>>407607>How do you refute the claim made by oh-so-virtuous reactionaries that Marxism is a "philosophy of envy" in the sense that communists (or workers in general) only seek to control the means of production and seize the wealth of the rich because they are envious of the rich?Supposing that this was true in some cases, with your average prole hating the rich on the basis of them leading a better life than they did, how does this explain that a good chunk of socialist theorists came from well-educated/ well-to-do backgrounds? Freidrich Engels, Peter Kropotkin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, these people were all born into well to do families, and all of them hated their own class and the economic system that sustained them despite coming from privileged backgrounds.
>Did Marx and Engels ever express envy of the rich for having too much in their writings? And if they did, was it not just a means of mobilizing workers to revolt? Not that I'm aware. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm Marx engaged in stock exchange as a means to fuck over the rich (i recall seeing extracts of this mindset during the r/wallstreetbets fiasco)
What's there to refute? What's the point? People make the same stupid arguments daily and probably get an equal amount of likes and upvoots.
If I were to make this point, I'd be met with the same "uhm you're from an upper middle class white background, you have no right to criticise anything" bullshit we've been seeing for nearly a decade now. These people act as if class traitors don't exist.