Happy Birthday Karl Marx

I just wanted to create a thread to commemorate the birthday of the great man known as Karl Marx.

 

Karl Marx was wrong in believing that class consciousness is usually stronger than racial, ethnic, or national loyalty. He was right that the natural tendency of capitalism is to build wealth while spreading poverty. Per capita GNP goes up. Median income goes down. Unfortunately, when those in the dominant ethnicity in a country decline economically they are often attracted to some form of right wing populism.

 

So... does that mean it's not his birthday?

 

What was great about Karl Marx? The average person who worships him knows nothing about him. He was far from great... he didn't even write the manifesto that most people credit him with writing. He was nothing more than a frontman for the very same people he pretended to rail against.

 

i dont want to start an argument here, i know your very good at debating, but im just curious how do you support these claims?

 

Marxism was created by the very same "capitalists" that marxists believe they're in opposition to, as the antithesis to capitalism. It's a false opposition. The wealthy elite that the marxists are railing against are in fact monopoly capitalists, and monopoly capitalism is in fact socialism for the rich. It always has been. So you have to realize there is a big difference between marxism/socialism the way the average person sees it, and the way it truly exists at the top of the pyramid. Under a socialist system of government you have a small, wealthy elite at the top lording over the dumbed-down masses. It's a collectivist system of control.

So socialism has always been a tool of consolidation by the elite. Karl Marx was simply promoted by the bankers to bring to light what was initially promoted by Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati in 1776. It actually goes back even further than this, but Marx was merely the frontman for this dialectical scheme.

 

ok, so are you denouncing all socialists? because no matter what Marx actually did/was, there are people who believe in ACTUAL socialism.

 

I am not denouncing them. I think they're incredibly naive, but I am not denouncing them. They just don't have all the facts. Marxism might sound good to some people on paper, but it was never intended to be the utopia its followers believe in. You always need to package these ideologies in a certain way to get the people behind it. But history has shown us that whenever these ideologies are implemented, such as with Leninism or Stalinism, it only results in the death and suffering of millions of people.

There is the argument that Marxism is different from Leninism and Stalinism, but that's not really true. Whatever you call it, when you strip away the labels you have collectivism. You can only bring about a collectivist system through force and oppression, unless you are talking about fabian socialism, which is a more incremental approach we see in the West today.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL3067539420071031

Marx's erupting skin may have influenced writings

 

Hahahaha I love that idea. Be interesting to see what they'd have been like sans les boils . I doubt the Bolshevik revolution woulda gone any better though to be honest. The french managed to fuck up a working class uprising without Marx's writings.

 

I would have to disagree with your statement on bringing about a collectivist system. for example, the Spanish revolution in Catalonia wasnt forced upon the people by a vanguard, or dictator. it was a popular revolution. and i would use the argument you mentioned that nor Leninism or Stalinism is not "genuine Marxism". this is because the workers have no contorl in these systems, and what the Leninists/Stalinists claim to be the dictaorship of the proletariat, is really just a bureaucratic mess.

if you stand opposed to collectivism, forced or not, what would your ideal economic system be? if you dont mind me asking...

 

that article is just stupid.

 

I believe in freedom and individualism. I am not in favor of any "system," because systems have always been designed to manage and control the population.

 

If you want to really understand what I am talking about, you need to read Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution by Stanford professor Antony Sutton.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

You will learn that Bolshevism had NOTHING to do with an uprising by the oppressed workers as most people believe.

 

so if you dont mind me pointing to a label, your kind of an Anarchist i presume? because freedom means no state, and individualism means no coericion. about their being no "system" how do you suppose humans would coexist without a common ground of getting their needs? how would socio/economic relations work?

 

damn thats really long, but i can already agree that Bolshevism does not correctly vanguard the working class. i believe in spontaneous revolution, or a popular democratically centralized vanguard.

 

and why do you see that article as being stupid? atleast it's on topic, it pertains to the person in question.


[


quote=mykittyhasaboner;4436638]that article is just stupid.[/quote]

 

its on topic, but to speculate whether a personal affliction of marx was a major foundation of his writings is to me absurd. marx wrote about the alienation of society based on their relations to the means of production, labour divisions, and . while diseases do further alienate you from society, its not the main factor. while this surely made marx more pissed off, its the capitalist's societies fault for alienating him because of his disease. he is cut of from the means of which he could effectively treat the disease, because health care is not free, and natural resources are monopolized which restrict the flow of resources to the population, because of capitalist mode of exhange (money).

 

communism has hardly had any great examples of success throughout world history. unless you consider creating wars and violating human rights and civil liberties to be a measure of success.

 

ah the age old argument. were not talking about 'communism' in general, were talking about Marx's work. (in reference to alienation specifically) not every revolutionary/dictator has had an acute skin disorder.