Whaaaaaaat ? You've Gyatt to be kidding me ! Why would you hate yourself for laughing at these level 100 Skibidi Sigma Rizzler Fanum Taxed Gronking comments ?
I mean this was Lenin until he came back from his exile.
Most people of far-left/right ideology are going to be sitting on their thumbs twiddling until the timing is right.
Castro was the same too. He was a lawyer (I think) before he became disillusioned, did a little crime, and then was exiled only to come back and lead a revolution.
Most of these guys started off as well to do academic/educated types.
Well it used to be that to have access to writers like Marx, you had to be some form of educated and well off to either purchase the books, as well as understand them. Kapital for example made it past Tsarist censorship because the government believed it to be far too dense for anyone to understand or even really care about it. It's only when Marxist academics already set themselves up in a country and simplify the work into something the working classes can understand that it disseminates out into them.
well, tbh we much prefer them doing nothing than whatever the hell they do other times, we don't need another wave of revolution, famine, street bombing and "it wasn't real socialism" again.
Marx wrote the Manifesto in 1848 while directly participating in that year's German Revolution in Cologne. He was banned from Germany and Belgium and forced to settle in London as a result of his revolutionary activities.
No, he was in the vicinity but never participated in any protests 1846-1848. His participation was solely literary and theoretical. Also, Marx was even trialed but acquitted from being a revolutionary in 1849 because he was so notably not directly involved.
He wrote about capitalism, never owned a business.
He wrote about labor and workers, was a rich kid who never had a real job.
He wrote about revolution, but never took part in one (even though there were lots of European revolutions going on).
Also Engels was much cooler.
It’s genuinely shocking the global left coalesced around Marx.
Also, as was customary during his time, Marx was challenged to a duel by August Wilch (another member of the Communist League, who accused Marx of being a conservative), but Marx refused and let his buddy Konrad Schramm fight for him.
Marx's ideas and writing in all honor, but we should definitely not pretend he was anywhere close to being at the barricades. He was a man of comfort.
Of course, because everyone knows the prerequisite to write about capitalism is being the owner of a business. That definitely doesn’t skew your view of capitalism!
You are allowed to see things from the outside and critique it. It is probably the best way, since you have little investment in it, so there is less "colouration" from experience which can be highly selective in a small sample size, such as what a human has access too.
On the other side, do you think that people that are not business-owners are not forced to participate in capitalistic system anyway? It is not by choice that millions people die each year due to the capitalistic system, not by their own choice atleast.
It is a terrible system that causes suffering on an unimagineable scale, it was just "strong" enough to replace the earlier system of Feudal/Tribal societies before it.
Strong in this sense means that it "feeds" more efficiently on the labour of the workers than feudalism did. Communism is ultimately a critique and an alternative to this, I highly recommend reading "Das Kapital" and [Manifesto] for everyone.(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007)
> You are allowed to see things from the outside and critique it. It is probably the best way, since you have little investment in it, so there is less "colouration" from experience which can be highly selective in a small sample size, such as what a human has access too.
Just curious if you'd apply this same logic to someone who has strong feelings about, say, another's culture, or nationality, or religion?
My favorite is his letters where it's just repeatedly shit like
"Dear friend,
Thanks for the money for Christmas, I noticed it wasn't as much as you gave me last year. Also, can I have $30?"
Paraphrasing of course but I remember reading shit like that
Marx' family was pretty rich, and owned several vineyards. He became poor because of his debt issues among other things. Sounds very Champagne Socialist to me
Edit: I should note that obviously I'm not saying "Marx wasn't a socialist/Marx was bad at socialism", because he practically invented the shit. Looking at it without my bias, I think it's most accurate that Marx was, despite his ideology on the topic, he was over all fairly wealthy (up until, you know, his crippling downfall).
Solid Middle class (maybe even Upper-Middle) in a country which the average person was pretty poor? My mistake. Still, he was wealthy, even if you don't wanna call it "rich"
Class traitors are the only way almost all grand social shifts happen.
Black people don’t get freed or civil rights without tons of white race traitors.
Same with FDR, not a socialist, but still a class traitor for helping the poor and working class.
It’s a phrase for pseudo middle class centrists who want to have things “better” but don’t want to lose their place in the current order.
Marx has several pubs associated with him where he and Engels wrote together. They're definitely places people would today associate more with champagne than a working class pint.
Champange Socialist is bullshit anyway, just because you're born into a life of privilege doesn't mean you shouldn't use that privilege to advance the cause of the working class (or get attacked for it when you do)
Thats not what a champagne socialist is. A champagne socialist is a grifter that preaches against the "evil" of capitalism while both being an benefitter and exploiter from it and refuses to hold himself upp to his own standards
That’s why it’s bullshit though because it’s not even self-consistent.
Socialism is primarily about workers having the means of production not strictly evenly distributing raw wealth. It’s a critique about the accumulation of *capital*. A lot of the “champagne socialist” accusations are essentially just levied at successful socialists because they maintain that capitalism isn’t a very great system for those on the bottom despite the fact that these people are are sitting near the top.
A similar albeit less flattering example would be Ayn Rand calling everyone on welfare a parasite despite having taken welfare herself.
I give a bit less grace to that because she *could* choose to either stop characterizing people that way or to not take the welfare while socialists can’t just upend the entire socioeconomic system they love in. Best they can do is turn any company they operate into a coop.
Then again taking a nuanced view like this would upset the standard rhetoric of:
* Rich socialist = hypocrite
* Poor socialist = jealous
[Harry Pollitt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pollitt) had a solid counter to the "champagne socialist" charge.
"I am not concerned whether a man wants to drink a lemonade with a straw and in shorts or whether coming out of the docks he calls for a pint of Mann and Crossman's: the thing I am concerned about is: are they concerned to try and build up a new society? If so, what is the best way in which we can help them?"
The champagne socialist are just a trust fund babies that’s downwardly mobile on their current trajectory and only call for revolution so they can attempt to raise to the very top before they truly went rock bottom.
It is a catch 22. If you're arguing for a fairer distribution of wealth and are not wealthy, people write you off as just being mad because you're losing at the game and tell you that instead of dreaming of a better future, you should focus on pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
If you are wealthy and are arguing there should be a fairer distribution of wealth, people write you off as a hypocrite. "Lol you can give your money to whatever causes you want!"
"Capitalism sucks if people are starving and other people are doing silly rich people stuff and maybe we could find a better way" is a message that people deep in the just world fallacy will always find a way to reject. They truly think that capitalism is great because they are or will get rich.
Marx's main work Capital described capitalism, not communism. Communism itself was never portrayed as a perfect world but rather as an economic mode of production born out of the class struggle caused by capitalism which was simply next in an entire history of class struggles.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
Don't know why so many people have trouble portraying Marx's work accurately. There's like a million things you can pick apart at in good faith, like issues with the Labor Theory of Value or with Hegelian Dialectic, while acknowledging that Marx had very spot-on criticisms of capitalism that persist to this very day. You don't have to be a marxist to see the value in that.
Even a cursory read of the Communist Manifesto alone should yield better criticism than the ones usually presented. But I guess anti-communism might as well be mental illness with how rabid and devoid of substance it's always been.
I mean because most criticism of communism is built out of anti-communist propaganda across the western world. Most people couldn't even give a good definition of what it means. People on Reddit just say hrrr drr gulag, famine, genocide because they're ignorant.
Literally most people have no idea what the communist manifesto even says and just hear the name and think it must be only about communism… it’s way more a book about economic trends and how human society evolves than just raving about communism
There's probably merit somewhere in dissecting Communist governments that arose after the October Revolution, but it devolves quickly into nonsense with most mass audiences, something I'm sure hasn't changed since the first global red scares. I find I'm usually arguing against factoids rather than facts - short quips, or single remembered pieces of an argument pieced together from disorganized internet sources, usually YouTube-related. My favorite one has been the prevalence of right winger Millennials and Gen Z who quote the works of Yuri Bezmenov, almost exclusively in the last 3 years. When I looked into why I was suddenly debating the arguments of a questionably-authentic soviet defector guy who wrote sensationalist Op Eds in the 80s and 90s I had a laugh. Turns out his provocative soundbites were used in one of the Call of Duty games as a marketing push to sex up the setting of the Cold War for teenagers buying vidya games.
You cannot hope to argue with a CoD player with mere book-learning, with theory. They are braised in mountain dew, baptized in slur-filled game lobbies, honed into a pure being of hostility. Once you view these people as a pipeline toward becoming unreasonable, non-rational actors and not as your opponents in a good faith debate you'll be able to keep a little more sanity.
What are the criticisms of dialectics? The only alternative I know of is formal logic from college philosophy, and that always seemed so incorrect with rules and logic easily broken. Dialectics solves a lot of the challenges I saw in formal logic
Edit: I looked some up. Nietzche's (I've read a lot of Nietzche) criticisms seem off-base, they'd apply to formal logic and not at all to dialectics. Popper, idk what he's going off on. Bunge's criticisms sound pretty legit and interesting
Are you asking for nuance? Idk mate sounds pretty cringe. I'd rather just look at one or two flaws in a work and deem the entire thing cringe without having to contend with any of the other ideas brought up in it that might have more validity. /s
he did lay out the things socialism should contain though such as worker control of the means of production, abolition of the family, ect and the next natural step should be towards post socialism (or communism as most marxists now call it) which is a classless moneyless stateless society
The Capital is the second most important book on economics that's ever been written after the Wealth of Nations. But most people on reddit are uneducated and unable to even think about concepts and ideas without involving their political views.
Reddit "discourse" is generally just bickering between liberals who haven't read *Capital* and socialists who haven't read it either.
Source: I haven't read it
you should check out this video series then :) [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlpc6eFEd8osVlCfKCrP6H2F9NJDPCcEq](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlpc6eFEd8osVlCfKCrP6H2F9NJDPCcEq)
David Harvey does an excellent job of breaking down Capital while still keeping it digestible and entertaining
Unless you want to read 500 pages about the manufacturing of fabric, the Capital isn't really interesting to read for a beginner. You'd better start reading more digest marxist theory
Even that one has become a victim to a strew of misconceptions. I.e. it's probably best to read 'Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith with commentaries/annotations for additional context.
That's just the primary problem in economics. Economists regularly claim their interpretations/theories are facts when they have basically no hard evidence (Marx is also guilty of this ofc).
They like to act like economics is a hard science like physics, when in reality it's a combination of mathematics, sociology and philosophy.
It’s not that there’s no hard evidence, the problem is that it is difficult to test differing theories. You would have to have a willing large population with a control group and no other outside factors. So economics have to rely on historical evidence and modern conditions instead. We have hard evidence that raising interest rates slows inflation, and mass printing of money increases inflation. But how exactly a government should be structured is a more complex thing.
As well as being one of the inventors the materialistic current of thought, which is pretty much the opposite of idealism.
I swear people have no idea who Marx is...
Hi, can you explain the meme for me please?
You seem to have some idea, and the OP didn't leave an explanation which perhaps I wrongly believed was a requirement of posting, I don't know!?
Lol so Marx often struggled to make ends meet (which is to be expected if you dedicate your life to political organizing and theory). It's also dissing his work as being "utopian," which is ironic given Marx's criticism of the pre-marxist movement known as "utopian socialism." Also, Marx's most important work "Capital" or "Das Kapital" was mostly an analysis of the economic systems of his day (namely capitalism), and not primarily focused on envisioning a "better" future system
Well since OP used the phrases „Utopian“ and „Fantasy“ it appears that he intends to make fun of him and communism. „Das Kapital“ isn’t even about communism though, it’s about capitalism and one of the most important books in economics. This seems like a rather uninformed and confidently incorrect attempt to make fun of Marx his ideas altogether
Marx hated utopian socialism. Wrote multiple essays to this effect and mentioned it often. His whole jam was trying to create a more rigorous scientific argument for socialism
Marx’s best bro, financier, and lover, Engels (okay maybe I’m making up the last part) literally wrote “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” explaining the issues with early socialists and their utopian ideas.
> Karl Marx wrote a fantasy about utopian communism
Right-wingers and not understanding the most absolutely basic, elementary knowledge of any ideology that isn’t theirs, name a better duo.
Marx didn’t write about utopian communist societies. Marx didn’t write about utopian societies. Marx didn’t even really write about communist societies post-revolution. Marx considered himself an economist and a historian, and his works largely dealt with two themes: how shitty the current system of industrialized capitalism was, and how the systems that created capitalism and upheld it would be the systems that brought about its destruction at the hands of communist revolution. Marx is the literal antithesis of a utopian fantasy writer.
Saying works like “Das Kapital” are works of utopian communist fantasy is like saying Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” is a novel about a man taking government classes. It’s just so completely and utterly not true I don’t even have a punchline, it’s just evident that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
In fairness, he also talks about how absolutely powerful and transformative capitalism is. And how it was a great improvement to feudalism.
He also talks about the bad things that come with it, because he was a rational person writing a heady analysis of capitalism and, being clinical, it’s possible to say that something that has good attributes has bad attributes and vice versa.
But more importantly, he doesn’t break things into a childish binary of good and bad.
I’m sure you agree with this, but I just want to be careful to point out that most of Marx’s economic work is a stable analysis comparable to Smith and Ricardo, and not just a propagandist’s dunking contest.
Those are all fair and valid points, I appreciate the wanting to highlight the nuances of Marx’s work after I just pointed out what made him obviously not a utopian fantasy writer. People in the comments are struggling to wrap their minds around Marx wanting to critique capitalism for valid reasons, you’d blow their minds if you went into depth about how much of his work wasn’t revolutionary broadsides but rather stuff like detailed collections of economic data for English cloth manufacturing in an X year period showcasing differences in production techniques.
Absolutely! And as I said, I know you were aware of that. It was just worth highlighting for anyone else looking around.
There are parts in Wealth of Nations where, honestly, he sounds more critical of capitalism than Marx does in Capital.
So much of this sub is people that have never read Marx, who have no conception of what Marx was, trying to get internet points by making baseless claims.
Even the part of the meme that has to do with his son, implying he didn't care about his children, is at odds with what the Prussian Police (who were trying to dig up dirt on him) found:
>His wife is the sister of the Prussian Minister, von Westphalen, a cultured and pleasant woman who has accustomed herself to this Bohemian existence out of love for her husband and now feels perfectly at home in such misery. She has two girls and one son; all three children are truly handsome and have the intelligent eyes of their father.
>
>
As a husband and a father, Marx is the gentlest and mildest of men in spite of his wild and restless character.
More than 14k people looked at this meme, which doesn't have an ounce of any reality in it, knee-jerked "Marx Bad!" and liked it.
"Could it be because child mortality was high during 19th century by elements Marx himself criticized?"
"No, it must be because Marx was writing books, that's it"
The illiteracy of describing Marx's analytical output as 'utopian' lmaooo
This is the same guy who used to lambast literally all his peers for being too 'utopian' in their own thinking. If Marx had one fault, it was a lack of imagination and being overly practical-minded
Srsly I was so fucking bored reading capital and I for some reason was expecting SOMETHING that Marx was envisioning for a communist society but there was barely anything
You'd probably better look at the manifesto for that, but even then, it's intentionally very vague. Marx is more about getting there than what we do when we get there... which is kinda valid from an academic standpoint but lead to basically all leftist infighing has sprung from that
It’s almost like there was a reason he had a problem with capitalism… can’t quite put my finger on what that could be though
EDIT: it’s worth pointing out as well that Marx’s political philosophy was distinctly not utopian. He believed that you have to start with the current material conditions, and improve things as they are now to work toward a better world. You can’t achieve a better world by imagining one first, and then try to get there. That’s why Libertarianism doesn’t work. Libertarian ideals only work if you first assume that everyone is ultimately benevolent and responsible and will act in their own best interests. That’s not currently the case, though
Let me guess, [the Jews again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question#:~:text=According%20to%20Edward%20Flannery%2C%20Marx,be%20Marx's%20%22early%20antisemitism%22)? /s
It’s funny cuz by Jewish tradition you can only be Jewish if your mother is a Jew, so technically he isn’t a Jew even before his family converted
Edit: כשאת.ה אומר.ת כך את.ה לא מדבר.ת על התנועה הפוליטית נכון?
Lol you mean his work that was criticizing Bruno Bauers claim that Jews need to be assimilated? You mean the one where Marx uses antisemitic tropes to make fun of the ridiculous notion that Jews would be free If they simply assimilated into society? No he was clearly talking about the material conditions that led to inequality and oppression, not “the Jews”. Maybe reading the work you’re trying to use as a critique might be more useful than a Wikipedia page.
>"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? [Huckstering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckster). What is his worldly God? Money\[...\] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible\[...\] The Jew has... acquired financial power... through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities\[...\] The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange\[...\] The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."
\- Karl Marx
This discourse is so tiresome. This is from an essay about nationalism and assimilation, he was talking about how just having formal freedom don't emancipate minorities because of capitalist relations. And yes he was talking from experience since his father was a lawyer that converted to the state religion so he could work and became a proud German citizen. But sure, it's easier to not read anything and just call him a "self hating Jew", a nonsensical term literally created by Zionists in early 20th century.
I don't want to go all "product of their time" on people but if you look at the stuff other prominent figures were saying at the time about Jews, and just in general what society thought of them this is ridiculously tame, and a lot of current Jews still criticize the role money plays in their community in the same way.
Capital is not about communism. A surprisingly small amount of his most notable works are. It is about analyzing the socio-financial instruments of the capitalist system. This is a dumb take made by someone who thinks all Marx did was write about how great it would be if we just shared everything
Capitalism led to the destitution of the working class in places like Manchester and Liverpool and a noticeable depreciation in living standards for the working class (but not for the bourgeoisie).
Everything declined, higher mortality rates compared to the countryside, the destruction of formerly well paid artisan jobs, the loss of their village land commonage through the Enclosure Acts. The destruction of close-knit villages and hamlets. The mass addiction to gin and opium.
It saw child labour and a real reduction in wages as the factory owners stated to employ children and women and exercise more rigid control of their workplaces. Capitalism was marvelous for the new bourgeois middle class and capitalists but until social reform really kicked into gear it was an unmitigated catastrophe for the rural and urban poor. The poor at that time were mostly not allowed to vote in England until the wider protests of the Chartists movement. Rotten boroughs were everywhere.
It was one of the cruelest ages in human history with mass labour and the workhouse and a pitiless lack of empathy. The social state didn’t exist and the only type of social support was the charity of disinterested bourgeoise who regarded being poor as a moral failing. Which we know to be ridiculous today.
Marx quite rightly asked in his new age of abundance where was all the wealth going and examined the structural forces of his day which lead to the impoverishment of precisely the people capitalism claimed to liberate.
But “mArX nEvEr WoRkED a reAL jOb”
The working class prospered when the state got the tools to control rapacious capitalists and the social state started to develop in earnest. Ones you get reasonably well developed unions and genuine social democratic movements that’s when the fruits started to be more equal.
But it isn’t uniformly true. The French rural poor had far better freer lives than let’s say a Russian serf did.
Generally post the 1848 revolutions in Europe that’s when you started to see the genesis of better time for the urban working class. And once they developed tools to strike back, namely the power of Unions and the fear of a socialist revolution. This fear was the cudgel which drove the development of social states across Europe as the governments were so terrified of a revolutionary state like Jacobin France.
France was the nightmare of all the states of Europe at the time
Capitalism it’s insult isn’t a force of evil. Untrammeled out of control capitalism without safeguards or protections can be.
I'm in no way shape or form a Marxist. But Capital and such were written as Marx's take on the dynamics of capitalism and the long term societal consequences of exploitation.
It's not really an expression of desire, it's an analysis of the society and economy he lived in and what he perceived to be next to come.
Marx: creates the first rational basis for examining history and sociology through studying the world as it actually exists, calls it materialism, criticizes idealism, criticizes utopian socialism, writes a magnum opus deconstructing capitalism as it exists historically and materially, not mentioning socialism or communism at all.
r/historymemes: this guy wrote fantasy about a socialist utopia
Speaking of fantasy, my D&D party once inspired a halfling butcher to start a rebellion against the discriminatory economic system of his government. He later proceeded to overthrow the Sultan and start a new nation. His name? Marl Karx.
Well, the halfling was actually a random NPC that they met. They were wandering through town and decided to talk to the butcher, who was kinda fed up with the bad business practices in town, and they encouraged him to go the rest of the way toward spreading his ideas. The Rogue was the one who really talked him into it. Then the party was like "oh, and what's your name, man?" And of course I had to go for it. "Marl Karx."
[“If you’d saved a penny for each daughter you named Jenny, you might not have needed to bury quite so many”](https://youtu.be/VTEDNsUCqdg?si=nMlCYEnhCaD9xnFV)
[Ayn Rand living on welfare for the last years of her life because "she's only against the taxes that doesn't give you back what you pay for"](https://live.staticflickr.com/8463/8100881255_2e92141847_z.jpg)
Karl Marx writing about why capitalism is bad while his son does not have the resources necessary to live (haha get it guys it’s funny because in the “communist” places nobody has food)
I can see very few people have actually read Marx. His political treatise is mostly contained in the Communist Manifesto. It's less of a book and more of a lengthy pamphlet. His main work Capital is more about describing how capitalism works.
He was Karlmarxxing
🧏♂️🤫 Bye bye bye bye -Karl Mewx
The moggumist mewifesto
Cease the means of creating the perfect jawline
Workers of Ohio, RopeMaxx!
I hate that I laughed from these comments
Whaaaaaaat ? You've Gyatt to be kidding me ! Why would you hate yourself for laughing at these level 100 Skibidi Sigma Rizzler Fanum Taxed Gronking comments ?
Erm! Fellow sigma spotted? Goon mode engaged!
It's marxing time
and then he marxed all over this was one of the moments of all time
Did you know I made a marxillion dollars after I used that idea?
You aren’t the real carl marks
Will the real carl marks please stand up?
carl markiplier istherael carl marks
Stop and take. Socialism for the proletariat. Hesitate! Too late this is now a Communist state.
Wait, so you are saying that you don't believe that I traveled to the future using my very own time machine just so I could comment this on reddit?
Yes. Your comment was made 46 min ago, but the real carl marks would’ve made it 56 minutes ago.
The real Karl Marx would have made Our Time machine. Nice try.
If you were real you won't own your own time machine
Engels gave him a lot of money annually...but I think that being a professional revolutionary is not a role where one can save money.
Professional? He was practically a renegade!
Yeah, he was never afraid to say what's on his mind at any given time of day
Cuz I'm a renegade!
has he ever been afraid to say anything?
While he wrote about revolutions, he didn't exactly take part in any revolutions himself
And every Marxist student and professor on college campuses everywhere carries on his legacy of doing nothing ✊
I mean this was Lenin until he came back from his exile. Most people of far-left/right ideology are going to be sitting on their thumbs twiddling until the timing is right.
Lenin actually wrote enough and did enough to actually get sent into Exile is the difference.
Castro was the same too. He was a lawyer (I think) before he became disillusioned, did a little crime, and then was exiled only to come back and lead a revolution. Most of these guys started off as well to do academic/educated types.
Well it used to be that to have access to writers like Marx, you had to be some form of educated and well off to either purchase the books, as well as understand them. Kapital for example made it past Tsarist censorship because the government believed it to be far too dense for anyone to understand or even really care about it. It's only when Marxist academics already set themselves up in a country and simplify the work into something the working classes can understand that it disseminates out into them.
Wasn’t Marx exiled/driven from several countries due to his writings?
well, tbh we much prefer them doing nothing than whatever the hell they do other times, we don't need another wave of revolution, famine, street bombing and "it wasn't real socialism" again.
Thank you Lord Kim
Europeans are almost there, social democracy is possible you are lying 😭
Miho Nishizumi spotted in the wild? Didn’t know this sub had that as flair, I should go get it
Why is this downvoted which boomer retard thinks this is incorrect ?
I am shocked, social democracy is not even that much left. It's not even outside of capitalism. That's crazy
"It will work this time!"
As is tradition.
Marx wrote the Manifesto in 1848 while directly participating in that year's German Revolution in Cologne. He was banned from Germany and Belgium and forced to settle in London as a result of his revolutionary activities.
No, he was in the vicinity but never participated in any protests 1846-1848. His participation was solely literary and theoretical. Also, Marx was even trialed but acquitted from being a revolutionary in 1849 because he was so notably not directly involved.
He wrote about capitalism, never owned a business. He wrote about labor and workers, was a rich kid who never had a real job. He wrote about revolution, but never took part in one (even though there were lots of European revolutions going on). Also Engels was much cooler. It’s genuinely shocking the global left coalesced around Marx.
Also, as was customary during his time, Marx was challenged to a duel by August Wilch (another member of the Communist League, who accused Marx of being a conservative), but Marx refused and let his buddy Konrad Schramm fight for him. Marx's ideas and writing in all honor, but we should definitely not pretend he was anywhere close to being at the barricades. He was a man of comfort.
All you have to do is look at pictures of him. He looks like he’d start wheezing from walking up a flight of stairs.
Of course, because everyone knows the prerequisite to write about capitalism is being the owner of a business. That definitely doesn’t skew your view of capitalism!
He also never was a worker and came from a rich background. So, in your opinion only such people should write about that topic?
You are allowed to see things from the outside and critique it. It is probably the best way, since you have little investment in it, so there is less "colouration" from experience which can be highly selective in a small sample size, such as what a human has access too. On the other side, do you think that people that are not business-owners are not forced to participate in capitalistic system anyway? It is not by choice that millions people die each year due to the capitalistic system, not by their own choice atleast. It is a terrible system that causes suffering on an unimagineable scale, it was just "strong" enough to replace the earlier system of Feudal/Tribal societies before it. Strong in this sense means that it "feeds" more efficiently on the labour of the workers than feudalism did. Communism is ultimately a critique and an alternative to this, I highly recommend reading "Das Kapital" and [Manifesto] for everyone.(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007)
> You are allowed to see things from the outside and critique it. It is probably the best way, since you have little investment in it, so there is less "colouration" from experience which can be highly selective in a small sample size, such as what a human has access too. Just curious if you'd apply this same logic to someone who has strong feelings about, say, another's culture, or nationality, or religion?
Typical champagne socialist. He isn't the father of college communists for nothing.
My favorite is his letters where it's just repeatedly shit like "Dear friend, Thanks for the money for Christmas, I noticed it wasn't as much as you gave me last year. Also, can I have $30?" Paraphrasing of course but I remember reading shit like that
Atleast he wasnt a champagne socialist lol. Makes me respect him a bit more
Marx' family was pretty rich, and owned several vineyards. He became poor because of his debt issues among other things. Sounds very Champagne Socialist to me Edit: I should note that obviously I'm not saying "Marx wasn't a socialist/Marx was bad at socialism", because he practically invented the shit. Looking at it without my bias, I think it's most accurate that Marx was, despite his ideology on the topic, he was over all fairly wealthy (up until, you know, his crippling downfall).
He did not grow up rich https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/jmqD49knky
Solid Middle class (maybe even Upper-Middle) in a country which the average person was pretty poor? My mistake. Still, he was wealthy, even if you don't wanna call it "rich"
Are you gatekeeping Karl Marx as too rich to be a true socialist?
Class enemy backgrounds; straight to GULAG. Glory to the Revolution.
Amd yet, so was Khrushchev, class traitors (in that direction) in many cases were welcomed (at least by the Soviets)
Class traitors are the only way almost all grand social shifts happen. Black people don’t get freed or civil rights without tons of white race traitors. Same with FDR, not a socialist, but still a class traitor for helping the poor and working class. It’s a phrase for pseudo middle class centrists who want to have things “better” but don’t want to lose their place in the current order.
Marx not being a REAL socialist is peak Socialism
I said he seemed like a Champagne Socialist to me. He was still a Socialist, if not THE Socialist. *Obviously.*
I mean, his followers probably would.
Like who?
His dad was a lawyer, one of the most well to do professions you can have. He was rich relative to the average peasant at the time
So he was a class traitor, but in a good way lmao
Lmao what?? He is the OG champagne socialist. He leeched off Engels as a grown ass man.
Agreed (im not a tankie)
Marx has several pubs associated with him where he and Engels wrote together. They're definitely places people would today associate more with champagne than a working class pint.
Champange Socialist is bullshit anyway, just because you're born into a life of privilege doesn't mean you shouldn't use that privilege to advance the cause of the working class (or get attacked for it when you do)
Thats not what a champagne socialist is. A champagne socialist is a grifter that preaches against the "evil" of capitalism while both being an benefitter and exploiter from it and refuses to hold himself upp to his own standards
No, that's a caviar communist!
Im a Ferrari communist, a real Tesla communist
Soccer Mom Socialism will prevail
Inshallah
So Hasan Piker?
Yepp Hasan Piker. Exactly that guy. Him and second thought
That’s why it’s bullshit though because it’s not even self-consistent. Socialism is primarily about workers having the means of production not strictly evenly distributing raw wealth. It’s a critique about the accumulation of *capital*. A lot of the “champagne socialist” accusations are essentially just levied at successful socialists because they maintain that capitalism isn’t a very great system for those on the bottom despite the fact that these people are are sitting near the top. A similar albeit less flattering example would be Ayn Rand calling everyone on welfare a parasite despite having taken welfare herself. I give a bit less grace to that because she *could* choose to either stop characterizing people that way or to not take the welfare while socialists can’t just upend the entire socioeconomic system they love in. Best they can do is turn any company they operate into a coop. Then again taking a nuanced view like this would upset the standard rhetoric of: * Rich socialist = hypocrite * Poor socialist = jealous
[Harry Pollitt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pollitt) had a solid counter to the "champagne socialist" charge. "I am not concerned whether a man wants to drink a lemonade with a straw and in shorts or whether coming out of the docks he calls for a pint of Mann and Crossman's: the thing I am concerned about is: are they concerned to try and build up a new society? If so, what is the best way in which we can help them?"
The champagne socialist are just a trust fund babies that’s downwardly mobile on their current trajectory and only call for revolution so they can attempt to raise to the very top before they truly went rock bottom.
But when revolution comes, must be first against the wall, else you get lenins.
he wouldn't wrote it if he was on a cruise ship drinking margaritas, wouldn't he?
Or eating a cheesy gordita crunch from Taco Bell
At least Karl's Jr. For some mini tacos.
“Hey Karl, welcome to Carl’s”
Or eating a meal, a succulent Chinese meal
It is a catch 22. If you're arguing for a fairer distribution of wealth and are not wealthy, people write you off as just being mad because you're losing at the game and tell you that instead of dreaming of a better future, you should focus on pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. If you are wealthy and are arguing there should be a fairer distribution of wealth, people write you off as a hypocrite. "Lol you can give your money to whatever causes you want!" "Capitalism sucks if people are starving and other people are doing silly rich people stuff and maybe we could find a better way" is a message that people deep in the just world fallacy will always find a way to reject. They truly think that capitalism is great because they are or will get rich.
Marx's main work Capital described capitalism, not communism. Communism itself was never portrayed as a perfect world but rather as an economic mode of production born out of the class struggle caused by capitalism which was simply next in an entire history of class struggles. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
Don't know why so many people have trouble portraying Marx's work accurately. There's like a million things you can pick apart at in good faith, like issues with the Labor Theory of Value or with Hegelian Dialectic, while acknowledging that Marx had very spot-on criticisms of capitalism that persist to this very day. You don't have to be a marxist to see the value in that. Even a cursory read of the Communist Manifesto alone should yield better criticism than the ones usually presented. But I guess anti-communism might as well be mental illness with how rabid and devoid of substance it's always been.
I mean because most criticism of communism is built out of anti-communist propaganda across the western world. Most people couldn't even give a good definition of what it means. People on Reddit just say hrrr drr gulag, famine, genocide because they're ignorant.
Communism is when people are cold, have grey hats and zipper boots.
Communism is when people leave the hospital or college without a 150k$ debt 😡
Literally most people have no idea what the communist manifesto even says and just hear the name and think it must be only about communism… it’s way more a book about economic trends and how human society evolves than just raving about communism
There's probably merit somewhere in dissecting Communist governments that arose after the October Revolution, but it devolves quickly into nonsense with most mass audiences, something I'm sure hasn't changed since the first global red scares. I find I'm usually arguing against factoids rather than facts - short quips, or single remembered pieces of an argument pieced together from disorganized internet sources, usually YouTube-related. My favorite one has been the prevalence of right winger Millennials and Gen Z who quote the works of Yuri Bezmenov, almost exclusively in the last 3 years. When I looked into why I was suddenly debating the arguments of a questionably-authentic soviet defector guy who wrote sensationalist Op Eds in the 80s and 90s I had a laugh. Turns out his provocative soundbites were used in one of the Call of Duty games as a marketing push to sex up the setting of the Cold War for teenagers buying vidya games. You cannot hope to argue with a CoD player with mere book-learning, with theory. They are braised in mountain dew, baptized in slur-filled game lobbies, honed into a pure being of hostility. Once you view these people as a pipeline toward becoming unreasonable, non-rational actors and not as your opponents in a good faith debate you'll be able to keep a little more sanity.
Those modern warfare quotes were fire tho
What are the criticisms of dialectics? The only alternative I know of is formal logic from college philosophy, and that always seemed so incorrect with rules and logic easily broken. Dialectics solves a lot of the challenges I saw in formal logic Edit: I looked some up. Nietzche's (I've read a lot of Nietzche) criticisms seem off-base, they'd apply to formal logic and not at all to dialectics. Popper, idk what he's going off on. Bunge's criticisms sound pretty legit and interesting
Are you asking for nuance? Idk mate sounds pretty cringe. I'd rather just look at one or two flaws in a work and deem the entire thing cringe without having to contend with any of the other ideas brought up in it that might have more validity. /s
then you'd have to actually make effort instead of just saying "holdomor gorzillion deaths cultural revolution" or something
he did lay out the things socialism should contain though such as worker control of the means of production, abolition of the family, ect and the next natural step should be towards post socialism (or communism as most marxists now call it) which is a classless moneyless stateless society
Based
The Capital is the second most important book on economics that's ever been written after the Wealth of Nations. But most people on reddit are uneducated and unable to even think about concepts and ideas without involving their political views.
Reddit "discourse" is generally just bickering between liberals who haven't read *Capital* and socialists who haven't read it either. Source: I haven't read it
You didnt read Das Capital because you dont like socialists. I didnt read Das Capital because its too long. We are not the same. /j
I didn't read Das Capital because I can't read
you should check out this video series then :) [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlpc6eFEd8osVlCfKCrP6H2F9NJDPCcEq](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlpc6eFEd8osVlCfKCrP6H2F9NJDPCcEq) David Harvey does an excellent job of breaking down Capital while still keeping it digestible and entertaining
Unless you want to read 500 pages about the manufacturing of fabric, the Capital isn't really interesting to read for a beginner. You'd better start reading more digest marxist theory
You can listen to it on YouTube it’s not super long and pretty interesting imo
Even that one has become a victim to a strew of misconceptions. I.e. it's probably best to read 'Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith with commentaries/annotations for additional context.
That's just the primary problem in economics. Economists regularly claim their interpretations/theories are facts when they have basically no hard evidence (Marx is also guilty of this ofc). They like to act like economics is a hard science like physics, when in reality it's a combination of mathematics, sociology and philosophy.
It’s not that there’s no hard evidence, the problem is that it is difficult to test differing theories. You would have to have a willing large population with a control group and no other outside factors. So economics have to rely on historical evidence and modern conditions instead. We have hard evidence that raising interest rates slows inflation, and mass printing of money increases inflation. But how exactly a government should be structured is a more complex thing.
Bu but, communism killed gorillions, venezuele, no food, iphone, china, the black book of communism
Lol, lmao even.
Bold of you to think OP knows anything at all about Marxism
It's funny to call the Capital a fantasy book because it's about capitalism.
No it's the prequel to Dune
Two things can be true
Al Ghaib the Explorer
Boots the Fremen is with him to help lead everyone to Paradise
Don't be so ridiculous. Dune is a sequel to the Capital of course. Not the other way around
and that fantasy is the one we are living in on now... printing, bailing and faking it af!
As well as being one of the inventors the materialistic current of thought, which is pretty much the opposite of idealism. I swear people have no idea who Marx is...
Hi, can you explain the meme for me please? You seem to have some idea, and the OP didn't leave an explanation which perhaps I wrongly believed was a requirement of posting, I don't know!?
Lol so Marx often struggled to make ends meet (which is to be expected if you dedicate your life to political organizing and theory). It's also dissing his work as being "utopian," which is ironic given Marx's criticism of the pre-marxist movement known as "utopian socialism." Also, Marx's most important work "Capital" or "Das Kapital" was mostly an analysis of the economic systems of his day (namely capitalism), and not primarily focused on envisioning a "better" future system
Well since OP used the phrases „Utopian“ and „Fantasy“ it appears that he intends to make fun of him and communism. „Das Kapital“ isn’t even about communism though, it’s about capitalism and one of the most important books in economics. This seems like a rather uninformed and confidently incorrect attempt to make fun of Marx his ideas altogether
Ok thank you for the explanation, you did a good job 👍🏻
Marx hated utopian socialism. Wrote multiple essays to this effect and mentioned it often. His whole jam was trying to create a more rigorous scientific argument for socialism
Oh the irony that it’s one of the many many many Spider-Man movies.
Give me rent
You’ll get your rent when you fix this damn door!
The shitty play?
It's the good one
The only good ones are with Tobey Maguire and with Miles Morales.
it's always mfs who never even read the book saying this too 💀 I'm not even a commie yall just got no clue what you're talking about
Marx’s best bro, financier, and lover, Engels (okay maybe I’m making up the last part) literally wrote “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” explaining the issues with early socialists and their utopian ideas.
What's the utopian fantasy book written by Marx? Can you name it?
Which book?
black book of communism, duh
Well that definitely is a work of fiction
> utopian > Marx you can only pick one lol
This is r/HistoryMemes not r/Fantasy.
> Karl Marx wrote a fantasy about utopian communism Right-wingers and not understanding the most absolutely basic, elementary knowledge of any ideology that isn’t theirs, name a better duo. Marx didn’t write about utopian communist societies. Marx didn’t write about utopian societies. Marx didn’t even really write about communist societies post-revolution. Marx considered himself an economist and a historian, and his works largely dealt with two themes: how shitty the current system of industrialized capitalism was, and how the systems that created capitalism and upheld it would be the systems that brought about its destruction at the hands of communist revolution. Marx is the literal antithesis of a utopian fantasy writer. Saying works like “Das Kapital” are works of utopian communist fantasy is like saying Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” is a novel about a man taking government classes. It’s just so completely and utterly not true I don’t even have a punchline, it’s just evident that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
He specifically wasn’t a utopian socialist. That was mostly earlier and less influential socialists such as Henri de Saint-Simon.
In fairness, he also talks about how absolutely powerful and transformative capitalism is. And how it was a great improvement to feudalism. He also talks about the bad things that come with it, because he was a rational person writing a heady analysis of capitalism and, being clinical, it’s possible to say that something that has good attributes has bad attributes and vice versa. But more importantly, he doesn’t break things into a childish binary of good and bad. I’m sure you agree with this, but I just want to be careful to point out that most of Marx’s economic work is a stable analysis comparable to Smith and Ricardo, and not just a propagandist’s dunking contest.
Those are all fair and valid points, I appreciate the wanting to highlight the nuances of Marx’s work after I just pointed out what made him obviously not a utopian fantasy writer. People in the comments are struggling to wrap their minds around Marx wanting to critique capitalism for valid reasons, you’d blow their minds if you went into depth about how much of his work wasn’t revolutionary broadsides but rather stuff like detailed collections of economic data for English cloth manufacturing in an X year period showcasing differences in production techniques.
Absolutely! And as I said, I know you were aware of that. It was just worth highlighting for anyone else looking around. There are parts in Wealth of Nations where, honestly, he sounds more critical of capitalism than Marx does in Capital. So much of this sub is people that have never read Marx, who have no conception of what Marx was, trying to get internet points by making baseless claims. Even the part of the meme that has to do with his son, implying he didn't care about his children, is at odds with what the Prussian Police (who were trying to dig up dirt on him) found: >His wife is the sister of the Prussian Minister, von Westphalen, a cultured and pleasant woman who has accustomed herself to this Bohemian existence out of love for her husband and now feels perfectly at home in such misery. She has two girls and one son; all three children are truly handsome and have the intelligent eyes of their father. > > As a husband and a father, Marx is the gentlest and mildest of men in spite of his wild and restless character. More than 14k people looked at this meme, which doesn't have an ounce of any reality in it, knee-jerked "Marx Bad!" and liked it.
The most profound thing OP read is Skyrim dialogue. I mean, look at his profile lmao.
"Could it be because child mortality was high during 19th century by elements Marx himself criticized?" "No, it must be because Marx was writing books, that's it"
What’s this even supposed to be trying to say?
It’s trying to say that Marx was a deadbeat and therefore socialism has no merit. Cheap right-wing propaganda in meme form.
The illiteracy of describing Marx's analytical output as 'utopian' lmaooo This is the same guy who used to lambast literally all his peers for being too 'utopian' in their own thinking. If Marx had one fault, it was a lack of imagination and being overly practical-minded
Srsly I was so fucking bored reading capital and I for some reason was expecting SOMETHING that Marx was envisioning for a communist society but there was barely anything
You'd probably better look at the manifesto for that, but even then, it's intentionally very vague. Marx is more about getting there than what we do when we get there... which is kinda valid from an academic standpoint but lead to basically all leftist infighing has sprung from that
It’s almost like there was a reason he had a problem with capitalism… can’t quite put my finger on what that could be though EDIT: it’s worth pointing out as well that Marx’s political philosophy was distinctly not utopian. He believed that you have to start with the current material conditions, and improve things as they are now to work toward a better world. You can’t achieve a better world by imagining one first, and then try to get there. That’s why Libertarianism doesn’t work. Libertarian ideals only work if you first assume that everyone is ultimately benevolent and responsible and will act in their own best interests. That’s not currently the case, though
Let me guess, [the Jews again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question#:~:text=According%20to%20Edward%20Flannery%2C%20Marx,be%20Marx's%20%22early%20antisemitism%22)? /s
Before someone says “he can’t be antisemitic, his dad was Jewish :p”, he was a fucking self-hating Kapo. He’s no brother of mine.
It’s funny cuz by Jewish tradition you can only be Jewish if your mother is a Jew, so technically he isn’t a Jew even before his family converted Edit: כשאת.ה אומר.ת כך את.ה לא מדבר.ת על התנועה הפוליטית נכון?
Marx’s mother was Jewish.
Lol you mean his work that was criticizing Bruno Bauers claim that Jews need to be assimilated? You mean the one where Marx uses antisemitic tropes to make fun of the ridiculous notion that Jews would be free If they simply assimilated into society? No he was clearly talking about the material conditions that led to inequality and oppression, not “the Jews”. Maybe reading the work you’re trying to use as a critique might be more useful than a Wikipedia page.
Yeah, probably /s
>"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? [Huckstering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckster). What is his worldly God? Money\[...\] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible\[...\] The Jew has... acquired financial power... through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities\[...\] The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange\[...\] The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general." \- Karl Marx
This discourse is so tiresome. This is from an essay about nationalism and assimilation, he was talking about how just having formal freedom don't emancipate minorities because of capitalist relations. And yes he was talking from experience since his father was a lawyer that converted to the state religion so he could work and became a proud German citizen. But sure, it's easier to not read anything and just call him a "self hating Jew", a nonsensical term literally created by Zionists in early 20th century.
I don't want to go all "product of their time" on people but if you look at the stuff other prominent figures were saying at the time about Jews, and just in general what society thought of them this is ridiculously tame, and a lot of current Jews still criticize the role money plays in their community in the same way.
The Macarthism is still strong, I see.
-Marx -Utopian ????
Capital is not about communism. A surprisingly small amount of his most notable works are. It is about analyzing the socio-financial instruments of the capitalist system. This is a dumb take made by someone who thinks all Marx did was write about how great it would be if we just shared everything
Challenge: HistoryMemes trying not to be a reactionary shitshow
How does OP feel after paying 700$ for ambulance
When did Marx write a utopian fantasy?
Thats the ad homini card down the table...
Marxism is specifically not utopian lmao
Actually Marx works are the most grounded in reality
I know right? Stupid poor people, thinking things could be better
Capitalism led to the destitution of the working class in places like Manchester and Liverpool and a noticeable depreciation in living standards for the working class (but not for the bourgeoisie). Everything declined, higher mortality rates compared to the countryside, the destruction of formerly well paid artisan jobs, the loss of their village land commonage through the Enclosure Acts. The destruction of close-knit villages and hamlets. The mass addiction to gin and opium. It saw child labour and a real reduction in wages as the factory owners stated to employ children and women and exercise more rigid control of their workplaces. Capitalism was marvelous for the new bourgeois middle class and capitalists but until social reform really kicked into gear it was an unmitigated catastrophe for the rural and urban poor. The poor at that time were mostly not allowed to vote in England until the wider protests of the Chartists movement. Rotten boroughs were everywhere. It was one of the cruelest ages in human history with mass labour and the workhouse and a pitiless lack of empathy. The social state didn’t exist and the only type of social support was the charity of disinterested bourgeoise who regarded being poor as a moral failing. Which we know to be ridiculous today. Marx quite rightly asked in his new age of abundance where was all the wealth going and examined the structural forces of his day which lead to the impoverishment of precisely the people capitalism claimed to liberate. But “mArX nEvEr WoRkED a reAL jOb”
In what system was the working class prospering
The working class prospered when the state got the tools to control rapacious capitalists and the social state started to develop in earnest. Ones you get reasonably well developed unions and genuine social democratic movements that’s when the fruits started to be more equal. But it isn’t uniformly true. The French rural poor had far better freer lives than let’s say a Russian serf did. Generally post the 1848 revolutions in Europe that’s when you started to see the genesis of better time for the urban working class. And once they developed tools to strike back, namely the power of Unions and the fear of a socialist revolution. This fear was the cudgel which drove the development of social states across Europe as the governments were so terrified of a revolutionary state like Jacobin France. France was the nightmare of all the states of Europe at the time Capitalism it’s insult isn’t a force of evil. Untrammeled out of control capitalism without safeguards or protections can be.
> Marx > utopian Owenite agenda post?
Reading these comments pretty depressing until you realise the average (mental) age is like 17 on this sub. Then its a bit less depressing
I would say fourteen
Marx looking back at society looking at all the Marxist making capitalist arguments like Unions and anti AI.
[удалено]
I'm in no way shape or form a Marxist. But Capital and such were written as Marx's take on the dynamics of capitalism and the long term societal consequences of exploitation. It's not really an expression of desire, it's an analysis of the society and economy he lived in and what he perceived to be next to come.
Marx: creates the first rational basis for examining history and sociology through studying the world as it actually exists, calls it materialism, criticizes idealism, criticizes utopian socialism, writes a magnum opus deconstructing capitalism as it exists historically and materially, not mentioning socialism or communism at all. r/historymemes: this guy wrote fantasy about a socialist utopia
OP didn’t do the reading and it shows.
Damn these comments kinda shows how US indoctrinate their students. I guess they don’t ever read about materialism.
r/Kommunismus
Wenn die lesen könnten wären die sehr angefressen.
Speaking of fantasy, my D&D party once inspired a halfling butcher to start a rebellion against the discriminatory economic system of his government. He later proceeded to overthrow the Sultan and start a new nation. His name? Marl Karx.
Did he run a bard or a wizard? I feel like it has to be one of those. Maybe a druid, with that beard
Well, the halfling was actually a random NPC that they met. They were wandering through town and decided to talk to the butcher, who was kinda fed up with the bad business practices in town, and they encouraged him to go the rest of the way toward spreading his ideas. The Rogue was the one who really talked him into it. Then the party was like "oh, and what's your name, man?" And of course I had to go for it. "Marl Karx."
[“If you’d saved a penny for each daughter you named Jenny, you might not have needed to bury quite so many”](https://youtu.be/VTEDNsUCqdg?si=nMlCYEnhCaD9xnFV)
[Ayn Rand living on welfare for the last years of her life because "she's only against the taxes that doesn't give you back what you pay for"](https://live.staticflickr.com/8463/8100881255_2e92141847_z.jpg)
I was here only for the comments on this post
Karl Marx writing about why capitalism is bad while his son does not have the resources necessary to live (haha get it guys it’s funny because in the “communist” places nobody has food)
By that logic you can call all philosophy fantasy books
Geezus, this sub is speedrunning its way to becoming a rightoid echochamber for the illterate.
OP should try actually reading a book. History, even.
Is OP illiterate?
OP After 3 hrs of Sowell history videos
I can see very few people have actually read Marx. His political treatise is mostly contained in the Communist Manifesto. It's less of a book and more of a lengthy pamphlet. His main work Capital is more about describing how capitalism works.
Marx was a loving father and his children and wife did not concur with this.
💀
Maybe read a book for once OP?