The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 10:16 am Some see Marx as a pivotal figure in human culture and history--a possibly humane response to the brutal excesses of the early industrial revolution.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 2:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 10:16 am Some see Marx as a pivotal figure in human culture and history--a possibly humane response to the brutal excesses of the early industrial revolution.

Wow. You clearly haven't read a single biography of Marx.

His detractors list his many, many vices, and even his greatest admirers confess he was a difficult man. As a young man, he wrote lavish hate poetry against all existence. He was not a worker, but upper-middle class, by birth, and lived off his inheritance until it was gone. He was famously abusive to anybody who crossed him, and contemptuous even to his friends. He was a sponge who never added anything to the world but his demands for a free lunch. He was an unapologetic racist. He refused to bathe, and had torturous boils, as a result. He would not work. He knew only one prole in his entire life, and his disabled housekeeper whom he sexually molested and then abandoned his own bastard son. Two of his daughters, Laura and Julia, and his son-in-law killed themselves...and none of this is even contested.

"A humane response"? By any reasonable account, he was a greedy egotist, a parasite on society and a despiser of mankind, even by the kindest accounts. There was not one thing "humane" about the man.

The question might be whether to say so is merely ad hominem, and despite his personal vileness he managed to suggests good ideas. But there's no possibility of making Marx into a saint in his personal conduct. "Humane" he never was.

That's who Karl Marx was, to answer your question. Check it out and see if I'm telling you the simple truth.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 4:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 2:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 10:16 am Some see Marx as a pivotal figure in human culture and history--a possibly humane response to the brutal excesses of the early industrial revolution.

Wow. You clearly haven't read a single biography of Marx.

His detractors list his many, many vices, and even his greatest admirers confess he was a difficult man. As a young man, he wrote lavish hate poetry against all existence. He was not a worker, but upper-middle class, by birth, and lived off his inheritance until it was gone. He was famously abusive to anybody who crossed him, and contemptuous even to his friends. He was a sponge who never added anything to the world but his demands for a free lunch. He was an unapologetic racist. He refused to bathe, and had torturous boils, as a result. He would not work. He knew only one prole in his entire life, and his disabled housekeeper whom he sexually molested and then abandoned his own bastard son. Two of his daughters, Laura and Julia, and his son-in-law killed themselves...and none of this is even contested.

"A humane response"? By any reasonable account, he was a greedy egotist, a parasite on society and a despiser of mankind, even by the kindest accounts. There was not one thing "humane" about the man.

The question might be whether to say so is merely ad hominem, and despite his personal vileness he managed to suggests good ideas. But there's no possibility of making Marx into a saint in his personal conduct. "Humane" he never was.

That's who Karl Marx was, to answer your question. Check it out and see if I'm telling you the simple truth.

why would someone so in love with humanity not desire to give humans the perfect system of governance?

-Imp