Is Karl Marx the greatest mind of all time

in sheer intellect?

i mean do most philosophers consider themselves Marxist

no

was he wrong?

no

then why did you say no?

because there is no greatest mind of all time. it's a completely pointless question.

You know how I know you're wrong? Because you are an idiot.

No, OP I doubt there can be any "greatest mind," but a great mind? Yes. Marx, Freud, whoever the fuck else you want to fill in, all of these people are impressive thinkers. That's why we talk about them. But I'm pretty sure this is bait and inb8 "Lol Marx and Freud suck lol I'm smarter than them because I post on an image board instead of writing complex books lol greentext."

He's pretty good. Right about a lot, but

Stirner
Bakunin
Luxemburg
etc.

Ask russia

>be 19th century
>pretty much make the whole 20th century

he was pretty fucking great but
he is responsible for mass millions of deaths

They were self-hating Jews. Does the self hatred of ones own Judaism complex create the greatest philosophies man has ever known?

I'm at the bar right now and I'm pretty sure I'm going to pull pussy tonight. She's mesmerized by my dissertation of Marx/Lenin/Engels

no

You (Kant)

I'm sure Russian peasants would have to disagree

>Edison is responsible for snuff films.jpg

And their disagreement is foretold in the German Ideology.

delete yr thread op

Despite the Bolsheviks not actually being socialists (they were populists who liked the color red) its impossible to deny that living standards for the average Russian went up under Soviet rule.

>Despite the Bolsheviks not actually being socialists (they were populists who liked the color red
awful

Yes, actually. That's literally like half of the Western cultural canon.

1) Yes. 2) No, but everyone post-Marx has to wrestle with him.

Most of them didn't. The fact that they stopped being peasants helps.

>Never held a job
>Never ran a company
> Never oversaw any financial accounts
>Supported by someone else his whole life

apparently a sheer intellect?
More like a lazy cunt who's applications of his theory have not worked.

Marx, Hegel, and Kant are pretty much the only thinkers one needs to study to understand the fundamental problematic of the capitalist social formation.

I love Luxemburg but what Marx achieved is mind boggling really. Capital is the determinate shape Hegel's philosophy takes as articulated from within the field of political economy (which in the last analysis, reveals itself to be the Concept inhering within contemporary life).

>impossible to deny
Their lives where shit under tsarist rule but at least they never had to endure war communism

>you will never be a 19th century Communist revolutionary academic

>you will never be a capitalistic exploiter of working people

>living standards for the average Russian went up

Not necessarily wrong, but this argument can be used to rationalize lots of oppressive systems like colonization, etc.

What matters is how much the living standards of other nations with otherwise comparative conditions (except their political condition) fared.

The western countries were doing so well that Stalin (or was it Lenin) had to outright come out and pose arguments as to why the standard of living for a working man could rise to (by Russian standards and perhaps even Western standards for many) petite bourgeois levels.

His answer was of course colonial exploitation and surplus value from overseas (or something along those lines) but my point is that the Western populus fared better than the Soviet populus by leaps and bounds.

Also, citation fucking needed on the average quality of life improving under Soviet rule.

The greatest mind of all time will never be a fucking philosopher. Philosophy is important but by the sheer nature of philosophy you don't need to be a fucking genius to grasp, or create philosophical concepts.

Try looking at Newton's, Tesla's or Einstein's achievements before you start waving words around for your favorite bullshitter.

Veeky Forums is seriously so pretentious and doesn't know their place sometimes.

Come to India if you have the balls, or any other country where real revolutionary movements are present.

Pardon my insults if you were aiming more for the role of a sympathizer or revolutionary academic that is not really going underground.

It does rile me when people wear the communist tag for fashion, sure I find most Marxian Economics (in so far is it is considered in an orthodox fashion) absolute bullsh*t but people have bled for it, not just for fame and glory but out of genuine empathy.

The essence of Marxism is humanity, the fact that you want to be a 19th century Communist revolutionary academic more than a communist revolutionary academic today (which by the way, there are a good number of today, even from overseas you'll find these sympathisers extending support for domestic strife) hints at a lack thereof.

>living standards went up

Yeah, IF you lived

russia is too shitty a nation to know

yikes

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all
criticism. The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [ Unmensch ] , where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion , religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-
consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world , because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur , its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against
religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

You're joking right?

epic

i guess christ is too responsible for millions of deaths then right?

>was he wrong?
well none of his laws of capitalist motion have come true, so yea he was wrong on that. also considering communism is dying out in favor of capitalism and once communist nations are converted to capitalism his "historical forward motion towards communism" theory is wrong. his philosophy being founded on the labor theory of value and rejecting diminishing returns is wrong.

he was one of the most influential economists of history, if he was anything. but he was wrong.

>you will never have a friend who shares and develops your views
>you will never write books together and exchange letters

This fucking guy again.

You still haven't given any justification for the Labour Theory of Value Mr. Look How Broken the Spin of my Capital V. III. is.

He was pretty good, but he wasn't exactly supernatural.

Obviously the best "economist", but the fact he deals with such earthly matters devalues him.

delete this

I wouldn't say he is responsible for 'millions of deaths', but I do like your idea about how he pretty much made the 20th century through his (retarded) ideas.

I think that's gotta count for something.

You're welcome to try marxism yourself m8.

1/3. Good try.

Correction: Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzche.

>calling out a frogposter on a kampuchean AvPD asylum for lacking in humanity
how insightful

you really think that the standard of living for a soviet citizen in 1960s was worse than under the tsar?

>any philosopher is the greatest anything.

>in sheer intellect?
No. His ideas are a lot easier to understand than thinkers like Godel, Einstein, Dirac, etc.

Some people literally think that.

No need to even go that far into the future. In the first two decades, literacy like tripled and a lot of health-related things got better.

These communist regimes might often be pretty terrible but most did improve living standards in their (relative) first years or decades, sometimes even longer than that. Of course, it'd take quite some effort to halt all progress (from technology, medicine, etc), so you can't give them all the credit; just that they weren't run solely for the reason of murdering innocents (why would they?)

(Also: revolutions tend to happen when the people aren't doing that fucking well, so the start point isn't really ever great - maybe a communist revolution in I don't know, Sweden would indeed have worsened living standards)

>took away power from the Soviets and crushed any genuine workers movements in order to establish authoritarian social democracy
>not populist behavior

Clearly not, you don't need to read further than Chapter 1 Volume 1 Das Kapital to figure that out.

Not many people seem to be interested in finding out the answer to your question as asking it on a Chilean sex forum and getting a quick answer though.

...

...

Communism comfirmed for effay.

>personal attacks disprove ideology.

try again when you finish highschool.

You mean: Plato, Plotinus, Laozi

Are you people all just posting your favorite philosophers?
If there ever was a "greatest mind" in "sheer intellect" it wouldn't be a philosopher (besides maybe Plato or Leibniz or Kant). They would be an artist like Mozart or Da Vinci

>Da Vinci

He's such a fucking meme

>Kant
>Da Vinci

Not next to Plato and Liebniz

dfw>mozart>davinci

A lot of artists are quite stupid.

Any number of scientists, artists, and engineers are superior.

He is top tier in philosophy even though I loath the concepts he introduced.

>fasicm
>good

lol

I didn't need to feel this

>you will never have a close friend you can have a real bond with

Absolutely. I'm a liberal and don't agree with him, but he is an intellectual hero of mine. He has an insane knowledge of history, economics, law, and philosophy which he distills into an extremely dramatic, almost literary depiction of the world. He was a visionary, and I think his influence far exceeds that of any thinker. Granted, he had the advantage of not having any bills to pay or any real job.

>he had the advantage of not having any bills to pay
you better want to check his biography again. engels had to save his broke ass a thousand times, he money problems all the time.

Thats what I mean lol. Engels paid his bills for years so that he could research Das Kapital.

read their letters. engels tried to help as much as he could, but marx was still broke as hell and had quarrels with his wife the whole time. if anything, he couldn't work as much as he wanted because he worried about money all the time. never bothered to get a real job though, as you said.

Interesting i never read their letters lol, are they compiled in a book?

i have 5 books of their letters at home but they're in german. not sure if the letters were ever translated, would be a shame if not. those two were 19th century /pol/ and hated on everybody: jews blacks, french, russians, women, social democrats, workers, whatever you want.

>le neet meme

Karl was a journalist and worked as such throughout his life, including in England where he lived in poverty.

Stalinism =/= whatever Marx had to say

who the fuck actually gets enjoyment from reading all of this?

Yes, yes he is.

>enjoyment

Holy shit, son

I like Marx, and he was obviously one of the most important thinkers of the past two centuries, but "le smartest man ever" was probably someone like von Neumann.

karl marx was an incredibly important thinker, but in terms of greatest mind i'd have to say John Von Neumann and James Joyce are the two who come to mind.

Von Neumann, and for some reason this is a recurring thing in physics, was an aspie that didn't have a single worthwhile opinion outside of his one area of expertise.

Einstein and Oppenheimer are great minds and better choices.

umm, He made major contributions to a number of fields, including mathematics (foundations of mathematics, functional analysis, ergodic theory, geometry, topology, and numerical analysis), physics (quantum mechanics, hydrodynamics and quantum statistical mechanics), economics (game theory), computing (Von Neumann architecture, linear programming, self-replicating machines, stochastic computing), and statistics.

People who work in the academic field.

Yes, Marx specifically wrote that Ukraine needed to be systematically starved.

authoritarian socialism is the only system suitable to the russian spirit, look how much of a shithole it turned into after the soviet union collapsed.

...

Russia under socialism was the best it's ever been.

Was the USSR a shithole? Absolutely. But it was even worse before and after.

That is simply not true. You guys are a bunch of fucking idiots. I'm so fed up with Veeky Forums because of this kind of bullshit.

Hegel. Kierkegaard.

Not Marx. Marx was smart but he had his fair share of dun goofs.

"The Jewish nigger Lassalle, who fortunately leaves at the end of this week, has happily again lost 5,000 Thaler in a fraudulent speculation. The fellow would rather throw money in the dirt than make a loan to a 'friend' even if interest and capital are guaranteed. He acts on the view that he must live like a Jewish baron or baronised (probably via the Countess) Jew." (Letter dated July 30, 1862; Vol. 3, Marx-Engels Correspondence, German edition, page 82.)
In a July 1862 letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor, Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote, “… it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”

"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary war-storm. ... [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."
- Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849.

Engels shared much of Marx’s racial philosophy. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Paul had “one-eighth or one-twelfth nigger blood.” In an April 1887 letter to Paul’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

"The Urning you sent me is a very curious thing. These are extremely unnatural revelations. The paederasts [homosexual paedophiles] are beginning to count themselves, and discover that they are a power in the state. Only organisation was lacking, but according to this source it apparently already exists in secret. And since they have such important men in all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rosing to Schweitzer, they cannot fail to triumph. Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de-cul will now be the slogan. It is a bit of luck that we, personally, are too old to have to fear that, when this party wins, we shall have to pay physical tribute to the victors. But the younger generation! Incidentally it is only in Germany that a fellow like this can possibly come forward, convert this smut into a theory, and offer the invitation: introite [enter], etc. Unfortunately, he has not yet got up the courage to acknowledge publicly that he is ‘that way’, and must still operate coram publico‘ from the front’, if not ‘going in from the front’ as he once said by mistake. But just wait until the new North German Penal Code recognises the droits du cul [rights of the arse-hole] then he will operate quite differently. Then things will go badly enough for poor frontside people like us, with our childish penchant for females. If Schweitzer could be made useful for anything, it would be to wheedle out of this peculiar honourable gentleman the particulars of the paederasts in high and top places, which would certainly not be difficult for him as a brother in spirit." (Letter from Engels to Marx, June 22, 1869;

>Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de-cul
Peace to the asses, war on the cunts

instead of shitposting on anime boards, they shitpost on books

tsarism apparently worked fine, too if you ask russians today (yeah i know, not all of them believe that but suprisingly many).

you're so fucked, right in the brain

>Freud

Right up there with Kanye

>Great Man theory

Go back to /pol/ you reactionary cuck, don't let me see you drinking Putin's jizz here again

Bump