I see all those German philosophers as prots. Part of their revolt was secularizing theology. Putting such subject matter into human language corresponds with the son of God being a human. None of them were as influential as Luther, none of them except Marx. When you have faith that God has a plan for you that will allow others to exploit you. He tweaks protestantism in this further way past Luther. God has a plan for you not to be exploited anymore. In the same way that Marx was a protestant, our own present-day form of liberalism is protestant, which is simultaneously not Marxist at all and hyper-Marxist in the sense I’ve noted that the new “proles” tend to be super-proles- instead of workers, those who have been judged to be even more oppressed than them, POC and women. This is a form of cladistic Lutheranism, and Luther himself was Christ-like. You couldn’t get a Luther with Socrates being the god-man, in fact Luther vehemently opposed antiquity in general, not coincidentally. The Catholic church retained certain Aristotelian elements that have fallen away from Protestantism and our own form of secular protestantism. This is a way to genealogize history- was it so wise to depart from the light-Aristotelianism of the Catholic church? Some of us extremists think it wasn’t wise to depart from Aristotle at all. There’s no “sensitive” way to talk about this because it’s so foreign to us today, well what a surprise, this way of thinking is over 2000 years old. Marx’s protestantism was so effective that it’s almost impossible to counter him without raising alarms of “evil!” I don’t think it’s evil, it just involves a level of reality that only a minority is able to perceive, and thus they tend to keep it to themselves because they know not many will understand. It is possible to simultaneously believe that there should be a redistribution of wealth and also that “exploitation” is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s people with a corrupted consciousness who even call it exploitation, because they’ve been deceived by demagogues to believe that they can rise beyond their faculties. In reality, they simply can’t accept who they are- it’s a matter of confused atheism, or the inability to trust in providence. Remember I mentioned that early in this post? Marx has a point about that, it’s just people tend to get excessive with it. Until we have automated labor, there is a very particular type of person who is best made to act as the machinery of society in order to keep the brain of society functioning. And I am grateful for Marx that he has led me to seeing the value of automated labor, i.e. literal machines, that don’t have emotions, that don’t tire, that don’t feel degraded by being used as objects. So again, it’s one of those “it’s not either/or” situations where you can at the same time say exploitation is bad and also say that it’s necessary on some level and that there are specific human groups that one could say were put on this earth just for that. This is an idea of Nietzsche’s version of protestantism, which was in a “dialectic” with the partly-Marx-inspired socialism of his own day. And here we are having a similar conversation in our own day, prot.