Difference is that redditors spread racist rhetoric on the internet and Marx wrote the book Americans burned on social media when Russia attacked Ukraine, tho he is German.
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
258 points (85.1% liked)
Greentext
8388 readers
723 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And also Putin is arguably post fascist or ultraconservative, total opposite of communism. His favorite ideologue even called Ukraine and its language a "Leninist fabrication, to divide and conquer the Russian nation".
You haven't read his letters to Engles huh?
He analyzed capitalism (and religion), and his model predicted regular worsening crises when the market couldn't expand further, leading to its eventual abolition.
He was employed as a journalist and published books on history and economics.
I swear libs just make stuff up that sounds right and then believe the shit they fantasized
I agree, but these are not liberals. Don't let the far-right to have the word "liberalism"! They're conservatives or right-libertarians at best, and outright fascists at worst.
> 4chan user
> lib
Pick one.
I do agree that anon's take is bullshit.
The funny thing is that communism is technically an evolution of actual liberalism, and tankies look a lot less down on conservatives because of conservatism's "muh tradishun" lifestyle marketing.
Lemmites just be spouting buzzwords at this point.
Liberalism is the philosophy of capitalism, the guy in OP is definitionly a lib.
Indeed, its why Australia's main conservative party (middle right) are called The Liberals
load more comments
(25 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
nobody cares about facts or details. they only care about marx = communism.
he was a better economist than he was a political theorist. but his economic works are long, boring, and technical, and his political works are far shorter and dramatic, so that's all the average undergraduate cares about.
Why would you say he's a bad political theorist? If we measure the success of a political theory by its ability to take, hold and exercise power Marxism is one of the most successful political ideologies in the world. Sure it never "beat" liberal capitalism but it came the closest of any other theory to challenging it.
Or are you doubting it's accuracy more then its success?
If we measure the success of a political theory by its ability to take, hold and exercise power
The success of a political theory should be measured by its ability to improve quality of life. Taking power may be a prerequisite, but that alone is not success. Seeing the seizure of state power as an end in itself is a mistake that leads to an authoritarian dead end.
By your definition the billionaires and the politicians they back would be unsuccessful political actors as they're making the quality of life worse for most people. I'd say they are very successful political actors, and that is the problem.
In my opinion politics is "war without bloodshed". It is a means by which a group can accomplish certain goals that another group opposes.
One side could have a goal of improving the quality of life for the poor while the other could have a goal of improving it for the rich. Politics is what both sides do to try and accomplish there goals.
Political theory is like military theory in the sense that it lays out strategies to defeat the opposition and accomplish those goals. While a military theory is proven correct by winning a battle, a political theory can be proven correct by winning an election.
Politics is a means, not an end. The end/goal is determined by ideology , class position, self interest, racism etc.
You don't have to adopt the ruling elites' definition of success. You talk about politics being a means and not an end, but you still insist on calling winning an election success. If the end/goal is determined by ideology then so is the criteria for success, and my personal criteria for success is improving quality of life for as many people as possible. Winning an election can be a means to that end, but just seizing power does not by itself merit the political theory that enabled it. Fascism has proven quite capable of seizing power in liberal democracies with capitalist economies, but I would certainly not call that success.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(23 replies)
Working a job is not neccessarily making a contribution to society, not a good contribution oftentimes to be sure.
He was also wealthy to begin with, as was Engels. But his books and writings are a contribution in any case even if he didn't get rich off them as OP suggests here.
Never made any financial contributions, I assume OP means, completely missing the mark about Marx being anticapitalist. Ignoring the obvious: We still talk about Karl Marx, even make unprompted greentexts about him, proving a social contribution
We still talk about Karl Marx, even make unprompted greentexts about him, proving a social contribution
Furthermore, you actually have the time to do something other than slave away to the bourgeoisie. Sure, you might not have a lot of it in your own experience, but child labour and 16 hour days were completely normal before Marx.
Marx had the idea the surplus value the capitalists are actually profiting off of is the commodity of the worker's putting in time. I mean, he didn't really consider it a commodity, just pointed out how capitalism commodifies human labour.
But yeah pretty much all trade unions and socialist parties owe their existence to Marx.
"Didn't make any contributions" such ragebait
His books and writings are a contribution anyway. Plus he was already wealthy so idk if mooching off his family is accurate at all.
He didn't oppose religion that much, definitely not in "a reddit atheist" way, opium has been commonly used in medicine as a painkiller those days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
Tldr, he is saying religion is a human response to inhuman conditions.
He was saying that people need someone to tell them on Sunday that working until you die for nothing is fine because it'll all be great after you die. He made a strong argument for religion just being another capitalist tool that keeps the people in line, doped up just enough to work another week. Sure, if opiate addiction in response to abuse is human, then that's pretty damn human.
He even argued that religion mirrors the hierarchical structures of the government it exists under, which is pretty spot on.
I never took his writing to be pro-religion.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Russia did though, before the revolution Russia was still mostly agrarian and way less developed then western europe. Under communism they developed faster then any other country up to that point and nearly caught up to the west.
People often compare the soviets to western europe and say they're poor, but Russia was half a century behind the west before the revolution, and the revolution/ civil war caused even more destruction. A better comparison would be a country like Mexico which also was mostly agrarian and just finished a revolution in 1920. Compared to that the Soviet union did pretty well living standards wise.
Just look at there war performance , WWI Russia lost to Germany whose main focus was on the western front, WWII Russia was able to halt Germanies full force after they had conquered France and drive them back.
A better comparison would be a country like Mexico
A better comparison would be Finland, which was literally a part of Russia.
We kept market economy. Russia didn't.
Capitalism sucks, but so do planned economies. Socialist market economies are the thing.
Also WWII Russia won by having tons of disposable troops to toss at any enemy position. Not because their economy was magnificent.
Russia also was unable to take Finland, despite us having way worse military equipment and way less people.
Finland was much more industrialized, urbanized and developed then the rest of Russia prior to 1917. It was barely even part of Russia as it was mostly autonomous with its own parliament. So it's not as good of a comparison.
Russia didn't win the war solely through manpower. They had just as much of a man power advantage in WWI and still lost because they're industry was shit. Without Stalin's obsession with increasing steel and war production, heavily mechanized battles like the battle of kursk would've been lost. A 10 to 1 advantage in manpower won't matter if that 1 guy is in a tank and the 10 guys don't even have a gun.
IDK if that meme is outdated or fabricated but the current wiki page shows way less casualties on the Soviet side and more even strength in man power. Even then it shows the lopsided Soviet industrial capacity with how many tanks and planes they had. They were wasted on a war in terrain that would've been difficult without snow, and even more so with.
Yeah the soviets weren't able to fully conquer finland but they did get a lot of there demands and a good chunk of territory. If the war had dragged out longer and the snow thawed then finland probably wouldn't have been able to hold them off for much longer in conventional war, though a guerilla campaign would probably be effective.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Bold words from a 4chan chud
if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label “atheism” (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people.
--Karl Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge, 1842
view more: next ›