Yet I have. Marx shitty writings aren’t some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise don’t waste my time.
Okay then tell me, what have you actually read by the guy? Everything you’ve said just tells that at best you skimmed the Communist Manifesto without the patience or curiosity to understand why Marx wrote it and the context under which it was written. You seem so ready and willing to casually dismiss him even though his work is foundational to much of modern sociology right alongside Max Weber.
This person is so confidently wrong it’s actually gotten under my skin. I wouldn’t call myself a Marxist, anyway his ideas have been built on and corrected in places in the ~180 years since he wrote them down, but his work is massively influential and it has been represented so badly here.
It’s baffling to lie about a theory because it’s not written by someone “on your team” or something. Like a fuckload of his work is dry as shit historical analysis and economic theory which still shapes thought today and the poster is acting like all Marxism entails is a few pamphlets about taking power.
It’s as weird to me as someone being like “Adam Smith loved violence and poverty” because the wealth of nations talks about thr impotance of military control and some of the causes of poverty.
It really shouldn’t but it’s gotten under my bloody skin with how irrational and fervent they are being.
I’ve studied the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital in college, which is pretty standard. I’ve also read a few of his shorter works like the Critique of the Gotha Programme and On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I’ve ever read despite him having Jewish heritage). I also read a few newspapers that featured him during his time, but I don’t really count those.
There’s no denying that his work is influential. This is evidenced by the fact that we’re talking about it right now. But just because it’s influential that doesn’t mean it’s right, or even good. His analysis was flawed and criticized quite a bit, even during his time. But today? A lot of analysis is just irrelevant because it’s a product of a bygone era. You could make an argument that his analysis led to some objectively good things, and that would be true to an extent, however, this is overshadowed by all the disasters that his views led to. What he envisioned for communism and how to get there was a failure in both theory and practice, and this evidenced by the fact that every implementation of his ideas has resulted in catastrophes.
The fact that it’s a utopia? What kind of question is that? A utopia by definition is an imaginary place where everything is perfect. It will never exist because the world is imperfect. You can’t run societies on fantasies, especially through violence and tyranny. The ends don’t justify the means, especially when the ends are impossible to achieve.
I’m just trying to figure out what your perspective is. So you think Marx basically touted how great such a utopia could be and spent a lot of time describing it in great detail without actually considering how or if it would be possible to implement?
My perspective isn’t really that complicated, I think Marxism is pretty flawed and this is evidenced by the logical gaps in the theories and the constant failure in practice. You’re talking as if Marxism is the truth and it is beyond criticism. Marxists treat Marxism, for all intents and purposes, like a religion. Marx is treated like a prophet, his theories are treated like holy scriptures, the communist utopia is like the promised afterlife, critics are attacked and dismissed, and so on. Obviously, I’m not saying Marxism is a religion, but you’re acting no differently than a muslim or a Christian whenever somebody criticizes their religion. Why is hard to accept that Marx was a imperfect person from a bygone era with theories that have many flaws? He and his work are not above criticism. Marx dedicated his whole life to his ideology, of course he thought about it as much as he could, but what I am saying is that despite that the end result is still not that great. Communism remains a utopia in the mainstream sense that won’t ever be achieved.
You’re clearly lying about having read Marx. If you knew anything about the subject you would understood exactly why your responses to my questions betray your complete and utter ignorance. To be clear there are well informed critiques of Marx out there. However, you’re incapable of making those arguments because you have no idea what the man actually said. You should really stop embarrassing yourself.
It’s painfully obvious you’ve never really engaged with Marx’s writings.
Yet I have. Marx shitty writings aren’t some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise don’t waste my time.
Okay then tell me, what have you actually read by the guy? Everything you’ve said just tells that at best you skimmed the Communist Manifesto without the patience or curiosity to understand why Marx wrote it and the context under which it was written. You seem so ready and willing to casually dismiss him even though his work is foundational to much of modern sociology right alongside Max Weber.
This person is so confidently wrong it’s actually gotten under my skin. I wouldn’t call myself a Marxist, anyway his ideas have been built on and corrected in places in the ~180 years since he wrote them down, but his work is massively influential and it has been represented so badly here.
It’s baffling to lie about a theory because it’s not written by someone “on your team” or something. Like a fuckload of his work is dry as shit historical analysis and economic theory which still shapes thought today and the poster is acting like all Marxism entails is a few pamphlets about taking power.
It’s as weird to me as someone being like “Adam Smith loved violence and poverty” because the wealth of nations talks about thr impotance of military control and some of the causes of poverty.
It really shouldn’t but it’s gotten under my bloody skin with how irrational and fervent they are being.
I’ve studied the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital in college, which is pretty standard. I’ve also read a few of his shorter works like the Critique of the Gotha Programme and On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I’ve ever read despite him having Jewish heritage). I also read a few newspapers that featured him during his time, but I don’t really count those.
There’s no denying that his work is influential. This is evidenced by the fact that we’re talking about it right now. But just because it’s influential that doesn’t mean it’s right, or even good. His analysis was flawed and criticized quite a bit, even during his time. But today? A lot of analysis is just irrelevant because it’s a product of a bygone era. You could make an argument that his analysis led to some objectively good things, and that would be true to an extent, however, this is overshadowed by all the disasters that his views led to. What he envisioned for communism and how to get there was a failure in both theory and practice, and this evidenced by the fact that every implementation of his ideas has resulted in catastrophes.
Okay then Marx expert, let’s get into the weeds here. What exactly do you think is wrong with utopian socialism?
The fact that it’s a utopia? What kind of question is that? A utopia by definition is an imaginary place where everything is perfect. It will never exist because the world is imperfect. You can’t run societies on fantasies, especially through violence and tyranny. The ends don’t justify the means, especially when the ends are impossible to achieve.
I’m just trying to figure out what your perspective is. So you think Marx basically touted how great such a utopia could be and spent a lot of time describing it in great detail without actually considering how or if it would be possible to implement?
My perspective isn’t really that complicated, I think Marxism is pretty flawed and this is evidenced by the logical gaps in the theories and the constant failure in practice. You’re talking as if Marxism is the truth and it is beyond criticism. Marxists treat Marxism, for all intents and purposes, like a religion. Marx is treated like a prophet, his theories are treated like holy scriptures, the communist utopia is like the promised afterlife, critics are attacked and dismissed, and so on. Obviously, I’m not saying Marxism is a religion, but you’re acting no differently than a muslim or a Christian whenever somebody criticizes their religion. Why is hard to accept that Marx was a imperfect person from a bygone era with theories that have many flaws? He and his work are not above criticism. Marx dedicated his whole life to his ideology, of course he thought about it as much as he could, but what I am saying is that despite that the end result is still not that great. Communism remains a utopia in the mainstream sense that won’t ever be achieved.
You’re clearly lying about having read Marx. If you knew anything about the subject you would understood exactly why your responses to my questions betray your complete and utter ignorance. To be clear there are well informed critiques of Marx out there. However, you’re incapable of making those arguments because you have no idea what the man actually said. You should really stop embarrassing yourself.