Why...

[bluerev002]

They both worked together in creating the Commumnist Manifesto. Marx created Das Kapital, but Engles created other socialist books.

So, why is Marx more well known.
Why Marxism and not Engleism

[Solace]

Cuz of Das Kapital. It's much more important than the Communist Manifesto in my opinion.

Engels basically helped Marx with his money. I don't think he contributed too mch to the theory.

[monkeydust]

It's a misconception that they both worked together in creating the manifesto. Whilst, Engels did add to it (particularly in the '10 points') it was, in the main Marx's work.

Furthermore, Marx is generally considered to be the more dynamic thinker, writer and orator. Yes Engels was important, but he didn't have the originality or creative flair of Marx.

Marx put simply, was the most important of the two in creating and summarising communist thought.

[toastedmonkey]

Like Left said.

It was essentially marxs work, of course engles did have an input and it was much discussed between the two, but marx wrote the majority of the work by himself.

[Hegemonicretribution]

O.K. we generally accept that Marx was a great thinker, and more influencial than Engels, but there is no way that he was any less important. Engels kept Marx afloat for a long time, supporting him financially as well as in other ways. Marx however (although not relying on a "state" relied on Engels, when he could have been a "worker". He is a contradiction in his own terms.

[Mike Fakelastname]

I've studied and read biographies on both of them, and while Marx was the "brains" of the opperation, he couldn't have done shit without the constant help and support of Engels. Plus, Engles had a much nicer personality than Marx, Marx was demanding and unemotional, and Engels was passive and kind. Did you know that every time Engels visited Marx, he brought presents for Marx's children? How cool is that?

[ComradeRed]

Does marx have any surviving heirs?

[BOZG]

Marx was also reportedly quite self-absorbed and egotistical.

[Urban Rubble]

Marx was also reportedly quite self-absorbed and egotistical.

It seems that alot of brilliant men share this trait.


Did you know that every time Engels visited Marx, he brought presents for Marx's children? How cool is that?

Awww, that's nice.

[monkeydust]

O.K. we generally accept that Marx was a great thinker, and more influencial than Engels, but there is no way that he was any less important. Engels kept Marx afloat for a long time, supporting him financially as well as in other ways. Marx however (although not relying on a "state" relied on Engels, when he could have been a "worker". He is a contradiction in his own terms.


Marx may not have been a 'worker' per se, but he certainly wasn't well off, 3 of his 6 children were to die young as a result of this.

Yes, Marx could have been a worker, but doing so would have had a bad impact on workers as a whole, his influnce through his thinking and written works was very influential, and he was most dedicated to his work. So by being a thinker for the workers, Marx did them a better favour than being one of them.

Also don't forget that Marx often takes a standpoint apart from the proletariat, passively stating what he believes will happen, he rarely claims to be one of them.




Does marx have any surviving heirs?

Quite possibly, though I'm not sure. He certainly had some fairly famous relatives, I believe Karl Liebknecht was a relative. And Marx's Uncle founded the electrnics company Philips. Kind of ironic, he did apparently detest the man though.



Marx was also reportedly quite self-absorbed and egotistical.

I always saw Marx, whilst not egotistical to be somewhat formidable and aloof.

He was in a way a little arrogant, but with good reason. Supposedly at times he got incredibly fed up with people misunderstanding his work, or just not nderstanding it at all, preffering to spout Marxist rhetoric.

This apparently is why he once declared "I am not a Marxist", simply to distance himself from the number of fools in the communist movement.



Even so, he was still in my opinion, a great man.

[Soviet power supreme]

Well Engels was one of the leaders in first and the second internationale, he did write lots of own stuff and was part in many books that marx wrote.But like it has been said here that Marx's capital is the main book.Now Engels maybe edited and finished the last pieces,but he did not write them completely.

And dont you think that Karl Marx is a catchier name than Fredrick Engels :)

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 18 2004, 10:36 PM

And dont you think that Karl Marx is a catchier name than Fredrick Engels :)
Damn straight. I hadn't actually thought upon this, but it's most true.


Who would follow a movement called 'Engleism'?

[STI]

Did you know that every time Engels visited Marx, he brought presents for Marx's children? How cool is that?


I wish Engels would come and visit my dad and bring me presents. :( I bet they were really cool presents too. Ones manufactured by six- year- olds.


Who would follow a movement called 'Engleism'?

Well, I always thought that a movement called "Engelsism" would come off as "Englishism", and hence nationalistic.

[BOZG]

I think some people undermine Engel's contribution. Take for example,

The Principles of Communism
The Part Played By Labour In The Transition From Ape To Man
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State


All fundamentals of Marxist literature.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I agree BOZG. Engels is highly underrated but then its not that important of an issue.

Have a leaf through the Marx-Engels reader and you may find yourself surprised with Engels' contribution.

[STI]

Heh, I skimmed through "The Principles of Communism" yesterday. I was surprised by how relevant it still is to today and how the language seems much more modern than Marx's. I liked the part where he said that communists oppose reactionary socialists because they're "trying to do something which is impossible"

... Don't know why I thought it was funny, but it made me chuckle.

[Anarchist Freedom]

well because engels was bourgesis like myself....


:che:



CGLM! (http://www.cglm.tk)

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 05:40 AM
Heh, I skimmed through "The Principles of Communism" yesterday. I was surprised by how relevant it still is to today and how the language seems much more modern than Marx's. I liked the part where he said that communists oppose reactionary socialists because they're "trying to do something which is impossible"

... Don't know why I thought it was funny, but it made me chuckle.
I only read for the first time recently. It's quite good as an introduction to communism for someone who's not really politicised but has a small understanding. I'd recommend that to someone before I'd recommend the Manifesto.

[STI]

Originally posted by BornOfZapatasGuns+Feb 21 2004, 07:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BornOfZapatasGuns @ Feb 21 2004, 07:35 PM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 05:40 AM
Heh, I skimmed through "The Principles of Communism" yesterday. I was surprised by how relevant it still is to today and how the language seems much more modern than Marx&#39;s. I liked the part where he said that communists oppose reactionary socialists because they&#39;re "trying to do something which is impossible"

... Don&#39;t know why I thought it was funny, but it made me chuckle.
I only read for the first time recently. It&#39;s quite good as an introduction to communism for someone who&#39;s not really politicised but has a small understanding. I&#39;d recommend that to someone before I&#39;d recommend the Manifesto. [/b]
I agree. I first read the manifesto over a year ago, and, when i did, i didn&#39;t get much out of it. The language is easy to get distracted with.