The Fraud of Socialism and of Karl Marx

Originally posted by gncnew
Don't you find it amazing that the father of a socio-economic system that is supposed to bring fairness to the working class was never a member of it?

No. Antibiotics which save the lives of untold number of the working class were not developed by members of that same class. The Internet brings the joy of education and entertainment to the working class, and even gives an information platform to radicals, but the Web technology was not advanced by the working class or any sort of jihadists.

I guess what I see there are an amazing amount of inconsistencies for what he championed.

His philosophical views are OK in term of consistency. His view of how the society needs to develop is less than robust. His view on economy and how it functions is not too far off the target.

I've leared in my life to look at one's actions rather than words. That will tell you far more about what they really believe.

He lived a normal life of a philosopher and a researcher in economics. If you expected him to be a Che Gevara, it only shows how narrow is your understanding of the historical setting in which he lived.

Indeed as others said the whole thread was started by you as an Ad Hominem.



[edit on 16-8-2010 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by zzombie


Pure communism is nothing like either of those countries. There is no state in communism, it's basically local communes but expanded to the national level...you could probably say nearer anarchy than anything else. No government/state involved..you can see why calling russia or china communist is incorrect, they were simply totalitarian regimes hidden under the guise of communism, hell China today still likes to call itself communist.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Solomons]

reply to post by buddhasystem

No. Antibiotics which save the lives of untold number of the working class were not developed by members of that same class. The Internet brings the joy of education and entertainment to the working class, and even gives an information platform to radicals, but the Web technology was not advanced by the working class or any sort of jihadists.

We're talking someone who had an entire theory named after him (he did develop it after all). We're not talking about Marx being a 'bad person' who used a tool the wrong way so we can't condemn the tool. You're looking at comparisons that don't make sense.

Marx built a theory based upon precepts that he himself did not accept or live by. Thus his theory has no base on which it can stand. Not to mention that the only applications of his theory are now completely debunked by the reality of how they turned out (Soviet Union, North Korea, and China). The first one collapsed, the second one is practically at a point of cannibalism, and the third has adopted the great devil of capitalism to avoid the fate of the first two.

To say his understanding of economics and theory of society is sound but then say he was lacking in his theory of how it would work is like saying you understand gravity and how it works but that you can still float away if try really hard.

Either had it all jacked up and didn't understand anything - or he was a delusion hypocrite that just like to mumble idealistic crap that garnered him attention....

Either way - fraud.

reply to post by gncnew


If Marx had worked in a factory his whole life, he wouldn't have had time to delve into deep philosophical/ sociological studies. It can be said that the geniuses of today don't always earn high marks in school, that is no reflection on their ability, only their teacher's ability to understand/ catagorize these people's work. Standardized education doesn't always meet the needs of people who think outside the box. You can't catagorically deny his thesis based on the fact he was in a drinking club either (i call ignorance on that one). It would be more fair of you to criticize Marx/ Engles on their work " the Communist Manifesto".

One of the Key tenants of Marxism is to decentralize the government. This means the democratically elected government is not making decisions that affect the whole country. Rather, there are smaller municipal officials that make decisions locally through town hall meetings that will influence nearly every aspect of the local life. Marx said without reservation that communism can't exist in competition with Capitalism. The Capitalists will force the emerging Communist nation to remain centralized with a centralized standing army whose purpose is to maintain the socialist state within the nations borders.

Marx told Lenin in a private letter that his attempt at adoptiong Marxism for Russia would fail because of Capitalist encroachment and the inability to decentralize. He did say that Capitalism would ultimately destroy itself and this will be the world's oppertunity to attempt his ideas.

edit: typo

[edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron]

reply to post by gncnew


So you have had your ad -hominen attack on the dead philosopher and political theorist. Here is some news for you. I spent a long time practising a Japanese martial art. The Japanese sided with the Nazis during the war. As A kid I watch John wayne Films. Roman Polanski is an excellent director.
I also like the art of Salvador Dali.


Have you guesed my point as yet?

Here it is

Sometimes a disreputable person can develop a very interesting theory, artform or piece of machinery like a ford car or an Audi.

Have you actually read any Marx??????

reply to post by Mumbotron


reply to post by Tiger5


You both make good points - but again we are not talking entertainment or simple ideas.

We're talking about someone that actively sought the revolution of governments.

Now, if Marx were to admit that his system would NOT work in a centralized government... was he simply dealing with idealistic fancy as we know that any decentralized nation simply gets conquered by a centralized nation?

I guess at this point everyone who's run to Mr. Marx's defense has continued to say "ignore the man, the ideas are really neat-o!"... but that only works if we're not talking about overthrowing governments and committing mass murder in the name of the fanciful ideas.

The American Revolution was based upon many things - but at the core of them was the concept that their ideas were simply worth fighting (and dying) for.

I'm simply contesting that Marx was just doing the 19th century version of smoking good grass and talking out of his a**.

Unfortunately, too many take it too serious.

Originally posted by gncnew
We're talking about someone that actively sought the revolution of governments.

If his activity was confined to writings (which it was), I really take it as a huge discount. Compare this to one of Marx' avid readers, Mr. Lenin, and you will see the difference. Now, Mr. Lenin went pro and as a result was expelled from a University, and ultimately exiled, and became a member of a vast and ultimately violent conspiracy.

You are just creating standards for Marx that aren't reasonable and then happily go about "debunking" Marx as a fraud. Phew. He was just a writer, get it?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by gncnew
We're talking about someone that actively sought the revolution of governments.

If his activity was confined to writings (which it was), I really take it as a huge discount. Compare this to one of Marx' avid readers, Mr. Lenin, and you will see the difference. Now, Mr. Lenin went pro and as a result was expelled from a University, and ultimately exiled, and became a member of a vast and ultimately violent conspiracy.

You are just creating standards for Marx that aren't reasonable and then happily go about "debunking" Marx as a fraud. Phew. He was just a writer, get it?

LOL, so was Ben Franklin....

I consider myself to be a communist but am no fraind of marx for starters he made one great mistake and that was his advocacy of a violent revolution. revelutions always require military leadership which rarely relinqish power and bring authoritarian polocies in. the inclusion of a dictator of the polirate (sorry for spelling) made people like stalin able to justify themselfs and so stoped his better ideas ever taking traction. I consider (anacho)communism mearly a crude aproximation of my ideas for when I just cant beb bothered explaining them and need a lable. But ultimately its not the person that matters its the argument, relitivity is no less convincing comming from a drunken hobo than a collage profeser.

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
I consider myself to be a communist but am no fraind of marx for starters he made one great mistake and that was his advocacy of a violent revolution. revelutions always require military leadership which rarely relinqish power and bring authoritarian polocies in. the inclusion of a dictator of the polirate (sorry for spelling) made people like stalin able to justify themselfs and so stoped his better ideas ever taking traction. I consider (anacho)communism mearly a crude aproximation of my ideas for when I just cant beb bothered explaining them and need a lable. But ultimately its not the person that matters its the argument, relitivity is no less convincing comming from a drunken hobo than a collage profeser.

To be honest I fundamentally disagree with precepts of Communism. I think that it only works in a bubble. Once the population grows, but the means of production or the access to resources fail to increase...

Communism dies.

So a man, whose writtings have inspired revolutions in countries, been named as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, is still studied after 150 years, taught in schools, colleges and universities, has inspired many other sociologists, showed how flawed the capatalist system really is, shows hidden curriculum in state schools, biased in media, favour for elites, basically starting the whole conspiracy on nwo (if you think about it) and you are saying he is no good because he what? Went to a unreputable school, had a fling and was middle class?

Tell me, in 150 years time, will we be studing anything you ever thought about or wrote about?

Originally posted by thedarktower
So a man, whose writtings have inspired revolutions in countries, been named as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, is still studied after 150 years, taught in schools, colleges and universities, has inspired many other sociologists, showed how flawed the capatalist system really is, shows hidden curriculum in state schools, biased in media, favour for elites, basically starting the whole conspiracy on nwo (if you think about it) and you are saying he is no good because he what? Went to a unreputable school, had a fling and was middle class?

Tell me, in 150 years time, will we be studying anything you ever thought about or wrote about?

Nope, but then again, I've not really set myself out to write earth shattering nonsense.

Curious - do you give all authors of works that have this level of exposure the same amount respect and authority? I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out where I'm going with that question.

Another note: Since history began man's been able to find some unproductive hack that has a knack for uttering believable gibberish which then empowers gullible fools into drastic action.

People are now studying 2-Pac... and probably will be for another 50 years. Does this make the former gangster an unseen revolutionary thinker?

Marx simply railed against a system that he found he could not succeed in, then dreamed up one that he could succeed in, and proclaimed it to be the next evolutionary step (very catchy thoughts for the Enlightenment ere huh?).

I would hope that vast majorities of folks that study Marx at this point only study how something that sounds good on paper sucks in reality and that practical application of an idea is the only place where it can earn merit... otherwise it's just the fanciful imaginations of a person that wears blinders to the realities of the world.

What's that quote? "The the plans fail, the planners will make more plan..." Mr. Marx was the ultimate planner, and he inspired an entire revolution of uniquely under qualified - yet over aggressive - revolutionaries...

Such a waste.

Originally posted by thedarktower
So a man, whose writtings have inspired revolutions in countries, been named as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, is still studied after 150 years, taught in schools, colleges and universities, has inspired many other sociologists, showed how flawed the capatalist system really is, shows hidden curriculum in state schools, biased in media, favour for elites, basically starting the whole conspiracy on nwo (if you think about it) and you are saying he is no good because he what? Went to a unreputable school, had a fling and was middle class?

Tell me, in 150 years time, will we be studing anything you ever thought about or wrote about?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am convinced the reason people still read Marx in school is that he provided the elites with the intellectual basis for appropriating more and more power to themselves while telling the people it's for their own good and that they're "sticking it to the man" (always defined as "some other elite" they picked out that they don't like, but never themselves).

It's a con game, on a near-global scale.

Or can you think of a better reason? His economic theories have been thoroughly debunked and their application demonstrated theoretically to result in mass poverty (and in practice as well, unless you're one of those "we've just never seen real communism" people - but the results of the "attempts" certainly fit theory at any rate).

The fact is, communism is the perfect tool of the elites, because the rhetoric is all about the common people, allowing the elites to distance themselves from... themselves? Their own "eliteness" at any rate. Sometimes they tear apart a rich scapegoat just for show. But at the same time it gives them all the excuses they need to expand their power, with their slaves enthusiastically cheering them on.

It's really ingenious when you think about it.

reply to post by gncnew


studying 2pac? what school did you go to?

kidding on. but seriously, if Marxism is to be looked at it shows so many things that are wrong with capatalism, without it we would all accept it blidly and just say "thats life", without questioning it. Ok, i will give a small, but relavent example:

both you and I own a factory that makes chairs. As capatalist, we want to make as much profit for ourselves. So lets assume the raw material to buy to make one chair cost $5, both of us sell chairs at $10, and pay 300 workers each $2 per chair. $3 profit for us. Suddenly, i decide, probably on some golf course on 3rd holiday, that i would like more money than you, bigger house, better car. I cant ask the supplier of raw material to drop his prices, see he is a capatalist too. So, i decide on paying all my workers less money, make them work more hours and produuce more chairs. You grow jealous of me and my new house, so pay off 50 workers, lower the wage futher and even sell your chairs for $9. Now i see this, pay off half my work force, reduce wages further, increase hours and so on and so forth. Both me and you are getting richer while the poor guys that work for us get crapped on from a great hight. This is what Marx seen happening in his day, the industrail revolution had not long sprung up and million of people where being trated like crap to serve an elite few. That is why he suggested such a thing as a revolution, and that is why many did it. It still happens today, the poor get poorer, rich get richer, and jobs are cut all the time. Wages stay stagnent and food, fuel and rent goes up.

Can you not see where Marx is coming from?

Just a few corrections to your hypothesis.

Marx is NOT, was NOT, the farther of socialism.

The roots of socialism go back centuries.

The Levellers, a 17th century English revolutionary group, advocated socialism.

Socialism was the favoured economic system of the first Anarchists.

freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality...Bakunin, the father of Anarchism.

Socialism became very popular due to the industrial revolution and the mass enslavement of workers in factories. It's a system that was developed, rather than invented, by the working class as a direct alternative to capitalism (the private ownership of the means of production). Up until WWII the working class was still struggling to create a socialist system, ending with the Spanish revolution where the workers collectivized industry and farms, and increased production by 20% as well as improving public amenities.

Communism is not socialism. There are similarities but communism is a system where everything is free and shared, whereby socialism allows markets and money exchanges. They are similar in they don't allow the private ownership of the means of production. Marx saw socialism as a way to have worker control, but use the profits made to allow society to eventually move to communism and do away with money.

He is not the be all and end all of socialism, just one man with his own ideas. BTW he was German, a lot of people assume he was Russian.

Not all socialists are Marxists. A lot are Anarchists and dismiss Marx completely.

Originally posted by gncnew


So I started at the one and only Karl Marx. This Marx guys was an intriguing fellow. Some quick facts about him:

• His dad was a wealthy lawyer (and born Jewish)

So what, someone who is wealthy can't possibly understand the plight of the poor? Wow genralize much?

He married and educated daughter of a Prussian baron

So what, he has the right to marry whomever, it does not mean he married for money contrary to popular beleif.

He never actually "worked" other than writing articles for papers

SSSSSSoooooooo writing isn't work, huh? Well I think I know about 4,000 plus people who may disagree, and have made a good living off of it, about 100 of them in Hollywood alone.

He had 7 kids

And does anybody have the right to tell anyone how many kids to have? I would not have that many because I'd lose my sanity but some people love kids. Who the hell are you to put down someone's choice of how many kids they have???

He was broke all of his life until he inherited houses and money from dying family members

All the better for him to actually understand what it is to be poor...and are you seriously putting down the poor...poor taste...dispicable!

He relied on the hand outs of friends and family to afford a middle class lifestyle

Ummmmmmmm as if your family has never helped you out...or a neighbor. For anything even if it was to borrow a cup of sugar, no man is an island unto himself.

He had an illegitimate son by his house keeper... he had a house keeper?

As if wealthy people don't do this on a regular basis? Even presidents have; EPIC FAIL!

In college, he all but flunked out, after he joined the "Trier Tavern Club" drinking society.

So you never partied in college or High School fo that matter?

His dad forced him to switch schools and majors (from philosophy to law) because you can't earn money in philosophy

So he took philosophy, who cares lots of the elite waste away their time in college only difference is they get bought degrees in better classes they never even took. SO WHAT?????

It didn't matter, he joined the Young Hegelins and continued to study philosophy and history

Yeah again free thinkers scare you? Talk about communist tedencies.





Yeah I think I get the point...you needed someone to slam to make yourself feel righteous and indignant... point recieved.

reply to post by ldyserenity


People who promote violent bureaucratic allocation of resources are not free thinkers.

They are advocating violence and the impoverishment of society.

I would classify that as hate speech myself.

reply to post by gncnew


It sounds like you might be interested in this lecture series on the communist Marx and his intentions.

fascistsoup.com...

Marx was the biggest dirt bag on the planet.

Originally posted by thedarktower
reply to post by gncnew

 

studying 2pac? what school did you go to?

kidding on. but seriously, if Marxism is to be looked at it shows so many things that are wrong with capatalism, without it we would all accept it blidly and just say "thats life", without questioning it. Ok, i will give a small, but relavent example:

both you and I own a factory that makes chairs. As capatalist, we want to make as much profit for ourselves. So lets assume the raw material to buy to make one chair cost $5, both of us sell chairs at $10, and pay 300 workers each $2 per chair. $3 profit for us. Suddenly, i decide, probably on some golf course on 3rd holiday, that i would like more money than you, bigger house, better car. I cant ask the supplier of raw material to drop his prices, see he is a capatalist too. So, i decide on paying all my workers less money, make them work more hours and produuce more chairs. You grow jealous of me and my new house, so pay off 50 workers, lower the wage futher and even sell your chairs for $9. Now i see this, pay off half my work force, reduce wages further, increase hours and so on and so forth. Both me and you are getting richer while the poor guys that work for us get crapped on from a great hight. This is what Marx seen happening in his day, the industrail revolution had not long sprung up and million of people where being trated like crap to serve an elite few. That is why he suggested such a thing as a revolution, and that is why many did it. It still happens today, the poor get poorer, rich get richer, and jobs are cut all the time. Wages stay stagnent and food, fuel and rent goes up.

Can you not see where Marx is coming from?

Your example shows your fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism.

If you drop the wage of your workers to suddenly make more profit - two things will happen immediately:

1. Your good workers will immediately depart for your competitor
   
2. You workers will become less productive
   

Both of these will result in your production of chairs dropping, and even though you make more profit per chair, you're now making less chairs per worker, and thus you just make less money.

Now, the real example would be that the I decide I want to make more money than you (probably in a board meeting after a 16 hour day - that's reality of the executives). So I decide that I'm going to invest some of my profit to expand my plant, hire more workers, and thus increase my capacity to produce chairs.

When I do this, the individual price per chair goes down, so I actually make a lot more money. Because I make more money, it allows me to promote the good workers into supervisors to further increase productivity and then I even get to start a new line of "Luxury Chairs" in another plant thus increasing more jobs.

Workers are only as abused as they allow themselves to be. See, if the two factories started competing for who could pay the labor force less - they'd suddenly find themselves without any labor...

That's the dirty little secret. The only time business cuts it's pay or it's labor force is when they are losing money, not to make more money. To make more money you need happy and efficient workers... only China beats them into submission... oh wait - that's Communism.

reply to post by ANOK


I thought he was Prussian... oh well.

Socialism leads to Communism because the economic theory needs the governmental backing. Remember - Communism is a "Democracy"... ROFL.

Lastly - the Spanish revolution showed an immediate increase in their production - but where are they now... Everyone works great when they're all happy about their revolutions... but when the honeymoon is over ..

Well, just take a look at their productivity ratios compared to other modernized nations - especially the U.S.

Essentially socialism is a great system to equalize out the benefits that people receive from their labor efforts...

Problem is that it makes good people work less and rewards unproductive.

Capitalism has many flaws but one thing it does is breed ingenuity and efficiency.

All this really comes down to the question: why did China start incorporating capitalism into their economic model?