@@fini8874 that’s because in Germany you have your own villain aka Mr Adolf. Communist ideology has always been frown upon in the US and that naturally would implicate Marx alongside it.
@kedrick93 Are you aware that Karl Marx is German too? 😁 And yes, I knew that America has an irrational fear of communists, but not that they'd actually be called "villains" 😅 Is that how you talk about him in history class?
@@fini8874 Yes I do know that, but what I'm saying is that Germany's biggest villian is probably Hitler. Besides, Marx didn't do influence much when he was alive so I don't think it's hard to see why people in Europe don't call him a "villian". And no, that's not how Marx is referred to in history classes, it's more in the mainstream political discourse.
I wouldn’t put Marx as evil in the category of Hitler but he was definitely a man of poor character 1. His slow writing and working ethic, while living off the money of others show his laziness. 2. Him being unfaithful to his wife and failure to take care of his family shows while criticizing capitalism of turning the family into an economic relationship not a relational one is ironic. 3. His poor character doesn’t discredit his work, but his work was poorly viewed amongst his peers and while one can say Marx didn’t cause the horrors of communism, you can say that it was the Russian Revolution 1917 that made Marx popular.
1. His friend Engels supported him to finish his book, a hugely important work in the history of economics. It's not exactly a profitable business to be a philosopher, but it is work nonetheless requiring constant reading, communications, and writing. Most philosophers and artists back then had patrons, such as royalty, to produce their work. 2. Where in his work does Marx critique the family under capitalism of not being "relational"? 3. Who are the peers you're talking about? The young Hegelians? Utopian socialists?
@@soyoltoi 1) Ah yes, his friend Engels which he barely offered any proper condolences and sympathy to when his lifelong companion Mary Burns died, but proceeds to ask for money! Oh, and also not paying Demuth for her service unless you consider impregnating her payment. 2) The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation. 3) Jevons , Menger, Keynes, Bohm-Bawerk, C violet Butler all criticized his work and it was not “the intellectual powerhouse” as what pre-Revolution made it to be. By peers, I mean other experts in the area and not his friends.
@@kedrick931. You claimed that he was lazy, but he worked right until his grave with the deal he had with Engels to finish Capital. Whatever standard you hold Marx to is beyond what Engels held him to because Marx apologized and Engels forgave him for his condolence letter. Demuth was another lifelong friend who lived with Marx right until his death. Him fathering a child with her is speculation and not established fact. Note that no one has claimed that Marx is a perfect or even a "moral" person. I'm sure he has done bad things, but that doesn't really say anything about his work. 2. What does that have to do with spousal faithfulness? You can be unfaithful and also have the family reduced to mere money relation under capitalism. You can also be faithful and have the same. 3. None of these are Marx's contemporaries except for Jevons who I don't recall ever having written anything about Marx during his life. If you are including academics after his death, then yes, many people disagreed with him and continue to disagree with him, including Marxists. But that's because they had to. He could not he ignored. He continues to influence basically all social sciences to this day, regardless of whether he had "good character".
@@soyoltoi Notice that my first comment on this post was NOT about his work but about his character. By your admission so far of all 3 points, you seem to agree that Marx 1) wasn’t moral 2) unfaithful 3) did important work despite poor character Thank you for your agreement.
@@kedrick93 huh. What a weird confrontation. Being in general agreement doesn't mean thr guy agrees to everything you say point blank. Notice there's tons of complexities to your initial sentences, and making them explicit is done to show you what you say looks more like motivated defenestration than a rational, purely theoretic discussion.
I am German and I just learned that Marx is apparently considered a "villain" in the US? Absoluetly wild 😂
@@fini8874 that’s because in Germany you have your own villain aka Mr Adolf. Communist ideology has always been frown upon in the US and that naturally would implicate Marx alongside it.
@kedrick93 Are you aware that Karl Marx is German too? 😁 And yes, I knew that America has an irrational fear of communists, but not that they'd actually be called "villains" 😅 Is that how you talk about him in history class?
@@fini8874 Yes I do know that, but what I'm saying is that Germany's biggest villian is probably Hitler. Besides, Marx didn't do influence much when he was alive so I don't think it's hard to see why people in Europe don't call him a "villian". And no, that's not how Marx is referred to in history classes, it's more in the mainstream political discourse.
Awesome breakdown, Eric. Love your lectures
That means a lot. Thank you.
I'll lay down a tenner that this guy was talking to an empty room.
Yes, I totally lecture to empty rooms. There are no students whatsoever! Makes it easy on the grading.
Does that tenner count as redistribution of wealth? 😂😂😂
I will lay down a tenner that you would not even have the balls to get up and talk in front of people like Eric.
I will lay down a tenner that you would never even have the balls to lecture in front of anyone like Eric does.
I wouldn’t put Marx as evil in the category of Hitler but he was definitely a man of poor character
1. His slow writing and working ethic, while living off the money of others show his laziness.
2. Him being unfaithful to his wife and failure to take care of his family shows while criticizing capitalism of turning the family into an economic relationship not a relational one is ironic.
3. His poor character doesn’t discredit his work, but his work was poorly viewed amongst his peers and while one can say Marx didn’t cause the horrors of communism, you can say that it was the Russian Revolution 1917 that made Marx popular.
1. His friend Engels supported him to finish his book, a hugely important work in the history of economics. It's not exactly a profitable business to be a philosopher, but it is work nonetheless requiring constant reading, communications, and writing. Most philosophers and artists back then had patrons, such as royalty, to produce their work.
2. Where in his work does Marx critique the family under capitalism of not being "relational"?
3. Who are the peers you're talking about? The young Hegelians? Utopian socialists?
@@soyoltoi
1) Ah yes, his friend Engels which he barely offered any proper condolences and sympathy to when his lifelong companion Mary Burns died, but proceeds to ask for money! Oh, and also not paying Demuth for her service unless you consider impregnating her payment.
2) The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.
3) Jevons , Menger, Keynes, Bohm-Bawerk, C violet Butler all criticized his work and it was not “the intellectual powerhouse” as what pre-Revolution made it to be. By peers, I mean other experts in the area and not his friends.
@@kedrick931. You claimed that he was lazy, but he worked right until his grave with the deal he had with Engels to finish Capital. Whatever standard you hold Marx to is beyond what Engels held him to because Marx apologized and Engels forgave him for his condolence letter. Demuth was another lifelong friend who lived with Marx right until his death. Him fathering a child with her is speculation and not established fact. Note that no one has claimed that Marx is a perfect or even a "moral" person. I'm sure he has done bad things, but that doesn't really say anything about his work.
2. What does that have to do with spousal faithfulness? You can be unfaithful and also have the family reduced to mere money relation under capitalism. You can also be faithful and have the same.
3. None of these are Marx's contemporaries except for Jevons who I don't recall ever having written anything about Marx during his life. If you are including academics after his death, then yes, many people disagreed with him and continue to disagree with him, including Marxists. But that's because they had to. He could not he ignored. He continues to influence basically all social sciences to this day, regardless of whether he had "good character".
@@soyoltoi Notice that my first comment on this post was NOT about his work but about his character.
By your admission so far of all 3 points, you seem to agree that Marx
1) wasn’t moral
2) unfaithful
3) did important work despite poor character
Thank you for your agreement.
@@kedrick93 huh. What a weird confrontation.
Being in general agreement doesn't mean thr guy agrees to everything you say point blank. Notice there's tons of complexities to your initial sentences, and making them explicit is done to show you what you say looks more like motivated defenestration than a rational, purely theoretic discussion.