HamburgerBoy
Lifer
I'm taking an online European history class as a general elective, and for participation points we have to post these weekly discussion things. This week was about the revolutions of 1848 and we were presented two different papers, one from some dude named Louis Blanc and another from Marx, specifically, this one. Now, being the good student I am, I am the second person to post it, prior to the sudden flood of last-minuters. Furthermore, I actually gave an attempt to read the entire thing. Now, student #3 comes along and posts an incoherent half-paragraph lacking capitalization about how Blanc is "for the people" and how Marx believes that people should be segregated by class. I laugh my ass off thinking "Haha, he read the short article and then made up some bullshit assuming that this mysterious Marx dude was the opposite of the Frenchie." Then the next person comes in, rephrases what the previous dude says, and then adds that Marxism is the belief that "ownership trumps all." Now I have tears pouring down my face laughing. Then comes #5, #6, #7, all the way until seemingly everyone has posted. And they all posted that Marx was a proponent of class separation, property ownership, and no right for the proletariat to speak their mind.
Now, for those of you familiar with the above paper by Marx (I don't expect anyone to read however many pages the first chapter is), is he in fact arguing for any of that which my preconceived notions of him are hiding from me, or is everyone participating really that fucking stupid?
Now, for those of you familiar with the above paper by Marx (I don't expect anyone to read however many pages the first chapter is), is he in fact arguing for any of that which my preconceived notions of him are hiding from me, or is everyone participating really that fucking stupid?
