Marx, then...

He meant he could deduce the entirety of ones position from their writings - no investigation of his own required. He need only judge Marx by what he thinks of his writings.

Wait a second…

where are you getting this?

very interesting btw

wew lad

so does whoever wrote this shit actually attempt to argue that Marx's analysis in Capital is fatally flawed, or just go on about how he didn't investigate factories correctly?

So the implication is that working people are just stupid–so stupid they were able to be bamboozled into believing obviously flawed if not outright manufactured hogwash?

>"Even though it's clear Engels and Marx never let facts get in the way of a good argument, Marx' magisterial work Capital is still accurate…somehow. It's dialectics, I ain't got to explain shit"

Pic related. The tl;dr is that for all their proclaimed "love" for humanity most of the famous Leftist intellectuals were actually pretty shitty people to their friends, associates, and loved ones

Love for humanity in the abstract isn't negated by occasionally or even predominantly being a shitty person.

Good thing leftism does not sustain itself on morals

I don't fucking care if Marx was a bad person, is his theory right or not? This is what we should care about. No one seems to care if scientists who come up with useful theories are bad people. Right-wingers do not care if their favorite political theorists are bad people, since anything is acceptable for the good of the race, for Tradition (tm), or whatever.

It's almost as if Marx' obsession with the inevitably of violent revolution might be more due to his personal issues than some objective appraisal of the future of humanity, huh

bad post which I hid

Jasper can't into immanent critique.

Well, at least Marx was racist. That's a good man in any book.

so it's just moralfaggotry then?
that is literally not an argument.

interesting, but was their writing on the workers' conditions of the 19th century, ultimately, false? Because it's not some far fetched scenario that it was awful. You certainly don't need to work at a sweatshop today to know it's shit.

If you can't even act like a decent human being around those you love, I'm pretty sure any claims to loving "humanity in general" are absolutely meaningless.

I mean for fuck's sake this board can't go ten minutes without complaining that all the talk by liberals about how "radical" they are is essentially meaningless given their actions

neither socialism or communism is about loving humanity

So are you going to make a single coherent point or are you just going to keep pushing this cringe-inducing moralizing on us?

Hey it is almost like the revolutions who overthrew social and economic systems were incredibly violent and anyone who studied any amount of history understood it.

Of course it isn't, it's just Utopianism for secular humanists

OP ignore the angry replies and please answer me>>1252951

how embarrassing

To be fair, if you live in a first world country, it's pretty damn comfy. Most comfy it has ever been. You don't even have to work to survive. There are legitimate criticisms of capitalism but the best, they usually come from capitalists themselves. Anyone who has ever read The Grapes of Wrath (the movie was welcome and then b& in the USSR, gee I wonder why) knows that's possibly the worst capitalism has ever been but it rebounded and the fact that it didn't stir revolution then shows that there will most likely never ever be revolution, at least a socialist/communist one. The point is that it'll never get as bad as it did during the depression, which was the absolute ripest time for revolution. It was the greatest missed opportunity in the history of capitalism and if communist revolutionaries truly took advantage of it back then, the world would be a vastly different place than it is today but alas it is not and we live under capitalism. People's needs have mostly been met to the point the proles can mostly fill their time with leisure and bread and circus activities like watching mongolian cartoons made, masturbating to pornography made and owned by capitalists, or shitposting on a imageboard websites made by capitalists while on their autismbux. This doesn't amount to good thing either. We're entering a different type of dystopia created by capitalism alas alack a Brave New World. The point is the economic arguments are becoming moot thanks to advancements and modernity. The true primary concerns of the people in the first world capitalist nations are ones of social value which is why people in the first world are inventing and making up problems where none exists like liberals do and why Holla Forums is winning. Capitalism creates emptiness. It has no soul but to capital. Holla Forums was right again

Pretty much. The book goes further into detail about it, but essentially Engels and Marx used out-of-date material to describe how the conditions of the working class in their time while omitting any reference to reforms in working conditions that had been made since then.

I suppose it'd be like writing a polemic about life for African-Americans and only using material from the '70s and '80s

and how does it reflect on Marx's theory? Seriously, what would it discredit in it?

Wtf I hate leftism now!

Welp back to Holla Forums for me, see ya goyim.

Das Kapital devotes a substantial amount of time to discussing the Factory Acts.
I love how this complaint about selective reading is based on an entirely selective reading.

And if you are, as Paul Johnson is, literally incapable of keeping it in your pants, you have no business kvetching about other people's morality. And when you are, as Johnson is, a gigantic fucking hypocrite who talks about declining morals and his love of the Catholic Church during the day, and goes to his mistress begging to be spanked at night, you have no business complaining about the hypocrisy of others.

As per usual, the critique of Marx you've posted makes use of strawmen, inflammatory attacks and baseless assertion to discredit Marx's work.

Let's look at the baseless falsehood in . Our friend claims:

Let's assume that our friend is correct about the integrity of "The Manufacturing Population of England". A cursory glance at the sources cited by Engels in "Condition of the Working Class in England" reveals that Engels did not particularly rely on it. The author explains neither why this is a poor source (merely ascribing to it a mythological status), and lies about the conclusion of the Royal Commission of 1842 - which demonstrated the opposite.

museum.wales/2191/

The sniveling author lies through his teeth in . When discussing the factory acts, Marx points to two features. 1. the opposition of the bourgeoisie and parliament (i.e. taking the transcripts of parliamentary hearings, the apologist in the bourgeois journals), and their in efficiency (Marx spends a particular amount of time talking about the "relay" system enacted following the factory acts and the subsequent deregulation, and regulation that was passed in almost a bipolar manner). Marx's point is that the legislation is necessary due to the outcries of the class struggle, and was far from the benevolent reformism our vulgar apologist presents his findings to purvey.

This book is trash and you're a moron for taking it at face value instead of reading Marx's works. As usual, this thread is full of newfags capitulating to half baked critiques, such as .

That's why later editions of Capital were edited to include reforms passed after it was published in 1868? God, you're a moron.

Of course he has. I hope you didn't waste time reading that trash book OP.

TOP FUCKING KEK!

Just like OP:

Read The Making of the English Working Class by E. P Thompson.

It's much more historically accurate. But he comes to the same conclusion too.

He uses factory commissions (the aforementioned report on child labour in the factory that supposedly refuted him, for one), English and French historians, reports by doctors, works published by actual operatives, statistics, legal authorities (such as judges), and contracts to prove his case. The fact that he uses Gaskell's book (which is a history, not a fiction book, with references to primary sources), does not discredit his analysis.

And just like when that was said in the OP, it's still wrong. Why don't you read the book you're trying to critique instead of babbling on?
You are insane.