The Problem with Marx and Engels

The hypocrisy, lies and facts about two lazy, entitled, privileged rich men who lived their whole lives nursing from the tit of capitalism.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are the two most influential figures in the history of political thought, especially for their role in developing the theory of communism. Despite their contributions, they have faced significant criticism, some of which focuses on contradictions or concerning aspects of their lives and work. Here’s just some of the most notable critiques:

Their Personal Inconsistencies

Spoiler alert, they were both privileged. Critics often highlight the contradiction between Marx and Engels’ personal backgrounds and their advocacy for the working class. Marx came from an upper, middle-class family and his father was a successful lawyer. Engels was born into a very wealthy industrialist family. Engels even managed his father's textile factory, which employed workers under brutal anti-worker conditions he criticized. Those conditions were of course, highly profitable and that is what Engels and Marx lived off of whilst waxing political philosophy and writing books against the very thing feeding, warming and sheltering them. Like all rich kids, they hated business but not enough to deny the financial proceeds of the very thing they claimed to detest.

The more wealthy of the two, Engels supported Marx financially, which some opponents see as contradictory since their writings condemn capitalism and the exploitation of the working class. Critics often argue that Engels' wealth, derived from capitalist enterprises, was at odds with their ideological stance.Karl Marx had a complex and somewhat strained relationship with his father, Heinrich Marx. Their relationship was shaped by several factors, including family dynamics, Karl's intellectual development, and differing worldviews.

Marx Relationship and Influence of His Father

Heinrich Marx was an upper middle class lawyer and was initially very supportive of Karl's education. He ensured that Karl received a good education, first at home and later at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin. Heinrich was a rationalist and a follower of Enlightenment ideals, which he passed on to Karl during his early years.

Heinrich encouraged Karl to study law, likely due to his own professional background. However, Karl eventually became more interested in philosophy, particularly the works of Hegel, which led him in a different direction than his father had intended.

Eventual Tensions and Disagreements

As Karl became more involved in radical politics and philosophy, particularly after joining the Young Hegelians, tensions with his father grew. Heinrich was concerned about Karl’s lack of discipline, his growing radicalism, and the practical implications of his academic pursuits.

Karl’s decision to abandon his legal studies and immerse himself in philosophy and journalism created financial tensions. Heinrich often expressed frustration with Karl’s financial irresponsibility, particularly as Karl continued to rely on his father for financial support while pursuing a career that offered little monetary return.

The correspondence between Karl and Heinrich reflects the growing tensions in their relationship. Heinrich’s letters often expressed concern over Karl’s lifestyle and career choices, urging him to be more practical and

Marx and Engels Views on Race and Ethnicity

They were known bigots. Both Marx and Engels made statements in their writings and private correspondence that have been criticized as racist or ethnocentric. For example, Marx referred to some ethnic groups in derogatory terms, and Engels expressed views that reflected a sense of European superiority. Marx also defended British colonialism in India. These remarks are at odds with their professed commitment to universal human liberation.

Authoritarian Tendencies

The ideas of Marx and Engels lead to authoritarianism. Marx’s concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is seen as a potential justification for centralizing power in the hands of a few. Historical instances, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, are often cited as examples where Marxist ideas were interpreted to justify repressive regimes. The death toll from Stalin was agreed to be somewhere between 6-9 million. Marx and Engels were known to be intolerant of differing socialist views, often engaging in fierce polemics against other left-wing thinkers and groups. This intolerance is seen as contradictory to the ideals of open discourse and democratic decision-making that they ostensibly supported. Imagine that, these clowns suppressed dissent and were narcissistic virtue signalers.

Economic Determinism

Some critics argue that Marx’s focus on economic factors as the primary driving force in history (historical materialism) is overly deterministic. This approach can oversimplify the complexity of human societies by ignoring the roles of culture, religion, and individual agency, which can be seen as a contradiction to the nuanced understanding of social dynamics. So they over-simplified complex social issues for their personal gain. Sound familiar?

A careful examination of their history also indicates that while Marx and Engels emphasized economic liberation, they often overlooked the importance of political freedoms and rights. This has led to critiques that their vision of socialism does not sufficiently protect individual liberties. So they were all about collectivism and removing freedoms and rights. Sounds like a great way to make plebs, serfs and eventually slaves.

Contradictions in Revolutionary Strategy

Straight up, they supported radicalism and violence. Marx and Engels advocated for the overthrow of capitalist systems through revolution, which opponents see as promoting violence. Critics argue that this stance contradicts their goal of achieving a humane and just society. The potential for violence and chaos inherent in their revolutionary strategy has been a major point of concern. While Marx and Engels generally dismissed gradual reform as inadequate, Engels later in life acknowledged the possibility that some countries might transition to socialism through peaceful and democratic means. This was seen as a contradiction to their earlier emphasis on the necessity of violent revolution.

Gender Inequality

They cared very little for women. Although Marx and Engels addressed issues related to the family and gender roles, critics argue that they did not sufficiently focus on women’s liberation. Their works are often seen as prioritizing class struggle over other forms of oppression, leading to a perceived neglect of gender equality within their framework.

Financial Difficulties

Karl Marx experienced significant financial difficulties later in his life. Marx frequently faced financial instability, particularly as he focused on writing and political activism rather than earning a stable income. His family often lived in poor conditions, especially during their time in London. Marx relied heavily on financial support from Friedrich Engels, who subsidized Marx's living expenses for many years. Marx accumulated considerable debt over his lifetime, which added to his financial woes. He sometimes pawned household items to make ends meet and struggled to provide for his family adequately. SO to be clear, Marx was destitute because of his laziness and entitlement after growing up, upper middle class, and was an entitled free loader for most of his adult life. relying on Engels as his righteous benefactor. In essence, he was kept.

Health Issues and Poverty

In addition to financial problems, Marx also suffered from various health issues, which were exacerbated by the stress of his financial situation. His poor health and lack of consistent income contributed to his overall difficult living conditions.

Engels, who came from a wealthy industrial family, provided substantial financial assistance to Marx. This support prevented Marx from falling into extreme poverty, though it did not alleviate all his financial difficulties. Engels' contributions allowed Marx to continue his work on Das Kapital and other writings. Marx financial difficulties were mitigated by his righteous WEALTHY BENEFACTOR from the consistent support of Friedrich Engels.

These men were proponents of inflexible ideologies, class warfare, totalitarianism, and the vehement rejection of liberal democracy. Marx and Engels' work are considered dangerous because of their potential to justify authoritarianism, violence, and the suppression of individual freedoms under the guise and outright LIE of a more just and equitable society. History has shown the ways in which their ideas have been implemented have led to outcomes that contradict their original intentions. Their ideas lead to death and totalitarianism.

The question of attributing a specific death toll to the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is a complex issue. While it is clear that Marxist ideologies are associated with regimes that caused massive loss of life, directly attributing a death toll to Marx and Engels themselves is difficult because it involves interpreting how their ideas were applied or misapplied by later leaders and movements.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous and delusional part of Communists masquerading as Marxists. They profess regularly, that "We just haven't seen Marx and Engel's ideologies implemented correctly yet. And the believer in these fool's rhetoric understands the truth around the implementation but historical opponents and lovers of freedom and democracy just don't 'get it.'"

Das Kapital is one of the foundational texts of Marxist theory and a critical view of capitalism. However, many scholars have identified major issues with its concepts. Here’s some of the major critiques:

Labor Theory of Value

Marx argues that the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce it. He extends this to suggest that surplus value (profit) is extracted by capitalists from the labor of workers. The labor theory of value has been criticized for its lack of empirical support. Economists in the neoclassical tradition, argue that value is instead determined by supply and demand, as well as the marginal utility of goods to consumers. Critics also point out that the theory struggles to explain prices in complex markets where labor inputs are not the sole determinant of value.

Economic Determinism

Marx suggests that the economic base (the mode of production) determines the superstructure (politics, culture, and ideology). In this view, all societal changes are ultimately rooted in economic factors. Critics argue that this view is overly deterministic and fails to account for the role of ideas, culture, and individual agency in shaping history. Many scholars point out that changes in culture, ideology, and politics can influence economic structures, not just the other way around.

Fetishism of Commodities

Marx argues that commodities in capitalist societies are imbued with a "fetishism," where social relationships between people take on the form of relationships between things (commodities). While this concept has been influential in cultural and critical theory, some critics argue that it is overly abstract and difficult to apply in practical economic analysis. Others suggest that Marx’s focus on fetishism neglects the complexity of consumer behavior and the roles of branding, marketing, and personal identity in modern economies.

Theory of Exploitation

Marx contends that capitalism is inherently exploitative because workers are paid less than the value of what they produce, with the difference (surplus value) being appropriated by capitalists as profit. Most critics of this theory argue that it simplifies the relationship between labor and capital. For example, it doesn’t account for the role of risk, innovation, or capital investment in creating value. Furthermore, the assumption that all profit is derived from exploitation is seen as reductive by many economists, who argue that profits can arise from various legitimate sources, including entrepreneurship and technological innovation.

Historical Inevitability

Marx predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism due to its internal contradictions and the rise of a proletarian revolution that would lead to a classless society. History has not borne out this prediction. Capitalism has shown resilience and adaptability, surviving various crises and continuing to evolve. The failure of Marxist revolutions to produce sustainable classless societies also casts doubt on the idea of historical inevitability. Many scholars argue that Marx underestimated the capacity of capitalist societies to reform and stabilize themselves.

Neglect of the Role of the State

Marx largely saw the state as an instrument of class oppression that would "wither away" after the proletarian revolution. This view is criticized for underestimating the complexities of governance and the role of the state in managing economies and societies. Critics argue that Marx failed to provide a practical framework for how a post-capitalist state should function, which contributed to the authoritarian nature of many regimes that claimed to follow his ideas.

These critiques of Das Kapital highlight areas where Marx's analysis is considered by many scholars to be flawed and incomplete. The book's abstract and often deterministic approach has led to both theoretical and practical challenges in its application. Outlined next, are some of those brilliant implementations of his genius.

Historical Context and Estimates of Related Death Tolls Associated with Marx and Engels' Influence and Theories

The death toll often cited in connection with Marxist-inspired regimes primarily comes from the following events:

The Soviet Union (under Stalin) The Great Purge (1936-1938): The Great Purge, also known as the Great Terror, involved the execution of hundreds of thousands of people, and the imprisonment of millions in the Gulag labor camps. Estimates vary, but a commonly cited figure is around 1 million executions and several million more deaths due to harsh conditions in the camps.

Holodomor (1932-1933): The famine in Ukraine, known as the Holodomor, resulted in millions of deaths (estimates range from 3 to 7 million) and is often attributed to Stalin’s policies of forced collectivization.

Maoist China The Great Leap Forward (1958-1962): This campaign aimed at rapidly industrializing China resulted in one of the deadliest famines in human history, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 15 to 45 million people. The Cultural Revolution (1966-1976): The Cultural Revolution led to the persecution of millions, with estimates of deaths ranging from 1 to 3 million.

Cambodia (under Pol Pot) Khmer Rouge (1975-1979): The genocidal policies of the Khmer Rouge led to the deaths of approximately 1.7 to 2 million people, about a quarter of Cambodia’s population at the time.

And honorable mentions: Other Regimes North Korea, Eastern Europe, and Ethiopia: Various other Marxist-Leninist regimes, such as those in North Korea, Eastern Europe during the Cold War, and Ethiopia under the Derg, have also been associated with significant loss of life, often due to repression, forced labor, and famine.

My Disclaimer: Academic Consensus and Caution

Many historians and scholars urge caution when attributing a specific death toll directly to Marx and Engels. While their ideas undoubtedly influenced regimes responsible for mass atrocities, it is essential to recognize the distinction between ideology and implementation. The specific actions of leaders like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, as well as the historical, social, and economic contexts, played significant roles in the outcomes observed. So be mindful that the same imbeciles who worship these misanthropic spoiled, loser rich kids will tell you all day, that The Catholic Church, Capitalism, America and the Free Market is so evil and deadly, because of the same indirect reasons or misuse and abuse.

These ideas, ironically are most appealing to the children of the wealthy. So what are the notions of Marxism really rooted in? Spoiled children who hate their fathers and also have zero interest in studying history. It's as basic as 20+ Greek Tragedies and Shakespearean plays.

For your consideration, a reading list:

“The Black Book of Communism” (1997)

This controversial work estimates that Communist regimes worldwide have caused the deaths of approximately 94 million people. The book includes contributions from several scholars and historians, but it has been criticized for methodological issues, including how it attributes deaths to Marxist ideas versus other factors such as war, famine, and internal political conflicts.

Robert Conquest’s Works

Historian Robert Conquest’s work on the Soviet Union, particularly his book The Great Terror, documents the mass killings under Stalin. Conquest’s estimates are widely cited, but his works focus more on the actions of Stalin and less on Marx and Engels’ ideas as the root cause.

Stephen Kotkin’s Biography of Stalin

In his detailed biography of Stalin, historian Stephen Kotkin provides a nuanced analysis of Stalin's actions. While acknowledging the influence of Marxist ideology, Kotkin also emphasizes Stalin's personal role in the atrocities. He argues that while Marxist ideas provided a framework, the specific outcomes were shaped by the actions of individual leaders.

J?rg Baberowski

In his book Scorched Earth: Stalin's Reign of Terror, Baberowski explores the influence of ideology but also highlights the role of Stalin’s personality and the structures of Soviet power. He cautions against directly attributing the death toll solely to Marxist theory, instead emphasizing the complex interplay of ideology, leadership, and historical context.

~Fin

Hi I'm Thomas. I write about things that concern me and I don't care if you like, click, follow, share or not. I have nothing to sell.