889
Debating the right to exist
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
889 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
53428 readers
441 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I think I could chill with Marx¹, he was a shockingly decent guy for the time. Engels was a piece of fucking shit and I'm not reading anything else he wrote.
¹teaboo capitalism-loving steam engine fetishist that he was
Engels' contributions to Marxist theory are critical works, such as Anti-Dühring and On the Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, and neither him nor Marx by any means loved capitalism. He was crucial to the development of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism, and was Marx's biggest sponsor and comrade.
Then I suppose I will never fully explore Marxist theory. How sad.
Guess not. I agree, it is sad.
Its not Engels that is a capitalism lover (in the eabove comment) its Marx.
Kinda, at least compared to feudalism, though he also hated it and wished it abolished. Capitalism's advent was both progressive, and resulted in incredible immiseration for the new proletariat as compared to their earlier yeomanry and serfdom.
I just wanted to point out that Cassandra said that Marx was a capitalism lover, not Engels as you replied.
Yep, gotcha. I see now.
Also, Marx may have fucked his wife.
Big if true.
True dat. AFAIK, Engels mostly regurgitated Marx anyway. So nothing much lost in terms of theory.
Engels co-developed dialectical materialism and scientific socialism, Marx could not have done what he did without his best friend and comrade.
I'm sure Marx' sugar daddy was very important for him.
Dunno why you have to phrase it in a sexual manner. Engels sponsored a lot of Marx's work, and was a valuable comrade when writing theory together. Engels is one of Marxism's most important theorists, and by no means was simply regurgitating Marx; he was the one Marx bounced ideas off of and they together grew to develop Marxism.
Interpreting "sugar daddy" in a sexual manner says more about you than the usage of the word does about me. (As does remarking on it at all: I don't care whether or not Marx and Engels were in a sexual relationship... do you?)
"Sugar Daddy" implies Marx gave Engels sexual favors in exchange for cash or other goods, housing, etc. That's the meaning of the "Sugar" part of the phrase "Sugar Daddy." You made it sexual, not me. No, I would not have had any issue with them being gay, except for that being cheating in presumably monogamous relationships. I myself am pan, so I don't know what you're doing here.
(Yes, I know Marx was older than Engels - it was a joke, ffs)
Marx was born in 1818. Engels was born in 1820.
🤓
Don't "umm, akshually" me to death, please. /s
The "Sugar" part still refers to the connotations of sexual favors, that's the assumption with such terms. I get that it was a joke, I just don't like the way sexual relationships are used in a negative manner when describing people, especially if it isn't even true, like calling Putin and Trump gay for each other.
That's your interpretation. It can also refer to a power dynamic or state of affection from the giver to the receiver.
That's like claiming the term implies pedophilia, or domnestic abuse, because of the "daddy" part.
You're the one who made it sexual.
Wrong
Literally the first definition listed agrees with what I said, because that's how it has historically happened. That's the connotation. This is just silly, that's like saying calling someone a top in a relationship is totally platonic and doesn't at all have sexual connotations.
So the "first" definition is the only one or what? What's it with you and your refusal to accept that there are more than one way to interpret things, sometimes?
Connotations exist. Why else would you phrase it this way? Why not just say sponsor, like I did? You said it's a joke, so that means there must be humor to it, right, and not just a literal older person (who was younger, actually) giving money?
Because Marx was financially dependent on Engels. As people with sugar daddies often are.
But where's the humor? Sponsors are also depended upon.
The power dynamic is funnier that way. It implies an infantilisation of Marx and that he was only friends with Engels because of the money.
There, you've made me explain my own joke. I hope you're happy. /s
It's not funny and you didn't intend it to be funny, you clearly intended it to be derogatory
Funny and derogatory are famously mutually exclusive. /s
Bold of you to assume intentions of strangers on the internet.
I'm right
Please tell me more about my intentions, since you apparently know them better than I do.
What should I get on my Pizza, for example?
/s
Pepperoni
I don't want meat on my pizza, dingus.
... or do I? Tell me what I think, dammit! /s
Yes you do, I already did
It also implies that he gave sexual favors for them too, based on popular connotation. There are other ways to get across your same joke without using the loaded term "sugar daddy."
I literally told you why I wrote what I wrote and you still act as if you're the arbiter of meaning on every uord I utter.
And again: Why. Should. Anyone. Care. If. Marx. And. Engels. Fucked?
I already explained, I just personally dislike it when people make jokes about two people fucking in a pejorative manner.
Yeah, I personally dislike it if people don't have the guts to call me a liar and hide behind their arbitrary definitions that suit their point best. So I guess we're all unhappy now.
I'm not hiding begind "arbitrary definitions," the definition you gave literally agreed with me. Historically, that's the most relevant usage of the term.
Read the encircled definition again. Terms can have more than one meaning, dawg.
The connotation is that of the first definition. The other definitions exist within the context of that definition.
You can't help it telling me what I meant when I explicitly told you what I meant, huh? Are you trying to gaslight me, or something? Because that's a fucked up thing to do.
I told you the connotation of what you said, not your intention. I'm not gaslighting you, I'm telling you that when you say 2 people are in a sugar daddy relationship, it's assumed by the reader that they are exchanging sexual favors for goods or cash.
Why does the assumed connotation matter if the targeted meaning was laid bare if not for your stubborn ass to get the last word in?
Want to examine those connotations? /s
Because the assumed connotation was what I took issue with, as I pointed out. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.
Are jokes not communist enough for you or something? It was funny and you've spent WAY too much time not just laughing at the funny joke. Maybe friends are a bit much for someone terminally online but you've never picked up a tab or bought something for someone and had them joke that you're their sugar daddy?
Engels was very much Marx's sugar daddy as everyone would use the phase when joking about someone else paying someones way.
The implication was that Engels was a piece of shit and that he contributed nothing but money to Marx, in exchange for sexual favors. There's a wide gulf between a joke between friends, and someone using the term in a pejorative manner towards someone they don't like.