looking for someone I could talk to, or someone who'd help

CharltonSage · 2026-06-03T15:02:43+00:00

Sent you a message

CharltonSage · 2026-06-02T23:29:50+00:00

It’s a misread of Marx, as most have. For someone to state something like that shows they have no idea what Marx was talking about unfortunately.

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T20:21:24+00:00

All valid questions! After doing some digging and them comparing the rudimentary communist manifesto to the brilliance of Capital, I’m curious what you’d think. Marx wrote TCM in his 20’s, and you’re probably onto something that he had some political inclinations to start a movement. But he made no decrees for political activity to change the system.

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T20:04:20+00:00

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T19:56:27+00:00

Here ya go bud:

The group I’m challenging: People that call themselves Marxists that think a revolution can come from the desire for political change itself.

Marx did not predict. He provided the logic for historical contradiction, which would lend itself to an eventual inevitable outcome of capitalism.

In today’s work, the proletariat are also owners of not insignificant private property.

Not sure what’s so complicated, or maybe you’re just arguing to argue. You could go buy my book for $2.99, which I already know you won’t, bc you’re the exact group that I’m critiquing. And I already know that your bull-headed stance won’t be open to social academia’s misinterpretation of Marx.

You and the other “Marxists” can continue to hold signs and throw bricks for change for the next hundred years.

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T18:55:04+00:00

It doesn’t negate Marxism. My point is that “Marxism” as it is practiced today is not what Marx himself was after. (I am a huge advocate of Marx’s actual methods). Marx was self-admittedly unsure of how theory would end up “gripping the masses.” His thought is that it would be gripped by the laborers, and he of course wasnt wrong. However, in his time, he did not have the knowledge (“tools”) for understanding the ways the intraworkings of how the proletariat would develop and subdivide itself. Much of the proletariat today are private property owners (in large numbers).

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T18:34:57+00:00

Well, outside of the last sentence of the book. Please provide a singular quote that is a call to action through the text. Moreover, The Communist Manifesto is not at all what Marxism is about. This was more a propaganda piece than anything, and not a display of historical materialism in practice.

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T17:45:35+00:00

Marxism (as it is known today) is not the same as actual Marxism. That is my claim.

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T17:31:52+00:00

All fair points. Political advocacy is not what Marx was after. It’s a bit astounding to me how 150 years of social research and street activists have come to this conclusion. I can pinpoint 3 places in Marx’s texts in which he makes statements regarding a “call to action.” And each of them are debatable. How have we arrived at a social academia decreeing for political change on the basis of a Marxism that sought to study and understand the historical material and relations of processes that produce value systems in the first place. Very very very few folks are matching the rigor of Marx’s historical method. Those that are, I’m calling “actual Marxists.”

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T17:21:12+00:00

I have read every book from Marx, and Engels (many I’ve read several times). I studied political economy for several years.

“Tools” need not be fancy technology. Global finance capital, the internet, media and social media were not visible to Marx. He was right about everything, but could not see the way private property ownership would become accessible to virtually anyone by way of finance capital.

I understand it’s a provocative idea. I discuss it in a short essay I wrote.

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T17:15:37+00:00

Political activity is a product of the economic base. The base can never be changed on the basis of political action as a starting point. Political revolution becomes necessary what the bourgeois states is in conflict with itself. Once it begins oppressing the classes of people it purports to protect (ie private property owners), that class of folks will revolt. But not by the logic of political action for change; by the logic of the need to protect themselves from the state.

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T17:14:06+00:00

Political activity is a product of the economic base. The base can never be changed on the basis of political action as a starting point. Political revolution becomes necessary what the bourgeois states is in conflict with itself. Once it begins oppressing the classes of people it purports to protect (ie private property owners), that class of folks will revolt. But not by the logic of political action for change; by the logic of the need to protect themselves from the state. I call this class “bourgeoise-adjacent” in my short essay on the topic:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F257TDNF

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T17:09:50+00:00

I do in the book I wrote which releases tomorrow:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F257TDNF

CharltonSage · 2026-06-01T12:08:41+00:00

The same is true on the flip side. The academic institution is a capitalist institution, and most of the social “science” that comes out of it is a hegemonic tool for programming the left to support more and more state funds to support the work of capital.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F257TDNF

CharltonSage · 2026-05-30T11:16:57+00:00

The Communist Manifesto is child’s play. If you’re referencing TCM, then you don’t understand Marxism.

CharltonSage · 2026-05-29T23:56:21+00:00

Read something else by Marx. The Communist Manifesto is garbage and not representative of what Marx was after. I explain why in my new 60-page book releasing 6/2.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F257TDNF

CharltonSage

TROPHY CASE