That REALLY should be fixed, as it stands the avererage layman is going to be thinking all the poor traits you ascribe ruesseu were axtually voltaire's vid's already out of course so its to late to fix but all the better that there be enough talk of it for less people to go misinformed.
hi neoliberal. Go right to the ad hominem since you don't even know what communism is. Lot of projection with the losers comment. Regardless of Marx personal failings, his understanding of class struggle, putting all the pieces together with proletariat vs bourgeois, capital vs labor was revolutionary at the time and contains lessons modern people need to learn to throw off the yoke of oppression and exploitation the oligarchy foists upon us.
What motivated Marx to create and follow this philosophy? Did Marx practice/embrace his own communist philosophy? If so, what fruits did it hear in his lifestyle? If not, then what did he *really* believe, why did he follow that rather than communism, and why shouldn’t contextualize Marx’s ideas with the lifestyle he really lived?
As the Bible says, “Physician, heal thyself!” There is nothing new under the sun. If someone is saying they have the keys to your freedom, but they themselves are still locked up in their sin, do not listen to them.
@poopy pants naa because the church is still in sin and they reconginise that, that's literally what the christianity is about and the church tells u the way is to follow jesus because he is the one without sin, the church is one who follows the ome without sin...jesus. sooo ya, the church is supposed to be the body of Christ, ofc u can have ppl care about more about sectsand their way of thinking then jesus so if there that
Birds of a feather flock together. Losers embrace loser philosophies. Prehaps Churchill put it best; "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
@@falloodaboy Not possible as many features contain their own drawbacks (i.e. double edged swords). Your hand is a powerful tool, but allows others to use tools against you. However, never would a sane man give up his hands and call it virtuous.
@@falloodaboybalance is good but it can only be taken so far. At the end of the day the reality of life is that you're going to have to choose something and sacrifice what else you could have done.
@@biggibbs4678 You're not wrong, but it's better to approach economic philosophies/models as tools for specific jobs rather than basing an identity around it like communists and libertarians tend to do (just look at this comment section). Almost every developed economy has elements from multiple economic theories, and it creates the best results (best as we can get anyway).
Read the letters Marx's dad sent him. They sound like a modern parent telling their kid to stop wasting their life with hippie friends and get a job with that college degree that daddy paid for. And Marx's responses are so friggin entitled, its no wonder he's the poster boy of rich, entitled, adult-aged-children across the west.
@@theonesithtorulethemall they all do, it means strengthening the government authority, all communist/socialist imagine themselves at the top of the party heirarchy and not as one of the peasants in the field or factory laboring away
Interesting thought, but playing the devils advocate, someone can be a terrible person be still be a great athlete, great scientist, great businessman, great military leader, doesn’t it go to show that a terrible person can be a great philosopher?
The four professions you mentioned have little to do with personality. You wouldnt take sports advice from a guy cut from his high school team. Nor a broke businessman. The other two are no different. Gotta practice what you preach with the philosophy stuff, thats the first step in proving it works. Cant live a crap life of your own making and tell others how to live their life. You wouldnt listen to marx on how to run your life either, because hes 0/4 on running peoples lives. Michael Jordan is a Pos in real life, but id for sure take basket ball lessons from him. Steve jobs was a jerk, but if he told me how to get rich id hang onto every word. This is the difference. Also if youve ever had bad co workers think about splitting your pay with them, like two of you have to dig three holes, then you do 2.5, then you both get $50. Gotta be the easiest economic idea to disprove ever.
@@chickenpuncher1674 To that I raise you the Catholic church and modern Televangelists. Both practice in many ways the absolute opposite of the philosophies they preach and yet have millions of followers.
One of his dautghers was married with a bl*ck man of cuban origins. Marx despised him and called "the little bl*ack jew". The sad part is that his son in law actually admired Marx and defended his work.
@costam In communist countries marx was illegal to read. It was also illegal to breathe or the checka would come and check your breathing amount of the day, and if you breate too much or not meet your breathing quote you die in both cases
You could say the same about a sociopath Just cause he practiced what he preached., does it mean we should design school curriculum around his ideas? Let's see how helpful that is for school children Can you philosophy students stop trying to be so edgy all the time and just think like an adult? What we do and what we say has consequences and repercussions.... It's on you to make the right choice for your life
@@hermeticchonk371 I grew up reading the "Lives of Saints". Man, these guys who lived in caves or on top of pillars were crazy. But than again, Anatolia circa 1010 was a crazy time.
@@anarchistonsunsetdrive7813creation? That weird way to say his idea on how society should be structured. And it's completely justified to judge a "philosopher" by their personal lives. Never trust a skinny chef.
@@mickeytwister4721 Nah, bollocks. A lot of factors can shape a personal life. What if the chef's skinny despite his job? Like he's in a bad place in his life and has lost his appetite, or is just preoccupied with his health, or whatever. Better not to simplify reality to this extent. (Saying in advance: Marx's philosophy is shit. But not because of his personality, or vice versa - simply, his arguments are shit.)
Whatifalthist isn't demanding the reshaping of mankind to his ideas. Marx was objectively a monster who created literally nothing of merit. Engles wasn't much better, since his spewing of Communist rhetoric was exclusively for the purpose of sleeping with poor women, who he'd rape and abandon. He was a bourgeois factory owner, but never once even attempted to actually apply the "philosophy" he helped create despite being literally able to give his workers the means of production if he had actually believed what he was saying.
@@death4metal201 think you've done something there huh? Marx is a dumb boomer with old ideas, at least Capitalism has mixed success compared to the hellish dictatorships that always follow "Utopia".
@@death4metal201 That's correct. We can observe this in the spread of industrial farming and supermarkets that have led to a surplus of food as-yet unobserved in the historical record. And before you come back with something stupid like colonialism, keep in mind that enslaving people runs pretty well counter to the idea of a free market.
I like how you don't even remotely know the importance Rousseau and Marx had in your life, if you don't work 14 hours a day thank the unions who fought for the workers. If you can vote and criticize the government, thank Rousseau who inspired the Revolution
@@MaxStirner123 You claim NOBODY ELSE would have gotten angry ang fight for their own rights, therefore the world needed envious parasites, who have never worked hard, as messiahs. I see you're a cultists.
@@MaxStirner123 What do unions have to do with Karl Marx? Progressivism, socialism and worker rights have existed long before Marx even existed. Marx took it too far and unfortunately many fell victim to his delusions.
@@MaxStirner123 what are you talking about? Civil existed long before russeau, in fact he laid the foundation for people who are not royals to act tyrannical. And marx didnt invent workers right, he wasnt the one who came up with unions.
Yes communism even in its perfect form is trash. Democracy even in its perfect form is trash. Captialism even in its perfect form is trash. The only 2 working ideologies are protectionism and monarchy/oligarchy.
@@michaelfoye1135 Greeeeat, I'm sure you're able to write me a 500-page essay on "Das Kapital" in which you're going to disassemble it, what a fucking genius I too would like to have an obesity rate of 25% in my country 😢
@@MaxStirner123 if something works on paper it works in real life or it's missing things. Other than a sports team's roster, I cant think of a single thing that would somehow work on paper, but not if put into practice. You dont even have to read anything, just explain this, then maybe we can get into the hard stuff. I too would like to starve something like 20 million ukranians. 😂😂😂
"I own the known world, but I'm going to spend my entire life living in a tent with my men and writing about how to be a good person because it's my duty." Now that's a man worth listening to.
@@Aldornas at the risk of sounding ignorant, who was this wise man? (thankyou in advance) I'd like to hear more. I won't pretend I'm a big reader but I'm thinking of getting Audible if they don't censor Thomas Sowell. I'd buy his books but I have ADHD, and I find his voice soothing - not trying to kiss ass, just explaining why hearing him orate his literature would help me retain the information.
@@alyssarichardson2544 Marcus Aurelius, the last of the 5 good emperors who ruled the Roman Empire at its absolute apex (Pax Romana) and a staunch stoic.
@@alyssarichardson2544 You would like Aurelius' book "Meditations", then. It's a compilation of his journal and diary writings, therefore good for short bursts of wisdom for the ADHD mind, but all together, makes for one of the most classic books written about general philosophy and wisdom gained through decades of experience. It's a Stoic's dream for an everyday carry.
Have you not the decency to correct the mistake of referring to Voltaire instead of Rousseau when you get this second chance to make your point, potentially to an even larger audience?
I'm as anti marxist as it gets and feel somewhat neutral towards Voltaire, but discrediting someone's argument based on their character is an ad hominem fallacy. Marxism or any other ideology must be critically analysed regardless of your opinion about their founders, and then you may decide what they got right and what they got wrong.
This is the only way someone as smart as AltHist can criticize Marx, actually confronting his critique of political economy is too intimidating for them
this isnt even ad homenim, if I read out Hitler to you as a person with documented facts, is that an ad homenim? or are you just observing how shit they are, and trying to protect him? ad homenim is when you bring up ones character to an argument of their thoughts. thats like me pointing out that a democrat cheated on his wife when we talk about the weather being too cold or not. its essentialy an insult to invalidate what they say and make people turn deaf to their words. he allready talked about his actual beliefs and words, now he ust talks who he was as a person, someone who starved his kids out, preached about success.. then starved out the population. Facts arent an ad homenim, its when you bring it up like a child as a last resort. he was proven to be a liar and not a man of his world, only a man having a wild imagination on things he was too lazy to change
@@CapitalAccumulator now I KNOW your making an emotional argument. There's no way you couldn't agree with at least one thing he said. I'm not gonna bother arguing as he said communism is like a religion, you can provide all the factual evidence and they'll still deny it.
@@mikebruno7123 why would not like communism make me a trumper? So liking to have food, own property, have a functioning society and be moderately wealthy is strictly what trump supports. Well I’ll be, everyone should vote for him this time around cause no one should want to starve to death.
I'm not a fan of Marx but even a blind squirrel can find it's nuts twice a day. Even if he wasn't a good person or successful doesn't mean some of his criticisms of capitalism aren't valid. I find the only place I usually disagree with Socialist is in their solutions, never their estimates of the problems present.
are you another one of those "capitalism is dying" and "we're third stage of capitalism now"? Socialist america today doesn't really apply to what he was living through you know?
So the theory of a socialist society sounds. Everyone works hard for the good of society. The problem is men are not good, we get lazy and slack. Who is suppose to pick up the slack? The old hard working lady? This is one reason you need a cruel dictator. To rid them of the lazy people. Now how do we change a society of capitalism into a socialist society. We will have to steel things away from them. Exactly what we accuse them of doing. We become just like them. Will socialism stop gangs ect. Those will be more problems and then you need that cruel dictator again and when he is in place it shows the failure of socialism. No I think the best is where each individual holds rights. The right to own property and produce goods on a free market. The ability to protect himself and his family. We are losing these things in the US and instead being forced into socialism.
You could say something similar about Socrates. Who lived off his fathers estate and spent his days wandering around Athens barefooted in dirty clothes, apparently unwilling to do anything productive with his life. Yet he is one of the most influential philosophers of all time and his ideas are still routinely invoked. Just because someone is a “loser” doesn’t mean their philosophy was a “loser”. This is nothing more than a lazy ad hominem attack.
Many geniuses are weirdos and on the spectrum. Now, Marx produced nothing useful. But Voltaire and rousseau produced many great works, and they wasn't telling you how to live your life. Just triggering your critical thinking
whats even lazier is when you blast priests for their predatory actions instead of their arguments, but boo fuckin hoo.. Karl is just a little boy who cant defend himself and needs to be an exception cause hes your daddy
I love the idea that Marx didn’t do anything, conservatives and liberals have been terrified of his works for over 170 years now but he was just a lazy bum that didn’t do anything. The doublethink is amazing.
Lol you would confuse Burnie Sander's political career for productive work. Compared to an electrician, a breadtuber's "work" has the same labor value man---- leftwing marx.
@@joejoe3696 Do the electrician and breadtuber both produce commodities? Or do you have a Smithian strawman of the LTV like all other uneducated critics
@@CapitalAccumulator it's up to a leftist to put produce and breadtuber in the same sentence. Thank you for jumping out to defend and to embody but I intended to be a caricature. That was both amusing and validating, thank you
@@joejoe3696 up to an althistoid to not understand how content engagement is a valuable resource in today's econony and how political entertainment "breadtubers" are no different from other entertainers
It is, but we're not discussing the substance of their intellectual work, theories, etc. Right now, We're assessing these intellectual figures as normal beings to understand these individuals better. It's like people assessing H1dler and St@lin as regular people isolated from their beliefs and what they've done, to understand how it might have influenced them as individuals.
Formally, an _ad hominem_ is a logical fallacy. In practice, however, you need to be careful about taking advice from people who have screwed up everything they've touched.
Assessing someone's ability to manage their own life is a good way to judge how well they'd run the world, given the chance. Since we're talking about people who proposed ways to reorder human civilization, their personal lives are a factor that should be considered.
@@TheGreenKnight500 and @Alan Light The issue is that communism doesn't have anything to do with Karl Marx. He could be the best person in the world but have a shitty idea, or he could be the worst person in the world and have a good idea. When tackling ideologies or ideas, you need to put them in a vacuum and focus on them entirely. It also makes your argument look weaker if you have to resort to talking about unrelated stuff as a justification. Also, Karl Max was long gone when communism got put into practice, so his personal stuff had no effect on communist countries. It's kind of concerning that a lot of people are quite literally justifying a logical fallacy just because it fits their narrative. I fucking hate communism too, but we shouldn't resort to using a logical fallacy to try to prove our point; it also gives the other side an opportunity to attack us, and rightfully so.
It's interesting how the arguments always revolve around attacking people and never attacking the actual arguments of marx in his work. It's almost like marx actually makes some good points regardless of everything else around it and that's okay to recognize. The world isnt black and white
Ad hominem" attacks are perfectly acceptable, if you are attacking a philosopher who tried to tell others how to live their lives, while making a mess of his own life.
So-called loosers tend to put the best of themselves into their work. They may have had appallingly bad private lives, but they created influential works.
It's not a disparagement against a figure in isolation or in bad faith, it's a dismembering of an flawed ideology/ world view wich reflects its author.
in this episode, we call it ad hom when hes literally just speaking about the person who made communism, a documented fact. Meanwhile lefties totally dont do ad homenims when a priest is predatory but preaches innocence of kids
in this episode we find out you didn't watch the episode because the other 47 minutes of the episode, go into great detail about the actual systems Marx's work brought to the world.
This is my new favourite take from this channel. With this context, it really is crazy that Communism blew up the way that it did. That so many people could have blind faith in the writing a man who had no business making the claims that he did is just crazy.
@@yomilala8929 No one trusts businessmen. That's the beauty of systems where consumers have choice, aka the free market. In stark contrast to the "businessmen" in the Politburo, who decided on every aspect of your life with unchecked power.
@@cek0792 Except that they have employees and usually they don't pay them enough. Also they take advantage of the laws to avoid many taxes. They steal resources from many countries. They overcharge the products And they might sell low quality products by hiding that information.
I think it's important to seperate art from artist. For example, Salvador Dali was put on trial for refusing to denounce fascism. However, nazi or not, The Persistence of Time is still a great painting. Both Voltaire and Marx have interesting ideas. But ultimately, studying philosophy is not about finding which person accurately and perfectly resembles your own beliefs. It is about finding which people you share the most common ground with. These two philosophers were flawed, as we all are, but that does not mean their ideas should be completely disregarded (nor does it mean their flaws should be ignored).
Apples to oranges. Newton was using the scientific method to determine basic facts about how the universe works. Marx, and communists in general, did not engage in hard science, and were pushing philosophical/ political views, telling others how to live their lives. But they were idiots.
It's not the same thing at all. (1) Regardless of his social life (or lack thereof), Newton did not starve any children or require the charity of others to live. He did good work and got paid for it. (2) His contributions to math and physics have generally held up over time. In some cases they have been superseded, but for most purposes people will do well to rely on his work.
@@alanlight7740 (1) You can't hold Karl Marx accountable for what people did in his name a century after he died. Just like you can't blame Jesus for what the KKK do. (2) Although we still have class struggle and wealth inequality, almost of the problems Marx talked about have at least been mitigated.
@@Thvndar - Karl Marx was terribly misguided, but this isn't about holding him accountable. He's long dead. I'm holding the people who continue to follow his bad advice accountable for adhering to bad ideas about ordering society from a man whose own life was a shambles. At this point there is no excuse for continuing to adhere to ideas that have been proven disastrous over and over again. Incidentally, similar ideas have been around since long before Rousseau and Marx, though Rousseau and Marx popularized these ideas for later generations. The first American colonies were established on similar principles. After most of the colonists died of starvation the remainder adopted much better ideas and soon became prosperous.
I love this assessment! One because it’s true and two because as much as we say we hate communism it can be hard to defend the working hard ethic. Both of these “men” were narcissistic, lazy, abusive people who took and took and felt entitled to not contribute to society. Capitalism is hard. And at first communism is hard. The thing is that capitalism helps lives get easier while communism makes lives harder. And I will die on that hill 😂.
Communism tends to get harder over time as it runs out of pre-communist resources and momentum to leech off of. This can be onserved in North Korea, the only surviving communist nation in 2023.
@@hinkelstein77 No. Lots of capitalist countries nowadays have large middle classes, who by definition don't have a "hard" life but can get by acceptably.
@@Intel-i7-9700k North Korea is a fascist dictatorship that has nothing to do with communism. Good grief people have no idea what they are talking about. Can't even spell "observed"
@@Yea___ I should add Whatifalthist provides no sources for his research on Marx- No primary sources at least and his secondary sources are all from the 1960s a time which he admits is highly racist. It is also a time of extreme propaganda from both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. I went looking for stuff on Marx being a bum yet all I found was he was arguably more racist than the people of the time which, ok, then, bad, but even if he was an awful person, don't change the fact he wrote good literature. We still revere people like Nietzsche and George Washington despite how objectively awful they were bcs they taught great lessons.
I cannot agree more!! When i tell people what type of person Marx was they dont believe me. It is unbelievable how little some people know about the people they are willling to worship!
Thomas Jefferson slept around his plantation's slave women population, and he still was the first and strongest voice against slavery despite how deeply it would hurt his own livelihood. Wrote the Declaration of Independence, third president presided over the war of 1812, advocated for the voices of the very democratic Iriquois elders in helping to forge the Constitution as a democracy, the likes of which the west hadn't seen before first hand. He freed his family's slaves in his will, though this was cowardly since he did not have to suffer through the poverty that would have caused him. Voltaire might have had problems but that doesn't make his philosophy any less without merit, and no less as fundamental to democractic ideals as he was to Marx's more extreme ideas. The ideas for democracy AND communism sprang from very similar roots, the roots of rebellion against tyrant kings and lords who owed no allegiance to their "liegers," but rather outright owned the citizens on their land, period, a fancy sort of slavery was feudalism and serfdom. It was capitalism that was causing so many troubles in those already born poor, a defacto oligarchy whose right to rule could be counted instead of worshiped like the king's "divine rights." Democracy accepted capitalism as necessary evil, communism did not and lacked oversight. Until historically QUITE FKN RECENTLY in the 60s, companies prioritized workers benefits, bonuses more than once a year, assisted college tuitions of workers and families of them. Regulating capitalism with democracy WORKS. We exited WW2 a global power. Russia meanwhile built tyranny on the shoulders of famously tyranical Tsars, lied to its citizens and the world to make itself seem better. Communism doesn't work. I'm really not sure where voltaire fits into that though, he predates the french revolution a bit!
In my life experience you should never trust someone who uses the word "loser" to attack someone. And you just used it. Besides what are the other options to trust? Businessmen who are trying to pay you as little as possible and to exploit you as much as possible? Or people who believe that money gives them the right to be shitty against the rest of the people?
You don't have to have blind faith in anyone. A balance between liberty and rule of law protects everyone's rights as best as possible. It's an imperfect system that will probably never result in a utopia, but it's better than every alternative.
@@sdagoth3037 I agree that a mix of liberty and rule of law is a great option. But what happens when the rich are able to manipulate, avoid and misuse laws to their own benefit? What happens when that liberty has allowed inequiality to rise to levels that are incompatible with a good society? If "liberty" becomes way stronger than law and order it can be really dangerous especially for the poor.
Marx lived off friends and anyone he could. He’s not even the pioneer of communism, he just ran with it. Plus, he lived during the dark days of capitalism.
>calls marx, voltaire and other philosophers "losers" >has a video about an "upcoming incel revolution" lmao, yeah right, I wonder who's the bigger loser
@@sdagoth3037 Nope we just subscribe to a school of economics you disagree with, but to claim Marxists don't understand economics is a childish argument. You know he wrote "das kapital" right? The most influential economics work of all time?
Honestly, the one bullshit part of an otherwise great video. Especially if you recall earlier in that same video he complains that commies unjustly accuse him of using ad hominem. Yet here we are, proposing literally judging someone's philosophy by his personality, and not his arguments. Rudyard, if you want less people to think that about you, don't confirm their biases.
It makes perfect sense, philosophy is the study of fundamental questions, these answers stem from your way of life and thinking, I do not want to follow a man who let his children starve and adhere to his opinion on life, not only this it’s towards communists who always say Marx was a great human
His ideology is intertwined with his world view and hatred of Jews. Why do you think there's such an emphasis on toppling the ruling class, it was because at the time the ruling class were the bourgeoisies (aka: townspeople) who were primarily Jewish because Jews at the time weren't allowed to own land hence were bankers in the towns and cities. Because the Jews were getting rich of their banking business he loathed them even stating: Capitalism is the religion of the Jews (Judaism). Capital is the jealous God of isreal. Capitalists are the Jews. Every time he mentioned capitalists in his book he refers to he means JEWS. This detail is why he emphasised revolution and force without peace because of hatred. This ideology has trickled down into modern leftist ideology where the only way to create a perfect world is to remove the highest class whether it be white, male, straight and rich and the only way they can be pure is by joining the cause of socialism or today becoming an "ally" to the social justice cause. They don't even know their acting out his hatred of Jews on others. Please don't fall for this evil ideology 😢.
Why indeed. I have a sneaking suspicion there are an awful lot of people running around today that fit that mould perfectly and that is why this stuff still resonates with them.
Vaush: thats uhhh, wait wtf actually is it (opens book and takes aproxximately 48 minutes).. ah, false equivalence, hmhmhmmm, im 300iq baby! Im smorter than these dumb republicans!
It's simply not true that Marx never worked a job. True, he only worked sporadically but he did write articles for an American newspaper. It's not like he simply refused to work on principle throughout his life. Also, in effect, his wealthy friend Engels was his patron. If you obviate this relationship, you could come to the conclusion that most artists and writers in history didn't work . . . because they were often patronized by a single or small set of wealthy individuals. Oh Marx had sex with women other than his wife . . . if you want to ignore a man's ideas based solely on that . . . that would cross out the vast majority of men who have ever existed. And as for Marx being racist . . . yeah so he used a slur to describe Ferdinand LaSalle. That certainly wasn't nice but doesn't really obviate everything else he said.
There's a sentence Rudyard uses in this short that typifies his thinking - "Why are we letting losers tell us how to think and what to believe?" The real question is, why does Rudyard think that's how to properly read these authors? You don't read Marx as if he's preaching to you, you read him so you can use his framework as a mode of analysis, and then determine for yourself is that mode is useful, either in full or in part. Rudyard reads books as if the author is telling him what to think and believe, hence why he reels off all these historical works but never talks about the countless others that disagree or directly critique them. My point is, he's not a historian, he's a guy who reads history books. Don't expect particularly cutting edge arguments from him.
There's a difference between being an artist and not working, and talking about politics/the working class while not working. Where is your evidence for a majority of men being adulterers? Marx was racist beyond just using one slur, but I'd wager you and most people online today would discredit all of a man's ideas if he used a slur against someone else anyway. It's only fair to follow the same judgement
You're missing the point. Nobody should listen to someone about how to run stuff when they couldnt even run their own life right. Not working is one thing, forget that tho, he let his kids starve. He was bad at being responsible for the things in his control. You wouldnt want your worst co worker in charge at work, would you? Marx was a PoS, but more importantly, he was an "obese fitness writer" and a hypocrite, a guy who's philosophy worked out as well as his own life.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 I wouldn't dismiss somebodies theories based purely on the fact they were racist. I might disagree with their theories, find out later that they were racist, and then use that as a underhanded means of bashing that persons theories without having to engage with them, like you're doing here.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 Karl Marx was an early advocate of Darwinism and the social anthropology of Lewis Henry Morgan - his philosophy was deeply rooted in the study of the rise of various tribes, nations and classes. Evolutionary biology and anthropology at this time was pre-genetic - in the sense that - people didn’t know, for example how similar all homo sapiens genes were and how we even have a close genetic similarity with chimps. In this regard, we need to be careful when we use the word “racism” - in the 19th century the word race could be easily used interchangeably with the word for tribe or nation. Even the word genetics comes from “gens” which is the Latin word for tribe. So even though Marx and Engels were pre genetic thinkers they often referred to the Latin gens. However besides all that - Marx did make some slurry remarks against his political opponents which - don’t age well.
Philosophy is the nonsensical opinions of clever people who can cleverly wield words and turn them into word salads. I'll stick to empirical science and experimental/confirmable data, thank you.
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a saint either. He had six children with one of his slaves. Is there nuance there? Maybe, sure. But even if it’s as bad as it sounds, the American Declaration of Independence remains one of the greatest documents in history.
This analysis completely misses the point. Who gets to decide what a loser looks like? Marx got a P.h.D. despite his ideas being condemned for liberal ideas by conservative institutions. Rudyard dropped out of school, and constantly feels the need to brag about things people in his own subreddit question the accuracy of.
Don't let a pseudo-intellectual who reads books by the college educated tell you that one of the most widely influential political figures in history was just a loser. Conservatives just want to discredit ideas that they can't integrate into their philosophies.
@@Gabagoolhog Oh yeah well Marx did edit the New Reinische Zeitung . . . what about that Mr. What If . . . I was just talking about his Tribune articles. Then we was also the chair of the First International. I mean this guy wouldn't consider Marx to have a job unless he was flipping burgers at the Victorian equivalent of Micky D's
Marx imagined a better world where the struggle of life wasn't made worse by abhorrent social institutions. Completely understandable given his past. I mean, his marriage was controversial because his wife broke off an engagement to an aristocrat to be with him. That sounds like a chad to me.
He’s clearly laying out the argument that these men’s ideologies and lens of the world came from the experiences and circumstances during their lives. This is Plato’s allegory of the cave. Basic psychology. Real simple stuff, but I guess for internet debate lords then sure.
@@kylevernon Yeah, thats why he only talk about things that make them look bad, without even touching on the basics. Yeah, he is totally intellectaly honest
@@autobotfan11 This doesn't justify anything. Just because the thing you created is used years after your death for evil, does that mean that you are directly responsible for it. Its like saying that the Wright brothers are responsible for 9/11
@@kylevernon it’s still a piss poor argument. Personal lives of authors mean nothing to the ‘art’ they create. Even if you hate communism and Marx blah blah, his works are undoubtedly some of the most influential pieces of literature in the realms of sociology, political philosophy, philosophy, economics etc. him being a bum doesn’t matter. Van Gogh was a troubled bum, doesn’t make his art any less meaningful
I agree you should question it, but attacking someone’s argument by using ad hominem is not valid. It could be these people themselves who have good answers to important questions, so you shouldn’t look at the person but his ideas. I do agree however that taking a look at who the person is explains why they think how they think.
It’s not an ad hominem. The way a person thinks and behaves is reflection of their circumstances and experiences in life. That’s basic psychology. The argument he’s laying out is that these men were flawed in their lives which lead them to viewing an unrealistic picture of the world like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
Sure. So you look at their ideas…. Are they good are bad. Then look at their character and what they are trying to achieve. I would have a hard time trying to adhere to a mans philosophy about how the world should be ran when he does not care for his children. Maybe he has a brilliant idea but his actions speak louder then words. How many countries tried socialism and how many people starved… millions.
@@ETsBeesexcept none of this is true. I tried to find it but there isn't anything. The only bad thing I could find about him and his family is him despising Cubans to such a point that when a family member married a Cuban he refused to speak to them ever again. Whatifalthist also lives Nietzsche who was arguably more of a racist than Marx soooooo yeah he doesn't have an argument. If you're gonna criticise someone's philosophy bcs of how they lived their life, you'd better do the same for other similar people. But he doesn't. He also doesn't supply any credible sources, and, better yet, lies.
@@gaybowser4967 Wait... Whatifalthist likes Nietzsche? Interesting, because Nietzsche talked about a similar thing in Ecce Homo (I think), saying how just because he "hasn't found the keys to his own chains" doesn't mean "he doesn't have the keys to someone else's chains". I could try to find the aphorism if need be.
@@kylevernon But it could also be that despite the way they lived their lives their ideas were good. Because of that possibility I don't think looking into their lives should be a valid way of trying to form a counterargument against their views.
I mean sure that checks out. But in this case the full video lays out that these people were losers from the perspective of having seen what their thinking and their ideas have produced. I think we can all agree that *a fat person in the fat acceptance circles probably has no idea what fitness is or how to achieve it.*
He didn't have a "turbulent life" he was a negligent father who would rather think about Utopias rather then becoming a better man. If Karl Marx lived today he would've definitely benefited from Dr Jordan Peterson's work.
@@dandash9870 that's y'all's only rebuttal. "You don't understand communism" "real communism has never been tried" you people will never learn until you have to live in that type of hell.
@@mickeytwister4721 Where did you see him criticize Marxism in the video? The only thing he did was shit on Marx's life. He didn't make any effort to criticize his ideas.
This video ultimately falls to the ad hominem logical fallacy, meaning it attacks somones personal traits as a way to attack their argument. Say what you want about Karl Marx as a person, and say what you want about communism/Marxism as ideas, but you cannot bring them together unless there is an actual reason to do so.
Ad hominem" attacks are perfectly acceptable, if you are attacking a philosopher who tried to tell others how to live their lives, while making a mess of his own life.
“ impressive “ is an overstatement, Marx’s beard looks ungroomed and filthy like a homeless man , unlike nitszche with his superior well groomed and hygienic mustache
an idea is more important than the person who came up with idea. If you will see many philosopher were losers in their life including nietzsche, kafka, marx even buddha
This is such a bad mischaracterization that it’s almost painful. Marx lived for some time in abject poverty because he lived in one of the worst times in history. He did not let his children starve as if he did not give them food out of spite; they died of malnutrition. There is a huge difference between both. Much of the food in 19th ce London was spiced up with dirt and chemicals to make it heavier to sell more for a cheaper price. Only later on after meeting Engels did he have more money. Look up how many people died during this period due to malnutrition in England. A lot of factory workers and their wife’s and children, who worked in factories as well, did. You also quote Nietzsches as if he wasn’t a "loser" by your definition himself. I mean he moved back I’m with his mom because did not get a job and wanted to be a philosopher. Funny isn’t it? This short is full of bad faith strawmans. It’s just propaganda for people who are uneducated and don’t know better. You fit Nietzsches Definition of philosophers just too well yourself.
Link to the full video-th-cam.com/video/75KqMzmuLw4/w-d-xo.html
You should add the part you made when you meant Rousseau.
That REALLY should be fixed, as it stands the avererage layman is going to be thinking all the poor traits you ascribe ruesseu were axtually voltaire's vid's already out of course so its to late to fix but all the better that there be enough talk of it for less people to go misinformed.
hi neoliberal. Go right to the ad hominem since you don't even know what communism is. Lot of projection with the losers comment.
Regardless of Marx personal failings, his understanding of class struggle, putting all the pieces together with proletariat vs bourgeois, capital vs labor was revolutionary at the time and contains lessons modern people need to learn to throw off the yoke of oppression and exploitation the oligarchy foists upon us.
Your argument against communism isn't good. I dislike communism, but the issue with your arguement is it's complete ad hominem.
What motivated Marx to create and follow this philosophy?
Did Marx practice/embrace his own communist philosophy?
If so, what fruits did it hear in his lifestyle?
If not, then what did he *really* believe, why did he follow that rather than communism, and why shouldn’t contextualize Marx’s ideas with the lifestyle he really lived?
“He cheated on his wife with his maid who he also did not pay”. I didn’t know we where receiving political wisdom from a poet. 😂
Marx also got his maid pregnant and had Engles pretend he was the father. Unbelievable.
poet?
@@sann5146 I think he's insinuating that poets are poor and do stuff like that too.
Did not pay his maid
Wouldnt that make him a capitalist exploiter like the ones he criticised.
@@Reiner547 Nope. Just makes him a typical totalitarian communist that loves slave labor.
As the Bible says, “Physician, heal thyself!” There is nothing new under the sun. If someone is saying they have the keys to your freedom, but they themselves are still locked up in their sin, do not listen to them.
The irony is that that's exactly what the church does
@@chicken29843 follow the truth and it will lead you to christ
@poopy pants naa because the church is still in sin and they reconginise that, that's literally what the christianity is about and the church tells u the way is to follow jesus because he is the one without sin, the church is one who follows the ome without sin...jesus. sooo ya, the church is supposed to be the body of Christ, ofc u can have ppl care about more about sectsand their way of thinking then jesus so if there that
You know who also this applies to? Jesus if you strip away all the BS miracles, essentially he also was a homeless dude with delusions of grandeur
@@chicken29843 "the church"? Sounds like a monolithic boogeyman that might not actually exist
I love how 'the great' portrayed Voltaire. "Your just a powdered french aristocrat!"
It's actually Ruseau, he mentioned that in the pinned comment of the video. Point stands though.
I didn’t see the pinned content. But yes needs correction to Ruseau as the scum
Bag. ! Ha
He actually met Rousseau, who was born poor and only got into elite circles because they thought he was a uncultured hick.
@@charlottewolery558 I like how he makes a mistake as critical as naming the wrong man, and then makes it into a Short without fixing it lol
@@charlottewolery558 Voltaire was an arse too. Probably the most overrated enlightenment philosopher.
Birds of a feather flock together. Losers embrace loser philosophies. Prehaps Churchill put it best; "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
All economic models have their weaknesses. The trick is to include the good from each and discard the bad.
@@falloodaboy Not possible as many features contain their own drawbacks (i.e. double edged swords). Your hand is a powerful tool, but allows others to use tools against you. However, never would a sane man give up his hands and call it virtuous.
@@falloodaboy nope human nature is not equal won’t work . Stick with Christianity and family values in love for a fighting chance
@@falloodaboybalance is good but it can only be taken so far. At the end of the day the reality of life is that you're going to have to choose something and sacrifice what else you could have done.
@@biggibbs4678 You're not wrong, but it's better to approach economic philosophies/models as tools for specific jobs rather than basing an identity around it like communists and libertarians tend to do (just look at this comment section).
Almost every developed economy has elements from multiple economic theories, and it creates the best results (best as we can get anyway).
Been saying this for years regarding Marx
No wonder these people who like marxism are not that different from Marx himself
saving this
Compare Angela Davis to Karl H Marx
You know who also this applies to? Jesus if you strip away all the BS miracles, essentially he also was a homeless dude with delusions of grandeur
Wasn't Marx bankrolled by his rich collaborator engels.
@@rtasvadam1776 Is being rich bad? Being the son of a wealthy industrialist?
Read the letters Marx's dad sent him. They sound like a modern parent telling their kid to stop wasting their life with hippie friends and get a job with that college degree that daddy paid for.
And Marx's responses are so friggin entitled, its no wonder he's the poster boy of rich, entitled, adult-aged-children across the west.
No ritch person in the west, i promis you, wuld supoort socializm, or comunism as you csll it since you clearly dont know the difference
@@theonesithtorulethemall they all do, it means strengthening the government authority, all communist/socialist imagine themselves at the top of the party heirarchy and not as one of the peasants in the field or factory laboring away
@@anonymousanonymous6796 there wouldn't be peasants under socialism bro that's the whole point
Interesting thought, but playing the devils advocate, someone can be a terrible person be still be a great athlete, great scientist, great businessman, great military leader, doesn’t it go to show that a terrible person can be a great philosopher?
Not if you want to live well. No one really listens to people who don't have their lives together. Personal success indicates good philosophy
And in any case, most of these claims are highly exaggerated and torn out of context.
The four professions you mentioned have little to do with personality. You wouldnt take sports advice from a guy cut from his high school team. Nor a broke businessman. The other two are no different.
Gotta practice what you preach with the philosophy stuff, thats the first step in proving it works. Cant live a crap life of your own making and tell others how to live their life. You wouldnt listen to marx on how to run your life either, because hes 0/4 on running peoples lives. Michael Jordan is a Pos in real life, but id for sure take basket ball lessons from him. Steve jobs was a jerk, but if he told me how to get rich id hang onto every word.
This is the difference. Also if youve ever had bad co workers think about splitting your pay with them, like two of you have to dig three holes, then you do 2.5, then you both get $50. Gotta be the easiest economic idea to disprove ever.
@@chickenpuncher1674 you are right.
@@chickenpuncher1674 To that I raise you the Catholic church and modern Televangelists.
Both practice in many ways the absolute opposite of the philosophies they preach and yet have millions of followers.
*he was also racist even for his time*
Leftist today: I’m going to ignore that.
One of his dautghers was married with a bl*ck man of cuban origins. Marx despised him and called "the little bl*ack jew". The sad part is that his son in law actually admired Marx and defended his work.
Leftists are openly anti-white nowadays.
Yeah, he had a low opinion of my own people. Yet there are sadly a good number of socialist Mexicans...
@@gustavju4686 as a Mexican I find that very disappointing
@costam In communist countries marx was illegal to read. It was also illegal to breathe or the checka would come and check your breathing amount of the day, and if you breate too much or not meet your breathing quote you die in both cases
Marx was a classic narcissist who though he was the best thin since sliced bread
Did you mean "thing"?
thinly sliced bread if marx got his way
@@lightningbolt4419 thin like wafer ham 😅
@@DanHalper yeah sorry typo corrected it
@@TrassseB still wrong its thought not though
And tothis day Diogenes is still undefeated because the man practiced what he preached and was honest from the get go
You could say the same about a sociopath
Just cause he practiced what he preached., does it mean we should design school curriculum around his ideas?
Let's see how helpful that is for school children
Can you philosophy students stop trying to be so edgy all the time and just think like an adult?
What we do and what we say has consequences and repercussions....
It's on you to make the right choice for your life
He also thought incest was cool and jacked off in public good luck making a society on those values lol
@@hermeticchonk371 diogenes was not a sociopath
@@jurtra9090 the dude lived in a box basically
That’s a weird hill to defend
@@hermeticchonk371 I grew up reading the "Lives of Saints". Man, these guys who lived in caves or on top of pillars were crazy. But than again, Anatolia circa 1010 was a crazy time.
Very interesting. Unfortunately, I can not judge the merit of your arguments, because I don't know the intimate details of your personal life.
This is very true. To say that someone's creation must be tested against their personal stuff is grasping for straws.
@@anarchistonsunsetdrive7813creation? That weird way to say his idea on how society should be structured. And it's completely justified to judge a "philosopher" by their personal lives. Never trust a skinny chef.
@@mickeytwister4721 Nah, bollocks. A lot of factors can shape a personal life. What if the chef's skinny despite his job? Like he's in a bad place in his life and has lost his appetite, or is just preoccupied with his health, or whatever. Better not to simplify reality to this extent.
(Saying in advance: Marx's philosophy is shit. But not because of his personality, or vice versa - simply, his arguments are shit.)
@@htth3152 his arguments are true
Whatifalthist isn't demanding the reshaping of mankind to his ideas.
Marx was objectively a monster who created literally nothing of merit.
Engles wasn't much better, since his spewing of Communist rhetoric was exclusively for the purpose of sleeping with poor women, who he'd rape and abandon. He was a bourgeois factory owner, but never once even attempted to actually apply the "philosophy" he helped create despite being literally able to give his workers the means of production if he had actually believed what he was saying.
If his way of living caused starvation in a family unit I can't imagine actually applying that to a society.
OH WAIT..
And capitalism hasn't caused millions of deaths due to starvation?
@@death4metal201 think you've done something there huh? Marx is a dumb boomer with old ideas, at least Capitalism has mixed success compared to the hellish dictatorships that always follow "Utopia".
@@death4metal201was about to comment this lol
@@death4metal201 That's correct.
We can observe this in the spread of industrial farming and supermarkets that have led to a surplus of food as-yet unobserved in the historical record.
And before you come back with something stupid like colonialism, keep in mind that enslaving people runs pretty well counter to the idea of a free market.
@@stevenschnepp576 Not to mention that colonialism was based on Merchantalism, the inferior precursor to Capitalism.
Correction: ENVIOUS losers.
Entitled envious losers.
I like how you don't even remotely know the importance Rousseau and Marx had in your life, if you don't work 14 hours a day thank the unions who fought for the workers. If you can vote and criticize the government, thank Rousseau who inspired the Revolution
@@MaxStirner123 You claim NOBODY ELSE would have gotten angry ang fight for their own rights, therefore the world needed envious parasites, who have never worked hard, as messiahs.
I see you're a cultists.
@@MaxStirner123 What do unions have to do with Karl Marx? Progressivism, socialism and worker rights have existed long before Marx even existed. Marx took it too far and unfortunately many fell victim to his delusions.
@@MaxStirner123 what are you talking about? Civil existed long before russeau, in fact he laid the foundation for people who are not royals to act tyrannical. And marx didnt invent workers right, he wasnt the one who came up with unions.
This completely discredits communism as the communists often proclaim how amazing Marx and his ideals are on paper when they fall short in practice.
They fall short on paper too.
Yes communism even in its perfect form is trash. Democracy even in its perfect form is trash. Captialism even in its perfect form is trash. The only 2 working ideologies are protectionism and monarchy/oligarchy.
Because communists are silly children and should be laughed out of every room they enter.
@@michaelfoye1135 Greeeeat, I'm sure you're able to write me a 500-page essay on "Das Kapital" in which you're going to disassemble it, what a fucking genius I too would like to have an obesity rate of 25% in my country 😢
@@MaxStirner123 if something works on paper it works in real life or it's missing things. Other than a sports team's roster, I cant think of a single thing that would somehow work on paper, but not if put into practice. You dont even have to read anything, just explain this, then maybe we can get into the hard stuff. I too would like to starve something like 20 million ukranians. 😂😂😂
Why am I a Christian? Because Jesus was a total chad
He was though.
based
Preach
Turn the other cheek lol
@@stellestel1698 Virgin Eye for and Eye vs Chad Turn the other Cheek
I love how you were trying to hold back your laughter while saying "he loved to be spanked by his mother"
When Marcus Aurelius showed up Marx looked like Papa Smurf next to him.
"I own the known world, but I'm going to spend my entire life living in a tent with my men and writing about how to be a good person because it's my duty." Now that's a man worth listening to.
@@Aldornas oh okay, looks like Marx but born an emporor said like that
@@Aldornas at the risk of sounding ignorant, who was this wise man? (thankyou in advance) I'd like to hear more. I won't pretend I'm a big reader but I'm thinking of getting Audible if they don't censor Thomas Sowell.
I'd buy his books but I have ADHD, and I find his voice soothing - not trying to kiss ass, just explaining why hearing him orate his literature would help me retain the information.
@@alyssarichardson2544 Marcus Aurelius, the last of the 5 good emperors who ruled the Roman Empire at its absolute apex (Pax Romana) and a staunch stoic.
@@alyssarichardson2544 You would like Aurelius' book "Meditations", then. It's a compilation of his journal and diary writings, therefore good for short bursts of wisdom for the ADHD mind, but all together, makes for one of the most classic books written about general philosophy and wisdom gained through decades of experience. It's a Stoic's dream for an everyday carry.
Have you not the decency to correct the mistake of referring to Voltaire instead of Rousseau when you get this second chance to make your point, potentially to an even larger audience?
He pointed the mistake in the pinned comment of the original post. I didn't even see the part yet and I knew about it
They're both French 🤷♂️
@@TheGreenKnight500 Rousseau was Swiss.
@@roawesomeface1947 He's got a French name, so I just made an educated guess.
@@TheGreenKnight500 Perfectly fair
I'm as anti marxist as it gets and feel somewhat neutral towards Voltaire, but discrediting someone's argument based on their character is an ad hominem fallacy. Marxism or any other ideology must be critically analysed regardless of your opinion about their founders, and then you may decide what they got right and what they got wrong.
This is the only way someone as smart as AltHist can criticize Marx, actually confronting his critique of political economy is too intimidating for them
this isnt even ad homenim, if I read out Hitler to you as a person with documented facts, is that an ad homenim? or are you just observing how shit they are, and trying to protect him?
ad homenim is when you bring up ones character to an argument of their thoughts. thats like me pointing out that a democrat cheated on his wife when we talk about the weather being too cold or not. its essentialy an insult to invalidate what they say and make people turn deaf to their words.
he allready talked about his actual beliefs and words, now he ust talks who he was as a person, someone who starved his kids out, preached about success.. then starved out the population. Facts arent an ad homenim, its when you bring it up like a child as a last resort.
he was proven to be a liar and not a man of his world, only a man having a wild imagination on things he was too lazy to change
@@CapitalAccumulatordidn't you watch the full video this came from, he already did that.
@@anthonyyawtwumasimensah197 there was not a single factual statement that could stand the test of debate in that entire video
@@CapitalAccumulator now I KNOW your making an emotional argument. There's no way you couldn't agree with at least one thing he said.
I'm not gonna bother arguing as he said communism is like a religion, you can provide all the factual evidence and they'll still deny it.
Virgin Marx vs Gigachad Marcus Aurelius
The most based title I have ever seen. 100/10
Did you mean "Biased"
@@DanHalperboohoo it's against my beliefs so it's biased and unreliable
No doubt that you're a Trumper...
@@DanHalper no
@@mikebruno7123 why would not like communism make me a trumper? So liking to have food, own property, have a functioning society and be moderately wealthy is strictly what trump supports. Well I’ll be, everyone should vote for him this time around cause no one should want to starve to death.
Isn’t this just an ad hominem attack, insulting the creator of the ideas as opposed to the ideas themselves
A man who doesn't even fulfill the needs of his own children shouldn't be listened to in fulfilling the needs of mankind
As whatif is seeing if the philosophy is an expression of the founders personality, it is important to examine the person.
Yes it is
He also insulted the idea too. There's a whole 40 mins video on it.
@@harshjain3122 the idea of what? A straw man, did he even mention mode of production once? Or cultural hegemony? Or conflict theory?
I'm not a fan of Marx but even a blind squirrel can find it's nuts twice a day. Even if he wasn't a good person or successful doesn't mean some of his criticisms of capitalism aren't valid. I find the only place I usually disagree with Socialist is in their solutions, never their estimates of the problems present.
are you another one of those "capitalism is dying" and "we're third stage of capitalism now"? Socialist america today doesn't really apply to what he was living through you know?
Then you need to read more.
Why is capitalism supposed to be bad? Broken markets are the problem, not capitalism itself
In his video he clearly states capitalism has it's flaws but it has the least among many other options
So the theory of a socialist society sounds. Everyone works hard for the good of society. The problem is men are not good, we get lazy and slack. Who is suppose to pick up the slack? The old hard working lady? This is one reason you need a cruel dictator. To rid them of the lazy people. Now how do we change a society of capitalism into a socialist society. We will have to steel things away from them. Exactly what we accuse them of doing. We become just like them. Will socialism stop gangs ect. Those will be more problems and then you need that cruel dictator again and when he is in place it shows the failure of socialism. No I think the best is where each individual holds rights. The right to own property and produce goods on a free market. The ability to protect himself and his family. We are losing these things in the US and instead being forced into socialism.
Didn't know i'm a philosopher. I just work my job and provide for my family.
I love reminding people that nietzsche, the ubermensch, died alone in an asylum, insane.
Also, Diogenes was a wise cracking street urchin
Diogenes did exactly what the hell he wanted. He took every lump with a smile and a give no shits attitude.
I mean that's not exactly much of a criticism on Nietzsche.
Nietzsche never considered himself an ubermensch
@@charlottewolery558 WOW SO COOL AND BASED
@@hermeticchonk371 I thought diogenes was nihilist. His actions is nihilistic. I didn't get your criticism.
Well I guess Marx is just like his fan base.
You could say something similar about Socrates. Who lived off his fathers estate and spent his days wandering around Athens barefooted in dirty clothes, apparently unwilling to do anything productive with his life. Yet he is one of the most influential philosophers of all time and his ideas are still routinely invoked.
Just because someone is a “loser” doesn’t mean their philosophy was a “loser”. This is nothing more than a lazy ad hominem attack.
The ideas Socrates is remembered for didn't lead to the deaths of approximately 100 million people in a single century. Marx cannot say the same.
Many geniuses are weirdos and on the spectrum.
Now, Marx produced nothing useful.
But Voltaire and rousseau produced many great works, and they wasn't telling you how to live your life. Just triggering your critical thinking
You know who also this applies to? Jesus ; if you strip away all the BS miracles, essentially he also was a homeless dude with delusions of grandeur
whats even lazier is when you blast priests for their predatory actions instead of their arguments, but boo fuckin hoo.. Karl is just a little boy who cant defend himself and needs to be an exception cause hes your daddy
all of his videos are lazy ad hominems, which makes it funny because this guy is a loser irl as well
I love the idea that Marx didn’t do anything, conservatives and liberals have been terrified of his works for over 170 years now but he was just a lazy bum that didn’t do anything. The doublethink is amazing.
Lol you would confuse Burnie Sander's political career for productive work.
Compared to an electrician, a breadtuber's "work" has the same labor value man---- leftwing marx.
@@joejoe3696 Do the electrician and breadtuber both produce commodities? Or do you have a Smithian strawman of the LTV like all other uneducated critics
@@CapitalAccumulator it's up to a leftist to put produce and breadtuber in the same sentence.
Thank you for jumping out to defend and to embody but I intended to be a caricature. That was both amusing and validating, thank you
@@joejoe3696 up to an althistoid to not understand how content engagement is a valuable resource in today's econony and how political entertainment "breadtubers" are no different from other entertainers
Bro thinks people are the same from 170 years ago that is wild
I don't like communism at all but, this is quite literally ad hominem
It is, but we're not discussing the substance of their intellectual work, theories, etc. Right now, We're assessing these intellectual figures as normal beings to understand these individuals better. It's like people assessing H1dler and St@lin as regular people isolated from their beliefs and what they've done, to understand how it might have influenced them as individuals.
Not taking life advice from a pennyless bum is ad hominem?
Formally, an _ad hominem_ is a logical fallacy.
In practice, however, you need to be careful about taking advice from people who have screwed up everything they've touched.
Assessing someone's ability to manage their own life is a good way to judge how well they'd run the world, given the chance. Since we're talking about people who proposed ways to reorder human civilization, their personal lives are a factor that should be considered.
@@TheGreenKnight500 and @Alan Light The issue is that communism doesn't have anything to do with Karl Marx. He could be the best person in the world but have a shitty idea, or he could be the worst person in the world and have a good idea. When tackling ideologies or ideas, you need to put them in a vacuum and focus on them entirely. It also makes your argument look weaker if you have to resort to talking about unrelated stuff as a justification. Also, Karl Max was long gone when communism got put into practice, so his personal stuff had no effect on communist countries.
It's kind of concerning that a lot of people are quite literally justifying a logical fallacy just because it fits their narrative.
I fucking hate communism too, but we shouldn't resort to using a logical fallacy to try to prove our point; it also gives the other side an opportunity to attack us, and rightfully so.
It's interesting how the arguments always revolve around attacking people and never attacking the actual arguments of marx in his work. It's almost like marx actually makes some good points regardless of everything else around it and that's okay to recognize. The world isnt black and white
Have you seen the video this clip comes from? It goes in to extreme detail about every point Marx made.
It's hard to take someone's word about class oppression if he starved his own kids.
Kinda like how you are attacking him rather than providing a coherent counterargument.
Dude. There's a pinned comment linking to the full video this comes from. He _does_ attack the arguments of Marx.
Ad hominem" attacks are perfectly acceptable, if you are attacking a philosopher who tried to tell others how to live their lives, while making a mess of his own life.
Rousseau wrote about raising children meanwhile he was in parties with Holbach and Sade...
Yes, getting a PhD in philosophy has always been the mark of a losser
Anyone can get a phd if they are born into a favorable environment
Marxs was huge asshole
Any turd can sit and wax poetic.
No, actual philosophy is cool. Cultural studies on the other hand…
Rudyard dropped out of college. Does that make him a mega loser?
So-called loosers tend to put the best of themselves into their work.
They may have had appallingly bad private lives, but they created influential works.
Losers, lovers or loose people?
Or maybe their just losers period.
I’d counter-argue that you could make the same argument about almost any genius
Bro i'm 100% sure marcus aurelius is the most responsable man out there.
In this episode, Whatifalthist tells us that he doesnt know what "Ad Hom" means
It's not a disparagement against a figure in isolation or in bad faith, it's a dismembering of an flawed ideology/ world view wich reflects its author.
in this episode, we call it ad hom when hes literally just speaking about the person who made communism, a documented fact. Meanwhile lefties totally dont do ad homenims when a priest is predatory but preaches innocence of kids
in this episode we find out you didn't watch the episode because the other 47 minutes of the episode, go into great detail about the actual systems Marx's work brought to the world.
This is my new favourite take from this channel. With this context, it really is crazy that Communism blew up the way that it did. That so many people could have blind faith in the writing a man who had no business making the claims that he did is just crazy.
Because the other option was to trust businessmen.... 🤣
@@yomilala8929 No one trusts businessmen. That's the beauty of systems where consumers have choice, aka the free market. In stark contrast to the "businessmen" in the Politburo, who decided on every aspect of your life with unchecked power.
@@Intel-i7-9700k Politburo?
What the hell is that?
You need to trust them because if not why would you legitimize their wealth?
Or their power?.
@@yomilala8929 Businessmen, You trust them enough to give them a portion of your wealth for something they give in return. And that is it.
@@cek0792 Except that they have employees and usually they don't pay them enough.
Also they take advantage of the laws to avoid many taxes.
They steal resources from many countries.
They overcharge the products
And they might sell low quality products by hiding that information.
nietzsche called this philosophizing with a hammer and seeing if the theories held up.
By that logic no one should listen to you as well
Except Rudyard isn't creating some delusional new age religion that speaks to the worst parts of human nature just because he's salty.
Why, did he let his kids starve to death while rationalizing envy?
Because he is a looser
@@stevenschnepp576becours under capitalizm millions of africans starve every day, and atleast marks tryed to do something about it
Great take, but there have mistake, Voltaire wasn’t have children.
Philosophy is paved with thinkers who did not act on their ideas
Great response 👏
Think you mistook Voltiar with Rousseau
he did and he mentioned it allready somehwere else
I think it's important to seperate art from artist. For example, Salvador Dali was put on trial for refusing to denounce fascism. However, nazi or not, The Persistence of Time is still a great painting. Both Voltaire and Marx have interesting ideas. But ultimately, studying philosophy is not about finding which person accurately and perfectly resembles your own beliefs. It is about finding which people you share the most common ground with. These two philosophers were flawed, as we all are, but that does not mean their ideas should be completely disregarded (nor does it mean their flaws should be ignored).
Isaac Newton was totally dysfunctional in his personal life...we still acknowledge his laws of physics
Apples to oranges. Newton was using the scientific method to determine basic facts about how the universe works. Marx, and communists in general, did not engage in hard science, and were pushing philosophical/ political views, telling others how to live their lives. But they were idiots.
Maybe we should question it 🤔
It's not the same thing at all.
(1) Regardless of his social life (or lack thereof), Newton did not starve any children or require the charity of others to live. He did good work and got paid for it.
(2) His contributions to math and physics have generally held up over time. In some cases they have been superseded, but for most purposes people will do well to rely on his work.
@@alanlight7740 (1) You can't hold Karl Marx accountable for what people did in his name a century after he died. Just like you can't blame Jesus for what the KKK do.
(2) Although we still have class struggle and wealth inequality, almost of the problems Marx talked about have at least been mitigated.
@@Thvndar - Karl Marx was terribly misguided, but this isn't about holding him accountable. He's long dead. I'm holding the people who continue to follow his bad advice accountable for adhering to bad ideas about ordering society from a man whose own life was a shambles. At this point there is no excuse for continuing to adhere to ideas that have been proven disastrous over and over again.
Incidentally, similar ideas have been around since long before Rousseau and Marx, though Rousseau and Marx popularized these ideas for later generations. The first American colonies were established on similar principles. After most of the colonists died of starvation the remainder adopted much better ideas and soon became prosperous.
I love this assessment! One because it’s true and two because as much as we say we hate communism it can be hard to defend the working hard ethic. Both of these “men” were narcissistic, lazy, abusive people who took and took and felt entitled to not contribute to society. Capitalism is hard. And at first communism is hard. The thing is that capitalism helps lives get easier while communism makes lives harder. And I will die on that hill 😂.
Communism tends to get harder over time as it runs out of pre-communist resources and momentum to leech off of. This can be onserved in North Korea, the only surviving communist nation in 2023.
Capitalism makes life hard for everyone except 1 percent
@@hinkelstein77 No. Lots of capitalist countries nowadays have large middle classes, who by definition don't have a "hard" life but can get by acceptably.
capitalism has devolved into neoliberalism and oligarchy and is making life worse for the vast majority of people on Earth.
@@Intel-i7-9700k North Korea is a fascist dictatorship that has nothing to do with communism. Good grief people have no idea what they are talking about. Can't even spell "observed"
Are you going to say anything worthwhile or just repeat things you know your audience will gobble up uncritically?
"He loved to be spanked by his mother"
Based
Thats islam
@@DeportedDomingo the prophet of Islam's mother died when he was 6 or something. i doubt he had any recollection of him getting spanked.
@@sunset2.00
His sugar mommy Kadija sure would have enjoyed it lol.
@@sunset2.00 Thats the same age as the girl he married!
lemme guess you follow Jordan Peterson, lol. That guy realllly has his life together.
At least Jordan Peterson cares about his family and isn't lazy.
And I’m sure you do
@@curses6166and at least Marx could string an intelligent sentence together.
@@gaybowser4967yea maybe he was a bum who let his kids die, but he was good at writing about capital
@@Yea___ I should add Whatifalthist provides no sources for his research on Marx-
No primary sources at least and his secondary sources are all from the 1960s a time which he admits is highly racist. It is also a time of extreme propaganda from both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. I went looking for stuff on Marx being a bum yet all I found was he was arguably more racist than the people of the time which, ok, then, bad, but even if he was an awful person, don't change the fact he wrote good literature. We still revere people like Nietzsche and George Washington despite how objectively awful they were bcs they taught great lessons.
I cannot agree more!! When i tell people what type of person Marx was they dont believe me. It is unbelievable how little some people know about the people they are willling to worship!
They only care about "muh free healthcare and education." I guess their leftietardness can't erase selfishness.
"He let his children die."
"That's horrible."
"He also liked to be spanked by his mother."
"Not his stepmother?"
"No"
"That sick bastard."
I'm not a fan of Marx, but this is a genetic fallacy.
Also, losers fought slavery.
Communism is slavery.
What?
Commies had slaves, bud.
@@Woketard pray tell.
Thomas Jefferson slept around his plantation's slave women population, and he still was the first and strongest voice against slavery despite how deeply it would hurt his own livelihood. Wrote the Declaration of Independence, third president presided over the war of 1812, advocated for the voices of the very democratic Iriquois elders in helping to forge the Constitution as a democracy, the likes of which the west hadn't seen before first hand. He freed his family's slaves in his will, though this was cowardly since he did not have to suffer through the poverty that would have caused him.
Voltaire might have had problems but that doesn't make his philosophy any less without merit, and no less as fundamental to democractic ideals as he was to Marx's more extreme ideas.
The ideas for democracy AND communism sprang from very similar roots, the roots of rebellion against tyrant kings and lords who owed no allegiance to their "liegers," but rather outright owned the citizens on their land, period, a fancy sort of slavery was feudalism and serfdom.
It was capitalism that was causing so many troubles in those already born poor, a defacto oligarchy whose right to rule could be counted instead of worshiped like the king's "divine rights." Democracy accepted capitalism as necessary evil, communism did not and lacked oversight.
Until historically QUITE FKN RECENTLY in the 60s, companies prioritized workers benefits, bonuses more than once a year, assisted college tuitions of workers and families of them. Regulating capitalism with democracy WORKS. We exited WW2 a global power. Russia meanwhile built tyranny on the shoulders of famously tyranical Tsars, lied to its citizens and the world to make itself seem better.
Communism doesn't work. I'm really not sure where voltaire fits into that though, he predates the french revolution a bit!
wrong pic, he mentions it in the description of the main video
We don't need big thinking or philosophy, all we need is a Monarch
Socialism and Communism sound good, but in the end, everyone looses .
In my life experience you should never trust someone who uses the word "loser" to attack someone. And you just used it.
Besides what are the other options to trust?
Businessmen who are trying to pay you as little as possible and to exploit you as much as possible?
Or people who believe that money gives them the right to be shitty against the rest of the people?
You dont get it. If you are not rich, your opinion and life are worthless... oh wait, it supposed to be capitalist argument, not the fascist one.
Better than Mao and Stalin.
@@ElliotKeaton I wouldnt be so sure
You don't have to have blind faith in anyone. A balance between liberty and rule of law protects everyone's rights as best as possible. It's an imperfect system that will probably never result in a utopia, but it's better than every alternative.
@@sdagoth3037 I agree that a mix of liberty and rule of law is a great option. But what happens when the rich are able to manipulate, avoid and misuse laws to their own benefit?
What happens when that liberty has allowed inequiality to rise to levels that are incompatible with a good society?
If "liberty" becomes way stronger than law and order it can be really dangerous especially for the poor.
There's a lot of similarities to Bernies back story.
Marx lived off friends and anyone he could. He’s not even the pioneer of communism, he just ran with it. Plus, he lived during the dark days of capitalism.
Ok, now it's Nietzsche's turn...
the only philosophy whatif needs is his crackpipe
Because every loser needs a loser to look up too and this is the age of the influencer 😂😂
So every Marxist is a loser?
Yup, wontign to be payed for you hard work is being a loser, you make amarica proud
voltaire never had kids
Speaking of Voltaire he was also massive slave owner which makes him hypocritical.
>calls marx, voltaire and other philosophers "losers"
>has a video about an "upcoming incel revolution"
lmao, yeah right, I wonder who's the bigger loser
Marxism is pure envy
Interesting
Exactly! A few years ago this hit me and I went back and read the Bible and found the only ‘philosopher’ really worth listening to is Jesus Christ.
Amen
If Marx was racist for his time, he had to be like Hitler level racist. Slavery still existed in the US south
You really did not hold anything back here, for that you have my respect 👏👏
It is so brave, manly and against the spirit of the time to bash Communism, you know /s
Look you can try to demonise Marx you all want. But his ideas will continue to live on and for good reason.
For the reason that people are envious, and have no understanding of economics.
@@sdagoth3037 Nope we just subscribe to a school of economics you disagree with, but to claim Marxists don't understand economics is a childish argument. You know he wrote "das kapital" right? The most influential economics work of all time?
@James Wylie It was extremely influential. And it's influence always results in the same failed states and economies.
@@jameswylie6671 I watch the full video, he called it a religion, and said it’s pointless to argue with communist, so I won’t.
@@jameswylie6671 Right, right.
And how many more people need to die for your utopia?
Voltaire just sounds like a standard Frenchman
Honestly, the one bullshit part of an otherwise great video.
Especially if you recall earlier in that same video he complains that commies unjustly accuse him of using ad hominem. Yet here we are, proposing literally judging someone's philosophy by his personality, and not his arguments.
Rudyard, if you want less people to think that about you, don't confirm their biases.
It makes perfect sense, philosophy is the study of fundamental questions, these answers stem from your way of life and thinking, I do not want to follow a man who let his children starve and adhere to his opinion on life, not only this it’s towards communists who always say Marx was a great human
His ideology is intertwined with his world view and hatred of Jews.
Why do you think there's such an emphasis on toppling the ruling class, it was because at the time the ruling class were the bourgeoisies (aka: townspeople) who were primarily Jewish because Jews at the time weren't allowed to own land hence were bankers in the towns and cities.
Because the Jews were getting rich of their banking business he loathed them even stating:
Capitalism is the religion of the Jews (Judaism).
Capital is the jealous God of isreal.
Capitalists are the Jews.
Every time he mentioned capitalists in his book he refers to he means JEWS.
This detail is why he emphasised revolution and force without peace because of hatred.
This ideology has trickled down into modern leftist ideology where the only way to create a perfect world is to remove the highest class whether it be white, male, straight and rich and the only way they can be pure is by joining the cause of socialism or today becoming an "ally" to the social justice cause.
They don't even know their acting out his hatred of Jews on others.
Please don't fall for this evil ideology 😢.
Why indeed. I have a sneaking suspicion there are an awful lot of people running around today that fit that mould perfectly and that is why this stuff still resonates with them.
Vaush: thats uhhh, wait wtf actually is it (opens book and takes aproxximately 48 minutes).. ah, false equivalence, hmhmhmmm, im 300iq baby! Im smorter than these dumb republicans!
A lot of mad commies in the comments
Bateman pfp 😂
A lot of dead braincells in you
It's simply not true that Marx never worked a job. True, he only worked sporadically but he did write articles for an American newspaper. It's not like he simply refused to work on principle throughout his life. Also, in effect, his wealthy friend Engels was his patron. If you obviate this relationship, you could come to the conclusion that most artists and writers in history didn't work . . . because they were often patronized by a single or small set of wealthy individuals. Oh Marx had sex with women other than his wife . . . if you want to ignore a man's ideas based solely on that . . . that would cross out the vast majority of men who have ever existed. And as for Marx being racist . . . yeah so he used a slur to describe Ferdinand LaSalle. That certainly wasn't nice but doesn't really obviate everything else he said.
There's a sentence Rudyard uses in this short that typifies his thinking - "Why are we letting losers tell us how to think and what to believe?"
The real question is, why does Rudyard think that's how to properly read these authors? You don't read Marx as if he's preaching to you, you read him so you can use his framework as a mode of analysis, and then determine for yourself is that mode is useful, either in full or in part. Rudyard reads books as if the author is telling him what to think and believe, hence why he reels off all these historical works but never talks about the countless others that disagree or directly critique them.
My point is, he's not a historian, he's a guy who reads history books. Don't expect particularly cutting edge arguments from him.
There's a difference between being an artist and not working, and talking about politics/the working class while not working.
Where is your evidence for a majority of men being adulterers?
Marx was racist beyond just using one slur, but I'd wager you and most people online today would discredit all of a man's ideas if he used a slur against someone else anyway. It's only fair to follow the same judgement
You're missing the point. Nobody should listen to someone about how to run stuff when they couldnt even run their own life right. Not working is one thing, forget that tho, he let his kids starve. He was bad at being responsible for the things in his control. You wouldnt want your worst co worker in charge at work, would you? Marx was a PoS, but more importantly, he was an "obese fitness writer" and a hypocrite, a guy who's philosophy worked out as well as his own life.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 I wouldn't dismiss somebodies theories based purely on the fact they were racist. I might disagree with their theories, find out later that they were racist, and then use that as a underhanded means of bashing that persons theories without having to engage with them, like you're doing here.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 Karl Marx was an early advocate of Darwinism and the social anthropology of Lewis Henry Morgan - his philosophy was deeply rooted in the study of the rise of various tribes, nations and classes. Evolutionary biology and anthropology at this time was pre-genetic - in the sense that - people didn’t know, for example how similar all homo sapiens genes were and how we even have a close genetic similarity with chimps. In this regard, we need to be careful when we use the word “racism” - in the 19th century the word race could be easily used interchangeably with the word for tribe or nation. Even the word genetics comes from “gens” which is the Latin word for tribe. So even though Marx and Engels were pre genetic thinkers they often referred to the Latin gens. However besides all that - Marx did make some slurry remarks against his political opponents which - don’t age well.
We started out talking about Rousseau and Marx and ended by talking about Voltaire and Marx ?
POV: youve not read Marx
O dont want to damage my brain
By that logic, why are people still listening to Nietzsche? 😂
Delusional
Philosophy is the nonsensical opinions of clever people who can cleverly wield words and turn them into word salads. I'll stick to empirical science and experimental/confirmable data, thank you.
Bro how many research paper did you read about every day decisions as a leader , worker or a parent?
@@sunset2.00 they don’t exist. And if they did, they wouldn’t really be reliable data.
Bro, you didn't even change out Voltair with Rousseau in the clip
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a saint either. He had six children with one of his slaves. Is there nuance there? Maybe, sure. But even if it’s as bad as it sounds, the American Declaration of Independence remains one of the greatest documents in history.
Voltaire? I thought we were talking about Rosseau?
I like Voltaire. I disliked Rosseau.
This analysis completely misses the point. Who gets to decide what a loser looks like? Marx got a P.h.D. despite his ideas being condemned for liberal ideas by conservative institutions. Rudyard dropped out of school, and constantly feels the need to brag about things people in his own subreddit question the accuracy of.
Before that his high school was raided for liberal sympathies, and after he worked as an editor in a paper.
Don't let a pseudo-intellectual who reads books by the college educated tell you that one of the most widely influential political figures in history was just a loser. Conservatives just want to discredit ideas that they can't integrate into their philosophies.
@@Gabagoolhog Oh yeah well Marx did edit the New Reinische Zeitung . . . what about that Mr. What If . . . I was just talking about his Tribune articles. Then we was also the chair of the First International. I mean this guy wouldn't consider Marx to have a job unless he was flipping burgers at the Victorian equivalent of Micky D's
Marx imagined a better world where the struggle of life wasn't made worse by abhorrent social institutions. Completely understandable given his past. I mean, his marriage was controversial because his wife broke off an engagement to an aristocrat to be with him. That sounds like a chad to me.
@@Gabagoolhog How is that Chad? He was trying to envision a heaven on Earth that is impossible to achieve?
That ad hominem is some high level argument
He’s clearly laying out the argument that these men’s ideologies and lens of the world came from the experiences and circumstances during their lives. This is Plato’s allegory of the cave. Basic psychology. Real simple stuff, but I guess for internet debate lords then sure.
@@kylevernon Yeah, thats why he only talk about things that make them look bad, without even touching on the basics. Yeah, he is totally intellectaly honest
@@sirius6738 bro
These are fairly bad things considering what these men created
@@autobotfan11 This doesn't justify anything. Just because the thing you created is used years after your death for evil, does that mean that you are directly responsible for it. Its like saying that the Wright brothers are responsible for 9/11
@@kylevernon it’s still a piss poor argument. Personal lives of authors mean nothing to the ‘art’ they create. Even if you hate communism and Marx blah blah, his works are undoubtedly some of the most influential pieces of literature in the realms of sociology, political philosophy, philosophy, economics etc. him being a bum doesn’t matter. Van Gogh was a troubled bum, doesn’t make his art any less meaningful
I agree you should question it, but attacking someone’s argument by using ad hominem is not valid. It could be these people themselves who have good answers to important questions, so you shouldn’t look at the person but his ideas. I do agree however that taking a look at who the person is explains why they think how they think.
It’s not an ad hominem. The way a person thinks and behaves is reflection of their circumstances and experiences in life. That’s basic psychology. The argument he’s laying out is that these men were flawed in their lives which lead them to viewing an unrealistic picture of the world like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
Sure. So you look at their ideas…. Are they good are bad. Then look at their character and what they are trying to achieve.
I would have a hard time trying to adhere to a mans philosophy about how the world should be ran when he does not care for his children. Maybe he has a brilliant idea but his actions speak louder then words. How many countries tried socialism and how many people starved… millions.
@@ETsBeesexcept none of this is true. I tried to find it but there isn't anything. The only bad thing I could find about him and his family is him despising Cubans to such a point that when a family member married a Cuban he refused to speak to them ever again.
Whatifalthist also lives Nietzsche who was arguably more of a racist than Marx soooooo yeah he doesn't have an argument.
If you're gonna criticise someone's philosophy bcs of how they lived their life, you'd better do the same for other similar people. But he doesn't. He also doesn't supply any credible sources, and, better yet, lies.
@@gaybowser4967 Wait... Whatifalthist likes Nietzsche? Interesting, because Nietzsche talked about a similar thing in Ecce Homo (I think), saying how just because he "hasn't found the keys to his own chains" doesn't mean "he doesn't have the keys to someone else's chains". I could try to find the aphorism if need be.
@@kylevernon But it could also be that despite the way they lived their lives their ideas were good. Because of that possibility I don't think looking into their lives should be a valid way of trying to form a counterargument against their views.
Why do we follow em? Cuz we can think for ourselves
Ok commie
Birds of a feather flock together 🤷🏻♂️ his supporters today are the refuse of society
Reality is more ridiculous than can be sufficiently articulated
“The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
-John Locke
You can't infer that someone's ideas are bad because they had turbulent lives.
I mean sure that checks out. But in this case the full video lays out that these people were losers from the perspective of having seen what their thinking and their ideas have produced.
I think we can all agree that *a fat person in the fat acceptance circles probably has no idea what fitness is or how to achieve it.*
He didn't have a "turbulent life" he was a negligent father who would rather think about Utopias rather then becoming a better man. If Karl Marx lived today he would've definitely benefited from Dr Jordan Peterson's work.
@@mickeytwister4721 Yes of course, the same Jordan Peterson that doesn't understand anything about Marxism 😂
@@dandash9870 that's y'all's only rebuttal. "You don't understand communism" "real communism has never been tried" you people will never learn until you have to live in that type of hell.
@@mickeytwister4721 Where did you see him criticize Marxism in the video? The only thing he did was shit on Marx's life. He didn't make any effort to criticize his ideas.
This video ultimately falls to the ad hominem logical fallacy, meaning it attacks somones personal traits as a way to attack their argument. Say what you want about Karl Marx as a person, and say what you want about communism/Marxism as ideas, but you cannot bring them together unless there is an actual reason to do so.
Ad hominem" attacks are perfectly acceptable, if you are attacking a philosopher who tried to tell others how to live their lives, while making a mess of his own life.
Lefist deny BIOLOGY
You started off with Rousseau and finished with Voltaire... Some inconsistency there.
My guy, that "maid" was a slave.
You should make a video and then make a "Short" of every utterance
How did he have such an impressive beard
Too lazy to shave
“ impressive “ is an overstatement, Marx’s beard looks ungroomed and filthy like a homeless man , unlike nitszche with his superior well groomed and hygienic mustache
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszykiewic3338 I see where you are coming from, however the potential for a very good beard is there
He looks like a piece of cauliflower
an idea is more important than the person who came up with idea. If you will see many philosopher were losers in their life including nietzsche, kafka, marx even buddha
This they set unrealistic standards sometimes.
Average American :
No it isn't
This is such a bad mischaracterization that it’s almost painful. Marx lived for some time in abject poverty because he lived in one of the worst times in history. He did not let his children starve as if he did not give them food out of spite; they died of malnutrition. There is a huge difference between both. Much of the food in 19th ce London was spiced up with dirt and chemicals to make it heavier to sell more for a cheaper price. Only later on after meeting Engels did he have more money. Look up how many people died during this period due to malnutrition in England. A lot of factory workers and their wife’s and children, who worked in factories as well, did. You also quote Nietzsches as if he wasn’t a "loser" by your definition himself. I mean he moved back I’m with his mom because did not get a job and wanted to be a philosopher. Funny isn’t it? This short is full of bad faith strawmans. It’s just propaganda for people who are uneducated and don’t know better. You fit Nietzsches Definition of philosophers just too well yourself.
He lived in poverty cause he fucking gambled the support money away that his family gave. Don't twist facts my N.
You just gonna ignore how wealthy Friedrich Engels was? You really haven't read any communist writings