He only has that book and has nothing behind him besides being a neckbeard philosopher with a big idea.

But back in Marxs time everyone either worked on or used everything that was produced

That is not to say that he has no value intrinsicly.

What do you mean "that book"?

He wrote many books, his most famous books "Das Kapital" (because it has 4 volumes that are each at least 500 pages) were his most famous

And how many people are aware of that?

Im only pointing out hes famous for "that one book"

Why do you ask? Because authority and employers worked to censor, later prevent people from getting them, later it was big news when the poor censored guy released a new book

Well

That is sad, because obviously they haven't read that book then

How many commies do you think actually read that stuff? Probably around the same proportion of christians who read the bible.

It literally starts with "I will not go through x in this book series because I have already done that countless of times and in many of my previous books"

Yes

I agree on that

Its the same really, nobody wants the effort to go through that, but they think they know enough to make everyone think they are the authority on that subject

I will always point out inaccuracies people quote from the bible. And I actually did read the bible. Not these days, its been years

From almost completing the first volume of "Das Kapital", I can assure you he has nothing against the free market

Well, at least not in the first volume, he does mention the free market but only in how it actually fixes value on products and is self regulating

My issue isnt with him. Its the selective memory about what he purports to belive.

What does purports mean?

People know the commie manifesto, not the kapita

Omfg... I hate that book

Worst. Summary. Ever

If someone writes something, I cant say that he beleives that. Im not him.

Same I can say he lies, I am not him. He might, he might not.

What is important is the conclusion people get from it.

Not what the author meant specifically when he wrote that passage at that moment.

Baisically, it's like a summary of atheism like this: we want to rid of religioun in politics.
But said in a way that sounds like you want to masacre religious ppl

That is how weird the commie manifesto is written

but it is after all 60 tiny pages with huge text that summarises thousands of thousands of pages from other books

Now that is fascinating

Its a summary, but a badly compiled one in your opinion?

Well people dont have the time.

Extremely badly in a sense

If it was to at least explain what it means with a lot of shit, it needs at least 3 a4 pages on each thing

Otherwise you could draw a very weird conclusion compared to the literature

For example: We (communists) want to abolish the family. Now, we do not want to abolish it to remover families altogether, what we want to abolish is the family you (the bourgeois) know of.

People take that out of it's context considering it's time and try to apply it in today, in which case they get the impression that here should be no homeschooling and society is the parents

Read other literature where they, Marx and Engels, talk about the family and what they want to change, they explain some fundamental differences between the working classes families and the bourgeois families

Thats the issue if it takes thousands of pages.

TO come to one conclusion

And then crush it down to double digits