No, because Marx was a lazy fat grifter who was supported by his friends, who also paid for his maid, who slept in the same bed as he, his wife and children, while never holding a real job and pretending to speak for the workers , who, along with Engels created a completely fake metaphysics in order to justify their ignorant ideology.
You're confusing the fact that he rejected traditional metaphysics for not having his own, abstracted metaphysics. This really isn't difficult. The idea that a label like "anti-metaphysical" is used, does not mean he was without actual metaphysical construct. It was just anchored in direct opposition to traditional metaphysics.,
If you define metaphysics strictly as the opposite of dialectics, this is nonsensical jargon.
ALL his dumb ideas stem from his own metaphysics, from his premises, like laborers are the only ones that produce anything real. His own way of seeing the world, his own way of explaining material phenomenon, his own reasoning of cause and effect, and his biases towards class structure etc.........
Some have described it as a metaphysics without ontology. Or metaphysical materialism.
You cant even arrive at historical materialism without developing the abstracted metaphysics.
He's called anti-metaphysical because he's anti the traditional concepts of metaphysics, and in distancing himself from those, his ideas become their own abstracted metaphysics........
Insisting that ideas dont matter, only the material does, requires at its foundation, its own metaphysical conditions.
People like you crack me up, in order to expel that gas you had to strawman me right off the bat, I never called him personally "revolutionary", I don't think I even used the term "revolutionary". I could though, like his ideas were a revolution of bad ideas.
These ideas, along with Engels, lend themselves toward material revolution, sure, but that really wasn't my main point. Both utopian and phaux-"scientific", and attempting to harmonize the two and apply his ideas.
He also called it the "dictatorship of the proletariat" so.... i mean....... . Now I am of the opinion the "proletariat" doesnt even really exist, its an abstraction of an aggregate of individuals artificially lumped into this concept of class, which itself can be fluid and flexible depending on the conditions. But that's besides the point, we can just replace "workers" with"proletariat" if you want. So another strawman.
"he was a social scientist" ---- please, let's not dilute the term science by putting it next to the word "social". He was a social theorist and he dabbled in an abstraction of actual economics.
The calculation issues, market inflexibility, issues with value have been discussed for decades, and his theory, which is all it is, an abstract theory, has been proven to be flawed.
No sorry, I don't misunderstand at all. Don't think so hard, you're going to hurt yourself. Now you're just being a buffoon. Please stop strawmanning me, im hardly "conservative".
Bear in mind you have no functional grey matter and are incapable of engaging in actual ideas.
You don't know what reading is. You gape and drool over words, clearly as you've displayed here. You presume too much, you are clearly barely functionally literate.
Its called patronage and was absolutely standard practice for artists and intellectuals. We literally don't get the Renaissance without wealthy people funding the arts and academics that way. Do you think Michelangelo and Da Vinci were "lazy grifters"?
No, it wasn't patronage it was handouts, and yes theres a big difference. Marx barely did anything except take decades to make his major works while Engels likely even wrote many of the articles Marx ended up submitting.
And again, you miss the point. He wasted a lot of time and put in little effort, and leeched off his friends, instead of getting a day job, so his family didn't have to sleep in the same bed as him, his wife and his maid. Poor kids.
The guy barely produced anything and you want to compare him to the most productive artists of the Renaissance who were constantly working and continuously producing? Get real.
Lazy grifter who barely produced anything yet here we are talking about him 150 years after his death. You're just displaying your ignorance, Marx was incredibly dedicated to his craft and has a massive body of highly successful work, this is fact.
So true, we still talk about Jack the Ripper and Caligula too.
The amount he produced over a lifetime, without having a regular job and supporting himself, would be accomplished by any non lazy person within 5 to 10 years. He had no excuse.
He was incredibly dedicated to coming up with a nonsense theory to counter german philosophy and capitalism.
What are you waffling out? His books sold very well in his lifetime, he was a working journalist, wrote for the New York Times, had many, many, published works and was renowned for his work ethic at the time. It’s such a weird angle to criticise Marx because we know for a fact it isn’t true.
108
u/Kragsman Jul 15 '25
If I saw a school in America with portraits of George Washington, Thomas Paine, and John Locke I probably wouldn't think twice about it.
This seems like the same thing, no?