Marx is more poetic, more aggressive. Marx's writing is dense, theoretical, and often philosophical. He employs complex, abstract concepts, and his tone can be polemical, especially when critiquing political economy or capitalism. Marx’s style is rigorous, dissecting systems with precision and often incorporating historical materialism to support his arguments. His texts, are marked by long sentences, layered analysis, and a critical, sometimes inaccessible, tone.
Engels, in contrast, tends to write in a more accessible and straightforward style. While he is equally intellectual, Engels’ works often have a more practical, pamphleteering quality. His language is clearer and less convoluted, with an emphasis on clarity and popularization of Marxist ideas. Engels is also more willing to engage in rhetorical persuasion, making his writing more digestible for a broader audience, as seen in works like The Condition of the Working Class in England.
When Engels wrote Principles of Communism, he took the style of a straightforward Q&A. After Engels wrote Principles of Communism, it was suggested that the style of a "catechism" be abandoned and a "manifesto" drawn up instead. This is why Marx and Engels ended up co-authoring the Communist Manifesto. But reading through the Manifesto and Principles back to back, the Manifesto seems less accessible, and Principles more straightforward. Manifesto has more of a call to action, but it is also more historically bound by the time it was written, while Principles seems more timeless.
Principles of Communism was written by Engels as a more systematic outline of Communist ideas in response to a question posed by the German Workers' Educational Society. It is a concise, theoretical treatise that lays out the basic principles of Communism, offering a clear framework of ideas, focusing on topics like historical materialism, class struggle, and the abolition of private property. It's more of a primer on Communism.
The Communist Manifesto, co-authored by Marx and Engels, is more dynamic, political, and revolutionary. It’s a direct call to arms, aimed at a broader audience, including workers and intellectuals. While it builds on the ideas in Principles, it is less abstract, emphasizing immediate political action, the inevitability of class struggle, and the need for revolution. The tone is urgent and rhetorical, designed to rally workers and challenge the existing order.
Marx' writing style does require some effort on the reader's side. Personally i dont find it very challenging, others do however. He frequently uses old words that aren't in use anymore, puts A LOT of information into a single long, nested sentence and throws in words and phrases in foreign languages. He can be quite funny but also appear cynical and mean when he responds with a wall of text to a wall of text from another author, however he never comes off like an genuine arrogant prick to me. On the contrary, he seems like a genuinely good guy who gets easily angry when faced with unhinged rightoid drivel, ignorance and injustice. He was probably a little autistic.
Engels' style on the other hand was and still is extremely intelligible, clear, natural, classical German. The subjects he deals with and points he makes are transparent and easy to comprehend for people who don't read a lot and aren't familiar with advanced academic lingo, too. He's like the complete opposite of that pretentious freak Nietzsche, i much prefer his style over 68er Frankfurter academic style as well as over modern pompuous, bourgeois conservative or liberal Bildungsdeutsch. I wish more people today would write like Goethe, Engels and Brecht.
>>2487673I think everyone thinks that
>>2488168>nietzsche badfiltered
>>2488663>basic level >good literacy>you should be able tothree qualifiers, this is like that Kamala Harris tweet:
<Yesterday I announced that, as president, I’ll establish a student loan debt forgiveness program for Pell Grant recipients who start a business that operates for three years in disadvantaged communities.>anyone who’s actually read Marx would see through their childish bullshiteuphoric /r/Atheism redditors insist they know the bible better than Christians, and they are aligned with Jeffrey Epstein's satanic New Atheist neoliberal friends. What do you reckon is up with /r/Ultraleft who also smugly condescend about knowing Marxism better than their slaves? 🤔
>>2488952Me on the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGlN6z9dTBcThis kind of memelord proto-Trump energy could be good for PR right now, Xi is cool if you are already PRCpilled, but to the normies he comes of as kind of scary.
Unique IPs: 23