If a time traveler went to the past and assassinated Karl Marx

>>1916441

It would set us 50 years back as the USA would not have been motivated to have a space race with Wiemar Germany.

Why do you not realize that if Marx had not done his work, someone else would have. The great men view of history is so tedious and dated.

>>1916466

Is conflict the only motivator for technological progress?

>>1916474

>The great men view of history is so tedious and dated.

It's also correct. There have been zero cases where a great man was retroactively removed yet his works were done by someone else.

>>1916474
>>1916481

As a more serious argument against your claim, I would point out that if Karl Marx were incidental to history then there could've easily been many different contributors to communism-like ideas without any one being recognized substantially more than the other, but what we see instead is that one person (Marx) has been massively recognized as the source of this thinking easily more than any other contributor. He's up there with Jesus in name recognition / historical fame today. So I don't buy it.

>>1916476

It is the most major. Besides the space program (which we can thank the Nazis V2 program), the internet was created to be a distributed defense network against nuclear attack from the Soviets.

You can thank the Soviets for letting you post on 4chan now.

>>1916441

Karl Marx was a great man (and also right about just about everything he said) and only butthurt /pol/acks claim otherwise.

>>1916508

The internet is a platonic form that has always existed, that historical event just resulted in material structure participating in its form.

>>1916481
>>1916491
>I haven't read enough history to know that Marx was just one of the many social thinkers emerging out of the 19th century social debates arising from how shittily workers were treated in many European & Western states.

File: bishkek-marx-engels-monument-01.jpg (80KB, 716x537px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 716x537px

there would still be Frederick

>>1916481
>There have been zero cases where a great man was retroactively removed yet his works were done by someone else.
Because honey, then the great man theory would would tell you to not pay attention to the removed guy and fucking switch the narrative to the someone else (i.e. the guy who fucking did.) Therefore disregarding that said great mang was a product of his fucking time & upbringing.

Furthermore you're asking people to make fucking guesses in history by your stupid shitty sentence.

>>1916520

>just one of the many

I never said there weren't others. I said he is way more recognized than any of the others, by far. It's not even close.

>>1916441
No, the only difference would be that Marxism would be called Engelsism instead.

>>1916530
>>1916576

If Engels had the ability to do what Marx did he wouldn't be a thousand times less well known. People remember Marx and not Engels for a reason.

>>1916583
That is not a valid logical deduction.

>>1916589

Explain why people remember Marx but not Engels then.

>>1916536

Why is his recognizability even relevant to the question at hand (as to whether his work could have been done by someone else)? There was a whole proto-Marxist movement called Chartism when Marx was still a toddler. It was an idea whose time had come. Marx gave the esprit of class conflict philosophical and economic rigor.

File: 1476555065704.jpg (22KB, 400x208px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x208px

>another thread implying Marx did anything wrong

>>1916594

>Why is his recognizability even relevant to the question at hand (as to whether his work could have been done by someone else)?

His recognizability IS his work. Coming up with ideas isn't that important, the important thing he did that no one else came anywhere close to matching him on is in the degree to which he influenced others, which is something you can measure through recognizability.

>>1916441
Yes you're right, the world wuz a paradise before the lizard jews invented communism and destroyed with their mind controle laser everything.
>how many centuries ahead would that shift today's technology global standard of living?
All commie countries were backward shitholes long before Marx had his first wank.
Not much of value was lost.

>>1916609
>His recognizability IS his work

That statement is meaningless.

Funny, in his own time, his friends and family even noticed the conspiracy of silence surrounding his work, which no one would publish.

He did publish in a New York newspaper, but no one would go near his book-length work with a ten-foot bargepole for obvious reasons.

>>1916660

>That statement is meaningless.

No, it has a very concrete meaning. My argument is that Marx is different from other thinkers who proposed similar ideas because he had a much, much larger ability to influence than those others did. Having an idea similar to communism isn't the same as having numerous states adopt your idea and name it after you. Influence is what makes him special, not his ideas themselves.

>>1916672
Europe was having revolutions left and right before he became a larger figure. Calling themselves marxists or something else is irrelevant.

>>1916691

>Calling themselves marxists or something else is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. There's a reason they did that. There's also a reason aside from states that many other individual, recognizable thinkers read his writings and credited him as the primary influence for their own ideas. People like Marx, Jesus, and the Beatles all had abnormally excessive influence on history. Their influence is an attribute in itself worth noting and explaining separate from what the content they influenced with was about.

>>1916717
You know who also had an abnormally excessive influence on history? the velvet underground and their records sold like garbage.

I hope this dumb ass example is adequate to your shit ass intellect.

>>1916800

>their records sold like garbage.

Not an argument. Making money isn't the same as having influence. See: Van Gogh and James Joyce.

>>1916481
How do you retroactively remove someone from the fabric of spacetime?

>>1916811

You don't, that's the joke.

>>1916593
Marx was louder, more obnoxious.

>>1916809
You're the one mixing popularity with influence you dingus. If Marx was killed it doesn't mean the works of communism would had stopped there.

>>1916965

Influence doesn't have to be instant. Not making money while you're alive doesn't mean you won't be hugely influential later.

>>1916593
Marx brought in teh philosophy fags with the dialectical materialism mumbo jumbo

>>1916597
he was a typical German who only had faith in auticrats and was blind to the superior virtues of Anglo-democracry

>>1917017

confirmed for never having read Marx

>>1916441
I'm guessing somewhere around zero.

>>1916641
>All commie countries were backward shitholes long before Marx had his first wank.
>Not much of value was lost.
This.

>>1916941

Marx was actually ten times more clever than Engels and found what Engels had written to be terrible so he rewrote it.

>>1917017
LOL

>>1916593
Engels was pretty ok with playing second fiddle to Marx and working with him in the editing process. Engels made a choice to abstain from innovation.

>>1916520

Well, you haven't read any of yhose thinkers. If you did you would recognize how different they are from Marx and why Marx sold and the others didn't. Look at Shakespeare. Shakespeare became Shakespeare because if years of praise and analysis. There were many playwrights in his time, but Shakespeare is recognizable among them. Had Shakespeare not existed there would be another #1 playwright, but he wouldn'thave had the same reach and impact. Same goes for Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, Hitler, etc. Great men don't create their niches, but the way they play these niches is what affects history. There have been many dictators, but only 1 Hitler,1 Napoleon, etc.

are you retarded? the cold war pushed technological advancement more than any other event in history.

>>1916518
Blue collar pls.