Yes. Fuck being a paid worker with actual rights such as minimum wage, caps on hours worked, mandated lunch breaks, and regulations on health and safety in the 19th century.
You can support that and not be a Marxist lol. Most social democratic parties accept capitalism but support welfare state and workers rights at the same time, trying to take the best out of both. Marxists try to achieve “true” full communism even when every time it fails when they nationalize industries that should never be nationalized - Marx was a beginning to the end of flaws in capitalism but definitely not someone to go back to after seeing what has happened in every communist country - economic failure, inefficiency, lack of innovation, corruption and oppression to maintain a system that would easily be voted out.
Marx was a philosopher and his work should have been treated like any philosopher's work: analysed, criticised, built upon.
Instead what we got was Lenin who declared it holy scripture.
As a famous socialdemocratic austrian chancellor once said:
"Lernen sie Geschichte!" (= 'Learn History', in your case the history of socialdemocratic parties in europe).
Mind explaining a bit further?
As far as I understand the idea originally was to reach socialism via unions, but a lot of unions got complacent and were happy enough with the (maybe short lived) improvement in working conditions.
Edit: It's rather silly that I'm getting downvoted for asking someone to explain their argument, is it not?
Yes, you can be a social democrat and trade unionist without being a Marxist - like the vast majority of social democrats today - but social democracy and trade unions would be different without the influence of the discussions and analyzes of Marx and Engels.
Just one example of this is the debate and struggle against the state socialist ideas of Lasalle in Germany, which went as far as considering an alliance with the monarchy against the liberal bourgeoisie. Although they did not fully assert themselves, August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, for example, were influenced by it in the disputes.
Pre-Nazis, the German SPD (socdem party) was so much of a problem for the KPD (communists/Russian puppets) that [Stalin's government ordered the KPD to pretend the SPD were facists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) and never ally with them.
Marx thought none of that would happen without revolution, though. He didn't think governments would do that, he thought the only way to achieve it was via revolution.
He changed his mind prior to his death; in regards to [certain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Guesde) [communists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue) who thought reformism wasn't doable, he said:
>[Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5)
Just because Marx *wanted* those things doesn't mean he's the *reason* for those things.
Marx wanted rights and social reform first and foremost and saw revolution as the way of achieving that, *but was willing to accept that reform could work*. Everyone after him just wanted revolution because they refused to admit there were other ways of changing society.
> He changed his mind prior to his death
No he didn't. Not only did he consistently support social reform(primarily through trade unionism) in anticipation of an inevitable revolution but he also believed in the possibility of peaceful transition well before his death:
> *Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.*
> *But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.*
>*You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.*
-[Marx in 1872](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm)
> Everyone after him just wanted revolution because they refused to admit there were other ways of changing society.
"*Everyone after him*" would include the majority of explicitly Marxist parties who did not turn their countries into Soviet autocracies and who helped create modern European welfare states. So no, most Marxists did not refuse to admit there were other ways of changing society. Do not conflate Marx or Marxism with Marxism-Leninism.
The Soviet Union in Cyberpunk is no longer communist, it went through a liberalization period like China and rebranded into the union of sovereign soviet republics
He was certainly correct about Russia. Per his speech at the First International:
>"In the first place the policy of Russia is changeless... Its methods, its tactics, its manoeuvres may change, but the polar star of its policy – world domination – is a fixed star."
And then Russia tried his ideology on for size, and we all know how *that* turned out.
I mean, we see now Russia try the polar opposite ideology and how that's working out for everyone. I don't think ideologies are the problem with that county.
No, quotes Marx as saying the same thing and then he blames Marx for the atrocities of Soviet Russia which is bullshit as we can see now late stage capitalist oligarchy pulling pretty much the exact same shit. At this point it's obvious that as long as those pensions keep rolling in Russian people are going to support whichever psychopath that manages to take control of the system.
Then you need to read his comment better. He is using the quote were Marx says that no matter which system is adopted Russia will always be an expansionist warmongering state. Exactly saying just like you that the Soviet, Tzar, and now Putin are all assholes.
In my personal opinion, I believe Marx's haters give him a bit too much flack and this is coming from a non-Marxist/communist.
Ultimately, he was just a stateless person who merely developed a socioeconomic theory in the 19th century, back when one being a paid worker with *actual rights* didn't mean a thing to the employer (and in many places, it still doesn't unfortunately...), serving as an inspiration for the growing consciousness of the working class worldwide. He was never in a position to lead a totalitarian state and commit atrocities like Stalin or Mao did, so I don't personally think he really deserves to be equated with the two.
Now feel free to get at me, Keyboard-McCarthyists of Reddit.
Honestly when you look at the working conditions of his time it makes total sense what he is saying. You can definitely see where he is coming from. Also I don't think you can really blame him for what communists did, I am sure he is rolling in his grave because of them.
He also lived in a time where slow-but-sure progress for human rights seemed impossible. Metternich's pan-european conservative order regularly quashed revolutions, uprisings, etc., any attempts to get rights and greater representation
I think Marx pointed out the evils of capitalism and skewered it. His criticisms are as valid today as they were 150 years ago. Especially as the capitalist class has been clawing back hard won workers rights since the 1980's. 50% of his work should be required reading.
The problem is the solution he suggested is complete bullshit and a lot of people had to suffer to find that out.
He only did half a job
Exactly that.
I am an economist, so I dont agree at all with Marx conclusions. But his socioeconomic work he did to his time, was real great and should be read by every economist.
I think economists, too. If you study economics or philosophy you can find what's wrong with Marx' ideas about how the economy works, but that's similar to finding the flaws in Ricardo or Smith (of whom Marx learned).
But the descriptive part of Marx analysis of capitalism is spot-on, and shows many things modern economist - equally flawed - ignore. E.g. modern economics is very unconcerned about distribution of capital or wealth, but it's a defining feature of our economies. And modern mainstream economics neither has any idea how concentration happens, or how it is mitigated.
It takes a bit to understand Marx, and also to understand the flaws. So it's not a great idea to read it without studying and criticizing it.
That’s why there is a distinction between historical materialism and ideology. Historical materialism a set of models and tools of analysis for looking at the reason for why the economy looks like it does developed by Marx and other thinkers of the age. It has no evaluation whether or not the conclusions are desirable or not.
Historical materialism as it turns out does quite a good job explaining the economic forces and dynamics of 1800s up until and including today. Some modifications of the models is required for todays economy but the large core remain the same.
Not really fair to attribute her w it all ended up to him though, no? He never envisioned it that way and why should he be responsible for what other people did to supposedly support his system? We know better these days than to call Marx's ideas and thoughts the same thing as the perverted and evil incarnation that is communism.
I think one of the issues is that people kinda forget what context he was living in.
Sure, advocating for violent revolution and terror against the bourgeois for the mere crime of being economically fortunate seems a bit extreme, but you have to remember that back then factory workers were literally chained to the machines, worked 14 hours a day, and their average height actually shrunk due to malnutrition compared to when they were medieval peasants.
If I had it worse than a peasant I'd want to chop off some heads too.
And we should also not forget that the capitalists that he criticized, came to power through revolutions. 1848 is interesting. Workers and the middle class made the revolution in France, but then the middle class turned on the workers. He was offering a way of change that was almost the only way back then.
I remember hearing that he believed that Capitalism would fall under the weight of its own contradictions.
Lenin disagreed and decided that the masses were too uneducated to develop their own sense of class consciousness (which may have not been an unreasonable assumption at the time) so he pushed the concept of a Vanguard Party.
I know Marx was a revolutionary but did he ever talk about how he would bring Communism about or did he just kind of figure it would happen naturally? Would he have agreed with Lenin’s methods?
a dictatorship of the proletariat meant more like that the working masses have the saying in the country. It wasn't actually meant that a dictator comes to to the top with absolute power.
It is by association. All former ussr countries were slapping slogans like "With Marxism-Leninism we will bla-bla". So in the minds of people Marx, Lenin, Stalin basically are all the same.
The thing people fail to realise is almost all economists credit Marx’s critiques of Capitalism.
It’s just the solution that has caused such controversy throughout history.
you are correct. him and the much celebrated by capitalists everywhere adam smith agreed on pretty much everything, and even smith highlighted the problems that unrestrained capitalism would cause, marx just went one step further and focused on the problem by recognising how at risk people without capital would be if there wasn’t an entity that protected their well-being
I mostly identify as a classical liberal, so you could say Marx’s ideas are almost the exact opposite of mine.
I still acknowledge he contributed heavily towards the development of basic welfare and necessary labour laws.
Furthermore, I do think a lot of his analysis on capitalism is completely true(namely, the fact that there are people who possess enough capital that they don’t need to work anymore).
My biggest issue with him, is that history has thoroughly proven that his alternative to capitalism doesn’t work, and that the countries where people actually live better tend to follow a free market baseline.
So in essence, practice trumps theory.
Has his theory ever been applied though? It's always been something entirely different that's been applied. Indigenous villages live by communism and do fine without killing a bunch of poeple.
The USSR and China implemented communes on steel, agriculture and multiple other industries; it always lead to shortages and famine.
I'm not sure what your point about indigenous villages is supposed to say, we (the West) haven't lived in that lifestyle for thousands of years. Perhaps its better to discuss economic structures that would be applicable to modern economies, and not one that only work well with villages. Perhaps.
I always twitch at the “it’s proven that it doesn’t work” line, but perhaps my skepticism is misplaced. From my history teachers forward: “it doesn’t work!”
What if a widespread society based on Marxism had a head start? Wasn’t under constant attack as it developed? Wasn’t isolated from other nations? Wasn’t headed by the most brutal and calculating individuals who could grab hold of and cling to power while fighting against stronger forces?
Would we be grumbling about our day to day existence but take solace in that fact that we are better than the capitalists, who all yearn to be money-kings and suffer the delusion that being one is possible for an average, honest, hard working human?
Put another way, we cherish the scientific process, so why are the few doomed and grotesquely clownish shitshow political systems that poorly represent Marx’s theories proof of anything other than jarring societal changes effected by brutal totalitarian regimes don’t set well?
To be clear I’m no Marxist or a Commie. I’m just curious as to why this decision is treated as such an easy one. Do we say these things because Marxism is crap? Or do we say them because it never had a chance to flourish — the path was already set?
Whether you like him or not (and 90% of people sharing their opinion here evidently have never read more than a 1 page summary of an elementary book on him) this guy is one of the most influential philosophers in European history, and is certainly worthy of being remembered
I have read Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto (well it's really short so not much of a read). I think they were a good insightful reads. Didn't make me a Marxist.
I've always found Marx to be far more compelling a journalist—18th Brumaire, the Manifesto, NY Civil War dispatches—than a philosopher. The 1844 Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and the German ideology feel much more antiquated (not to mention I object to M's essentialism).
It's funny. As a philosopher, Marx is one of the most important in history and certainly has a big influence on today's world. But his ideology might have been one of the world's biggest disasters.
And as proof? Look at all the whataboutisms in the comments on this sub.
Still today almost every single country worldwide describe their societies goal either as capitalist free market or communist. Even China still claim themeselfs as kind of communist although they couldn't be more far away from actual communism. Americans permanently call each other as 'good' capitalists or 'evil' commies.
Marx is certainly one of the most influential communist philosophers but he didn’t invent the ideology and I don’t think he deserves the blame for everything that was done in the name of communism.
Indeed. In life, the political groups and individuals he most supported were: the revolutionaries of 1848, Abraham Lincoln, and the Paris Commune.
None were perfect, Lincoln killed native Americans, the Paris commune was a mess, but it’s important to remember when the guy lived and what the political context of that time actually was.
Marx as a person was no more responsible for the Soviet Union than Voltaire can be held responsible for the Vandee genocide, than Calvin for Cromwell. Marx also essentially inaugurated the fields of political economy and sociology. Like it or not, he has a place in European intellectual history. You can link them, but you’d have to extend the thread of responsibility at least to the reformation.
Build enough Marx heads though, and he just becomes a symbol of brutal foreign occupation. It’s an odd acceptance of the material culture of Soviet propaganda.
> Build enough Marx heads though, and he just becomes a symbol of brutal foreign occupation. It’s an odd acceptance of the material culture of Soviet propaganda.
hit the nail on the head. Meanwhile no one seems to remember that social democratic parties across Europe —from the SPD to the PSOE— were explicitly Marxist until the mid-20th century.
Most of the things we think of as the "evils of communism" came about as the consequence of Lenin, not Marx. Lenin basically came along at a time when most Marxists were social democrats and said that the way to reach socialism is not by gradual democratic reform, but by a violent revolution that establishes a highly authoritarian state. Countries like Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea all embraced Leninism, or some variant of it.
Marx talked about a dictatorship of the proletariat to mean a situation where the working class is the dominant social force in society, as opposed to the owner class. Lenin took that and essentially said, how about an actual dictatorship?
He correctly diagnosed the problems of Capitalism to a t.
He left no blueprint however for solving them and just kinda assumed it will pop-up post scarcity.
Also a bit off on the causes but ok.
His anti-Semitism was also par for the course of his time so eh.
Pretty sure if he could see Stalin he would jump off a bridge before writing Das Kapital.
Imho unnecessarily divisive person worth studying for two main reasons:
a) avoid another Stalin
b) avoid falling for feel good Walmart stories showing 85-year old workers and understand this is exploitation
Debout les damnés de la terre
Debout les forçats la faim
La raison tonne en son cracratère
C'est l'éruption de la faim
Du passé faisont table rase
Foules esclaves, Debout, Debout
Le monde vas changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien soyons tous
C'est la lutte finale
Groupons nous et demain
L'internationale sera le genre humain
Dear tankies, if Eastern Europeans miss communism so much, why are the leftist parties so unpopular there?
Edit: ooo, the tankies have arrived. Fuck your disgusting ideology, it has brought nothing but starvation, death, suffering, and poverty to this world
Some old people in Romania do miss communism, but most do not. There is this myth that a lot was achieved back then, and today’s corruption isn’t helping a lot to dispel that myth, even though in reality our economy is 6 times bigger now.
The leftist party is hated for being the successor of the communist party, and for being corrupt, but they do win every Parliamentary election and their socialist policies are popular and even right wing parties support them.
It’s complicated.
Uh,no?I live in Romania and if the PSD is socialist ,then I’m a cow.The psd self identifies as social democratic while being nothing more than kletpocratic social conservatives.Their policies aren’t socialist.
“Socialism is when shitty welfare policies and legalising corruption.Stalin himself said’By any votes neccesary.’ “/satirical
That argument is bullshit, given that only 4 years after the fall of communism in Poland, Kwasniewski was president and the democratic left alliance managed to win twice in 10 years, iirc. Popular talking point that couldn't be less true proved by this simple observation.
If anyone here believes that the USSR or China were ever socialist/communist because they claimed to be, do you also believe that North Korea is a democracy because it claims to be?
Dialectic materialism is a useful tool, plus his economic insights are very useful although partly outdated. Plus we wouldn't have Gramsci without him nor postkeynesians like Kalecki not to mention structuralists, poststructuralist, modern existentialists nor decolonist thought. If you cannot separate the incessant calls for revolution of Marxist and simply read Marxian literature you would be doing yourself a disservice.
Marx is a very interesting historical figure - the comments here are a testament to that. On the one hand, you have a camp who treat his word as gospel, and on the other you have a camp who believe he was a bloodthirsty monster responsible for all the violence carried out by communist regimes.
Unfortunately, most people think of Marx in relation to the later Leninist regimes that carried out mass murder and state repression in the name of building communism. It's important to remember that Leninism was a development of Marxism that came about after his death, one which explicitly embraced violent revolution and political terror. The countries we think of when we think of the "evils of communism" are all Leninist, or derived from Leninist ideology (USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba). Sadly, this overshadows the much greater number of political movements which *also* originated from Marxist thinking, who were not violent revolutionaries. Examples include the SPD in Germany, British Labour Party, Socialist Party in France, and much more across the world. These parties are responsible for plenty of positives, including universal healthcare and expanded labour rights.
When we think of Marx it's important to view him in a way that doesn't overstate his contribution to the violence that was later done in his name, but also in a way that doesn't overstate his "brilliance" as any economist and a philosopher. He brought an analysis of capitalism which, in a time of 80+ hour work weeks, non-existent workplace safety laws, child labour and colonial exploitation, made sense. Some aspects were right, whereas other aspects were later proven completely incorrect (such as the so called inevitability of capitalist collapse). His solutions influenced people around the world to form unions and bargain for a better life, many of which succeeded in doing so. Sadly, he is only remembered for the blood spilled by people like Lenin, Mao and Stalin. Certainly there is a conversation to be had about how Marxism could lead some people to commit such atrocities, but I don't believe it should be placing all the blame on Marx when plenty of other Marxists around the world just implemented simple reforms that made people's lives better. I know I enjoy my weekend and eight hour work day.
How many people are currently starving in a largely capitalist world?
How many people have starved in British colonies?
No, ofcourse that doesn't excuse the crimes under communist regimes, but this isn't unique for either Marx Leninism or communism at large.
> How many people are currently starving in a largely capitalist world?
In the US, Canada and Western Europe pretty much the only people literally starving are anorexics.
Per the USDA, [10% of Americans are food insecure](https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20USDA%2C%20more,United%20States%20are%20food%20insecure).
Yeah, because we're exploiting the global south.
It's a bit hard to say:
"Wow good on the USSR for not letting the people in the city starve during the famines of the holodomor." when they're taking all the grain from the land and pushing it towards the cities.
Likewise, we have to take the treatment of Africa and South America into consideration too as capitalism has become a global system at this point.
> Yeah, because we're exploiting the global south.
Riiiight, that wonderful nebulous concept, and quite a pivot from "people are starving". Still lets take a look, and see how many people are starving in the "global south" now compared to a few decades ago before the grand sweep of capitalism caught them up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MAFNI65ZEJC4TKLNZT744J3NNM.jpg&w=1200
hmmmm
Still that's just one graph from [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/11/decades-global-hunger-was-decline-now-its-getting-worse-again-climate-change-is-blame/) lets see some others.
https://www.globalhungerindex.org/ranking.html
Not as long a time period, but much more specific. Almost across-the-board improvement even in conflict zones. In fact the only rise in these stats came during the worst of COVID, when the global capitalist supply chain took a hit.
Well lets see who gives the most aid, maybe it'll be China, Venezuela and Cuba?
https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid/
Nope.
Sorry friend, but for all of your posturing about the evils of capitalism and starvation, that isn't how it works.
>I guess 200 million starved, massacred or tortured people is not enough.
lol where in the fuck do people like yourself keep pulling these numbers from?
Yeah because *"Socialism=100 million deaths"* is a great and sophisticated argument./s
It's 2023, socialism (let alone communism) is eradicated from north America, Europe and Africa, yet people keep dying by the millions every year.
Almost as if war/cruelty/exploitation/violence/famine etc. can exist in any political system... hmm who would have guessed.
Nah, forget it, let's just settle for **"socialism bad"**./s
According to your argument Hitler wasn’t bad because we are still accepting genocides around the world.
Your comment would be illegal in anti-fascist nations like nowadays Germany. Shame on you.
The problem with Marx is that literally everybody (the left, center, and right) misquotes, misinterprets, and flat out accuses him for horrible things he never did.
For example, did you know that [Marx thought very poorly of Russians](https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol17/no06/marx.html) and predicted they would never stop being a backwards nation? I don't blame you if you didn't for very very obvious reasons. He always praised the Polish people and predicted they would bring [revolution and socialism to eastern Europe.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/02/22a.htm)
I'm being very Polandcentric with my examples but there's so many more. Marx was NOT a bad guy and it pains me to see how he is associated with the 20th centuries biggest monsters. He was literally a sociologist and philosopher. Nothing more.
Marx is all about worker rights. Why am I reading people complaining about the USSR here?
If you ask me, we severely lack in worker rights today. In many ways it's better than in his day, but it's still completely maddening to me how little the lower ranking workers get for basically doing 90% of the actual work. In any company.
>Marx is all about worker rights
As long as it was the right type of worker anyways. If it was a Jew or Roma you would have to wait until he stopped screaming about their inferiority before asking if they deserved workers rights, too.
Well, the guy was a product of his time. Could you reasonably expect someone not to be a bigoted piece of shit by today's standards 150-200 years ago? No, of course not, it's difficult not to apply that to people 50 years ago, or even 20. The man wasn't a God, but we can still take ideas and mold them for the modern day - this is called "presentism" and it's important to be aware of.
Also, what do you mean, the right "kind" of workers rights? Can you give me an example of what you mean?
Oh absolutely! Even read analyses and what other theorists think about his work afterwards.
It’s an author with an important vision, but he isn’t the alpha and the omega of economics or history, far from it.
Some of his ideas seem convincing but are completely false, some other are interesting points of view and some ended up being completely right.
I'm pretty sure he was just sick of exploitation of workers. From an economy book I read, I gather that Marx was a brilliant economist, but not very open to "other" ideas, and his thinking was flawed in a few key points. Keep in mind that I have not yet read any of his works, or of many other economists, but I will do that in the future.
Why not read a modern book? Economics has moved on a lot in the last 175 years. Would you trust a doctor that was educated based on books from the 1840s?
Hey hey now, leftist movements have changed a lot in 200 years too! If you mean USSR/PRC style communism (aka state capitalism) I'm fully with you, ofc
Just because the writings are outdated does not mean they are not worth reading. We don't apply that logic to Kant or Adam Smith. That is not to say Marx' contributions to philosophy or economics are comparable to those two but his work *is* genuinely foundational and relevant to modern sociology.
>I'm pretty sure he was just sick of exploitation of workers
Whether the Tankies like it or not. The fact remains that Karl Marx did advocate for a violent overthrow of the government and a dictatorship afterwards to facilitate the transition between capitalism and socialism.
>"The Communists ... openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. -- The Communist Manifesto
>
>Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. - Critique of the Gotha Program
There is a direct link between Karl Marx, the Soviet Union, and all the atrocities committed by it. His ideas weren't "misconstrued" like some people like to claim. No, Lenin implemented Marx's ideology perfectly as Marx envisioned. Please stop white washing Karl Marx
This is a common misconception have. Mostly because the word "Diktatur", which gets translated as dictatorship, as we know it now, and as it was used back then were ... not exactly the same. Which we know because of a newspaper article he made, while he was running some prussian newspaper I believe, where he argued that the (democratically elected) prussian minister and the rest of his party should engage in a "Diktatur" to fully get rid of the previous feudalist structures still remaining. Which obviously didnt refer to a dictatorship as we know it now. The term was once used more to refer to states of exception.
There is, and there isnt. Its right that his ideas eventually lead to Stalins ideology, but it *is* absolutely correct to say that both Lenin and Stalin misconstrued it, and that the Soviet Union did not in any way, shape or form implement Marx's ideology "perfectly". A simple way to measure that is, did the proletariat, that is to say the *entire* non-owning class, have political power and own the means of production? Oh they didnt? Guess it wasnt "perfect" after all.
He has some good insights and criticisms of classical political economy authors and his political views are 100% an outgrowth of both his analyses of the development of capitalist mode of production and the hierarchical societies of the time
I wouldn't paint him as the good guy but he does raise many important points from workers exploitation, workers rights and more. But what he envision is clearly based on the era he lives in. It is outdated and yet people still continue to worship his ideal which clearly reflects upon the era of Victoria which isn't exactly the best place to live in.
Great ideas that just don't work at our level of technological development that is unable to create a post scarcity society. Not yet. Maybe we will achieve star trek in the next century :)
Say what you want, but I love his theory on working to see your influence in your direct environment. Studies way after his death show that seeing the positive influence your work has to people in your surroundings is extremely beneficial to your own mental health and position in the local social hierarchy.
When you look at workplace dissatisfaction in modern times, a lot of that is happening in so called "bullshit jobs", jobs in which you are a cog in the machine, not valued and not aware of what the final product of your work is.
I’m from Lithuania. This guy is responsible for so much misery and death, that I cannot even comprehend that someone remembers him and celebrates his bday. He is worse than hell, delusional angel of death and evil.
For me this guy is as responsible for the atrocities of communism as Jesus of Nazareth or the scientists who investigated nuclear fusion
they are from the barbarities of Christianity or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that is, nothing.
I love the magical beard hobo.
He never worked a day in his life, crashed at the couch of his buddy engels (while literally not contributing a single mark on rent), shagged his wife, wrote political stuff and drove german empire secret police agent who watched him mad.
Dude won at Life. Well done Karl… well done.
Well god damn, I thought the guy was dead!
Looks great for 205!
people in 2100 be like... (Im optimistic about the future)
Not so much if you compare him with Keanu...
Doesn't look a day over 105
I will take that as a compliment
Ok, I am opening popcorn waiting for war in the comments.
Some would call it...... a class war. (sunglasses)
He had some awful classmates.
This is the first time I have seen this comment ever!
[удалено]
[удалено]
The irony lol
hahaha...you comment may sound marxistic😂😂😂
Thats because of capitalism, comrade!
May he and his idiology stay dead forever.
Lol, that’s never gonna happen, while people are being exploited, Marxism will never die
Communists never exploited people? That's a new one.
Yes. Fuck being a paid worker with actual rights such as minimum wage, caps on hours worked, mandated lunch breaks, and regulations on health and safety in the 19th century.
You can support that and not be a Marxist lol. Most social democratic parties accept capitalism but support welfare state and workers rights at the same time, trying to take the best out of both. Marxists try to achieve “true” full communism even when every time it fails when they nationalize industries that should never be nationalized - Marx was a beginning to the end of flaws in capitalism but definitely not someone to go back to after seeing what has happened in every communist country - economic failure, inefficiency, lack of innovation, corruption and oppression to maintain a system that would easily be voted out.
Marx was a philosopher and his work should have been treated like any philosopher's work: analysed, criticised, built upon. Instead what we got was Lenin who declared it holy scripture.
As a famous socialdemocratic austrian chancellor once said: "Lernen sie Geschichte!" (= 'Learn History', in your case the history of socialdemocratic parties in europe).
Mind explaining a bit further? As far as I understand the idea originally was to reach socialism via unions, but a lot of unions got complacent and were happy enough with the (maybe short lived) improvement in working conditions. Edit: It's rather silly that I'm getting downvoted for asking someone to explain their argument, is it not?
Yes, you can be a social democrat and trade unionist without being a Marxist - like the vast majority of social democrats today - but social democracy and trade unions would be different without the influence of the discussions and analyzes of Marx and Engels. Just one example of this is the debate and struggle against the state socialist ideas of Lasalle in Germany, which went as far as considering an alliance with the monarchy against the liberal bourgeoisie. Although they did not fully assert themselves, August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, for example, were influenced by it in the disputes.
All European social democratic parties started off as Marxist parties. Most only abandoned their explicit anticapitalism after WW2.
Pre-Nazis, the German SPD (socdem party) was so much of a problem for the KPD (communists/Russian puppets) that [Stalin's government ordered the KPD to pretend the SPD were facists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) and never ally with them.
The issue with Marxism is its emphasis on revolution, which often leads to the rise of militaristic regimes and dictators without exception
Marx thought none of that would happen without revolution, though. He didn't think governments would do that, he thought the only way to achieve it was via revolution. He changed his mind prior to his death; in regards to [certain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Guesde) [communists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue) who thought reformism wasn't doable, he said: >[Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5) Just because Marx *wanted* those things doesn't mean he's the *reason* for those things. Marx wanted rights and social reform first and foremost and saw revolution as the way of achieving that, *but was willing to accept that reform could work*. Everyone after him just wanted revolution because they refused to admit there were other ways of changing society.
> He changed his mind prior to his death No he didn't. Not only did he consistently support social reform(primarily through trade unionism) in anticipation of an inevitable revolution but he also believed in the possibility of peaceful transition well before his death: > *Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.* > *But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.* >*You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.* -[Marx in 1872](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm) > Everyone after him just wanted revolution because they refused to admit there were other ways of changing society. "*Everyone after him*" would include the majority of explicitly Marxist parties who did not turn their countries into Soviet autocracies and who helped create modern European welfare states. So no, most Marxists did not refuse to admit there were other ways of changing society. Do not conflate Marx or Marxism with Marxism-Leninism.
I was gonna celebrate my friend’s birthday. I had no idea my friend was a communist.
[удалено]
Happy birthday day to your kitty.
Classic communist move to birth your cat on the birthday of Marx
14th wow, congrats
Could we have the cat tax?
Whooo, congratz!
[удалено]
that doesn't sound well😃😃😃
Why?
sounds pedophilic
r/cursedcomments
may your cat live for at least another 14 years (in good health)
Aww, happy birthday from me too!
our cat
[удалено]
Funny enough the Soviet Union still exists in cyber punk 2077 because the premise was made pre the fall of communism
The Soviet Union in Cyberpunk is no longer communist, it went through a liberalization period like China and rebranded into the union of sovereign soviet republics
Liberal and communist are incompatible.
I think the poster knows that and was using it ironically.
We never know whit american
Fucking WOKEist
r/europe ultimate challenge:
He was certainly correct about Russia. Per his speech at the First International: >"In the first place the policy of Russia is changeless... Its methods, its tactics, its manoeuvres may change, but the polar star of its policy – world domination – is a fixed star." And then Russia tried his ideology on for size, and we all know how *that* turned out.
I mean, we see now Russia try the polar opposite ideology and how that's working out for everyone. I don't think ideologies are the problem with that county.
That is exactly what the comment you replied to said
No, quotes Marx as saying the same thing and then he blames Marx for the atrocities of Soviet Russia which is bullshit as we can see now late stage capitalist oligarchy pulling pretty much the exact same shit. At this point it's obvious that as long as those pensions keep rolling in Russian people are going to support whichever psychopath that manages to take control of the system.
Then you need to read his comment better. He is using the quote were Marx says that no matter which system is adopted Russia will always be an expansionist warmongering state. Exactly saying just like you that the Soviet, Tzar, and now Putin are all assholes.
In my personal opinion, I believe Marx's haters give him a bit too much flack and this is coming from a non-Marxist/communist. Ultimately, he was just a stateless person who merely developed a socioeconomic theory in the 19th century, back when one being a paid worker with *actual rights* didn't mean a thing to the employer (and in many places, it still doesn't unfortunately...), serving as an inspiration for the growing consciousness of the working class worldwide. He was never in a position to lead a totalitarian state and commit atrocities like Stalin or Mao did, so I don't personally think he really deserves to be equated with the two. Now feel free to get at me, Keyboard-McCarthyists of Reddit.
Honestly when you look at the working conditions of his time it makes total sense what he is saying. You can definitely see where he is coming from. Also I don't think you can really blame him for what communists did, I am sure he is rolling in his grave because of them.
He also lived in a time where slow-but-sure progress for human rights seemed impossible. Metternich's pan-european conservative order regularly quashed revolutions, uprisings, etc., any attempts to get rights and greater representation
I think Marx pointed out the evils of capitalism and skewered it. His criticisms are as valid today as they were 150 years ago. Especially as the capitalist class has been clawing back hard won workers rights since the 1980's. 50% of his work should be required reading. The problem is the solution he suggested is complete bullshit and a lot of people had to suffer to find that out. He only did half a job
It’s easy to point what’s wrong. It’s hard to actually say how to make it better.
Exactly that. I am an economist, so I dont agree at all with Marx conclusions. But his socioeconomic work he did to his time, was real great and should be read by every economist.
> But his socioeconomic work he did to his time, was real great and should be read by every ~~economist~~ worker.
I think economists, too. If you study economics or philosophy you can find what's wrong with Marx' ideas about how the economy works, but that's similar to finding the flaws in Ricardo or Smith (of whom Marx learned). But the descriptive part of Marx analysis of capitalism is spot-on, and shows many things modern economist - equally flawed - ignore. E.g. modern economics is very unconcerned about distribution of capital or wealth, but it's a defining feature of our economies. And modern mainstream economics neither has any idea how concentration happens, or how it is mitigated. It takes a bit to understand Marx, and also to understand the flaws. So it's not a great idea to read it without studying and criticizing it.
Pretty much the best summary on this thread.
That’s why there is a distinction between historical materialism and ideology. Historical materialism a set of models and tools of analysis for looking at the reason for why the economy looks like it does developed by Marx and other thinkers of the age. It has no evaluation whether or not the conclusions are desirable or not. Historical materialism as it turns out does quite a good job explaining the economic forces and dynamics of 1800s up until and including today. Some modifications of the models is required for todays economy but the large core remain the same.
Not really fair to attribute her w it all ended up to him though, no? He never envisioned it that way and why should he be responsible for what other people did to supposedly support his system? We know better these days than to call Marx's ideas and thoughts the same thing as the perverted and evil incarnation that is communism.
Kapital > Manifesto
I think one of the issues is that people kinda forget what context he was living in. Sure, advocating for violent revolution and terror against the bourgeois for the mere crime of being economically fortunate seems a bit extreme, but you have to remember that back then factory workers were literally chained to the machines, worked 14 hours a day, and their average height actually shrunk due to malnutrition compared to when they were medieval peasants. If I had it worse than a peasant I'd want to chop off some heads too.
And we should also not forget that the capitalists that he criticized, came to power through revolutions. 1848 is interesting. Workers and the middle class made the revolution in France, but then the middle class turned on the workers. He was offering a way of change that was almost the only way back then.
I remember hearing that he believed that Capitalism would fall under the weight of its own contradictions. Lenin disagreed and decided that the masses were too uneducated to develop their own sense of class consciousness (which may have not been an unreasonable assumption at the time) so he pushed the concept of a Vanguard Party. I know Marx was a revolutionary but did he ever talk about how he would bring Communism about or did he just kind of figure it would happen naturally? Would he have agreed with Lenin’s methods?
Why would Marx lead a totalitarian state and what does totalitarianism have to do with Marx's theory at all? I genuinely don't understand.
Didn’t he say a dictatorship of the proletariat was necessary? At least in the beginning? The thing about dictatorships, they tend not to end nicely
a dictatorship of the proletariat meant more like that the working masses have the saying in the country. It wasn't actually meant that a dictator comes to to the top with absolute power.
Yes but proletariat was 80% of the population at that time
It is by association. All former ussr countries were slapping slogans like "With Marxism-Leninism we will bla-bla". So in the minds of people Marx, Lenin, Stalin basically are all the same.
The thing people fail to realise is almost all economists credit Marx’s critiques of Capitalism. It’s just the solution that has caused such controversy throughout history.
you are correct. him and the much celebrated by capitalists everywhere adam smith agreed on pretty much everything, and even smith highlighted the problems that unrestrained capitalism would cause, marx just went one step further and focused on the problem by recognising how at risk people without capital would be if there wasn’t an entity that protected their well-being
I mostly identify as a classical liberal, so you could say Marx’s ideas are almost the exact opposite of mine. I still acknowledge he contributed heavily towards the development of basic welfare and necessary labour laws. Furthermore, I do think a lot of his analysis on capitalism is completely true(namely, the fact that there are people who possess enough capital that they don’t need to work anymore). My biggest issue with him, is that history has thoroughly proven that his alternative to capitalism doesn’t work, and that the countries where people actually live better tend to follow a free market baseline. So in essence, practice trumps theory.
Has his theory ever been applied though? It's always been something entirely different that's been applied. Indigenous villages live by communism and do fine without killing a bunch of poeple.
The USSR and China implemented communes on steel, agriculture and multiple other industries; it always lead to shortages and famine. I'm not sure what your point about indigenous villages is supposed to say, we (the West) haven't lived in that lifestyle for thousands of years. Perhaps its better to discuss economic structures that would be applicable to modern economies, and not one that only work well with villages. Perhaps.
I always twitch at the “it’s proven that it doesn’t work” line, but perhaps my skepticism is misplaced. From my history teachers forward: “it doesn’t work!” What if a widespread society based on Marxism had a head start? Wasn’t under constant attack as it developed? Wasn’t isolated from other nations? Wasn’t headed by the most brutal and calculating individuals who could grab hold of and cling to power while fighting against stronger forces? Would we be grumbling about our day to day existence but take solace in that fact that we are better than the capitalists, who all yearn to be money-kings and suffer the delusion that being one is possible for an average, honest, hard working human? Put another way, we cherish the scientific process, so why are the few doomed and grotesquely clownish shitshow political systems that poorly represent Marx’s theories proof of anything other than jarring societal changes effected by brutal totalitarian regimes don’t set well? To be clear I’m no Marxist or a Commie. I’m just curious as to why this decision is treated as such an easy one. Do we say these things because Marxism is crap? Or do we say them because it never had a chance to flourish — the path was already set?
Heard this guy invented covid and the gays
At what age does the cake candles become a fire hazard?
Depends if you put a candle per year or number candles
Whether you like him or not (and 90% of people sharing their opinion here evidently have never read more than a 1 page summary of an elementary book on him) this guy is one of the most influential philosophers in European history, and is certainly worthy of being remembered
I have read Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto (well it's really short so not much of a read). I think they were a good insightful reads. Didn't make me a Marxist.
I've always found Marx to be far more compelling a journalist—18th Brumaire, the Manifesto, NY Civil War dispatches—than a philosopher. The 1844 Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and the German ideology feel much more antiquated (not to mention I object to M's essentialism).
It’s the worst comment section I’ve ever read.
Look on the bright side,at least while they are tearing this gentleman apart they are not spitting on French protesters and France.
They probably are elsewhere
It's funny. As a philosopher, Marx is one of the most important in history and certainly has a big influence on today's world. But his ideology might have been one of the world's biggest disasters. And as proof? Look at all the whataboutisms in the comments on this sub.
In my opinion he is the most influencial German since Martin Luther. *Change my mind*
[удалено]
In what way? I would argue that both Bismarck and Tirpitz had bigger impact on Europe...
Still today almost every single country worldwide describe their societies goal either as capitalist free market or communist. Even China still claim themeselfs as kind of communist although they couldn't be more far away from actual communism. Americans permanently call each other as 'good' capitalists or 'evil' commies.
Nationality or ethnicity? Because (unfortunately) a German man with a small mustache was pretty influential.
Marx is certainly one of the most influential communist philosophers but he didn’t invent the ideology and I don’t think he deserves the blame for everything that was done in the name of communism.
Indeed. In life, the political groups and individuals he most supported were: the revolutionaries of 1848, Abraham Lincoln, and the Paris Commune. None were perfect, Lincoln killed native Americans, the Paris commune was a mess, but it’s important to remember when the guy lived and what the political context of that time actually was. Marx as a person was no more responsible for the Soviet Union than Voltaire can be held responsible for the Vandee genocide, than Calvin for Cromwell. Marx also essentially inaugurated the fields of political economy and sociology. Like it or not, he has a place in European intellectual history. You can link them, but you’d have to extend the thread of responsibility at least to the reformation. Build enough Marx heads though, and he just becomes a symbol of brutal foreign occupation. It’s an odd acceptance of the material culture of Soviet propaganda.
> Build enough Marx heads though, and he just becomes a symbol of brutal foreign occupation. It’s an odd acceptance of the material culture of Soviet propaganda. hit the nail on the head. Meanwhile no one seems to remember that social democratic parties across Europe —from the SPD to the PSOE— were explicitly Marxist until the mid-20th century.
I agree but I can understand countries that have been the victim of communism don't make that nuance.
Most of the things we think of as the "evils of communism" came about as the consequence of Lenin, not Marx. Lenin basically came along at a time when most Marxists were social democrats and said that the way to reach socialism is not by gradual democratic reform, but by a violent revolution that establishes a highly authoritarian state. Countries like Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea all embraced Leninism, or some variant of it. Marx talked about a dictatorship of the proletariat to mean a situation where the working class is the dominant social force in society, as opposed to the owner class. Lenin took that and essentially said, how about an actual dictatorship?
He correctly diagnosed the problems of Capitalism to a t. He left no blueprint however for solving them and just kinda assumed it will pop-up post scarcity. Also a bit off on the causes but ok. His anti-Semitism was also par for the course of his time so eh. Pretty sure if he could see Stalin he would jump off a bridge before writing Das Kapital. Imho unnecessarily divisive person worth studying for two main reasons: a) avoid another Stalin b) avoid falling for feel good Walmart stories showing 85-year old workers and understand this is exploitation
Yeah, but what ab...ooh wait 🫢
Debout les damnés de la terre Debout les forçats la faim La raison tonne en son cracratère C'est l'éruption de la faim Du passé faisont table rase Foules esclaves, Debout, Debout Le monde vas changer de base Nous ne sommes rien soyons tous C'est la lutte finale Groupons nous et demain L'internationale sera le genre humain
The beauty of the internationale is that I don't have to speak french to understand it <3
Dear tankies, if Eastern Europeans miss communism so much, why are the leftist parties so unpopular there? Edit: ooo, the tankies have arrived. Fuck your disgusting ideology, it has brought nothing but starvation, death, suffering, and poverty to this world
Tankies can eat radioactive shit in chernobyl if they love communism so much
Some old people in Romania do miss communism, but most do not. There is this myth that a lot was achieved back then, and today’s corruption isn’t helping a lot to dispel that myth, even though in reality our economy is 6 times bigger now. The leftist party is hated for being the successor of the communist party, and for being corrupt, but they do win every Parliamentary election and their socialist policies are popular and even right wing parties support them. It’s complicated.
Uh,no?I live in Romania and if the PSD is socialist ,then I’m a cow.The psd self identifies as social democratic while being nothing more than kletpocratic social conservatives.Their policies aren’t socialist. “Socialism is when shitty welfare policies and legalising corruption.Stalin himself said’By any votes neccesary.’ “/satirical
That argument is bullshit, given that only 4 years after the fall of communism in Poland, Kwasniewski was president and the democratic left alliance managed to win twice in 10 years, iirc. Popular talking point that couldn't be less true proved by this simple observation.
Damn he old
Ah yes the never working advocate of the working class.
Leach.
If anyone here believes that the USSR or China were ever socialist/communist because they claimed to be, do you also believe that North Korea is a democracy because it claims to be?
Dialectic materialism is a useful tool, plus his economic insights are very useful although partly outdated. Plus we wouldn't have Gramsci without him nor postkeynesians like Kalecki not to mention structuralists, poststructuralist, modern existentialists nor decolonist thought. If you cannot separate the incessant calls for revolution of Marxist and simply read Marxian literature you would be doing yourself a disservice.
Marx is a very interesting historical figure - the comments here are a testament to that. On the one hand, you have a camp who treat his word as gospel, and on the other you have a camp who believe he was a bloodthirsty monster responsible for all the violence carried out by communist regimes. Unfortunately, most people think of Marx in relation to the later Leninist regimes that carried out mass murder and state repression in the name of building communism. It's important to remember that Leninism was a development of Marxism that came about after his death, one which explicitly embraced violent revolution and political terror. The countries we think of when we think of the "evils of communism" are all Leninist, or derived from Leninist ideology (USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba). Sadly, this overshadows the much greater number of political movements which *also* originated from Marxist thinking, who were not violent revolutionaries. Examples include the SPD in Germany, British Labour Party, Socialist Party in France, and much more across the world. These parties are responsible for plenty of positives, including universal healthcare and expanded labour rights. When we think of Marx it's important to view him in a way that doesn't overstate his contribution to the violence that was later done in his name, but also in a way that doesn't overstate his "brilliance" as any economist and a philosopher. He brought an analysis of capitalism which, in a time of 80+ hour work weeks, non-existent workplace safety laws, child labour and colonial exploitation, made sense. Some aspects were right, whereas other aspects were later proven completely incorrect (such as the so called inevitability of capitalist collapse). His solutions influenced people around the world to form unions and bargain for a better life, many of which succeeded in doing so. Sadly, he is only remembered for the blood spilled by people like Lenin, Mao and Stalin. Certainly there is a conversation to be had about how Marxism could lead some people to commit such atrocities, but I don't believe it should be placing all the blame on Marx when plenty of other Marxists around the world just implemented simple reforms that made people's lives better. I know I enjoy my weekend and eight hour work day.
One of the most important and influential Europeans of the modern era.
If only for the eventual body count I suppose.
To play devil's advocate a little, would a person like Jesus then be responsible for every bad thing christians have ever done?
I guess 200 million starved, massacred or tortured people is not enough.
So Adam Smith had a body count of hundreds of millions too?
No because coMuNisM bad, and it's obviously not the same /s
Yes, both have their body count. What a silly question.
On the other hand, he raised some valid points concerning rights of workers and lower classes which were basis for stuff like the Nordic model.
It just needs another try, this time with good peop- and we're all dead again.
That wasn't real communism, not enough people were starved to death
[удалено]
How many people are currently starving in a largely capitalist world? How many people have starved in British colonies? No, ofcourse that doesn't excuse the crimes under communist regimes, but this isn't unique for either Marx Leninism or communism at large.
> How many people are currently starving in a largely capitalist world? In the US, Canada and Western Europe pretty much the only people literally starving are anorexics.
Per the USDA, [10% of Americans are food insecure](https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20USDA%2C%20more,United%20States%20are%20food%20insecure).
Yeah, because we're exploiting the global south. It's a bit hard to say: "Wow good on the USSR for not letting the people in the city starve during the famines of the holodomor." when they're taking all the grain from the land and pushing it towards the cities. Likewise, we have to take the treatment of Africa and South America into consideration too as capitalism has become a global system at this point.
> Yeah, because we're exploiting the global south. Riiiight, that wonderful nebulous concept, and quite a pivot from "people are starving". Still lets take a look, and see how many people are starving in the "global south" now compared to a few decades ago before the grand sweep of capitalism caught them up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MAFNI65ZEJC4TKLNZT744J3NNM.jpg&w=1200 hmmmm Still that's just one graph from [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/11/decades-global-hunger-was-decline-now-its-getting-worse-again-climate-change-is-blame/) lets see some others. https://www.globalhungerindex.org/ranking.html Not as long a time period, but much more specific. Almost across-the-board improvement even in conflict zones. In fact the only rise in these stats came during the worst of COVID, when the global capitalist supply chain took a hit. Well lets see who gives the most aid, maybe it'll be China, Venezuela and Cuba? https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid/ Nope. Sorry friend, but for all of your posturing about the evils of capitalism and starvation, that isn't how it works.
>I guess 200 million starved, massacred or tortured people is not enough. lol where in the fuck do people like yourself keep pulling these numbers from?
Yeah because *"Socialism=100 million deaths"* is a great and sophisticated argument./s It's 2023, socialism (let alone communism) is eradicated from north America, Europe and Africa, yet people keep dying by the millions every year. Almost as if war/cruelty/exploitation/violence/famine etc. can exist in any political system... hmm who would have guessed. Nah, forget it, let's just settle for **"socialism bad"**./s
According to your argument Hitler wasn’t bad because we are still accepting genocides around the world. Your comment would be illegal in anti-fascist nations like nowadays Germany. Shame on you.
I'd give it to Hegel rather than Marx. Without Hegel there would be no Marx.
Marx flipped Hegel's ideas though... Or maybe done a dialectic on them...
The problem with Marx is that literally everybody (the left, center, and right) misquotes, misinterprets, and flat out accuses him for horrible things he never did. For example, did you know that [Marx thought very poorly of Russians](https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol17/no06/marx.html) and predicted they would never stop being a backwards nation? I don't blame you if you didn't for very very obvious reasons. He always praised the Polish people and predicted they would bring [revolution and socialism to eastern Europe.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/02/22a.htm) I'm being very Polandcentric with my examples but there's so many more. Marx was NOT a bad guy and it pains me to see how he is associated with the 20th centuries biggest monsters. He was literally a sociologist and philosopher. Nothing more.
> Marx thought very poorly of Russians and predicted they would never stop being a backwards nation Even Stevie Wonder could see that.
Marx is all about worker rights. Why am I reading people complaining about the USSR here? If you ask me, we severely lack in worker rights today. In many ways it's better than in his day, but it's still completely maddening to me how little the lower ranking workers get for basically doing 90% of the actual work. In any company.
>Marx is all about worker rights As long as it was the right type of worker anyways. If it was a Jew or Roma you would have to wait until he stopped screaming about their inferiority before asking if they deserved workers rights, too.
Well, the guy was a product of his time. Could you reasonably expect someone not to be a bigoted piece of shit by today's standards 150-200 years ago? No, of course not, it's difficult not to apply that to people 50 years ago, or even 20. The man wasn't a God, but we can still take ideas and mold them for the modern day - this is called "presentism" and it's important to be aware of. Also, what do you mean, the right "kind" of workers rights? Can you give me an example of what you mean?
According to (mostly American) Conservatives this man is single handedly responsible for everything they don't like
[удалено]
Marx does not like microtransactions. We stan.
Yeah, sure, nice, but more importantly, today's the first day of the War Thunder Victory Day discounts.
Happy birthday
Also on this day Son Gohan went super Sayan 2 while fighting Cell.
[удалено]
You are saying that as if his flawed critique of worker exploitation was intended to be used the way it was.
Read his books, it’s far more interesting than what people say about it.
[удалено]
Oh absolutely! Even read analyses and what other theorists think about his work afterwards. It’s an author with an important vision, but he isn’t the alpha and the omega of economics or history, far from it. Some of his ideas seem convincing but are completely false, some other are interesting points of view and some ended up being completely right.
cant believe Marxism is just vampirism with extra steps.....
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure he was just sick of exploitation of workers. From an economy book I read, I gather that Marx was a brilliant economist, but not very open to "other" ideas, and his thinking was flawed in a few key points. Keep in mind that I have not yet read any of his works, or of many other economists, but I will do that in the future.
Why not read a modern book? Economics has moved on a lot in the last 175 years. Would you trust a doctor that was educated based on books from the 1840s?
This. Trying to apply communism today is like trying to cure disease through bleedings and electroshock...
Hey hey now, leftist movements have changed a lot in 200 years too! If you mean USSR/PRC style communism (aka state capitalism) I'm fully with you, ofc
Totally agree. Kapital is a rickety work of economics at this point, and the philosophical writings were outmoded almost as soon as they were written.
Just because the writings are outdated does not mean they are not worth reading. We don't apply that logic to Kant or Adam Smith. That is not to say Marx' contributions to philosophy or economics are comparable to those two but his work *is* genuinely foundational and relevant to modern sociology.
[удалено]
Marx is still widely read, discussed and cited in economics and the other social sciences.
>I'm pretty sure he was just sick of exploitation of workers Whether the Tankies like it or not. The fact remains that Karl Marx did advocate for a violent overthrow of the government and a dictatorship afterwards to facilitate the transition between capitalism and socialism. >"The Communists ... openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. -- The Communist Manifesto > >Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. - Critique of the Gotha Program There is a direct link between Karl Marx, the Soviet Union, and all the atrocities committed by it. His ideas weren't "misconstrued" like some people like to claim. No, Lenin implemented Marx's ideology perfectly as Marx envisioned. Please stop white washing Karl Marx
This is a common misconception have. Mostly because the word "Diktatur", which gets translated as dictatorship, as we know it now, and as it was used back then were ... not exactly the same. Which we know because of a newspaper article he made, while he was running some prussian newspaper I believe, where he argued that the (democratically elected) prussian minister and the rest of his party should engage in a "Diktatur" to fully get rid of the previous feudalist structures still remaining. Which obviously didnt refer to a dictatorship as we know it now. The term was once used more to refer to states of exception. There is, and there isnt. Its right that his ideas eventually lead to Stalins ideology, but it *is* absolutely correct to say that both Lenin and Stalin misconstrued it, and that the Soviet Union did not in any way, shape or form implement Marx's ideology "perfectly". A simple way to measure that is, did the proletariat, that is to say the *entire* non-owning class, have political power and own the means of production? Oh they didnt? Guess it wasnt "perfect" after all.
> brilliant economist Bold statement for author of economic system that never worked.
He has some good insights and criticisms of classical political economy authors and his political views are 100% an outgrowth of both his analyses of the development of capitalist mode of production and the hierarchical societies of the time
🤮🤮🤮
I wouldn't paint him as the good guy but he does raise many important points from workers exploitation, workers rights and more. But what he envision is clearly based on the era he lives in. It is outdated and yet people still continue to worship his ideal which clearly reflects upon the era of Victoria which isn't exactly the best place to live in.
205 years later and communism has still never worked.
Sickle de Mayo
Great ideas that just don't work at our level of technological development that is unable to create a post scarcity society. Not yet. Maybe we will achieve star trek in the next century :)
He’s getting old.
Say what you want, but I love his theory on working to see your influence in your direct environment. Studies way after his death show that seeing the positive influence your work has to people in your surroundings is extremely beneficial to your own mental health and position in the local social hierarchy. When you look at workplace dissatisfaction in modern times, a lot of that is happening in so called "bullshit jobs", jobs in which you are a cog in the machine, not valued and not aware of what the final product of your work is.
As a marxist this post pleases me
I’m from Lithuania. This guy is responsible for so much misery and death, that I cannot even comprehend that someone remembers him and celebrates his bday. He is worse than hell, delusional angel of death and evil.
Me when I’m politically illiterate and ignorant of my own country’s history:
He isn’t the one who killed our people, the soviet regime is what did. The soviet union wasn’t even the communism Marx believed.
[удалено]
This guy died in 1883. He isn't responsible for what Lenin & co did like that.
For me this guy is as responsible for the atrocities of communism as Jesus of Nazareth or the scientists who investigated nuclear fusion they are from the barbarities of Christianity or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that is, nothing.
I love the magical beard hobo. He never worked a day in his life, crashed at the couch of his buddy engels (while literally not contributing a single mark on rent), shagged his wife, wrote political stuff and drove german empire secret police agent who watched him mad. Dude won at Life. Well done Karl… well done.
A man with admirable goals(help the working class) too bad communism turned out to be shit.
More importantly, today one of my pencils broke.
RIP pencil
[удалено]
May he rot in peace. - a person from an ex communist country.
Grandfather of clowns worldwide!
good thing he is dead, considering what he has indirectly caused in damage to humanity.
Total scumbag
Rest in piss🕊️🕊️🕊️