s/o to ricardo tho he went ham
>>859622
Marxists are very irrelevant in Economics. You may try to tell yourself otherwise if you feel better, but it won't make it any more real.
>>855389
I think it's him.
Augustus cones close
>>859644
in modern economics? sure since it's a liberalist circlejerk
in history as a whole + the foundation that led to modern economics--that being political economy? lmao marx n engels were absolutely essential, same for later marxists, keep trying to convince urself otherwise nigga probs jerks off to pics of smith n keynes
i do have respect for veblen galbreith n some other western economists but social sciences as a whole are incredibly unfortunate due to fragmentation
look at this sexy motherfucker
>>859678
also had one of history's greatest beards
>>855448
Allow me to clarify.
He's right from a sociological standpoint.
His influence on politics was catastrophic, and he isn't much better in economics.
His point that social behavior is primarily based on wealth and class is true. Even when we look at the earliest societies when humans had nothing but sharpened sticks, several families gathered together to achieve an easier existence (more food, more security, less danger from other families or tribes).
Classes started out as groups that had certain tasks. And thus the protectors became the military, and nobility.
Later with the shift in the model and efficiency of production, the merchants, and townsfolk started gaining more wealth and power
ETC ad infinitum
In a nutshell
Marxism as a sociological theory = good
Marxism as an ideology = steaming pile of shit
>>859670
>in modern economics? sure since it's a liberalist circlejerk
Modern economics is not liberalist.
>in history as a whole + the foundation that led to modern economics--that being political economy? lmao marx n engels were absolutely essential, same for later marxists, keep trying to convince urself otherwise nigga probs jerks off to pics of smith n keynes
Marx didn't influence what became modern economics. They were not essential for anything. Modern economics and Marxist economics developed parallel to each other, without contact from either side. And right now, Marxist economics is dead. Most Marxists are very old and irrelevant. The two most talented ones are actually not even Marxist anymore.
>i do have respect for veblen galbreith n some other western economists but social sciences as a whole are incredibly unfortunate due to fragmentation
Galbraith was not a great economist. He was to Economics what Neil deGrasse Tyson is to Physics.
>>859735
>Marxism as an ideology = steaming pile of shit
Yeah, it only brought Russia from a backward agrarian society to having a serious leg up on the USA for most of the Space Race. But you're right, it's complete shit.
>>860330
Had Russia been given more time before shit hit the fan with WW1, they would have become much more powerful in a much shorter amount of time.
If it was either the old monarchy, or Kerenski's reforms, Russia's rise would have been quicker, and much, much less painful (Holodomor).
>>860379
Still I suppose they managed to keep the country together after a devastating Civil War AND oversee its transformation into a superpower.
Maybe not "Tsarist Russia was muh agrarian backwater until the Bolsheviks saved it" meme, but still commendable.
>>860397
Agreed.
>>860379
Pure conjecture. The people were not going to accept continuing ww1 and kerenski was an idiot who simply made vague declarations. No one was going to accept the tsar.
>>860413
The war was almost over at that point. Brest-Litovsk was a mistake.
>>860330
>MARXISM DEVELOPED RUSSIA IF NOT FOR MARXISM THEY WOULD REMAIN POOR AND AGRARIAN
Nobody is buying your lies, commie trash
>>860330
>Marxism brought the USSR into an Industrial Power
Sure it did, thats why the USSR didn't have a bunch of US Engineers help construct and help build factories for them.
>>855389
This is accurate.
Most is difficult, but from an economics view, yeah
>>855683
>half the world was niche for 50 years
>>859360
Don't know. I always felt he was mostly taken along for the ride.
>>860495
Preaching Marxist economics in the modern world is like preaching Aristotelian physics.
It's either Constantine or Caesar.
Most influential would probably be a Scot
>Adam Smith
>David Hume
>Joseph Black
>James Watt
>James Clerk Maxwell
>Alexander Graham Bell
>Alexander Fleming
and so on
>>860559
literally who are these people
>bell
Oh right, thieves.
>>857210
>i dont care what you say about him, so long as it fits into my opinion about marx
>now that i said i dont care, i think you should go back to pol since they insult marx like you do!
>you cant say anything bad about marx on /his/!
God you autists are too fucking easy to poke holes at. Maybe if you were a bit more careful ans intelligent about what you say? Lol
>>860445
That chart seems to support his thesis. Their GDP went down like crazy during the war, when industrialized countries could hold on better. After the Commies implemented NEP the GDP recovered, then Stalin did the 5-year-plan thing, which became a regularity in Politburo agenda. Were you just trolling, though?
>Not choosing Arminius
This guy BTFO the Romans at the tetouburg forest
Literally caused and led to the rifts that would tear Europe apart for the next 2000 years
World war 1 can trace its self back to what happend there
>>862095
That guy looks sooo German. Care to share your sources?
>>862133
google is your friend
>>860445
>WW1 followed by civil war ends
>MASSIVE GDP increase
erm...
>tfw the most influential person of all time was not European
>>860495
For Economics, the academic subject, Marxism is niche. Most academic economists have no contact whatsoever with Marxism.
If you look at Greg Mankiw's "Introduction to Economics", there is no mention of Marx or ideas that were influenced by Marx. And this is the main mainstream economics textbook for Econ 101.
Those that engaged the most with Marxists, discussed his ideas seriously and so on were the Austrian economists. Who are also niche.
>>862187
Explain.
>people posting Marx because he started a fad that died around the same time as disco
>>862187
pic not related?
In the world of action: Napoleon
In the world of thought: Descartes
>>862133
He looks "sooo German" because he was sculpted by Romans, obviously. A population is obviously going to portray someone they are portraying within their own style of art. What, did you think they were going to go to Germany, cut down a tree and make a fucking wood cutout of him?
>>863261
People seems to forget that he was Romanized Equite, so I wouldnt be surprised about some "Romanitas" in his looks.
>>860559
SCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNDDDDD
4444EEEEEEVVVVAAAAAAAAAAA
>>862187
>macedonia/greece
>not yurop
wat
Thread is proof it was indeed Marx
Combo Breaker
>some loser frog manlet literally nobody cares about
>influential
>>863009
>>863065
>>863423
don't you faggots know that Alexander was secretly sired by an Egyptian Pharaoh and that his real name was Iskander ibn Abul ibn Muhammad bin Libya?
WE
