I would argue that much of the caucus region along with several central asian nations benefited from communism, to an extent. Granted these nations aren't anywhere near the higher echelons of world politics or economy but I would say the free flow of resources and people between the much more advanced Russian state and nations such as Tajikistan at least brought their respective nations from irrelevance to having some effect on world politics and economics.
I can see the base of your position. The only legitimate reason I could see for people (I didn’t) down voting you for it is that it does tend to take a silver lining approach to the view of relations between soviet communism and the peoples of former USSR territories. Slavery is responsible in large part for the prosperity and even existence of the modern United States as well as the presence of many of its citizens of color- but that argument does overlook the human costs. Somewhat like saying that it could be a good thing having ones father killed in a workplace accident because the insurance money was enough to buy that sweet Camaro they’ve been wanting.
A somewhat surprising argument given past discussions we have had. John Browning, Samual Colt, etc. etc. Ideas for how to use their guns was never for criminal activity or mass shooting. Does the fact that society has refused to follow their vision on how to use their tools change ones stance on firearms- or is it more the case that even if a idea is perfect in a bubble that it is only as practical as what happens to it once it is put into the hands of others? Wether Marx had a good idea or not doesn’t matter since it requires people to follow it to work and no one follows it, and as a living man he was unable to lead people to follow his ideas.
I mean- I have an idea for world peace. “Stop fighting each other and be nice.” Do I get my Nobel now or pick it up later? Doesn’t really make me a great thinker or worthy of reverence does it? I mean- having an idea isn’t as important as realizing the idea- and the man failed to realize his idea. So “hey guys- let’s share and not be so selfish...” great idea. Now get people to do it and we will talk about it. An idea unrealized is a fart in a jar, it is mental masturbation- makes you feel pretty good for having it but doesn’t do anything of note for the world.
Your arguments are typical demagogy. You compare two different objects, like warm with hard. Idea is concept. It can be something new... Or not. Or even useless. And nobel prize means nothig in most cases.
The fact that we still talk about Marx proves his importance. He was the first person to tie history, philosophy, and economics together to create a dialectic that focused on the people rather than industry. He shined a light on the cruelty of the capitalist system of the time and offered (admittedly fuzzy) solutions. His major downside is that he was supremely vague: so many communist movements were based off interpretation and using Marx's words against himself. Overall, he pushed a social conscience that wasn't readily apparent before.
Ah. The Kardashian theory. If people talk about you- you must be a positive contributor to society. I do posit that we still talk about Charles Ponzi too- but being mentioned in history or memorialized through pop culture doesn’t mean ones importance to history is positive.
That's logically flawed. The Kardashians didn't write a book 172 years ago that we still talk and argue about; their names aren't tied to a governmental system that millions of people throughout history have attached themselves to. Karl Marx isn't and wasn't a pop culture sensation; he's an extremely historically important person. And I said nothing about positive contributions, because thinking about history in only negatives and positives is lazy and assigns value judgements to people and events we know nothing about. If you're analyzing history, you talk about how your topic affected others and their feelings on it, otherwise that analysis becomes more about you than the topic.
The logic isn’t flawed just because I jokingly referenced the Kardashians- such labels aren’t logical labels- they are tongue in cheek at best such as “yellow journalism” or “Mandela Effect.” The underlying principal is analogous- remembrance makes relevance- and your rebuttal agrees with the statement as you say that his remembrance and following through history is a source of relevance.
You did not say Marx made a positive impact- and I did not say you did. I said that being remembered by history does not mean you are remembered for any positive reasons.
Now- we seem to agree on most major points here anyway. I certainly agree that history and historical figures can’t be reduced to “good” or “bad,” and that largely something Bri remembered or not by history is not a measure of any specific trait beyond that it made an impact or had influence on people (much as the Kardashians are not primarily brought to public consciousness for any accomplishments of note but for emotional impact and influence they have had on people.)
Where we bring it back to being relevant to this actual post- is that the proposition of the artist was that no country had ever been prosperous using the system of Karl Marx. That is not a statement of good, bad, and arguably only touches on emotion so far as “prosperous” isn’t a solid metric as much as an interpretation of overall standard of living. That said- by most objective measures we can definitively say that no country using Marxism has ever had the majority of its citizens enjoy a standard of living and human rights which match other developed nations running on non Marxist based or adjacent systems.
So the fact we still talk about him, the fact he may be important- is not relevant to what he accomplished or the actual real world application of his ideas. Hence the Kardashian parallel- Marx is in modern terms- an “influencer.” People dig his style. Liked the image he represented and were fans of his “lifestyle brand,” but they bought his self help book and found out that what’s on his Facebook page isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Perhaps someday hundreds of years from now the Kardashians will be remembered- perhaps in the far flung future societies will argue that Gwenith Paltrow knew the way to the right future for humanity. We likely won’t love long enough to know. Pulitzer is the gold prize in journalism but spent most of his life known for making stuff up and selling tabloid news.
So who knows? We can’t say if they have the staying power but- If one fancies some mental masturbation or day dreams of socialist paradise then Marx is the man. Same as if one wishes to fantasize about a life of drama and excess the Kardashians fill that role today. As to the actual relevance to what this post we are commenting on brings up- being important- being remembered doesn’t itself say anything except something about you- good, bad, ambiguous- had sticking power. We still remember Eden but Earth hasn’t seen that either. As far as speculative fiction goes Marx lacks the imagination of Arthurian legend or Star Trek But is a fantasy author many have read and loved. In the realm of non fiction his work is about the same as getting advice on life or government from watching the Kardashians for its real world practical results.
>Welfare programs