The only valid criticism of Marx as a philosopher must be that he was too involved in human affairs

He is too practical, too much wrapped up in the problems of his time.

Since Copernicus, it has been evident that Man has not the cosmic importance which he formerly arrogated to himself.

So you're not supposed to philosophize on matters pertaining to humans and their practical problems nor of "cosmic importance." What exactly are you supposed to philosophize about?

Number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin
- The only non-joke answer I could think of is aesthetics. So, philosophers should be nothing more than glorified art critics.
You philosophize about how many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb

“Marx is only interested in human problems on earth, and cares nothing for non human issues outside of earth” is a truly straw clutching criticism for a philosopher who was speaking about human societetal organisation which at that point was entirely on the surface of the planet (and to all practical purposes remains that way presently).

Yes, he neatly explained political economics, but he didn’t say anything about gas/plasma currents within stars, or of non carbon based life’s bio chemistry so I think we can ignore his works as irrelevant as he fails to consider wider issues.

Also how can it be progress if capitalists don’t benefit??

"Liberalism will benefit a larger group of entrepreneurial citizens unendowed with the pedigree required to become a fully respected agent in the world of monarchism, but it won't be very good for kings and queens now will it? Ergo liberalism is not progressive at all!"

His purview is confined to this planet, and, within this planet, to Man

The only way I'll accept this as valid criticism is if the writer is a Posadist

"The theoretical doctrines of Communism are for the most part derived from Marx. My objections to Marx are of two sorts: one, that he was muddle-headed; and the other, that his thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred. The doctrine of surplus value, which is supposed to demonstrate the exploitation of wage-earners under capitalism, is arrived at: (a) by surreptitiously accepting Malthus's doctrine of population, which Marx and all his disciples explicitly repudiate; (b) by applying Ricardo's theory of value to wages, but not to the prices of manufactured articles. He is entirely satisfied with the result, not because it is in accordance with the facts or because it is logically coherent, but because it is calculated to rouse fury in wage-earners. Marx's doctrine that all historical events have been motivated by class conflicts is a rash and untrue extension to world history of certain features prominent in England and France a hundred years ago. His belief that there is a cosmic force called Dialectical Materialism which governs human history independently of human volitions, is mere mythology. His theoretical errors, however, would not have mattered so much but for the fact that, like Tertullian and Carlyle, his chief desire was to see his enemies punished, and he cared little what happened to his friends in the process."

analytic "philosophers" please stay in your lanes, it is very embarrassing otherwise.

Surreptitiously accepting Malthus's doctrine of population
Seriously wtf does he mean by this.
Also Marx never mentions Dialectical Materialism, the closest anyone gets is Engels describes their method as a "materialist dialectic."
There are so many errors in just this one paragraph I can't even fathom.
I know the answer but of course I can't help asking it: how can such renowned and educated thinkers be so incredibly wrong so consistently? I have little formal education past high school and have a better grasp of these topics than Bertrand Fucking Russell. I know people who work at grocery stores who make 99% of economists and philosophy professors look like total fools.
Marx was muddle headed? Are you fucking serious??
- I'll do my best to be charitable to Russell, only for the interest of other readers.
  Malthus and his notion of competition was broadly accepted by Adam Smith (labor theory of value, etc.) AND Darwin, prolewiki has an excerpt from Charles Darwin's autobiography where he mentions the impact of Malthus' Essays on Population on his thinking during his time on the HMS Beagle.
  Marx was well enamoured and impressed by Darwin's theory of evolution & Origin of Species. Marx sent Darwin a copy of Capital, if I remember because he saw it as an evolution or building upon Darwin's work (which I would agree with, just not sure if that's exactly what Marx said or intended).
  If Russell disagreed with competition, and preferred cooperation, maybe the criticism has a bit of weight, if you exclude like a bunch of context (which honestly it sorta seems the later Russell would do frequently?? idk I haven't read him too much).
I like much of Bertrand Russell's writing. And jeez he had some huge L's. Don't look into what he thought would be a good use of nuclear arms post-WW2.
wtf, this is ableist against muddle-heads.

Since Copernicus, it has been evident that Man has not the cosmic importance which he formerly arrogated to himself

Nuh uh! Marx is at the center of humanity and we revolve around him! If this weren't the case, why is it that both leftists and chuds are both obsessed with him?

Ha, owned.

Karl Marx is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself

considered purely as a philosopher

Luckily no one considers him as purely a philosopher, so these paragraphs are entirely pointless

What a shortcoming, thinking about things that actually exist

Oh btw forgot to mention this is Bertrand Russell

Yeah that checks out a lot.
Russell is a fucking nerd and one of the main reasons I hate analytic philosophy

obvious that the "oh only thinking about real things makes you a bad philosopher" is ridiculous; but the jump from "everyone was concerned about progress, which people thought inevitable, which they thought was innately good and therefore outside of ethical considerations" is equally hand-wavy and ignorant

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways • the point however is to change it.

aka stfu nerd

This is where you end up if you can't accept that Hegel has already written the last word in philosophy, so there's no more need for "pure philosophers".

Marx every other line: I concern myself with the capacity of societies to produce what they need to survive, therefore I consider capitalism as progressive in relation to earlier forms of production, due to it's fast development of science, technology, machines and it's specific form of social division of labor, all things that greatly enhanced western Europe's production. In that vein, this fast advancement tends to develop production even further, pointing to a more "progressed" society, if we organize ourselves to that end.

Nerds: Ha! Marx used the word "progress", therefore he is merely a positivist. No, I haven't actually read anything he wrote, why do you ask?