Never did a days work in his life

Can't believe people still take it seriously. Literally the most murderous ideology in history. Christianity and even murderous Islam do not come close.

>sitting on your ass and writing is work
The absolute state of (You)

>Sage

How to show you didn't read marx in a single post. Why are you retards so proud of being ignorant?

>"Murderous Islam"
My sides.

Double negative

>influence the future of global politics for centuries to come
As well as being one of the primary contributions to the birth of academic sociology.
Which is a pretty amazing feat in itself.

>birth of academic sociology
So pure ideology disguised as science, great achievement

Yet another negative about Marx. Fucking hell.

>never did a days work in his life
Huh? Marx was a working journalist for good parts of his life.

Journalism isn't work

>writing is work
Get a job.

>lives in a time when education is reserved for the bourgeoisie
>lives in cities where the poor are literally dying in the streets
>lets nor forget engles totally went out with a factory girl from Manchester
>participated int the paris commune
>was not defined by his class

will this pathetic revisionism never end

None of that refutes anything OP wrote.

>user won't ever open these books and see 100 pages of sources

>tfw Marx spent almost every waking moment of his life either researching or writing the most influential pieces of philosophy of the last 150 years
>tfw this user won't ever even begin to grasp the amount of work that went into Marx and Engels writings

Those guys were walking encyclopedias, that level of erudition is simply not present anymore in our society.

um no my half assed pseudo propganda american education is enough to refute literally every point marx has ever made

And look what came of that work

If you want to make money doing it, it sure is. If you don't believe me and think journalism is so easy, why don't you become a journalist? Easy money, right?

I won't because I'm not a faggot or a woman with a basic bitch ideology and worldview to push because I've never encountered genuine people or genuine culture

...

>reading is work
You must be very stupid.

>Manual laborer about to lose his job to a Chink/Desi.

Ah yes, faggots and women like Mark Twain, Jack London, and George Orwell. Mussolini too, for that matter.
So why don't you become a righteous truth-telling journalist then? Easy money, right? Change the world?

Does this mean we should waste precious time from our brief lives to meet Marx on his own terms? Why can't this logic be applied to being biblically literate or being an expert on Confucius? The time period when Marxism was novel enough and apparently plausible enough as a workable philosophy is long over, and it's time to move on to more urgent matters.

You seem very upset user. Tell me again how sitting down on your ass all day getting handouts from your friend is work?

Keep believing it.

That's why I've mentioned the amount of sources in his book: RLH's books were just improvised sci-fi/pulp stories, Marx's and Engel's books are instead some of the most solid and well researched piece of social science and philosophy in history.

Pol Pot literally said that he has never read Marx.

>reading = researching
Your lack of formal education is showing, my friend.

Mate not him but anyone can be a "journalist" now. Set up some shitty blog write some tearful article about how hard trannies have it and send it off to Cracked. Congratulations you're a journalist.

Kek. I was correct you're a fucking moron.

The blood of the Holodomr, The Great Leap Forward and the countless political prisoners are still on Marx and Engel's hands, they've destroyed more than they've created and they're failures

>formal education
Porky nonsense

Lost your job to chinks already, I guess.

Yes, but can "anyone" actually make money doing journalism? No. That bit's harder. And what's even extra special harder is to make money doing it honestly, without becoming a shill or a bullshit artist like the cable news people and the Bannon types.

>Mate not him but anyone can be a "journalist" now. Set up some shitty blog write some tearful article about how hard trannies have it and send it off to Cracked.
This is why fake news happens.

People like you consider them to be.

>y-y-you have no job!
Just like Marx

>The blood of the Holodomr, The Great Leap Forward and the countless political prisoners are still on Marx and Engel's hands
So, according to this strain of thinking, the blood spilled by market capitalism is on the hands of Adam Smith? What a monster!

It actually is, Adam Smith is rotting in hell for spreading his philosophy

>people like you
You know fuck all about me you sanctimonious cunt

No I'd imagine it's hard to earn a living as a journalist. Karl Marx, for example, couldn't.

Let's assume this assessment of Marx's theories:
>revolutionary new system where people who do fuck all have everything handed to them
were even remotely accurate, for the sake of argument.

How exactly would
>never did a days work in his life
>shamelessly lived off handouts from Engels
reflect upon the validity of his theories at all?

>how exactly does being a work shy con man reflect on his system that encourages shying away from work

Who better to write exactly that? If I'm trying to plant a garden in my backyard, I'm not going to consult my accountant.

Remember too that he thought the that the bourgeoisie professional revolutionaries (i.e. people like himself) would be the ones doing all the leading and holding all the important positions while the proles did the fighting. Much like modern commies in that regard where everyone wants to be the guy directing things from the office.

>the contradictions of capitalism are no longer an issue
>capitalism has no part in the issues of today

Americans are literally the most retarded people on the planet.

you're in luck then

If you ignore Marx because he never ""worked"", then I guess you should follow everything Engels believed because he owned a factory?

He worked as a journalist and a newspaper editor.

Nah, lets just ignore Marx

Does this kill Marx ?

>His book "commie manifesto" reads like a babbys first essay on philosophy. I can't believe people took it seriously.

It was written like "babbys first essay" because it was a guide for everyday plebs on their situation within the class system and how to start a revolution.

Also it was a pamphlet, not a book you dimwit.

this tbqh

>Marx works at the British Library and then as an academic funded by private businessman
ahah lazy commie get a job
>Engels works as a journalist and businessman
ahah stupid hypocrite commie

Only spastic an-caps seem to argue like this

>writing for newspapers isn't work
>correspondet work isn't work
>reading and excerpting isn't work
Everyone who thinks that intellectual work isn't work never worked intellecutally.

>Lohnarbeit is the same as Arbeit
sure thing bud.
this

Fun fact is that the published works represent like 20% of the stuff he wrote. I know guys working on the new revised MEGA (the famous socialist philosopher Herfried Münker) and they won't be done for like 30 more years. I asked them how much it's going to be and he said they did the math once and it will be like 2 Billy shelves.

>Yeah, Marx never worked for money. He never wrote like articles or something.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/newspapers/new-york-tribune.htm

LVT is unfalsifiable, his Dialectical Materialism is a contradiction in terms, and his predictions were vague and wrong. Many of his critiques of classical capitalism were devastating, especially the instability of capitalism. Capitalism is prone to crisis because capitalism grows though crises. Marx understood that the weak and inefficient companies die off in a recession and so there is a successive increase in efficiency over time of the entire system. The incorrect prediction he made was that these cyclical booms and bust would get larger and more frequent eventually producing a crash so devastating that the bourgeoisie join up with the workers and seize the means of production in industrial countries (and this could never succeed in 3rd world nations, hence the failure of agrarian-nationalists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc). But then lots of an-caps say that 1929 lead to 50 years of Socialism, and they think we live in a global socialist-Keynesian conspiracy (they think neoclassicals are socialists lol), so the ancap view of the 20th century seems to vindicate Marx...

I know, but the mongs criticise Marx without knowing anything about his life and without once reading his major works... And they seem to think everything he ever wrote was useless..

>Karl Marx Was A Racist

youtube.com/watch?v=7XLlG1SfKj8

wtf, I love Marx now!

All right. Yeah too many people on both fronts are memeing about Marx. I enjoyed personally most of the stuff I read but I would never got out and base my agende on him. He is a good starting point for a numbers of fields though.

But saying he was lazy is factually wrong as someone ITT already pointed out. Dude was obsessed with reading and excerpting stuff which is very well documented (since we have the excerpts and his footnoes). The sheer amound of reading is even more stunning if you check the variety of stuff he read (history, economics, theology, philology, archeology, biology, law).
For this and for his writing style, which today triggers people, he will remain a strong inspiration for my own academic life.

My original post was ironic, I was mocking ancaps, m'lad/

>"Marxism has no flaws!"
>*Marxism is attempted and thousands to millions are killed by the Marxist state in an extremely short amount of time*
>"It wasn't perfect therefore it wasn't Marxism!"

>19th century white materialist scientist believes that biology partly determines peoples behavior
Stop the fucking presses right there!
Yeah, I got that too late.

>it's Marxism if the people doing it call themselves Marxists
What do you thinkg about the transgender movement bud?

Ironically, this was primarily how Stalin justified the mass murdering and enslavement of his own population

> mr stalin sir, we're having big problems over here sir

> nonsense comrade. communism as we know is a perfect system. therefore any problems are caused by criminals and conspirators. arrest those responsible

>... but sir

> 20 years. Gulag

>The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
>North Korea is a democracy
>North Korea is a republic

Try coming up with an actual argument bud

Yes, Marx was a notorious anti-semite.

>implying the exact same fucking thing couldn't have happened under a fascist, nationalist or csarist regime
Not saying the Leninism didn't make things worse but there is an inherent humanist quality to Marxism that early 20th century Russia lacked.

Also it's doubtful Stalin ever read Marx so the only Marxism he knew was Marxism-Leninism which is different from what Marx created in the 19th cenutry and which he despised. In his criticism of paradogmatic bigotry he even stated he himself wouldn'd call himself "Marxist". Again I am not ideolozing the guy but putting Stalin in a context of history that is a little more complex than the cartoonish version of the past you get from /pol/-macros.

Well he was more like Anti-judaic since his opinion wasn't based on biologism but religion.

Marx: Based on the teleology of history, industrial nations will eventually become socialist. Parts of the bourgeoisie will join the industrial proletariat in order to seize the means of production. Then some stuff happens, no more class conflict because no more class dialectic?
Hegel's ghost: no mang, I was talking about geist, the dialectic is a dialectic of the spirit and the synthesis of dialectic is quasi-spiritual. You can't have dialectical materialism, it doesn't make sense.

later...

Lenin: Marx is right, it's time for the workers to rise up (takes G*rman money)
Plekhanov: Russia isn't an industrialised society, Marx's own theory predicts your failure. Don't do it. Russia is now in a democracy, it needs liberalism to produce the bourgeoisie and so then the industrial proletariat first, any revolution would lead to a 3rd world despotic governm-
Lenin: SUCC
Plekhanov: The Bolshevik Revolution is a gateway revolution of the worst kind. It's a bad revolution, a clusterfuck of story and characterization that isn't very well done by any aspect, but which attempts to compensate for its weaknesses by adding in excessive shipping faggotry and DARKNESS. The normal user can see this as the shit it is, and may enjoy it, hate it or be indifferent to it, but all the while recognizing that the revolution itself, regardless of their opinion, is plain bad.

later...

Molymeme: 3rd world communism in China, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. all failed. This means Marxism was wrong, even though they failed for reasons Marxism explains.

>invent infallible perpetual motion machine ideology
>people attempt and fail catastrophically at implementing said political perpetual motion machine
>"well clearly it was their faults and not the infallible perpetual motion machine ideology"

>a political ideology so good that it can only be implemented in a hypothetical dystopian future based on industrializing 1800's capitalism

wow marx was right about everything!

>>invent infallible perpetual motion machine ideology
This is exactly what he didn't do and didn't want to do. He can be the origin of Marxism without being his creator. People other than him (Engels, Bebel, Lenin) did extend very small part of his works to an ideology while ignoring giant contracdicting parts, they fucking streamlined it.
Also if you had read Marx you would see that the vast majoriy of his work is the criticism of bourgois ideology. Only a tiny fraction is devoted to revolutionary praxis and the communist future.
I would go into detail and even partly agree with you if you would stop greentexting and memeing but without you reading stuff like Anti-Dühring or some introduction on Marxism at least there simply is not point.

>hypothetical dystopian future based on industrializing 1800's capitalism
Confirmed for not having read Marx.

Marxists tried to get around the question: "why didn't England and other industrial nations have a workers' revolution" with the theory of Imperialism which was demonstrably false, and simply an attempt to rationalize the failure of Marx's predictions. The point I am making is that Marx's theory is wrong based on his teleological assumption, and the actual communist revolutions of history were not fulfillments of Marx's teleological history which is wrong anyway.

Unlike all those economists who worked a blue-collar job and aren't just paid to write propaganda for "free-market" think-tanks I presume

>Marxists tried to get around the question: "why didn't England and other industrial nations have a workers' revolution

No, they don't. There are elaborate firmly Marxist explanations for that from weird people like Bernstein (some Marxist idea theorems about capitalism is wrong, the working class is getting relatively wealthy) and Gramsci ("capitalism captured the state of mind of the working class, false class consciousness). Not that I agree with any of them tho...
Those debates are 100 years old. You not knowing about them, and the fact that you wrote about "18th century capitalism" in Marx' works when he was clearly impressed by Manchester capitalism of the 19th century, makes me think you simply don't know what you are talking about.
>the actual communist revolutions of history were not fulfillments of Marx's teleological
If you look carefully and the actualy revolutions very few of them were started and carried by Marxists.
>Marx's teleological history which is wrong anyway.
I agree but that doesn't make him useless. Mommsen and the Prussian historians all shared the teleological nothing of history. I also don't think a dude sitting in his office in Manchester is to blame for mass murder 70 years later commited by an Georgian dude that never read his stuff.

This. Just compare his life that that of Ayn Rand and Milton Freeman.

did Marx write one book of Marxism and one hundred books of Marxist apologetics?

>Friedman was initially unable to find academic employment, so in 1935 he followed his friend W. Allen Wallis to Washington, where Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was "a lifesaver" for many young economists.[30] At this stage, Friedman said that he and his wife "regarded the job-creation programs such as the WPA, CCC, and PWA appropriate responses to the critical situation,"
>During 1940, Friedman was appointed an assistant professor teaching Economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but encountered antisemitism in the Economics department and decided to return to government service.
Embarrassing.

>>Marxists tried to get around the question: "why didn't England and other industrial nations have a workers' revolution
>No, they don't.
They DID. Both Luxemburg and Lenin wrote about Imperialism. Yes I'm aware of the arguments you're raising. These thinkers had/have to rationalise why Marx's prediction was wrong because they can't accept that his Dialectal Materialism was a nonsense. The real insight of Marx is his critique of classical economy, his ideas on the inherent instability of the market and the necessity of this instability for capitalism to function (markets as dynamic, complex systems).

I replied to that other user's post, but I was not the user HE was replying to. When will Veeky Forums become an ID board?

>>the actual communist revolutions of history were not fulfillments of Marx's teleological
>If you look carefully and the actualy revolutions very few of them were started and carried by Marxists.
>>Marx's teleological history which is wrong anyway.
>I agree but that doesn't make him useless.
we agree here. You're confusing me with another user.

>communists dindu nuffin

Great posts

So literally most jobs these days are not work?

Ninja'ed.

Also, being a journalist for the New York Tribune 200% isn't a job so sirey.

>saying he was lazy is factually wrong
Kek. His wife used to beg him to go get a job

Marx's grandfather was a rabbi.

NAZBOL REPORTING IN

Poor, beleaguered factory workers don't have time to write things. They don't have the means to express their pain, so Marx took it upon himself to do it for them.

>sitting on your ass writing bullshit while being given handouts by your friends is working

Nothing in the second post refutes the first genius.

according to the edgy liberal version of the labor theory of value maybe.

marx never said only labour mattered. to the contrary.