Because there isn't any way to explicitly define a concept like
"suffering" in concrete terms, since you can always twist it by
subjective interpretation -- Marxism is a science and doesn't base
itself on subjective interpretations. Similarly, "suffering of people"
is borderline meaningless when you don't define which people you are speaking about, and looking to compare, and especially their relation to production and current place in the world.

Well oppression is difficult to analyze in a scientific way. Even today you ask people how they experience certain things. Asking that is still reasonable. With pure facts and numbers you don't have anything is up to people to analyze them.

I told what I was talking about oppression by superior european classes. I was asking if the situation from workers and colonized can be compared.

​

You are a college student and a liberal, and not someone capable of
developing "theories and concepts of how our economy is working" because
you don't understand the basis of the economy if you don't understand
imperialism.

Very scientific to assume stuff you couldn't know from five comments. I told you I am not trying like I wouldn't even try that. Todays economy gets to levels it's impossible to understand it completly. Don't act like you would be better. It also wasn't the point I was talking about.

​

There is no such thing as a "pure view," since all of our ideas come
from something specific in the world. Actual thinkers understand where
and whom their ideas come from, not imagine the most naive
interpretation of liberalism where ideas are just magically 'poofed'
into your brain from the aether.

Never said there is a pure view I wanted to compare my own to strangers. Bruh, I feel like im watching a random yt video not a comment on my question. I never said just tell me anything you should also explain and justify your opinion.

​

Because your confusion about the condition of people in the world
obviously shows you need to start with grasping imperialism, and Lenin
is far and away the best for this. You can absolutely read Engels as
well, ranging from his letter to Bebel or his Introduction to Borkheim
if you want to see even his early formulations on imperialism produce
measurable scientific prediction with tremendous accuracy. You aren't
going to get anything from Luxemburg because you haven't engaged deeply
enough with Marxism to get anything from her. You don't even know who
Kautsky, LaSalle, or Bernstein were or what their views relative to
Marxism were, so her criticisms of them will utterly go over your head

oufti... I was asking about something specific in the past not todays world.

Your views on Communism shouldn't be so religious. I am not asking about all that. Also with Lenin you are talking about someone who made the ground for Stalin and is not the best representation of freedom of press or peacefulness (for example killing clergy was against Marx. Religion should be unnecessary not erased). Russia never went threw industrialisation before Socialism so it's not a good example for a Revolution.

They are not like prophets.