Opinion of Karl Marx?

[TheReckoning]

?

[Benjamin Frank]

A shameless self promoter with some poorly reasoned ideas.  His critique of capitalism as described in Das Kapital was mostly fine but scarcely original, even for the time, and his argument for the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism as well as his description of communism are so vague that to even call them 'ideas' is to give them credit they don't deserve.  

In the Communist Manifesto anyway (which, to be sure, is mostly written by Engels) the transition to a communist society and the description of this 'final stage' of communism merit all of one paragraph. The rest of the Manifesto defines 'communism' by what it isn't, but it is marred by juvenile insults: anybody who doesn't support Marxist Communism is a bourgeoisie.

When I read it, it reminded me of the stupid book 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy' where anybody who doesn't agree with the authors' loony conspiracy theories is either a socialist or a communist.

In this regard, Marx is no different than many of the 'progressives' of today: they can easily criticize capitalism (and there is a lot to criticize) but ask them for practical alternatives and they either come up with nonsense (like communism) or crickets.

[buritobr]

FF, of course.

His critique of capitalism is still valid today. It is unfair to say that his work is valid only for the british capitalism of the 19th century. His work is universal.

Many great economists of the 20th century were influenced by Marx: Keynes, Kalecki, Schumpeter. Although Keynes doesn't admit. He seldom quoted Marx.

[S019]

Massive HP

[Dr. MB]

Massive HP

How could you slander the founder of the Democratic Party like that?

[S019]

Massive HP

How could you slander the founder of the Democratic Party like that?

What?

[Ancestral Republican]

Who makes a dumb thread like this? Anyway, Massive FF.

[Ferguson97]

HP

[If my soul was made of stone]

Even if you're entirely opposed to his theories, his massive influence on almost all subsequent work in the social sciences, whether informed by him or designed specifically in opposition to his work, is enough to warrant respect from those who are genuinely invested in any of those fields. People who consider him an HP without qualification either deny this or unjustly blame him for the blood spilled in (corruptions of) his name long after the fact.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Is he related to Groucho Marx? You know, the guy who created Marxism?

[Benjamin Frank]

Even if you're entirely opposed to his theories, his massive influence on almost all subsequent work in the social sciences, whether informed by him or designed specifically in opposition to his work, is enough to warrant respect from those who are genuinely invested in any of those fields. People who consider him an HP without qualification either deny this or unjustly blame him for the blood spilled in (corruptions of) his name long after the fact.

Marx himself wrote in Das Kapital and Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto that bringing about socialism/communism might take violent revolution. So, to claim he had nothing to do with the blood spilled in his name is a denial of Marx's own beliefs.

[Ancestral Republican]

Is he related to Groucho Marx? You know, the guy who created Marxism?

Wasn't he the guy who's already been responsible for 10 billion deaths worldwide?

[TDAS04]

Have to vote HP.

[PSOL]

Even if you're entirely opposed to his theories, his massive influence on almost all subsequent work in the social sciences, whether informed by him or designed specifically in opposition to his work, is enough to warrant respect from those who are genuinely invested in any of those fields. People who consider him an HP without qualification either deny this or unjustly blame him for the blood spilled in (corruptions of) his name long after the fact.

Marx himself wrote in Das Kapital and Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto that bringing about socialism/communism might take violent revolution. So, to claim he had nothing to do with the blood spilled in his name is a denial of Marx's own beliefs.

Given the fact that he was writing under living in an undemocratic, harsh regime where Liberal Democracy wasn’t yet fully formed in Europe, some could say there just wasn’t the ability to conduct activism and promote change using legal channels.

[Ferguson97]

Even if you're entirely opposed to his theories, his massive influence on almost all subsequent work in the social sciences, whether informed by him or designed specifically in opposition to his work, is enough to warrant respect from those who are genuinely invested in any of those fields. People who consider him an HP without qualification either deny this or unjustly blame him for the blood spilled in (corruptions of) his name long after the fact.

No one can deny Marx's influence, but being an influential person does not make you a good person.

[PSOL]

Anyway, I often talk a lot about his ideas, but not much about his political involvement and personal life.

I mean it’s undeniable that Karl Marx was irritated about a lot of things and that shows in his pessimism and needing to dull down with his alcoholism, but he was a sincere and loving family man nonetheless. His bromance with Engels is one of the most iconic in history.

Politically, he was ahead of his time in being in the forefront against racism and discrimination anywhere and everywhere; racism, classism, sexism. He risked exile several times for his beliefs, yet still went on. He also successfully kicked out the idiotic Proudhonians and commune idealists from the International Workingmen’s Alliance. Obviously he was not as socially progressive as current political activists are, he was slightly homophobic and wasn’t receptive on intersectionality as he thought it didn’t need much solving besides installing a worker’s government, but still leaps beyond his time.

As long as unjust hierarchy universal in a capitalist system continues to be, he will forever be relevant and 95% right in the end.

[President Johnson]

Overall HP, a missguided self-promoter, although his core intentions weren't that bad. Unfortunately, his name was abused in the 20th century to justify the oppression and murder of political opponents and state sponsored terrorsism (see Stalin, Mao, etc.) as well as de facto enslavement of whole countries who had to live under brutal communist rule.

[HisGrace]

His actual writing is pseudo-intellectual noodling, no wonder modern academics like it so much. The specific predictions he made have turned out to almost across the board be completely wrong despite bougie anarchists continuing to treat his progression of history crap like their personal horoscope.

Acting like all the violence committed in the name of communism is a bug rather than a characteristic is missing the point. I submit there's no way to actually put his ideas on a mass scale (beyond small communes) without a brutal authoritarian state. No one can really refute that considering his ideas have only ever been applied that way and he never provided an alternative since his writing on practical matters was always so vague. As another person said "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "full communism" can't really be called "ideas" with how poorly defined they are.

As I alluded to above, there's a reason edgelord college freshman love Marx and then usually grow out of him.

[Benjamin Frank]

Overall HP, a missguided self-promoter, although his core intentions weren't that bad. Unfortunately, his name was abused in the 20th century to justify the oppression and murder of political opponents and state sponsored terrorsism (see Stalin, Mao, etc.) as well as de facto enslavement of whole countries who had to live under brutal communist rule.

Again, Marx/Engels never really provided any practical description of socialism, communism or the transition from 'bourgeois' capitalism to socialism to communism but I do think the idea of socialism/communism (and Marx/Engels obviously weren't the only ones with communist notions) was understandable enough - a system in which the economy would be controlled by a government through the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

Maybe it's hindsight thinking on my part, but I have to think that Marx/Engels must have been incredibly naive to not realize how power hungry people like Lenin and Stalin, would realize how such a system would be ideal for would be totalitarians.  How could they have ever believed that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would allow their state to simply 'wither away'?

I have never bought into this stuff of 'Lenin good/Stalin bad'/Stalin hijacked communism: the brutal suppression by Lenin and Trotsky of the Kronstadt Uprising should be enough to convince anybody that Lenin was as power hungry and cynical as Stalin, even if not as brutal (or the violent suppression of the Constituent Assembly before that) but, for those who do want to argue otherwise, Stalin's success in taking power shows how that definition of communism, in which all other potential nodes of power are subsumed to the state, easily lends itself to being betrayed by vicious totalitarians.

So, maybe I'm guilty of hindsight thinking, but I don't believe that Marx/Engels can be completely separated from what was done in their name.

[Benjamin Frank]

His actual writing is pseudo-intellectual noodling, no wonder modern academics like it so much. The specific predictions he made have turned out to almost across the board be completely wrong despite bougie anarchists continuing to treat his progression of history crap like their personal horoscope.

Acting like all the violence committed in the name of communism is a bug rather than a characteristic is missing the point. I submit there's no way to actually put his ideas on a mass scale (beyond small communes) without a brutal authoritarian state. No one can really refute that considering his ideas have only ever been applied that way and he never provided an alternative since his writing on practical matters was always so vague. As another person said "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "full communism" can't really be called "ideas" with how poorly defined they are.

As I alluded to above, there's a reason edgelord college freshman love Marx and then usually grow out of him.

In terms of specific predictions/analysis of capitalism, I disagree that their predictions were almost completely wrong.  Since I agree with Say's Law, I obviously disagree with Marx on the concept of over-production, but the notion that private corporations would see their profits on products decline over time due to competition and new products was obviously correct (this likely influenced Schumpeter's idea of 'creative destruction.) 

And, while Marx obviously under appreciated the significance of economic growth to create a middle class, he was clearly largely correct, especially in the United States with its more 'laissez faire' and brutal capitalism, of the notion of the class struggle - that the genuine wealthy elites would seek to keep as much of the profits for themselves, and that many of these genuine wealthy elites would also want a permanent underclass as both a pool of easily exploited labor and to keep the wage demands of the middle class down.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Anyway, I often talk a lot about his ideas, but not much about his political involvement and personal life.

I mean it’s undeniable that Karl Marx was irritated about a lot of things and that shows in his pessimism and needing to dull down with his alcoholism, but he was a sincere and loving family man nonetheless. His bromance with Engels is one of the most iconic in history.

Politically, he was ahead of his time in being in the forefront against racism and discrimination anywhere and everywhere; racism, classism, sexism. He risked exile several times for his beliefs, yet still went on. He also successfully kicked out the idiotic Proudhonians and commune idealists from the International Workingmen’s Alliance. Obviously he was not as socially progressive as current political activists are, he was slightly homophobic and wasn’t receptive on intersectionality as he thought it didn’t need much solving besides installing a worker’s government, but still leaps beyond his time.

As long as unjust hierarchy universal in a capitalist system continues to be, he will forever be relevant and 95% right in the end.

I find it ironic that Marx & Engels derided the socialism of communalists as "utopian" and called their own socialism "scientific."  It's more realistic & scientific to imagine that an iterative process of experiments in cooperatives and mutualist communities could develop into something worthwhile than putting blind trust in wide-scale revolution.

[PSOL]

Anyway, I often talk a lot about his ideas, but not much about his political involvement and personal life.

I mean it’s undeniable that Karl Marx was irritated about a lot of things and that shows in his pessimism and needing to dull down with his alcoholism, but he was a sincere and loving family man nonetheless. His bromance with Engels is one of the most iconic in history.

Politically, he was ahead of his time in being in the forefront against racism and discrimination anywhere and everywhere; racism, classism, sexism. He risked exile several times for his beliefs, yet still went on. He also successfully kicked out the idiotic Proudhonians and commune idealists from the International Workingmen’s Alliance. Obviously he was not as socially progressive as current political activists are, he was slightly homophobic and wasn’t receptive on intersectionality as he thought it didn’t need much solving besides installing a worker’s government, but still leaps beyond his time.

As long as unjust hierarchy universal in a capitalist system continues to be, he will forever be relevant and 95% right in the end.

I find it ironic that Marx & Engels derided the socialism of communalists as "utopian" and called their own socialism "scientific."  It's more realistic & scientific to imagine that an iterative process of experiments in cooperatives and mutualist communities could develop into something worthwhile than putting blind trust in wide-scale revolution.

Most idealists Karl Marx described thought that the ruling class would join en masse to the movement if they created an ideal society. The commune model also separated activists and those wanting to create a new society from anyone else. In most cases, they failed at lasting for long and their ideas were disproven and ultimately unaccepted by the working class, who either joined parties fighting for their rights, and even in the most oppressive and undemocratic independent societies and colonies, revolution. Such struggles founded the modern welfare state and rose living standards international no matter the state of society and where the movement went.

The commune model of Owens or the Oneida community failed to attract members, failed to achieve the same rise in living due to not struggling and organizing within society, and were mainly adopted by more wealthier members. They actually had more risk of power struggles and personality cults towards leaders than Marxist movements. It’s no wonder anti-communists like you or cult groups prefer them.

Now, one of the more controversial aspects of Marxism is the revolution, which through trial and error has reviewed the subject as being very much based on the location one is in. Through the synthesis of Lenin’s work and history of states on the path towards communism, while revolution may not be necessary activism and building dual power is. This was known to Marx, who later in life thought in some cases through peaceful struggle reform into socialism is possible, as Salvador Allende tried to do. Most successful Marxist groups have adopted a strategy then to be based on the locations and conditions, stressing the need for effective, “scientific” methods.

[VBM]

I don’t think it’s fair to judge Marx because of what some HP did in his name long after his death

[buritobr]

In 1860, Karl Marx had a preference for the Republicans. He exchanged letters with Abraham Lincoln.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As enormously influential as Marx was (one of the most influential individuals of any field in history), it's difficult not to conclude in retrospect that his project was an intellectual failure. Of the three components of Marxism - German (Hegelian) philosophy, English political economy and French utopian socialism - each of them today are either irrelevant and refuted schools or have been superseded and are only occasionally relevant to contemporary politics.

I think Marx was a perceptive and sometimes brilliant analyst of 19th century European history and politics, I still love the 18th of Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, for example, but the further he gets away from that in time, space and subject matter the less value I think his work contains. Marx still has one real insight (Edit: maybe a second related one - a politics of materialism was overrated by Marx but is probably underrated today) that we would be better off for taking more seriously: the absolute central importance of class power and politics in society, even if it's obvious now that it is not the be-all-and-end-all as he and his followers believed. In other respects (especially on the extremes of politics) the slavish devotion by many to his 19th century philosophy is an anchor around the necks of the left.

And I say this as a former Marxist myself, and about someone who I have read probably more than any other political thinker and who has deeply influenced my politics both directly and indirectly, for what it's worth.