In summary, you may as well defend Marx too.

Sure. First you have to understand who Marx was writing to. Europe had a much more rigid class structure. It can be best described as tri-part: those who work, those who fight, those who pray. The rise of the merchant class through the industrial revolution had disrupted the old relationship, where the warrior class was paternalistic towards the peasant and trades classes. Part of this disruption was the rise a new class, the proletariat, which was a psuedo-mechanical workforce that doesn't exist in the west anymore. Marx was trying to restore a noblesse oblige that would allow the increasingly debased proles to find a renewed sense of meaning in their lives.

Most of his critiques were highly reactionary and not too distant from those of Carlyle. The quiet quitting phenomenon is precisely due to the alienation of the people from their labor. No one derives meaning from developing or selling a digital platform to manage deliverables.

As for Marx's predictions of the future, he was almost entirely correct, as across the modern world the people own the means of production that are managed by a dictatorship of proletarianized elites.

On a slight tangent, nothing in Marx's economic descriptions can't be found in Adam Smith.

Spez: As for your dismissal of commie accomplishments, what is the alternative? Would it be better for China to be embroiled in massive and bloody feuds? For Cuba to continue as a degenerate mafia run vice state similar to Colombia? For violent psychopaths to control every level of Russian society or live under German occupation? For China to succumb to feminism and sodomy?

In summary, you may as well defend Marx too.

Sure. First you have to understand who Marx was writing to. Europe had a much more rigid class structure. It can be best described as tri-part: those who work, those who fight, those who pray. The rise of the merchant class through the industrial revolution had disrupted the old relationship, where the warrior class had a paternal relationship with the peasant and trades classes. Part of this disruption was the rise a new class, the proletariat, which was a psuedo-mechanical workforce that doesn't exist in the west anymore. Marx was trying to restore a noblesse oblige that would allow the increasingly debased proles to find a renewed sense of meaning in their lives.

Most of his critiques were highly reactionary and not too distant from those of Carlyle. The quiet quitting phenomenon is precisely due to the alienation of the people from their labor. No one derives meaning from developing or selling a digital platform to manage deliverables.

As for Marx's predictions of the future, he was almost entirely correct, as across the modern world the people own the means of production that are managed by a dictatorship of proletarianized elites.

On a slight tangent, nothing in Marx's economic descriptions can't be found in Adam Smith.

Spez: As for your dismissal of commie accomplishments, what is the alternative? Would it be better for China to be embroiled in massive and bloody feuds? For Cuba to continue as a degenerate mafia run vice state similar to Colombia? For violent psychopaths to control every level of Russian society or live under German occupation? For China to succumb to feminism and sodomy?

In summary, you may as well defend Marx too.

Sure. First you have to understand who Marx was writing to. Europe had a much more rigid class structure. It can be best described as tri-part: those who work, those who fight, those who pray. The rise of the merchant class through the industrial revolution had disrupted the old relationship, where the warrior class had a paternal relationship with the peasant and trades classes. Part of this disruption was the rise a new class, the proletariat, which was a psuedo-mechanical workforce that doesn't exist in the west anymore. Marx was trying to restore a sense of noblesse oblige that would allow the increasingly debased proles to find a renewed sense of meaning in their lives.

Most of his critiques were highly reactionary and not too distant from those of Carlyle. The quiet quitting phenomenon is precisely due to the alienation of the people from their labor. No one derives meaning from developing or selling a digital platform to manage deliverables.

As for Marx's predictions of the future, he was almost entirely correct, as across the modern world the people own the means of production that are managed by a dictatorship of proletarianized elites.

On a slight tangent, nothing in Marx's economic descriptions can't be found in Adam Smith.

Spez: As for your dismissal of commie accomplishments, what is the alternative? Would it be better for China to be embroiled in massive and bloody feuds? For Cuba to continue as a degenerate mafia run vice state similar to Colombia? For violent psychopaths to control every level of Russian society or live under German occupation? For China to succumb to feminism and sodomy?

In summary, you may as well defend Marx too.

Sure. First you have to understand who Marx was writing to. Europe had a much more rigid class structure. It can be best described as tri-part: those who work, those who fight, those who pray. The rise of the merchant class through the industrial revolution had disrupted the old relationship, where the warrior class had a paternal relationship with the peasant and trades classes. Part of this disruption was the rise a new class, the proletariat, which was a psuedo-mechanical workforce that doesn't exist in the west anymore. Marx was trying to restore a sense of noblesse oblige that would allow the increasingly debased proles to find a renewed sense of meaning in their lives.

Most of his critiques were highly reactionary and not too distant from those of Carlyle. The quiet quitting phenomenon is precisely due to the alienation of the people from their labor. No one derives meaning from developing or selling a digital platform to manage deliverables.

As for Marx's predictions of the future, he was almost entirely correct, as across the world people own the means of production that are managed by a dictatorship of proletarianized elites.

On a slight tangent, nothing in Marx's economic descriptions can't be found in Adam Smith.

Spez: As for your dismissal of commie accomplishments, what is the alternative? Would it be better for China to be embroiled in massive and bloody feuds? For Cuba to continue as a degenerate mafia run vice state similar to Colombia? For violent psychopaths to control every level of Russian society or live under German occupation? For China to succumb to feminism and sodomy?

In summary, you may as well defend Marx too.

Sure. First you have to understand who Marx was writing to. Europe had a much more rigid class structure. It can be best described as tri-part: those who work, those who fight, those who pray. The rise of the merchant class through the industrial revolution had disrupted the old relationship, where the warrior class had a paternal relationship with the peasant and trades classes. Part of this disruption was the rise a new class, the proletariat, which was a psuedo-mechanical workforce that doesn't exist in the west anymore. Marx was trying to restore a sense of noblesse oblige that would allow the increasingly debased proles to find a renewed sense of meaning in their lives.

Most of his critiques were highly reactionary and not too distant from those of Carlyle. The quiet quitting phenomenon is precisely due to the alienation of the people from their labor. No one derives meaning from developing or selling a digital platform to manage deliverables.

As for Marx's predictions of the future, he was almost entirely correct, as across the world people own the means of production that are managed by a dictatorship of proletarianized elites.

On a slight tangent, nothing in Marx's economic descriptions can't be found in Adam Smith.