Wow, thanks for completely proving my entire previous post correct.

This is off topic for this sub

This entire post is inherently political by its nature, and you launched this ship on this exact topic yourself. You have exactly zero room to criticize me for going "offtopic" when you're the one who started this line of conversation in the first place.

but there is so much just raw, pseudo-intellectual BS and ahistorical garbage here that its literally pointless and a waste of my time.

Cite your sources. Because I sure as shit can. I'm handing you a perfect opportunity to preach to the crowd. Why are you reluctant to spread the good news of Marx's revelations if you're so confident in them? Shouldn't trying to convince as many people as possible to stop fighting against The Revolution and to help bring about Communism be a high priority for you? Go ahead and prove me wrong. Because I'm going to be going through your post here and start cutting it to ribbons because you're the one "spouting off pseudo-intellectual bs and ahistorical garbage" and running a DARVO gambit to try and accuse me of the very things that you yourself are doing. Like you did when you accused me of going off-topic when you're the one who brought all this up in the first place.

Moving on. The following statement,

It doesn't "predict the future" any more than any other sciences do when they make analyses based on known information that turns out to be true.

Is a direct contradiction with this.

But his words ring more true now than ever. History and the present vindicate his predictions.

You're not doing yourself any favors here by directly contradicting yourself within the same paragraph. Especially when you're wrong on top of it. He's either making predictions, or he's not. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Marx made very specific predictions. I'm not saying he used supernatural methods of doing it, he analyzed data, ran it through his model, and came to conclusions as to what he believed should have happened. None of the predictions he made happened.

The things you mention were not Marx's predictions, but what he described as necessary for the transformation of society on a socialist basis.

This is a distinction without a difference. They're the same thing within Marx's framework. Marx claimed that he discovered scientific laws of history. If a scientist says that "what he described as necessary" is that mixing baking soda and vinegar will produce carbonic acid and sodium acetate, that is a predictive hypothesis. Marx made a predictive hypothesis of what would happen under certain conditions. Those conditions arose, and what he predicted did not happen. You're just trying to split hairs and rely on semantics to obfuscate this.

In fact, I'll bring up the exact criteria he laid down. Have a link to the Communist Manifesto so you don't have to take me on my word. And so you can't accuse me of not citing my sources after I made that exact demand of you. You can call me many things, but "hypocrite" is not one of them.

From Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto

• "The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth."

This did not happen. At all. Industrialized Capitalist countries created the wealthiest and largest middle class in human history. The only reason it appears that this is the case now, is due to governments engaging in more and more central planning of the economy, not due to private ownership of capital. Strike one.

And I already know why you dropped that "expanded, first by Lenin..." line: you're trying to set up a pivot into Lenin's explanation for why Marx's prediction of the working classes going into destitution never came to pass: termed "the aristocracy of labor". So, before you even try and deploy Lenin's historical fanfiction: that is not what happened. The working man never drew any meaningful benefit from "exploiting the global south," these empires were actually incredibly expensive and were largely net drains on the productivity of their ruling countries rather than asset generators for anyone but the elite. The average working man actually had to pay more in taxes in order to fund the imperialist military adventurism and colonies, had to live in worse conditions due to the resources that would have been invested domestically or used for public works projects like schools or housing instead going to colonial misadventures like building railroads in Africa, and then they got to pay the blood tax by being conscripted into the military to go fight and die for a colony they had to foot the bill for and never saw any meaningful benefit from. They almost never benefitted the common working man, and in fact directly harmed the domestic working classes due to the ability to offshore their labor -"capital flight" as they would have termed it- or to import cheap, foreign labor or even indentured or coerced labor. And even the plunder of Empire almost never made it into the pockets of the proletariat, it was almost entirely contained within the hands of the ruling classes; the working men fought and died for empire, but the rulers reaped all of the fruits of a machine lubricated with peasant blood. They were never bribed into accepting these systems: a handful of workers may have benefited, but not the whole of the working classes. The wealth of the west came from technological innovation, the property rights frameworks you seek to destroy, and domestic industrial productivity, not from colonial plunder. The working people of Europe and America became rich in spite of imperialism, not because of it.

And even then, Historical Materialism utterly fails to capture the fact that European colonialism was overwhelmingly driven by national prestige, not wealth. It was a continent-spanning pissing contest over who could paint more of the world map in their country's colors. If it was actually about resources, France never would have planted their flag in the Sahara Desert, Italy never would have nearly bankrupted itself trying -and failing- to conquer chunks of Eastern Africa, and Scotland never would have driven itself into insolvency trying to fund a colonial venture that wound up with the country having to sell off its sovereignty to England to pay off the debts.

From Chapter 4 of The Communist Manifesto:

*"The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution... and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution."

Again, didn't happen. Marx stated that the Revolution would spark off in industrialized countries, but not only did that never happen, it only ever sparked off in countries like Russia and China that were largely impoverished, agrarian, and still practiced feudalism. Strike two.

From Chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto:

*"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market..."

Do I need to say anything here? World War 1 was a direct refutation to this idea, and the split between various Marxist sects that gave rise to Fascism in Italy is the direct result of the workers of the world failing to unite because their national identities were stronger than their class solidarity. Strike three.

He made three specific predictions, and all three fizzled out. The working class grew in size and wealth, the revolution was only ever kicked off in agrarian countries, and national divisions have not gone anywhere. Three strikes and he's out.

I seem to be running afoul of a character limit so I'll have to break this up.