The UK is Fucked

>when a brainlet doesn't know they are a brainlet

But there were legitimately plenty of communist societies that weren't like that
I'm not even a commie, I'm against it but you just make our side look like idiots

He had a doctorade degree in philosophy. He wrote on Epicurus. He didn't become interested in the economy until later, and even then he was a political economist much like Adam Smith and JS Mills, and not an economist in the modern sense, and thus continuted to be a philsopher.

Indeed that's what happened, but what they practiced was Marxist-Leninist ideology, which is distinct from 'marxist economics' which is just Marx's theories on how CAPITALISM works. He never wrote much at all about how socialism ought to be like, actually; those who followed him did that and I dare say they did a piss poor job.

Lots of people miss the disctinction between the ideological and theoritical part, but think of it like neoliberalism and neoclassical economy. Neoliberalism certainly makes use of neoclassical economic theory, but a certain interpretation of it that not all scholars would agree on. And anyhow the goal of neoclassical theory is just to explain HOW the economy works, and the theory itself can neither be blamed or praised for any ideology it inspires.

Nah mate. Liverpool are going to destroy Roma today.

Well, and Hitler didn't mention Auschwitz in Mein Kampf, so obviously we should caaaaarefully separate the "theory" and the result. Maybe it's time for another try of National Socialism then? This time it will be nice, I swear.

He was kind of right about how society was but Marx Weber was more spot on about there being more classes and how status, power, wealth and other shit gave you a position in society the only problem with Marx was he put in a dream economic system which would require leaders to be honest and good people and it also required everyone wanted to be the best at what they do even when they're getting paid the same, really Marx was an idiot for believing humans are good hard-working creatures

>decades
come on now

You guys are like normies with your political knowledge. It's fucking hilarious.

This is gonna sound like I'm a brainlet and I fully accept that. but I really don't care about the small details. All I know are the results and examples; USSR, China, Cambodia etc etc. I've read enough literature about the atrocities that occurred there and I've come away with at the very least this conclusion: Western society isn't shit enough to want to risk it for some silly notion of utopia.

Mein Kampf was a political book that dealt with both belief and pratice - BELIEF, not scientific theory, by the way. It was not an acedemic book which aimed to explain specific phenomena in a narrow field, but polemic written to incite people to action. Furthermore, the man who wrote it was personally behind the death camps.

Das Capital was, on the other hand, completely an academic excercise, and the man who wrote it tended to support democracy and argue in favour of it and had no hand in what was to come.

It is an unfair comparison. Now if you'd made that same comparison but about the writings of Mao, Stalin and (to a degree) Lenin, I'd actually be inclined to agree - there we have polemic books on belief practice, meant to incite rebellion, and written by men who would go on to commit mass murder.

>BELIEF, not scientific theory
You mean just like Marxism? Read Popper for example

>the man who wrote it tended to support democracy
no he did not

>why the fuck shit cost money
>fuk rich people

all you need to know about marxism

Weber was more nuanced, but class to him was superficial: income and status. For Marx it was deeper, relational. One can use Weber to add more nuance to Marx, but the latter's true contribution was to think of relations to the means of production as defining of class.

And where did he invent this economic system? The only thing he wrote about socialist society was a few paragraphs here and there, most prominently in the Critique of the Gotha Program, where he just told a bunch of people what socialism should NOT be.

Not saying "it will work THIS time!". That would be retarded... I'm saying it's worth reading Marx to understand capitalism. Now he certainly had his views on what should be done about capitalism and what kind of society we should have instead, but you don't have to share them. It's perfectly possible to read Marx to understand capitalism and then disagree with him about his ideas on what we should do instead. In fact lots of academics share that view, I most certainly do.

>the mot influential philosopher in modern history

TOP KEK

His influence put at least 100 million people in the ground. That's a pretty impressive legacy.

Marxist-Leninism is indeed a belief system and one I dislike very much. Marxist Political Economy is a social scientific school of thought. The distinction is difficult; Lenin made it so on purpose to make his beliefs seem more scientific and respectable.

Marx wrote extensively on democracy, and the few times he wrote about a future socialist society he made it clear it was to be democratic and engage the whole population in decision-making.

In fact his rival, the anarchist Bakunin, once asked him about this: "there are about forty million Germans. Are all forty million going to be members of the government?" . Marx responded: "Certainly, because the thing starts with the self government of the commune."

You can acknowledge someone as influential and not like him. I don't like Hitler. He's certainly one of the most influentian politicans of the past few centuries!

>Marxist-Leninism is indeed a belief system and one I dislike very much
found the left com cuck

Youve not ready any of marxs stuff have you?

I'd really love to hear about those.
t.guy who lives in an ex commie block countrie

Without Marx there would be no Keynes, no Friedman, Hayek, Minsky or Picketty. Regardless of whether you agreed with his analysis of Capitalism, it was revolutionary within the economics and politics of both the left and the right.

Nope. I read Marx to understand more. I read Hayek too. And Weber. And Friedman. I have a master's degree in political economy, and I'm working on my PhD right now - reading this stuff is my job.

Or Schumpeter or Sraffa. Why do people forget those two?

which university you at lad

Was at Manchester for MA, Lancaster now.

Karl Marx was unironically a NEET
Imagine if your shitposts are considered political gospel 200 years from now

im at UCL doing eastern european history msc.

Attached: 1525010236118.jpg (479x640, 51K)

fuck.
why UK, why do you constantly have to fuck up so that people post shit like this on Jow Forums

Please show me an example of Marx being right about anything or his theories being used to create a prosperous nation

>labor theory of value
>Stalin era USSR
that was easy

What are your thoughts on Capital?

>Please show me an example of Marx being right about anything
Unemployment benefiting the wealthy because they can pressure workers with threats of it; globalization; increased financialization; offshoring; increased environmental destruction; commercialization of society and social relations, etc. etc. etc.

>his theories being used to create a prosperous nation
Kind of like asking for examples of 'prosperous nations' created based on the works of Nietzsche; it wasn't the point. As has been pointed out, Marx was primarily a theoretic of CAPITALISM. He explained how CAPITALISM worked. He didn't bother "writing receipts for the cook-shops of the future" as he put it, and wrote almost nothing about how to actually run a country or economic system.

A great but unfinished project, good for ideas and inspiration, but can't be used for more than a basic understanding on it's own. Has to be developed. Marx knew this, which is why he planned like 6 or even 9 volumes. He wrote 1, Engels edited 2 more from his notes.

bait?

dude we can't even buy a fucking energy drink without having to show ID

Im moving as fast as possible

>most influential philosopher of modern history
Ya, no. Good try though, retard.

>When a brainlet is too much of a brainlet to know that the other guy isn't the brainlet and he is because tv said so.

Who is then user?

Kill all filthy commies

Attached: 1471214633907.jpg (800x450, 47K)

Me and Karl Marx have the same birthday

Daily reminder that Joseph McCarthy was a fucking hero, he was 100% correct and we should all be singing his praises daily.

Anything you recommend to read before Capital/any good companions to go with it

I'm afraid diving right in is the best way of doing it. David Harvey has a series of youtube-vids/lectures where he goes over it chapter by chapter, a really good study guide.

What I'd recommend is having a good understanding of the context, i.e. classical political economy: smith, Ricardo, Mills, etc. I once had a respectable professor inform he that he thought "Marx argued poorly for the labour theory of value in the first chapter of Capital" - well, that's because he DIDN'T argue, it was well accepted at the time, he wouldn't have any reason to write to convince anyone, just to recap. That and other things is something you'll only understan with a basic understanding of the times. You don't have to read all of "Wealth of Nations", just pick any basic/intro book on all the classics or even read the wiki pages.

Also:
Michael Heinrich - And Introduction to the Three Volumes of Capital
Ben Fine and Alfredo Saad-Filho - Guide to Marx's Capital.

But any "guide" is going to be THAT particular author's interpretation.

Whomever that user likes? Because he can't undestand the difference between "influential" and "correct" or "good".

Seeing as his philosophy was one of the major forces that drove the world into WW2, and still has direct effect on contemporary society, yes. He's easily one of the most, if not the single most influential philosopher.

Define philosophy.

Hey, at least you got to keep your foreskin. I'm stuck with my mutilated jewdick.

Thanks user. Would you recommend reading Hegel beforehand, but that's its own daunting prospect.

Attached: 220px-Bruno_Bauer.jpg (220x295, 14K)

No that's more advanced, he writes in a way that's difficult to comprehend. Read Valences of the Dialectic for a history that includes Hegel, but that's very advanced reading.