Yes. Marx would be saddened if he learned that some Marxists would think of him as infallible.
Easy example: Marx thought revolution would first happen in industrialized countries, but the exact opposite happened, there hasn’t been a single long-term communist revolution in industrial countries, and all the revolutions have instead happened in non-industrial countries.
Long-term is key: Communist revolutions happened in Paris (during his lifetime!) and in Germany (a generation after Engels passed). So mainly he was off-base on how certain he was these workers’ revolutions would succeed.
I don’t think he was certain that any specific revolution would succeed, he’s very clear that “The common ruin of the contending classes” is a potential outcome.
Yes, I am well aware of those revolutions and why Marx thought what he did, but thanks for pointing them out anyways.
There actually was a letter where he mentions that Russia had the opportunity for a communist revolution that could skip capitalism/proletarianization due to their heavy peasant population + communication with capitalist countries. Rack 'em
Damn, I actually have read some of his letters, but havent read that one yet, good to know.
some of his anthropological work is off
could you go into more details? as a history undergrad who really likes trying to understand how different civilizations worked (especially south american ones being SA myself), the underlying premises of historical materialism seem to show up everywhere
to the point where i really can’t understand how any historian manages to not be a materialist
he’s never wished me a happy birthday, not once which is pretty fucked if you ask me :disgost:
“Asiatic mode of production”
“Oriental despotism”
