What was he WRONG about?

Hairstyle

Well how about HANDPICKING stalin to be president of USSR,
That worked out well now didn't it,

Thinking that suppressing individualist ideals is acceptable and or necessary for a revolution

gulag

Oh and everything that he said in the german ideology

please walk in front of a moving tank

...

nothing new around here

...

...

Marx wanted to have the dynamics of dialectics without the detailed elaboration of consciousness that made such dynamics possible. In that effort of abstraction he created a theory of materialism that is inconsistent at best and philosophically regressive at worst. It's fine for supporting the critique of political economy he delivers but it's inadequate otherwise.

And his idea of Asiatic Mode of Production is just the typical lazy analysis of Asian society that pretty much every theorist was formalizing in the 19th century, where the Orient is seen as this eternally static society of exchanged warlords and semi-primitive collective ownership over property. It's one of his weaker moments, but it can't be helped considering the general lack of knowledge on the subject that he had to work with at the time.

Dogmatist pls go.

Also this 100%.

Teleological argument

Nothing.
You cannot be wrong if you are simply uninformed/unfunded to do your research.

He made the best out of what he had and gave the matterials for us to go further.

(If only we actually used them).

Stop being and Idealist Faggot Yui, you damn Inteligentsia!

Das some grade a doublethink right there fam

Can you "accuse" people for thinking the earth is flat, when noone said other wise?

You can only accuse them of not taking into consideration existing and acceptable knowledge.

*and accesible

WTF? Is it false to say they believe the earth if is flat if they actually do?

He thought that socialism will come after capitalism. But since we're destroying this plant it is probable that humanity goes extinct before, or that tribalism will be the next thing.

"How could people not know space time and non-eucleadian geometry?"

Marx was not "wrong".
He is relevant, but adittions and modifications are needed as time progresses.

Being "right" =/= being "perfect"

It's very easy. For thousands of years, they didn't.

You're either right or you're wrong. There is no middle ground.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

So, since we never have full access on information, we can never be right.

Right?

Cardinal numbers being "nonsense"

None of these things are wrong, or they are misconstrued by these posters.

For example Marx was never a teleologists, at the very least not in Kapital.

It's possible to be precisely correct about things, in fields like math and physics.

I'd say it's also possible to be "right" about a statement if the prerequisite definitions are agreed upon.

In this way, you can state how many legs a table has and either be correct or incorrect, despite the fact that "table" and "leg" are both arbitrary designations.

But watch out for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Existential_import when you do this.

LTV, TRPF.

His general critique of capitalism is great, though, and he was depressingly right about how violent revolution was inevitable.

But euclidean geometry and neutonean physics only work within context!

kys tbh.

Obviously he didn't properly predict how flexible capitalism would become. He was wrong about when and where the revolutions would occur. His LTV is iffy, but I wouldn't call it decidedly incorrect.

I would be very interested to see what he would say about 20th century socialism.

Go to church, you fucking idealist.

Fuck off theocrat!
I hate how Leftypol is crawling with authoritarian christians and muslims that can't stop trying to force their religion onto other people.

Where does this come from?

I've read quite a bit of Marx. I still haven't read anything where he says you need to suppress individualist ideals to have a revolution. Where does this come from?

Nothing, what Marx said still holds true today.

...

HUME'S FORK HUME'S FORK HUME'S FORK!

Do elaborate…

...

...

...

Internationalism.
Markets.

The state as a part of the superstructure, rather than the nexus between the base and the superstructure and thus equally both.

This is correct. Marx made the mistake of thinking that what he was studying was late-stage capitalism when, in fact, the system was still in its crib. Also, he failed to take into account the changing nature of the military, which should have been glaringly obvious when he was alive. He should have taken what happened to the Paris Commune as an object lesson in the rising power to suppress dissent that capitalism was flexing in the industrialized world.

...

Okay, boyo.

Just to emphasize and , from the University of Buenos Aires with full citations:
academia.edu/6849268/Maito_Esteban_Ezequiel_-_The_historical_transience_of_capital_The_downward_trend_in_the_rate_of_profit_since_XIX_century_final_draft_

...

...

...

The State

Stirner

Jews
Stirner
The state
Human nature

...

I'm beginning to think everything except a few things that are important here and there.

Still a very important philosopher.

Uruhue pls go

May better thinkers rise from his ashes in our time

Why do you think that's wrong?

Not guy you're replying to, and I agree with Marx, but
not very advanced capitalist countries, at least to me. That said, I do still agree with Marx to an extent. Revolutions in the most advanced capitalist societies would be the most successful, in terms of actually achieving Socialism, but revolutions are more likely to happen in the sort of middle-way between sweat-shop labour and first world countries like America, or the UK.

Revolutions are more likely to happen in the periphery, but they are doomed to fail. Only when the center itself fractures will socialism be able to overthrow capitalism.

by suppression I meant kinda downplaying they're importance compared to anarchists

I haven't read the German Ideology (yet), so would you mind explaining the disagreements you have with it?

yui pls

How is hume's fork relevant to what I said?

Which is why I stated the need to agree on definitions, you fucking pseudointellectual.

well meme'd

Marx wrote it when he was still young, so the book mostly consists of him trying to prove that he's a quick on the draw hotshot who is able to easily flash rhetoric in his bashing of other more widely known thinkers of the time. He's too interested in critiquing everything that guys like Feuerbach and Stirner had to say rather than giving a fair analysis of what the Young Hegelians were talking about at the time. Marx grows out of this 'edgy' phase in his writing during the 1850s and his critique of other thinkers becomes way more substantial, but The German Ideology might as well be considered juvenilia. It's interesting to see where Marx was at during that period in his intellectual development, but the work itself is a tepid slog through someone more interested in making a name for themselves as a critic rather than providing substantial alternatives to what they're writing against.

I mean, he wrote this nonsense in the work, which isn't consistent at all with what later Marx thought despite any criticisms I may have:

Not seeing anything wrong there.

Yeah, really, what is philosophy except intellectually jerking an immaterial dick?

Well, it could try to change the world, but how do we do this, without going full ideology?

Idealism is still masturbatory, though

Ugh, I lost my notes on Marx otherwise I would give you a list.

But (from the top of my head) his critique of capitalism is still spot on, if incomplete. His later writings stand the test of time better than his earlier ones. But along with Proudhon, he's probably the most intelligent socialist thinker to come out of the 19th century, and yet they are both severely misunderstood by the general public (and by leftists in general).

This. I don't think he was wrong about it as much as he was uninterested in studying the state's role in the economy. I think the fact that marxists don't seem terribly interested in critiquing the state's role as part of the relations of the means of production is a serious fault though.

It doesn't matter if you have absolute definitions or not, since direct realism is fucking impossible. Any model of reality is only going to be approximately correct.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Once again, you are trying to argue with me, yet effectively saying the same thing as me.

Yeah the simplistic idea that the State is merely just an extension of the ruling class's interests has always irked me. There's literally thousands of examples of bourgeois states and porkies clashing over shit.

Fuck off Marxhead.

There's also a good few examples of how states act affecting the way the population thinks and interacts with one another, suggesting it's a fair bit more core to society than suggested.

Pretty much the only valid criticism in this entire thread.

The labor theory of value.

Abstract: This paper presents the results of an empirical exploration, with data from countries worldwide, of Sraffian, Marxian, and classical political economy. Income distribution, as associated with systems of prices of production, fails to describe many economies. Economies in most countries or regions lie near their wage-rate of profits frontier, when the frontier is drawn with a numeraire in proportions of observed final demands. Labor values predict market prices better than prices of production do. Labor values also predict market prices better than they predict prices of production. In short, a simple labor theory of value is a surprisingly accurate price theory for economies around the world

materialism

LTV isn't Marx

v. much agreed re: materialism comrade, i've thought the same thing for awhile

u can be non-materialist w/o being idealist js

Sure, states affect how people think and interact, but the nature of the state is always determined by the material realities in which a society finds itself. It has less agency than anarchists tend to give it credit for.

For example, Roman emperors possessed ultimate power within the empire, but the true extent of that power was limited by several practical realities. Sure, an emperor could declare that he was a god and demand that he be actively worshipped by everyone in the empire (see: Gaius Caesar), but doing so was likely to facilitate rebellions and make tax collection more difficult. Such realities resulted in reformations of the state (Gaius is assassinated) that better reflected the realities within the empire.

...