Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In the eyes of erodriquez317, he saw that Karl Marx revealed something about society that is neglected and explained it in such a manner so that, “other readers can see it through their eyes” (The Father of Marxism). As one who has always found Karl Marx as the most important philosopher of the 19th Century, I agree. He presented a through examination of the Industrial Era as well as a classification of history being based on, “the history of class struggles” (14). By building on this by offering a little context and an idea of society’s workings, Karl Marx predicted a revolution into the era of Communism. While I doubt a classless society will be possible with humanity (which has greed, power-lust, individuality, selfishness, and disagreements for example), Karl Marx did laid down a macro examination of industrial societies. This can be seen when he states the rapid results of industrialization, where the applications of technologies to industries and agricultural areas saw huge populations come out of nowhere compared to the previous century (17). While it was subtle context for the reader, it is overall a well laid out summary of Europe from the late 18th Century to the publication of the book. This is due to the fact that Europe did indeed rapidly change with the rise of industry and that rural societies declined as migration to the cities occurred to fill the labor needs of factories. So while I do enjoy and mostly agree with the presentation of labor being unjustly used by the bourgeois, I, however, do not see him as a proper historian. Karl Marx did present a history, but it was condensed history. A detailed history, like Edward Gibbon’s The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, required a huge amount of resources to use in order to create an argument. If Karl Marx was a great historian, he would of covered what exact history of the Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, and industrialization was available from a historical perspective to craft his argument. Yet he did not and thus is the reason why he is not a proper historian.