Genius. Hero. Forward thinker. What's your opinion on Karl Marx?

I have major disagreements and problems with contemporary marxian economics and marxist historiography, as well as with major tenets of classical marxist philosophy. But just because I believe Marx is generally incorrect doesn't mean he's stupid, or foolish.

I think generally Marx's rigor and character as a thinker should be held in high regard.

If your job is a "thinker" and yet most of your thoughts are wrong, then why should anyone respect you?

It's extremely reductionist.

He fell for the Hegelian dialectics meme.

Because we stand on the shoulders of giants, user.
Most of Aristotelian philosophy, or Leibniz's metaphysics is basically wrong. But given the intellectual environment they functioned in, we shouldn't hold that against them personally.

You're a big scholar.

This.

Care to list those disagreements?

Not as reductionist as nearly every other model of history. It's honestly probably the least reductionist because the duality it reduces history to isn't strictly materialistic or idealistic. It's a hell of a lot more useful than the "muh great men" model.

Stupid NEET brainlet.

well it'll depend on what specific branch of marxism we're talking about, because structuralists, analytics, and post-marxists are all different. But generally, Marxist historian tend to be Class fundamentalists and view the machinations of history with Class as it's fundamental component, but I think class is one of many interacting institutions that comprise historical scenarios. For example, the historian Rodney Hilton writes about the religious dissident movement the Bogomils as a predominantly class-based movement, ignoring the ethnic tensions between the bulgars and Byzantines that other authors have convincingly argued as much more important.

This kind of class-centric historiography is typical of Marxist historians. Additionally, the biggest problems with Marxian economists are their attatchment to the LTV, and their insistence that overdeterminism is ontologically real

Not him but if I can add something, this all from the first book of Das Kapital (the only one I've read desu):
a) His theory of value is completely and irredemably false, and history has proven that many times. He defended that the value of goods comes from the median time of work needed to produce them, but that fails to explain (for instance) why are works of art valued so highly (and no, commodity fetishization is not an explanation). Supply and demand is a far more accurate theory, the marxist theory of value is basically wishful thinking.

b) The origination of the initial capital is hilariously simplified when he talks about the capitalism systems outside Britain. He analizes where the capitalists got the fortune that allowed them to get the means of production over the proletariat and the analysis is deep and pretty sensible when it comes to Britain (it goes well over the history and evolution of laws and monarchs for several centuries), but for the entirety of the rest of Europe he basically reduces it to "dude colonialism lmao". The capitalist were aristocrats that got their dosh from brutalizing poorer countries and robbing them of their riches. He doesn't comment on how, with that being the case, did the Spanish Empire get blown the fuck out despite having the biggest gold/silver reserves in the world at one point, probably because he wouldn't be able to explain it, since it was plain inflation.

For all that's worth, he was very witty and suave when denouncing the blatant injustices the fat cats of Britain (the whole book focuses entirely on Britain, I guess because it's the craddle of the Industrial Revolution) exercised over the population, and in many cases it's literally impossible to disagree with it. But his analysis is very focused in the specific socioeconomic situation of the working class of that particular century, and it's just not applicable to today's working class, at least not in the first world.

Neat. Dirt bag. Man whos ideas killed millions.

Should add on that last pharagraph that he's not to blame for that. I was thinking more of modern marxists.

much like Christ
who here /saintmarx/?

>He was good at diagnosing problems
>Not going to call him a brainlet because his reasoning and analysis fits well for a 19th century thinker,
>But just because I believe Marx is generally incorrect doesn't mean he's stupid, or foolish.
>I think generally Marx's rigor and character as a thinker should be held in high regard
...none of you fuckers read Marx,did you??

Moomoo?

I didn't read everything he ever wrote. I read his Grundisse, Thesis of Feurbach, and Capital

He self contradicts every chapter at least once,in capital multiple times. I'm not sure he's had a coherent thought.

This. Marx was a very intelligent man and skilled writer but Marxism has broadly been shown to be incorrect and/or outdated.

18th Brumaire is still excellent and I'd recommend it to anyone into political theory.

Historical models as a whole are a completely obsolete thing and there's a reason why nobody other than autists adheres to this shit nowadays. The last major attempt was Fukuyama's rebranding of standard whig history and it got absolutely shredded by reality much like Marx's model.

well, admittedly, I read the Oxford abridged version of Capital, so maybe they cut all that shit out, But I don't remember any glaring contradictions

what?

One of the most brilliant social thinkers of all time. His work completely transformed mankind's understanding of society and economic relations.

Marx didn't propose communism as a solution to the faults of capitalism, but instead the inevitable resolution of capitalistic contradictions.

Name them, faggot

...

>Marx didn't propose communism as a solution to the faults of capitalism, but instead the inevitable resolution of capitalistic contradictions.
Be that as it may, he knew that people would act based on what he said. If he had been more grounded and realistic in his thinking, then a lot of pain could have been avoided.

A disgusting human being with interesting but shit ideas that have held humanity back.

>tfw I actually see somebody posting intelligently on Veeky Forums, and about historiography no less
Wow, somebody who actually knows what they're talking about and isn't shitposting.
I'm glad my undergrad degree covered historical research methods and historiography before I dropped out. It allows me to look like a graduate student even though I'm an ignorant retard.

> he was good at diagnosing the problems
> but bad at prescribing solutions
> communism is great in theory
> it just doesn't work in practice
Are the people still spitting these brainlet phrases children that don't know any better or just slobs devoid of thought and too lazy to actually find anything out for themselves, so choose to parrot what they heard once to participate?

I'm sorry for being mean, I just don't get it.

He killed billions.

the genius of marxism is it gives modern sophists an intellectual toolkit to debate and argue their way into control of assets they do not own. like all critical theories, it works brilliantly to attack pre-existing institutions and customs. its rhetoric is always effective, especially when aimed at an altruistic audience.

but words are words. yeltsin cried when bush took him to an average supermarket. and i know the harsh realities of living under a marxist regime. rhetoric cannot create toilet paper.

An absolute piece of shit Jew.

i really can't hate a man for just writing a book

>> he was good at diagnosing the problems
>> but bad at prescribing solutions
This is literally 100% true though. And his 'diagnosis' is already irrelevant considering how much labour conditions have improved in the 100 something years since he started bitching about them.

I don't know anything about Marx and his ideas but I pretend that I do when arguing with stormfags just to piss them off
so yeah I like him

Why a piece of shit?

Genius, perfect human being, inventor of perfect political ideology.
>Jew
back to
you go, stormfaggie.

> perfect human being,
Go ahead and try to justify his actions towards his family, main and lifestyle.

Sorry but I won't bother to argue with racist antisemite.

Well I'm not the same user so now you have to cunt.

Karl Marx, one way or the other, is the most influential philosopher of all time. Personally I support his theories. Most people who historically claimed to follow his theories such as Mao and Pol Pot never actually read his work. Stalin had to purge everybody who was actually familiar with real Marxism to do what he did.

Dumbass who could write well enough to convince even bigger dumbasses to spread his bullshit

Now a footnote in history

>Most people who historically claimed to follow his theories such as Mao and Pol Pot never actually read his work.
Pol Pot studied Marx in France. Also Pol Pot's Cambodia was actually existing primitivisim which is good you fucking leftoid

desu I only ever read his manuscript on estranged labour and I thought it was pretty cool

This. Marxist rhetoric is good for moving wealth, but in societies that are inundated with it, rhetoric becomes more selected for than productivity, and all your bananas and toilet paper suddenly disappear

t. all modern communists

Unfortunately one of the most influential political theorists/analysts of the 19th century. The ideas he helped to developed grew into systems of government that ultimately destroyed Russia, and will eventually destroy China.

His idea of communism as the ultimate result of capitalist contradictions or whatever will never actually play out in a industrialized nation state with a vaguely responsible government, btw. Bismark bought off the socialists in Germany with pension programs and FDR in the US did similar things with the various New Deal programs.

but Im not a communist

>Bismark bought off the socialists in Germany with pension programs and FDR in the US did similar things with the various New Deal programs.
And since those things dont exist now in neoliberal globalism there will be more socialists, and classical liberals will get ideologically destroyed by Keynesians.

Brainless faggot.

I'm saying that modern communists have only read his manuscript on estranged labor, and took that all the way to waving a flag at a cop and getting a che guevara t-shirt to make dad mad

Any other person ideas would have led to such suffering; We would have considered them as a monster. The Soviet Union followed his basic ideas. Nobody can argue that the nationalization of the farms were not Marxist, but that move caused Holodomor. Yet, some people call him a genius. None of his beliefs even are compatible with human nature. He ignored ancient ideas like power corrupts, and that humans are driven by greed. This blind spot is what makes this man reckless and stupid in my mind.

Amusingly enough, China's "socialism" is a purer form of capitalism than in any other country. The divide between economic power and political power there is smaller than any other country in the world.

>Social programs did not explode in reach for the western world

Yeah well a capitalist economy with various forms of handouts to the poor is still ultimately a capitalist economy at the end of the day.

he didnt even know how to use a computer
this is a serious criticism

>attributing theoretical errors of Lenin to Marx
Understandable, but still tiresome. Democratic Centralism is the reason the USSR and all other 20th century communist states degenerated into dictatorship. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote, “Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of “justice” but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when “freedom” becomes a special privilege....The tacit assumption underlying the Lenin-Trotsky theory of dictatorship is this: that the socialist transformation is something for which a ready-made formula lies completed in the pocket of the revolutionary party, which needs only to be carried out energetically in practice. This is, unfortunately – or perhaps fortunately – not the case. Far from being a sum of ready-made prescriptions which have only to be applied, the practical realization of socialism as an economic, social and juridical system is something which lies completely hidden in the mists of the future. What we possess in our program is nothing but a few main signposts which indicate the general direction in which to look for the necessary measures, and the indications are mainly negative in character at that. Thus we know more or less what we must eliminate at the outset in order to free the road for a socialist economy. But when it comes to the nature of the thousand concrete, practical measures, large and small, necessary to introduce socialist principles into economy, law and all social relationships, there is no key in any socialist party program or textbook. That is not a shortcoming but rather the very thing that makes scientific socialism superior to the utopian varieties.”

A great sociologist

Everytime someone posts walls of text about "theory" like this I smile and think about Rosa and Karl getting what was coming for them

Yes but it will continue to trigger neoliberals and anarchocapitalists.

I wasnt aware of that. I thought those guys mostly read that one book.

Good reason why philosophers should be stoned to death.

> there is no key in any socialist party program or textbook.

What the fuck does that even mean? If socialism does not have any key ideas, then what the fuck is it? It's an ideology. Like Islam. An ex Iranian Marxist said that " I went from quoting Mohammad all day to quoting Marx". As an ex Muslim myself it freaks me out how much, like Muslims quote Mohammad, Marxists quote marx. That closes your mind. Most Marxist i have met only read Marxists political works. To unchain the proletariat; they chained their mind. And to say the Marxism, an ideology, has no key ideas is outright delusional.

[helicopter sounds intensify]

> What's your opinion on Karl Marx?

Wordy.

Severely autistic

For you!

It's idiotic though. Marx went out of his way to criticize utopian socialists because he knew their plans were impossible. It's not that he was bad at prescribing solutions, because he prescribed no long term solutions other than the unity of the working class. Prescribing political or economic solutions apart from this are not what Marx was in the business of doing, because all that it is is fantasizing about what happens after the capitalism overthrows itself, which is worth nothing more than looking into a crystal ball and pretending to have visions. That's why socialists are politically flexible. They're not doing what Marx told them to do. Marx didn't give them any directions.

> A delusional old man calls out even more delusional people.

Wow so impressive.

he was right

It will also trigger actual socialists/communists. The welfare state, for all it's pitfalls real or imagined is the death of the proletarian's desire for revolution.

And the reply chain you are attached already pointed out, the welfare state is already dying as we speak making the desire come back

She meant flexibility in the political sphere, not ideological. Even the context in what she talking about is her fellow leftist's political policies

So, none Marxists have no place in the political process. Wow so much more tolerant. It's not like that would mean the majority of the population have to suppress their none Marxist political views. Are you literally this autistic that you don't see the problem with what she said. Jesus Christ. Why don't you own your authoritarian views instead of making mental gymnastics?

>So, none Marxists have no place in the political process.
She didn't argued for that in the quoted text. If anything she is saying the complete opposite

Did she believe in a Marxist government or not? Did she believe that other parties would participate with different ideologies? If that is true then she is not a Marxist. Marxism is clear on being against election term limits. Other than a term based multiple party democracy what you are saying is impossible.

Maybe read her speeches and writings to learn about her.

>If that is true then she is not a Marxist.
Are you ... trying to No True Scotsman Rosa?

>Marxism is clear on being against election term limits.
Where did anyone say that?

Cunt trying to legitimize theft.

>lol communism is about taking from others amirite thats why its bad haha
maybe you actually had to go to college?