His theories may be even right, but he remains a fat fanatic and an incredibly boring thinker

his theories may be even right, but he remains a fat fanatic and an incredibly boring thinker

>his theories may be even right
But they're not.

like if owned

His theories aren't wrong, just outdated.

True

>boring
try exhaustive or rigorous or exemplary even

I just can't get behind class being blamed for literally everything, It doesn't make sense outside of a middle-class suburb.

His theories are modeled on a book from 1500, his ideas of utopia and free healthcare were deluded, because the original author of Utopia was shaped by the times, and so was Marx.

A good idea shouldn't age.

Nothing in Marx's entire body of work is correct.

marx wouldn't have been tolerated in the USSR

that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Anybody wanna give me a rundown on what he got wrong and what he got right?

he misread the french revolution as the bourgeoisie overthrowing the aristocracy, when really it was the jews overthrowing catholicism

>wrong
his references
>right
his conclusions if his references were accurate.

He is your typical blue blood

>right
Nothing
>wrong
Labor theory of value, human nature as contingent upon economic conditions, the inevitability of Communism, among other things

I'm OP and by this thread I meant that his intuitions were fundamentally true (at his time), but what he did wrong was to elevate said intuitions to a key to interpretation for the Human nature and Life. As if Freud had built a whole philosophical system (touching macro-concepts like Man, History, Fate, etc.) on the basis of his discover of the Oedipal complex. Can you imagine? It would have been ridiculous

I think that he is an exciting thinker whose theories are wrong

>boring thinker

Nigga never read his polemics

>trips of truth
this nigga gets it

how many threads is this board gonna get before someone actually reads capital

Oh yeah capitalism is not contradictory at all

and?

Oh yeah bc capitalism and communism are the only economical systems

...

a purely philosophical idea, yes. but an economical one?

>human nature as dependent upon economic conditions
Fundamentally this

as far as i could get into capital before having to return it to the library, it seems that he got the critique of capitalism quite right. I don't know what he thought should be done later, but he started off with some very logical observations about labor and capital, I think that's why he's so appealing. So basically what Marx got right is what actually today's "marxists" can't get into their heads, that every class struggle is almost purely economical. You raise the standard, you raise the mentality.
His conclusions were then either wrong or right, I'm not an economist or a philosopher so I wont pretend I know too much.
I don't think he's that outdated, but I do think he's very much misinterpreted in the field of social studies and economy.
It was probably both, but yes, considering the common idea of the revolution, your post is appropriate.
>the inevitability of Communism
SIKE

Autistic Soullessness is what comes to my mind, especially communist manifesto

I don't know how people can read it, but there's a breed of people that enjoy analytic philosophy too

>muh human nature

Capitalism didn't even exist for the first 10,000 years of human civilisation. What bothers me about the liberal economists, who like the Kantian autists they are, try to 'logically' derive the axioms of human nature from their armchairs is their total lack of historical understanding. Basically they just project the same naive game theory model into the past and claim it was always that way

Capitalism is economy itself. "Capitalism" and "communism" don't belong to the same category.