What did he think of the United States?

>>3248258
You know, you could've Googled this.

He cheered for the USA against Mexico

He thought about moving to Texas at one point before the Civil War.

>>3248258
Marx's letter to Abraham Lincon

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

He mainly focused on Britain in his writings because he actually lived there and it was familiar to him. He mentions America only a few times, mainly to classify American Revolution as a bourgeois one.

He also wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln in 1864 in which he advocated for the abolition of slavery.

File: kantypoo.png (355KB, 843x605px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 843x605px

>>3248292
Maybe I'm just retarded but how can a pre-industrialization revolution be categorized through a marxist lens to any degree of accuracy? Was he basing that distinction on the failure to abolish slavery by the founders or was he just upset that class structures remained untouched?

>>3248448
I think because very much the same people remained in charge before and after independence

>>3248448
French Revolution was also a bourgeois revolution. Bourgeois, ideally, are instrumental in overthrowing the monarchy and leaping from feudalism to capitalism. The social dialectic is then shifted from the struggle between the disposed Monarchists and Bourgeois to the Bourgeois and the newly formed working class of the Proletariat. The struggle of Proletariat against the Bourgeois is no less inevitable nor is it any more vicious or personal then the struggle that came before it. In fact, Marx purposes that Capitalism is a necessary stage of Socialism, just like Feudalism was a necessary of Capitalism, but much like how the later displaced the former, so will Socialism, lead by a Revolution of the Proletariat displace Capitalism. When a Socialist society is formed, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has subdued and liquidated the capitalist tendencies still left in the system, it will also naturally liquidate the Bourgeois class as such. With no class distinctions, a classless society is formed, ie. Communism.
That's the basic gist of it, when Marx refers to the American Revolution as a Bourgeois one, it is by no means intended as derogatory, quite the opposite, that is shows signs of unprecedented historical progress driven by the American society.

Can we just stop and appreciate for a moment what an insular group of self-masturbating cockheads Marxists are?
I tried reading some contemporary Marxist literature recently and it's nothing short of an academic nightmare. They are halfway decent when identifying the ills of the world (and are perhaps better at it than most), but then they go on these long analytical tangents where they just keep piling on more and more terms and phrases that don't actually MEAN anything. Then they reach some sort of conclusion, emphasis it for effect with a big "a-ha!" moment and double-back to apply it to some other esoteric garbage they think somehow strengthens their pointless point. The result is a arcane bullshit that doesn't correlate to anything in the physical world, meant only for other members of the Marxist priesthood. And these fuckers are surprised nobody takes them seriously?

>>3248483
you are just bad at reading because you got a STEM degree and never interrogate your own epistemology from the outside, so you think it's a valuable and useful critique for you to just repeat how hard Marxist thought is to read as someone not trained in it. it's not.

>>3248483
t. brainlet

>>3248448
Because according to Marx the prerequsite for socialism lies in capitalist bourgeoisie taking power from ancien regime and feudalist aristocracy. American Revolution is interesting in that regard since it wasn't really anti-feudalist, but on the other hand had capitalist tendencies.

I think Marx viewed the slave-owning South as feudalist in some way, which is why he supported the rapidly industrializing capitalist North against it.

>>3248282
Wtf i hate Marx now

>>3248493
>>3248496
>interrogate your own epistemology from the outside
What are the flaws in >>3248483 's epistemology?

Why does Marx get to go off on a tangent based on flimsy initial speculation while doing such a thing in STEM, humanities or anywhere would result in your paper being thrown in the trash?

>>3248573
you should read more philosophy before you turn into a monogloid.

>>3248448
Prolly the latter

>>3248478
>>3248503
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification mates.

>>3248277

FPBP

I don't have a detailed answer for the OP's question but I'm aware that Marx opined on the American Civil War, dropping a book, or material on same subject. It's worth remembering that Marx's construction of Capital (V1) was historically contemporaneous with the American Civil War - I believe this is pointed out at least once over the course of Ken Burns' documentary in some way.

I didn't know about the letter to Lincoln, good to know.

File: 1367124047102.png (105KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x550px

>>3248493
>>3248496
>>3248601
>marxist intellectuals

>>3248258
He was quite pleased with the US taking territory from Mexico as he believed that it would be in better hands that of what he considered 'lazy' Mexicans.