posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:37 PM
a reply to: boymonkey74
You can argue with his ideas and philosophies but I would not argue his intellect.
I have actually read Karl Marx. His writing is insightful, but his arguments are weak. His economic theory is based on an obvious fallacy; that the
value of a good is the value of the labour that went into producing it. His Communist Utopia is a state where this theory is recognized and realized;
which is precisely why Communist Utopias always fail.
Marx proposed a 'scientific' method for arriving at political and historical truths. He called it
. It is based on a false understanding of evolution (social
'evolution' is seen as progressive and teleological) and in his writing he usually begins his dialectical process from false premises (such as the
labour theory of value mentioned above).
Marx was a dazzling and assertive writer, a master of the striking aphorism that seems truthful and profound on a first encounter — and indeed, his
sayings usually contain a core of truth. Marxists, of course, regard them as Gospel. Even non-Marxists are familiar with many of them: 'property is
theft', 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs', 'religion is the opium of the people'. This facility for the telling
phrase, coupled with the timing of his appearance (just as revolution was breaking out all over Europe) and the high-sounding incomprehensibility of
his arguments, gave him his reputation for genius. It is, in my view, thoroughly undeserved.
His influence on writers particularly irks me. It's not so great in the English-speaking world, but the French caught a really bad dose; in his way,
Marx is to blame for the horrors of intellectual Modernism and, worse still, Postmodernism.
There's no end to the damage this man has done — starting with letting his infant daughter die of neglect because he hated capitalism so much he
wouldn't get a job.
edit on 29/9/15 by Astyanax because: of high-sounding incomprehensibility.