4 ms·

> Because Marxist idea are bad. That communism and all ways to get their lead to mass slaughter SHOULD taint his ideas. I think the issue with Marx is he was a

• panick21_ 2y ago
  > I think the issue with Marx is he was an excellent analyst of the status quo. He really isn't. His analysis of Capitalism was terrible. Pretty much all empirical prediction were either provably wrong or are so nebulous and uncertain that they can never be proven or unproven. While initially economists were very interested in his writing and read it with great detail, after his complete inalienably to follow up the first Capital, and tons of people point out issues, all issues that he had no credible answer for, only then did economist stop listening. And he was from then on almost exclusively used to inspire social theories. His best friend had to organize contest with prices in order to crowd source ideas about his ideas could be fixed, and that didn't work. Even many Marxist inspired economist do not use most of he frameworks, or have modified them so much that they can barley be called the same. His success was far more that people felt like he said something that was right, because that's what people wanted to hear. His function was that of a public intellectual that gave voice to a movement, that is valuable in his own right, but arguably he massively influenced that movement in the wrong direction massively hurting the actual goals of most people in the movement. His historical method is absolutely dreadful, its arguably even worse then pure great man theory. When he lived there were already many far better historians with better methods. His actual history, therefore was also completely nonsensical. Completely over focus on a narrow slice of western history only to then endlessly backpedal when literally everybody all over the world told him how wrong he was. But he never actually came up with a something better. > source? Its in his private letters to Engles, I don't remember witch one. These were not published initially for obvious reasons. But should be findable. > I'm afraid it does. Or maybe at least the execution, if not the idea: There is currently no democracy on earth that is not at least a little bit socialist. And the same is true for nationalism. No it doesn't, all the ideas for democracy, and modern social democracy can and were arrived at independent of marxist communism. Nothing that you call 'a little bit socialist' is actually socialist. State intervention in the economy is something every empire had done threw its whole history. The same to a lesser extent for social program. Of course these ideas were influenced by the history of socialism as well. But so is everything by everything else. If you actually look at the world that most socialist thinkers before and including Marx, its not that much like Denmark.
  • tpm 2y ago
    > No it doesn't, all the ideas for democracy, and modern social democracy can and were arrived at independent of marxist communism. That's incorrect. Marx was an inspiration to many later politicians and philosophers and his ideas are found in many socialist policies. Not all of them great, of course. > State intervention in the economy is something every empire had done threw its whole history. Yes, and that doesn't tell us anything. But for example the state directly and wholly owning and operating transit systems used by the public is very much a socialist policy.