Talk:Karl Marx
-10, +10? You've put him more authoritarian than Stalin when he himself was anti-Authoritarian? Was this page created by Objectivist wackos?
- It is a joke, get over it. - π 10:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of jokes; I read some Marx (and I liked it)
sshole 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- That video rulzors! Nice. ħuman
07:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- That video rulzors! Nice. ħuman
Apparently, in the mid-19th century the Belgian ambassador to the UK told the Foreign Office that there were some people in the UK, who were Communists and wished to abolish the monarchy. 'Then,' the FO is supposed to have replied, 'they should perhaps go to America, where there is no monarch.'
Imagine Marx, Engels and associates as the first Californian hippies. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat biased. It's implying Marxism is bad and it causes deaths. The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital were not written to be sacred tetxs like some people wanted it to be, but more of a philosophical work made to be viewed critically and be changable. Communism in and of itself is not bad, but one thing is to claim to be communist and another is to actually be one. Actions speak louder than words and few of those countries actually tried to implement a communist regime. Most were actually populist governments or fascist-esque ones (Pol Pot). One thing is joking Marx is Satan, another one is claiming he is responsible for 100 million deaths.
[edit] What is the purpose of this?
I came looking for a "Rational Wiki"; instead I found another Encyclopedia Dramatica -- which has its place, but why reinvent the wheel? --96.44.189.102 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- OMG, 96###, so sorry we let you down. I fixed it up some for you though. ħuman
03:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Why isn't this article bronze?
Carl Sagan has a bronze article with only 6 references, Che Guvera has one with 9. This is Karl Marx we are talking about, it's hard to get more rational than him, yet there's only 3 references. Would another 3 make it long enough for a bronze? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- This page may not be ranked because, as one asshole recently said, it's "pathetic." Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
00:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also because nobody cares about article ratings. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- What actually effects how likely the article is to be displayed on the front page of google search, is it just page views than? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think RW should be in the business of search engine optimization? I don't. I favor letting RW content stand or fall on its own merits, without regard to whatever tags or spangles get tacked onto articles. Also, that should be "affects" up there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- What actually effects how likely the article is to be displayed on the front page of google search, is it just page views than? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also because nobody cares about article ratings. ωεαşεζόίď
[edit] Disappointing
I expected more from Rational Wiki. As someone stated above, we already have Encyclopedia Dramatica and its likes for nonsense. M. 153.1.13.172 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)