Vejas Liulevicius

Marx had trained as an academic. He had married the daughter of a baron. Because of his radical ideas, he had foreclosed or found himself cut off from a possible academic career and went the route of radical journalism. Engels was very different. Engels was the son of an industrialist, and the family owned factories in Germany and in England.

So he was most definitely not a member of the proletariat that he and Marx were celebrating as so significant in their future historical role. There were also huge differences in character between these men. Marx, when people met him, they were astonished by his energy and his dynamism. They also saw him as a man who felt determined to dominate arguments.

So he was most definitely not a member of the proletariat that he and Marx were celebrating as so significant in their future historical role. There were also huge differences in character between these men. Marx, when people met him, they were astonished by his energy and his dynamism. They also saw him as a man who felt determined to dominate arguments.

So he was most definitely not a member of the proletariat that he and Marx were celebrating as so significant in their future historical role. There were also huge differences in character between these men. Marx, when people met him, they were astonished by his energy and his dynamism. They also saw him as a man who felt determined to dominate arguments.

He wanted to win arguments and was not one to settle for compromise or a middle road. He was disorderly in his personal habits. We might mention, among other things, that he impregnated the family he made and didn't accept responsibility for the child. He was also not inclined to undertake regular employment in order to support his growing family. That's where Engels came in.

He wanted to win arguments and was not one to settle for compromise or a middle road. He was disorderly in his personal habits. We might mention, among other things, that he impregnated the family he made and didn't accept responsibility for the child. He was also not inclined to undertake regular employment in order to support his growing family. That's where Engels came in.

He wanted to win arguments and was not one to settle for compromise or a middle road. He was disorderly in his personal habits. We might mention, among other things, that he impregnated the family he made and didn't accept responsibility for the child. He was also not inclined to undertake regular employment in order to support his growing family. That's where Engels came in.

Engels, essentially from his family fortune and then from his journalism afterwards, supported both himself and the Marx family for decades. And so in a sense, Engels made things happen.

Engels, essentially from his family fortune and then from his journalism afterwards, supported both himself and the Marx family for decades. And so in a sense, Engels made things happen.

Engels, essentially from his family fortune and then from his journalism afterwards, supported both himself and the Marx family for decades. And so in a sense, Engels made things happen.

In the mysterious way that friendships work, the very differences between these men made them formidable as a dynamic duo because they balanced off one another's idiosyncrasies and turned what might have been faults into potential strengths. British historian A.J.P. Taylor always has a lovely turn of phrase, even when he's wrong about a historical issue. In this case, he was right.

In the mysterious way that friendships work, the very differences between these men made them formidable as a dynamic duo because they balanced off one another's idiosyncrasies and turned what might have been faults into potential strengths. British historian A.J.P. Taylor always has a lovely turn of phrase, even when he's wrong about a historical issue. In this case, he was right.

In the mysterious way that friendships work, the very differences between these men made them formidable as a dynamic duo because they balanced off one another's idiosyncrasies and turned what might have been faults into potential strengths. British historian A.J.P. Taylor always has a lovely turn of phrase, even when he's wrong about a historical issue. In this case, he was right.

He said that Engels had charm and brilliance. Marx was a genius. And Engels saw himself as definitely the junior partner in this relationship. But here's the paradox. Without Engels, pretty clearly, Marx would not have gone on to have the sort of lasting historical impact in the world of ideas that he had.

He said that Engels had charm and brilliance. Marx was a genius. And Engels saw himself as definitely the junior partner in this relationship. But here's the paradox. Without Engels, pretty clearly, Marx would not have gone on to have the sort of lasting historical impact in the world of ideas that he had.

He said that Engels had charm and brilliance. Marx was a genius. And Engels saw himself as definitely the junior partner in this relationship. But here's the paradox. Without Engels, pretty clearly, Marx would not have gone on to have the sort of lasting historical impact in the world of ideas that he had.

I think that it's a part of a great conversation, right? I think that in their works, they're reacting to one another. I mean, Dostoevsky's thought ranges across the condition of modernity, and he definitely has things to say about industrialization. I think that... They react to one another in these oblique ways rather than always being at each other's throats in direct confrontations.

I think that it's a part of a great conversation, right? I think that in their works, they're reacting to one another. I mean, Dostoevsky's thought ranges across the condition of modernity, and he definitely has things to say about industrialization. I think that... They react to one another in these oblique ways rather than always being at each other's throats in direct confrontations.

I think that it's a part of a great conversation, right? I think that in their works, they're reacting to one another. I mean, Dostoevsky's thought ranges across the condition of modernity, and he definitely has things to say about industrialization. I think that... They react to one another in these oblique ways rather than always being at each other's throats in direct confrontations.

And that's what makes the 19th century so compelling as a story just because of the sheer vitality of the arguments that are taking place in ways big and small. Right.