Karl Marx

[World Socionics]

It is the IEI who asserts a long-term historical narrative of our society that is still predicted to unfold (T), wherein individuals are reduced to classes (L) locked in a state of struggle (F).

Those people who assert Alpha NT see the L, sure, but they are not looking at the Beta T/F values surrounding this.

[mu4]

It is the IEI who asserts a long-term historical narrative of our society that is still predicted to unfold (T), wherein individuals are reduced to classes (L) locked in a state of struggle (F).

Those people who assert Alpha NT see the L, sure, but they are not looking at the Beta T/F values surrounding this.

Naw, ILE's are the big super long term thinkers, but they don't control the timing very well. Which is why his predictions are largely true 150 years later instead of right after his death, his timing was off but we largely live in a world where alienation and commodity fetishism has taken hold, where finance capitalism rules the day. is good at figuring out potential outcomes but devalues timing, which is focused on(which devalues alternative possibility for subjective vision). Marx was not fully committed to his vision of communism and this is where his break with Bakunin arose. Almost all "Marxist" revolutions occurred based on Bakunin's idea of peasant revolution(). Marx believed in organized rational action(Ti), and Bakunin the impulsive mass of force(Se) which included criminals and such. This is the fundamental conflict of later Marx vs earlier Marx when he shifted from a accepting sub-type to creative sub-type.

ILE's also have as the role function and this is the primary social function they perceive which is something they observe keenly and react against yet is not something they prefer. Marx observed this keenly and he could not dismiss what he saw, and as an Spinozist his view was "Might makes right" and although this may seem like it values , the core aspect of this philosophy is devaluing because it's about redefining "What is Might". Marx is no different here, because in his world Capitalists had the might and the lower classes did not, his view like that of Spinoza was to redefine the perception of Might. There is also a huge misconception about because it's purpose is not passive, and as a Pe function it is not boundary respecting, but in a more cognitive, internal fashion rather than the external sensory fashion. Marx's goal was to unlock the potential of the proletariat class and use this organized power of such a movement to change the world. This is an educated, competent, decent class that was socially involved but oppressed, this is a remark on potentiality of this specific class and not one based on impulsive reactionary revolutions of the past which largely consisted of peasantry, criminals and demagogues.

So essentially Marx's idea was that a educated, socially involved, oppressed class(with high potential) can organize and unlock their potential power to overturn the social order. This is essentially - - information transformation. But Marxist-Leninism which was created by a SLE is essentially a - method which takes power and then organizes people.

I think most individuals that criticize Marx do not understand his work and attribute many of the actions and consequences of individuals(betas) who came after Marx towards Marx and this interferes with the typing.

Communist solutions have essentially been beta but this is very different than the half glorification, half lament for capitalism that exists in Marx's writings. For Marx, Capitalism was something that freed people from aristocratic slavery, and as such an advancement for humanity, but it is plagued with many problems. This is essentially a Alpha Democrat's criticism of Gamma Democrats. From his background as an dialectical philosopher he was attempting to posit the anti-thesis and synthesis which would interact with capitalism in order to form a new order, unfortunately this is probably not his cognitive strong point and he was only able to describe the problem and the solution is woefully lacking in detail. And he was dealing with these psychological and sociological problems long before these became every day issues of social science. So what Marx did well was describe the mechanism of capitalism, and it's effect on the psychology of individuals and the mechanism in the psychology which created problems in his environments, and in potential environments that would arise from capitalism. What he failed to do was foresee how long it would take to do as well as what his own calls for intervention would do. Humanity is once again in a time of great growth in wealth disparity, great alienation and it once again portends great struggle(of class and other sort). Because humanity has not been able to solve the problem of alienation, solve the problem of our own psyches rebelling against itself. Earlier in this conversation many individuals talk about political systems that dismissed human nature, but Marx did not create these systems and you cannot attribute them to his thinking, what is clear is that human nature is the problem and this is implicit in Marx's thoughts. For all our advancement, there is still so solution for our will towards destruction and self-destruction, these patterns start from the small from individuals and families and arise also when people cooperate and group. The individual diseases are infectious and sometimes the groups go mad.

Modern sociology and psychology have begun to study some details of these phenomena that Marx only began to observe and understand. The economic conditions today also are trending towards the description Marx presented and as such Marx is experiencing a resurgence, because what he described is hard to dismiss when it's smacking you in the face.

Also from a remarkable standpoint, Marx never thought communism would work in Russia(which it did not), he did not see Russia as being capable of implementing communism. The only major power that is still based in Marxist-Leninist philosophy(despite all the capitalism running around) is China and this country doing quite well, while bringing hundreds of millions of people to the middle class. Industrial modes of production are actually a prerequisite for communism yet it's difficult to create this industrial world in communism, which is why capitalism is the mechanism by which overturned feudalism, and you can see this occurring in China under essentially Beta/Gamma leadership. Yet the problems of capitalism plagues China like no other place because it's vastness and growth in recent times. China is caught in a great dialectic between it's capitalist industry and its communist origins, and from this there is a potential for synthesis. Marx is taboo in the US/UK for the most part but it is still required reading in China to almost everyone and furthermore they see the problems Marx laid out in everything day to day.

[Chae]

From what I've read in his manifesto, he intellectually grasped the essence of history, flipped it around and came up with rules to aid the new order --> NeTi 5w6 So/Sp.

[golden]

[World Socionics]

Naw, ILE's are the big super long term thinkers, but they don't control the timing very well. Which is why his predictions are largely true 150 years later instead of right after his death, his timing was off but we largely live in a world where alienation and commodity fetishism has taken hold, where finance capitalism rules the day. is good at figuring out potential outcomes but devalues timing, which is focused on(which devalues alternative possibility for subjective vision). Marx was not fully committed to his vision of communism and this is where his break with Bakunin arose. Almost all "Marxist" revolutions occurred based on Bakunin's idea of peasant revolution(). Marx believed in organized rational action(Ti), and Bakunin the impulsive mass of force(Se) which included criminals and such. This is the fundamental conflict of later Marx vs earlier Marx when he shifted from a accepting sub-type to creative sub-type.

ILE's also have as the role function and this is the primary social function they perceive which is something they observe keenly and react against yet is not something they prefer. Marx observed this keenly and he could not dismiss what he saw, and as an Spinozist his view was "Might makes right" and although this may seem like it values , the core aspect of this philosophy is devaluing because it's about redefining "What is Might". Marx is no different here, because in his world Capitalists had the might and the lower classes did not, his view like that of Spinoza was to redefine the perception of Might. There is also a huge misconception about because it's purpose is not passive, and as a Pe function it is not boundary respecting, but in a more cognitive, internal fashion rather than the external sensory fashion. Marx's goal was to unlock the potential of the proletariat class and use this organized power of such a movement to change the world. This is an educated, competent, decent class that was socially involved but oppressed, this is a remark on potentiality of this specific class and not one based on impulsive reactionary revolutions of the past which largely consisted of peasantry, criminals and demagogues.

So essentially Marx's idea was that a educated, socially involved, oppressed class(with high potential) can organize and unlock their potential power to overturn the social order. This is essentially - - information transformation. But Marxist-Leninism which was created by a SLE is essentially a - method which takes power and then organizes people.

I think most individuals that criticize Marx do not understand his work and attribute many of the actions and consequences of individuals(betas) who came after Marx towards Marx and this interferes with the typing.

Communist solutions have essentially been beta but this is very different than the half glorification, half lament for capitalism that exists in Marx's writings. For Marx, Capitalism was something that freed people from aristocratic slavery, and as such an advancement for humanity, but it is plagued with many problems. This is essentially a Alpha Democrat's criticism of Gamma Democrats. From his background as an dialectical philosopher he was attempting to posit the anti-thesis and synthesis which would interact with capitalism in order to form a new order, unfortunately this is probably not his cognitive strong point and he was only able to describe the problem and the solution is woefully lacking in detail. And he was dealing with these psychological and sociological problems long before these became every day issues of social science. So what Marx did well was describe the mechanism of capitalism, and it's effect on the psychology of individuals and the mechanism in the psychology which created problems in his environments, and in potential environments that would arise from capitalism. What he failed to do was foresee how long it would take to do as well as what his own calls for intervention would do. Humanity is once again in a time of great growth in wealth disparity, great alienation and it once again portends great struggle(of class and other sort). Because humanity has not been able to solve the problem of alienation, solve the problem of our own psyches rebelling against itself. Earlier in this conversation many individuals talk about political systems that dismissed human nature, but Marx did not create these systems and you cannot attribute them to his thinking, what is clear is that human nature is the problem and this is implicit in Marx's thoughts. For all our advancement, there is still so solution for our will towards destruction and self-destruction, these patterns start from the small from individuals and families and arise also when people cooperate and group. The individual diseases are infectious and sometimes the groups go mad.

Modern sociology and psychology have begun to study some details of these phenomena that Marx only began to observe and understand. The economic conditions today also are trending towards the description Marx presented and as such Marx is experiencing a resurgence, because what he described is hard to dismiss when it's smacking you in the face.

Also from a remarkable standpoint, Marx never thought communism would work in Russia(which it did not), he did not see Russia as being capable of implementing communism. The only major power that is still based in Marxist-Leninist philosophy(despite all the capitalism running around) is China and this country doing quite well, while bringing hundreds of millions of people to the middle class. Industrial modes of production are actually a prerequisite for communism yet it's difficult to create this industrial world in communism, which is why capitalism is the mechanism by which overturned feudalism, and you can see this occurring in China under essentially Beta/Gamma leadership. Yet the problems of capitalism plagues China like no other place because it's vastness and growth in recent times. China is caught in a great dialectic between it's capitalist industry and its communist origins, and from this there is a potential for synthesis. Marx is taboo in the US/UK for the most part but it is still required reading in China to almost everyone and furthermore they see the problems Marx laid out in everything day to day.

The idea that ILEs are primarily super long-term thinkers is basically denying that ILEs are focused primarily on and have as an Ignoring function. On the contrary, they are interested in what is possible, and expanding the horizons of possibility, not in forecasting how something will eventually end up. To do the latter is to envision a linear outcome, and by doing so, limit alternatives to that outcome. The idea of 'timing' is not the same at 'Time'. It is irrelevant to as it requires a knowledge of what is concrete and present to know exactly what is going to happen. Timing is the sort of thing you need to dodge falling pianos. deals with imagined, general trends, based on an idea of where things are going/how they're developing, rather than anything as specific as an actual date. This is especially the case for IEI which uses in the absence of factual data and general empirical study , it frequently tends towards the mystical and harder to falsify. This is exactly Karl Popper's (ILI) criticism of Marx, the lack of awareness of how his model exists beyond falsification. To also say that the IEI can do 'timing' but the ILE cannot is also false. ILEs have Strong , they just don't value it. If an ILE needed to, it could use like an IEI, it just wouldn't volunteer such an approach due to Leading . I wouldn't say either are particularly good at this 'timing', but perhaps the ILE is actually better.

It is also not unusual, even expected, for an IEI to emphasise as a means to changing the political system, rather than which is their Suggestive, weakest function, something they are not inclined to make confident decisions on. This doesn't necessarily reflect on the valuing of but rather the strength and confidence of making an assessment using it. It is still evident that Marx emphasised linear outcomes and focused on how the world should be changed to reach this outcome, even if he personally, through the fact that his was so much stronger than his , thought it would be inevitable, rather than through someone taking direct action.

On the contrary, the Role function is not how we elect to perceive and arrange our understanding of the world. It is instead an external demand that we are able to adjust to and deal with better than our Vulnerable function. To make sense of societies in terms of hierarchical oppression already suggests a cognitive preference for framing ideas in terms of + . For an example of a more Alpha approach to Marxism, I recommend Friedrich Engels (I think he was ESE), whose work concentrated far more on appalling conditions and the adverse affect on working people's health, rather than on the idea of hierarchical oppression from a Bourgeouisie. He was also far more empirical in his approach than Marx, who never deigned to live among the proletariat. Similarly, if one were to look at Albert Einstein's (ILE) contributions to Socialism, we see once again, a focus on the conditions of capitalism and their adverse effects, rather than on hierarchical oppression of lower classes by upper classes, he basically said that capitalism makes people selfish and focused on competition, rather than enabling people to learn and flourish intellectually: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

Furthermore, what you say about Marx wanting to 'unlock potential' in the proletariat was not Marx's original idea, but arose from Engels' Principles of Communism, where the proletariat put together a democratic constitution. That was Engels' contribution to Marxism. Marx's contribution was the approach of a timeline of systemic development for the west, whereby the relationship between hierarchical classes changes over time. This is a similar approach to other IEI philosophers, like Oswald Spengler.

You're right that we should attempt to properly understand Marx's work. However, a crucial part of that is recognising the role that Engels played, which ideas were Marx's and which were Engels'. There is some Alpha there, but it isn't from Marx, who provided much in terms of + (especially in his commentary on his idea of 'alienated labour' as creating psychological impact on the proletariat) and , with the sense of inevitability that is typical of Suggestive types.

You think Democratic/Aristocratic actually culminates in criticisms of aristocracy vs. democracy? I wouldn't say so. That lacks a Model A basis. All this dichotomy has to it is the blocking of Sensation/Intuition with Logic/Ethics. Alphas/Gammas focus on an idealised objectivity and a concrete subjectivity, e.g. theoretical/strategic conceptualising and real life social interaction. Betas/Deltas focus on idealised subjectivity and a concrete objectivity, e.g. meaning, purpose and goodness, as well as how to get things done in real life. There is no basis for this to be applied to political views and criticisms. Instead, I think one should look at the Quadra values for that.

[mu4]

The idea that ILEs are primarily super long-term thinkers is basically denying that ILEs are focused primarily on and have as an Ignoring function. On the contrary, they are interested in what is possible, and expanding the horizons of possibility, not in forecasting how something will eventually end up. To do the latter is to envision a linear outcome, and by doing so, limit alternatives to that outcome. The idea of 'timing' is not the same at 'Time'. It is irrelevant to as it requires a knowledge of what is concrete and present to know exactly what is going to happen. Timing is the sort of thing you need to dodge falling pianos. deals with imagined, general trends, based on an idea of where things are going/how they're developing, rather than anything as specific as an actual date. This is especially the case for IEI which uses in the absence of factual data and general empirical study , it frequently tends towards the mystical and harder to falsify. This is exactly Karl Popper's (ILI) criticism of Marx, the lack of awareness of how his model exists beyond falsification. To also say that the IEI can do 'timing' but the ILE cannot is also false. ILEs have Strong , they just don't value it. If an ILE needed to, it could use like an IEI, it just wouldn't volunteer such an approach due to Leading . I wouldn't say either are particularly good at this 'timing', but perhaps the ILE is actually better.

I'm not sure you understand what possibility means. Possibility, potentiality, probability is a time based term in everyday usage as well as in science. The possible is not about the now, as all that is possible is technically actualized now. ILE's are super long term thinkers because the many distant possibilities are perceived as having great meaning and sometimes as closer to the present. Also there are potentialities which converge due to time, such as death(inevitable destruction of capitalism), which is inevitable(yet not fully know the exact time). Most of what you've wrote is kind of irrelevant, since it doesn't address the core issue of what Ne and Ni are.

Both are perceptual function distant from present sensory reality, and the nature of human perception is time based as we travel in this dimension. The aspect deals with and attitude towards the object, which plainly tells us that there are multiple future potential states from any present state. The aspect is subjective and driven by internal attitudes and as such becomes personal, often rejecting various potentialities for its personal vision.

As far as timing, there's a lot to timing beyond dodging pianos, such as say when to sell off a stock and many other timing specific decisions related to various decisions. But metaphorically it's sort of funny since I know a ego that uses a dodging piano to characterize the strategic planning he does.

The extratim nature of sees potentialities in time(as potentials all exist in some future) and often these are many, but some can be seen as inevitable and singular such as death. directs attitudes towards such potentials based on subjective attitudes, it's not that in the potentials cease to exist, but rather the attitude becomes personal and some potentials may lose meaning.

does not follow the flow of time like does, because it keeps the various potentials in focus due to its static and object nature, travels the flow of time from one state to another focusing on currents.

Some of what you've mentioned do not relate to either or but rather rational functions which do not work with the flow of time but the structure of the physical and abstract.

Anyways what you say about Marx I see as misinterpreted, what Marx did was not a timeline but rather a sequence of events, IEI's as vortex synergistic thinkers do not deal well with with sequencing, this thinking style seeks to do all things all at once in a chaotic fashion. LIE/ESE characterize this very vividly as they do everything at once and can be quite the whirlwind of activity. Sequencing is step by step often along a single place and this is primarily a casual determinism attitude, Marx's sequencing of events is not a timeline, and his work had a sense of the inevitable because some logical steps are deterministic and not time sensitive.

For example take this piece of his work.

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.

He says essentially, something happens A, something else happens B, people become conscious of what happens, people become conscious of the contradiction in A vs B, thus social conflict between A and B. This is a logical process, and is time agnostic.

Marx's work is essentially time agnostic although he was working from the past, the forces of A, B still exists, the contradictions still exists, the conflict still occurs. Due to the past 150 years of social sciences, more is known about these observations he made and solutions and non-solutions to them, but the general pattern and contradiction still creates great struggles. But ultimately he was speaking of the static.

You can fit all this in your interpretation of things but from what I see of his writing it is time agnostic(but also not present tense), and there is a sequential logical flow to his work which is causal deterministic in nature.

[World Socionics]

I'm not sure you understand what possibility means. Possibility, potentiality, probability is a time based term in everyday usage as well as in science. The possible is not about the now, as all that is possible is technically actualized now. ILE's are super long term thinkers because the many distant possibilities are perceived as having great meaning and sometimes as closer to the present. Also there are potentialities which converge due to time, such as death(inevitable destruction of capitalism), which is inevitable(yet not fully know the exact time). Most of what you've wrote is kind of irrelevant, since it doesn't address the core issue of what Ne and Ni are.

Both are perceptual function distant from present sensory reality, and the nature of human perception is time based as we travel in this dimension. The aspect deals with and attitude towards the object, which plainly tells us that there are multiple future potential states from any present state. The aspect is subjective and driven by internal attitudes and as such becomes personal, often rejecting various potentialities for its personal vision.

As far as timing, there's a lot to timing beyond dodging pianos, such as say when to sell off a stock and many other timing specific decisions related to various decisions. But metaphorically it's sort of funny since I know a ego that uses a dodging piano to characterize the strategic planning he does.

The extratim nature of sees potentialities in time(as potentials all exist in some future) and often these are many, but some can be seen as inevitable and singular such as death. directs attitudes towards such potentials based on subjective attitudes, it's not that in the potentials cease to exist, but rather the attitude becomes personal and some potentials may lose meaning.

does not follow the flow of time like does, because it keeps the various potentials in focus due to its static and object nature, travels the flow of time from one state to another focusing on currents.

Some of what you've mentioned do not relate to either or but rather rational functions which do not work with the flow of time but the structure of the physical and abstract.

Anyways what you say about Marx I see as misinterpreted, what Marx did was not a timeline but rather a sequence of events, IEI's as vortex synergistic thinkers do not deal well with with sequencing, this thinking style seeks to do all things all at once in a chaotic fashion. LIE/ESE characterize this very vividly as they do everything at once and can be quite the whirlwind of activity. Sequencing is step by step often along a single place and this is primarily a casual determinism attitude, Marx's sequencing of events is not a timeline, and his work had a sense of the inevitable because some logical steps are deterministic and not time sensitive.

For example take this piece of his work.



He says essentially, something happens A, something else happens B, people become conscious of what happens, people become conscious of the contradiction in A vs B, thus social conflict between A and B. This is a logical process, and is time agnostic.

Marx's work is essentially time agnostic although he was working from the past, the forces of A, B still exists, the contradictions still exists, the conflict still occurs. Due to the past 150 years of social sciences, more is known about these observations he made and solutions and non-solutions to them, but the general pattern and contradiction still creates great struggles. But ultimately he was speaking of the static.

You can fit all this in your interpretation of things but from what I see of his writing it is time agnostic(but also not present tense), and there is a sequential logical flow to his work which is causal deterministic in nature.

It looks like you're completely conflating and here. The core of the difference between the two is that broadens the scope of what is possible, while narrows that scope to what is, yes, inevitable. You won't find ILEs focusing on perceptions of what will inevitably happen. You will find ILEs entertain multiple alternative scenarios of what could happen. You'll also find this to an extreme in 4 types like LSEs, who simply won't gel with the idea that things in life happen inevitably, rather than being one of multiple choices that come about directly through their work and good decision making.

It is incorrect to assert that one kind of Intuition is more 'personal' than the other. All Intuition is 'internal' and thus personally interpreted. All Intuition is 'detached' and thus thought about and considered rather than felt with attachment. Object/Field has nothing to do with our conventional understanding of things being objective and subjective. It has everything to do with the objects themselves, vs. the relations between the objects. This is why is about multiple, disconnected instances and scenarios, while is about a linear sequence of cause and effect, with the sense that something will definitely happen one way and not any other way.

A timeline is a sequence of events... Literally the same thing.

I think bringing non-canon ideas like Gulenko's theory of cognitive styles like this is exactly why we should just stick to the canon until there is a common understanding that works. The sense of an inevitable path is clearly 1 and your non-canon additions, like some of the more batty definitions of the Reinin dichotomies, are confuddling that. This isn't 'time agnostic'. Time is implicit to this description. It deals with a linear sequence of cause and effect, with no sense of alternative to that sequence.

[khcs]

Karl Marx - ESTP - Robespierre

karlmarx1.jpg

[Makuta]

beta ST. Ti: holism, and analysis of history rules, attack the world with the systematic materialist dialectic, deep criticism. Se: analysis of history based on conflict and rapport of strengh, value engagement, good leader . i lean toward LSI, how he treated other socialism as Utopian socialism could be representative of vulnerable Ne.

[Makuta]

but SLE work . he was not especially (Ixxj)

[Sol]

beta ST. Ti: holism, and analysis of history rules, attack the world with the systematic materialist dialectic, deep criticism. Se: analysis of history based on conflict and rapport of strengh, value engagement, good leader

It's possibly to analyse not only from the values of own type and to be good leader without Se type.

Also the struggle of the classes is only the part. Marx's main idea can be understood as the try free humans from inner social strugles which supress them and spare the resources, so people could to express creative talents more completely and for the common good (instead of yourself as individs due to the strugle between each other). This is democratic and humanistic approach, but not aristocratic which beta seems prefer. So there is the base to assume the type of other quadras too.

To assign N type to Marx would be easier. His works were new and influencing, very insightful and correct.
We in Russia see this on ourselves like our life is ruined step by step by capitalistic/liberal ideology. We may compare with what we had not so long ago and to see all the shit which capitalism have brought to us. The majority of people becomes more poor with the time, the population dies out, the state degrades due to individualistic ideology and liberal competition with other nations. People are robed and betrayd by amoral and much unreasonable capitalists, which behave like egocentric criminals and mindless canibals. The talk much about efficiency, while generally what they touch - dies. People mostly live by the legacy of what stayed from the USSR.

[LVNA]

It's possibly to analyse not only from the values of own type and to be good leader without Se type.


To assign N type to Marx would be easier. His works were new and influencing, very insightful and correct.
We in Russia see this on ourselves like our life is ruined step by step by capitalistic/liberal ideology. We may compare with what we had not so long ago and to see all the shit which capitalism have brought to us. The majority of people becomes more poor with the time, the population dies out, the state degrades due to individualistic ideology and liberal competition with other nations. People are robed and betrayd by amoral and much unreasonable capitalists, which behave like egocentric criminals and mindless canibals. The talk much about efficiency, while generally what they touch - dies. People mostly live by the legacy of what stayed from the USSR.

Yes, this is a very good point. Another thing to consider with Marx is the important role he gave to aesthetics, and the way human beings relate to their environment. One of the essential idealistic ends of Marxism was not just to provide a system in which humans could stop being alienated from their work, which is to say, a situation in which they would keep the fruits of their own labor or somehow relate to it...but to create a situation in which the human being could constantly move from job to job, consistently expanding their reach into new areas of life...or essentially creating a relationship between the individual and as much of the outer world or economy possible.

Apart from this being a radical idea as Sol has noted, it's one that emphasizes a very specific vision...a dream of a world where people can live freely and experiment...these certainly emphasize democratic value as well as extroverted perception...but in this case the great theoretical bent of them clues in into the fact that perhaps they are not so Se based at all.

I think the American machine has been very complicit in painting communism and its founder in a collectivist way that deals more with how leaders enforced this philosophy than the philosophy itself...at the end of the day, though, this tends to become rather self-reflective and the hiding of Marxism's goals of increasing human opportunity and scope are shielded in order to confirm the American notion that humans are one-track minded competitive spirits who need capitalism to fuel their ideas, possibility and even desires. When we look beyond this view we see Marx was also an innovator when it came to how he viewed human sociology...

ILE works best.

[Sol]

One of the essential idealistic ends of Marxism was not just to provide a system in which humans could stop being alienated from their work, which is to say, a situation in which they would keep the fruits of their own labor or somehow relate to it...but to create a situation in which the human being could constantly move from job to job, consistently expanding their reach into new areas of life...or essentially creating a relationship between the individual and as much of the outer world or economy possible.

The main problem is the alienation of people from themselves, - preventing of their creative and productive expression for common good. Other alienations are the particular cases of this.
Marx was not about just exploitation, material resources and classes, it was about humans and the obstacles to their positive creative forces. The mentioned exploitation is the form of this obstacle, as a worker should be supressed to serve to the interests of higher classes. The artificial social inequality is the form of inner war, which harms the humanity.

Moving from job to job is the way to avoid the situation when a part of human talents stays unused and undeveloped, - a human gets professional deformation, degradation. This intersects with Jung's types, which Jung thought close to personal disorders of disbalanced psyche which are good to be fixed so a man used his mind more completely, and had lesser opposing between consciousness and unconsciousness.
The ideally developed Human is when he may do _any_ job and duty, with minimum study and development. To this should the development of individs to move. The jobs changing helps with this.

> Apart from this being a radical idea as Sol has noted

It was not so radical as was not new. It reminds the ideals of Renascence and Antic age - a all-sides developed man. The initial Olimpic games not only had several physical tasks, but seems also included intelligent competitions too. The ideal of Human - the whole one, but not only good in some of his functions and abbilities.

> these certainly emphasize democratic value as well as extroverted perception

Marx as all humanists was a democrat. The equality of people in development is the condition of democracy. People should be able to understand equally good the decisions they make and value each other as equals, to have similar abbilities and power in socium (what needs complete development, without specializations). In other case the part of them may to get the control above the weaker ones and may manipulate by them in own interests, even when elections formally happen. What leads the social war which limits the creative expression of humanity.

> ...but in this case the great theoretical bent of them clues in into the fact that perhaps they are not so Se based at all.

He could be Se type. Types incline to some thinking, but people may accept and use ideas which are more common for other types. Like they may work in weak functions regions, the same they may use the udeas of nonvalued regions.
To type Marx would be more useful his personal life, than his works.

> I think the American machine has been very complicit in painting communism and its founder in a collectivist way

Marx ideas of socialism are collectivistic, are opposite to liberal/capitalistic individualism. They are about a socium where people work for common good and are equal, while individualism leads to social segregation and to inner war. The dialectics is that only when people live for all, they create the best conditions for individuals. As in war state suffers and looses all sides - the high classes loose too, - they spend resources in war, they do not get what better using talents socium could to give them. High classes like are wining side in social war, but they also suffer during it and because of it.

> the hiding of Marxism's goals of increasing human opportunity and scope are shielded in order to confirm the American notion that humans are one-track minded competitive spirits who need capitalism to fuel their ideas

It's old opposing of individualism and collectivism. The capitalistic approach is individualistic, which they claim works for common good. What is doubtful is the idea the initially collectivistic approach like socialism would work for common good worse than capitalistic - it's mostly the region of their propaganda to justify capitalism, but not serious research. They are only partly correct, as socialism may create overcentralized systems which can be lesser effective, but it's not the problem of socialism itself but how it was used by people.
For example, a soldier submits to an officer not on 100%, he should to think himself too, he's not a puppet - the needed balance is needed. But the need to some freedom do not change that the officers and centralized command are needed so the army was more effective. This centralization is the analogue of socialistic control.
USA tell about liberal ideas close to absolut, meanwhile like any stable state they are not 100% liberal - the government controls the economy officially and partly unofficially, the large firms make agreements between themselves - there is collectivistic approach too, just because this allows to be more effective. USA and Europe are partly socialistic (and close to Marx in this), they need to have some balance, but they do not tell about this openly and prefer even claim the being opposite to socialism. The formally socialistic states are just socialistic in more degree than capitalistic ones. It's what USA propaganda hides, besides the higher efficiency of more socialistic states in some ways. The example of socialistic "win" was Gagarin - by the socialistic USSR which had lesser resources and the most destructive war recently, what USA had not - just because of better managment of resources in socialism, where higher centralization and good mass education have allowed this preference. Today propaganda blames USSR as lesser effective economy, but the main problems were other - like too high military spares, external restrictions in trading, the sabotage inside the state by the people which later did the capitalistic overturn and became millionaires, etc. Socialism can be more effective and shaw this sometimes openly. Also the majority of today ex-USSR people sees the worsening of their life during the capitalism, - without theories, just every day and practically. USA propaganda never will tell about today Russian problems due to social segragation due to liberal ideology and due to lesser effective resources managment, what leads the nation to degradation compared to what was during socialism.
They may also point on kind of capitalistic China development, but China have kept the centralized economy control, it only gave more of economy freedom. There is still a single party the members of which are the main capitalists there, they got a single life-time leader now, they have hard censorship and do other national protections, they keep much of socialistic propaganda - China has kept much of socialism, unlike Russia which turned to more liberal format (generally, not in all) and have got much worse situation than China.

> When we look beyond this view we see Marx was also an innovator when it came to how he viewed human sociology...
ILE works best.

fits better than SLE to his philosophy, at least

[Makuta]

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Karl Marx. this phrase exclude the possibility of alpha NT.

his replacement of "utopian socialism" by "scientific socialism" and historical materialism indicate a Se/Ni valuing instead of a Ne/Si valuing.

Socialist history can be represented by quadras.

the Alphas ( examples Plato and Saint Simon): two person who theorized about a collectivist/ solidary economic system, their work was highly theoretical but does not have realistic method to achieve it. Ti Ne valuing, highly intellectual and new concept but not any thinking about the practical implantation. Si Fe valuing: value answer of physical need and global hapiness.

the Betas(examples: Marx and Lenin): two person who make writings about how we can implant communism,their work are practical, very politically engaged but have a "end justify the Means" thinking (dictatorship of proletariat,temporary use of state's force, etc...), they are also very active in serious political movements . Ti Se valuing , understanding of strength rapport between class, how to create a centralized state and efficient party hierarchy. Ni,Fe valuing the sense of history, the revolution who came from the proletariat's passions.

The Gammas (example:George Orwell and jean Claude Michéa): George orwell show the consequence of the excess of marxism. he fit to the role of reformator that have to fix socialism emotionally and with pragmatism to make work the socialist machine again. Ni Te valuing: sense of time, precise allegory and comparison about totalitarianism , skepticism to strong political affirmation. Fi Se valuing: a bit moralistic and populist (common decency concept) , criticism of cruel consequences, organize people to answer to their need .

The Deltas (examples: bakunin, Proudhon and now Etienne Chouard): advocate of people's potential that socialism can awake, desire a decentralized government, want to pragmaticly handle the ressources but a bit disorganized and lacking of political structure needed to achieve their goal. Si Te valuing , detailed description about auto gestion and decentralized initiative results. (Ne Fi) attentive of need and potential that socialism respectively filled and awake.

[Sol]

[khcs]

Karl Marx - ESTP - Robespierre

[Marep]

Marx: SLE
Engels: ILE

[BrainlessSquid]

Max is on the idealistic spectrum

Most likely my identical (IEE)

[WVBRY]

EIE. Who could be more beta and D-A cognition?

[Adam Strange]

Karl Marx V.I.s like a clear IEE. In his personal life, he was vindictive, arrogant, childish, bad with money, cheated on his wife, didn’t work very hard, and lived in a pig sty of a house. He also advocated campaigns of terror against the liberal democrats.
In other words, he was a childish, selfish, irresponsible social justice warrior.

[Renna]

Up

He’s SLI’s dual according to Adam Strange…

[CR400AF]

My current thought is ILE.

[FreelancePoliceman]

ILI.

Some of these typings (especially IEE and EIE) make me wonder if anyone who's typed him has bothered reading anything he wrote.

[Marep]

Marx: SLE
Engels: ILE

What the crap was I thinking…

Marx: IEE

[Expansion]

Dialectical cognition. Check. Check.

And ILI.

Te, change the world from a mechanistic perspective, more efficient in productivity, not coming from an extraverted feeling side, as EIE. It comes from underneath in Te Ni systems.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The guy love socializing and debating and once took part in a duel. Seems like a clear ENXX type to me.

I typed him EIE last time I thought about it, with IEE second, but in Big Five terms, he could plausibly have been a disagreeable and unconscientious person. He had quite a prolific output of work though.

[Metamorph]

he could plausibly have been a disagreeable and unconscientious person.

The guy was covered in boils from never ever bathing, got into the top 1% of the top 1% in England at the time solely through begging, and spent it all on things like alcohol and cigarettes to the point he was basically living in an environment of smoke and filth. People described him as living like a "Bohemian," usually alternately translated as either "gypsy" or "Bohemian artist" in most English renditions. I'd say the guy was in the bottom 1% of the bottom 1% of conscientiousness solely through being a blob of apathy and filth.

[The Reality Denialist]

Gulenko typed him as EIE-D-Ni with schizoid tendencies and lousy master skills. You might find it in his Russian section with a translator.

[CR400AF]

Gulenko typed him as EIE-D-Ni with schizoid tendencies and lousy master skills. You might find it in his Russian section with a translator.

It seems that G types most thinkers with some extent of political ideas to be EIE.

Talking about history and future doesn't imply the use of Ni IMO.

[The Reality Denialist]

Contradictive personality would require better material than secondhand testimonies. Therefore I type him as non-type.

[hellohellohello]

I've been typing him ILE. Logical + Intuitive. All his critiques are pique Creative Ti.

Ausra even uses his "labour power" idea as an example for Ne.