MARX - Man, or Menace?

[I_am_Claire]

Were they communism that Marx envisioned? No, but that's an issue of practicality not impact.

The fact is that the impact caused by Marx's teachings, specifically because of his failings, were horrendous.

The problem is that Marx's teachings are more of a critique than an alternative. Marx wasn't in favour of a massive state at all, the attrocities that came from "Communist" states was due to corrupt dictatorships giving their manners of state capitalism communist names e.g. the Soviet collective farms. Soviet collective farms were hardly collective at all compared to Israeli Kibbutzim.

[benny_boy_18]

Karl Marx was a mass murderer. He was as bad as they get in a dictator.

[benny_boy_18]

I'd say he was overly idealistic, he wasn't evil either. I don't see how he can be seen as a murderer, as blaming Marx for the attrocities under the USSR and the PRC is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.

You're an idiot.

[Mr_Quick]

Were they communism that Marx envisioned? No, but that's an issue of practicality not impact.

The fact is that the impact caused by Marx's teachings, specifically because of his failings, were horrendous.

And the fact is that the impact caused by Christian teachings, specifically because of their failings, has been horrendous. Were the people who committed such acts practicing Christianity as Christ envisioned or advocated it? No, but that doesn't matter.

Oh wait, yes it does. It's not reasonable to judge a person morally for actions that they did not direct and that they would have been horrified to see had they been alive. If the political views of most teenagers were put into practice, the results would be catastrophic. That doesn't mean they're murderers; just that they don't understand how the world works.

[fball51]

The problem is that Marx's teachings are more of a critique than an alternative. Marx wasn't in favour of a massive state at all, the attrocities that came from "Communist" states was due to corrupt dictatorships giving their manners of state capitalism communist names e.g. the Soviet collective farms. Soviet collective farms were hardly collective at all compared to Israeli Kibbutzim.

On the contrary, he provides specific points that he wants his followers to enact. There's even a nice little section that speaks of "what are we for," and goes on to list several things. The removal of all rights to inheritance, the removal of private (bourgeois) property (not individual property, I'm aware), the deconstruction of the relationship between parent and child, etc.

Why is it that every Communist state ends up having these same atrocities? How is it that 3 vastly different societies in Cambodia, China, and Russia can all have some of the worst mass murders and/or unintentional failings that lead to massive death? The reason, because they were all striving to the same horrendous ideology.

Did they reach their end goal? No. But my assertion is that the path that a society goes on to reach Marxism will inevitably lead to the kind of hot mess we're talking about.

And the fact is that the impact caused by Christian teachings, specifically because of their failings, has been horrendous. Were the people who committed such acts practicing Christianity as Christ envisioned or advocated it? No, but that doesn't matter.

Oh wait, yes it does. It's not reasonable to judge a person morally for actions that they did not direct and that they would have been horrified to see had they been alive. If the political views of most teenagers were put into practice, the results would be catastrophic. That doesn't mean they're murderers; just that they don't understand how the world works.

The logical outgrowth of Christ's teachings is missionary work, charity, etc.

The logical outgrowth of saying that you want a forcible removal of the entire economic and social structure, remove all who oppose that measure, to rend children from their parents, remove any and all rights to inheritance, is what, exactly?

You speak as if Marx was completely opposed to violence and that's flat untrue. Again, I ask my question: How is it that 3 vastly different societies such as China, Russia, and Cambodia, with vastly different histories, populations, bureaucracy, etc. can all wind up having a shit storm of failure? Answer? Because they all shared the same end goal.

[Mr_Quick]

The logical outgrowth of Christ's teachings is missionary work, charity, etc.

The logical outgrowth of saying that you want peace on earth, equal treatment for all, and goodwill towards men is what exactly?

Fixed. Marx was essentially setting up a sort of quasi-religion; a set of procedural imperatives designed to lead the poor and downtrodden to the promised land, where all mankind can live together in peace and love. In short, he was 19th-century Europe's inferior copy of Jesus, if Jesus had spent less time actually helping the poor and more time bitching about the plight of the poor from the safety and comfort of his ivory tower.

The basic premise of Marxism, if you read between the lines, is that people shouldn't be treated as things. That's what Marx wanted, and a world where that didn't happen was what he envisioned and tried to move society toward. Treating Stalinism et al as logical extensions of such a philosophy is completely absurd.

You speak as if Marx was completely opposed to violence and that's flat untrue.

I speak as if he would have been horrified by the conditions the working class endured under Stalin and Mao.

Again, I ask my question: How is it that 3 vastly different societies such as China, Russia, and Cambodia, with vastly different histories, populations, bureaucracy, etc. can all wind up having a shit storm of failure? Answer? Because they all shared the same end goal.

There must be a typo in here or something. You said "vastly different societies", but I'm seeing three societies with a few extremely glaring similarities: high power distance, recent history of oppression and mistreatment, poor standard of living, no democratic tradition to speak of, and so forth.

Also not sure why you've left out other governments that have also strived to take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need. Like....pretty much every wealthy nation to some degree. Free public education, progressive taxation, social security....that's all right out of the Communist Manifesto.

[fball51]

Fixed. Marx was essentially setting up a sort of quasi-religion; a set of procedural imperatives designed to lead the poor and downtrodden to the promised land, where all mankind can live together in peace and love. In short, he was 19th-century Europe's inferior copy of Jesus, if Jesus had spent less time actually helping the poor and more time bitching about the plight of the poor from the safety and comfort of his ivory tower.

The basic premise of Marxism, if you read between the lines, is that people shouldn't be treated as things. That's what Marx wanted, and a world where that didn't happen was what he envisioned and tried to move society toward. Treating Stalinism et al as logical extensions of such a philosophy is completely absurd.

Someone may not want to cause an accident when they drive drunk, but it's a logical extension of their previous actions.

Marx's bitching and writings, his proposed philosophy may not have wanted to cause the horrors of Stalinism and Mao and Pol Pot and all the other peripheral communist regimes but they did.

And also to the point, Christ's version of collectivization didn't call for violence to enforce it, to create it, and to keep it running and spreading it. Marx's does.

I speak as if he would have been horrified by the conditions the working class endured under Stalin and Mao.

Just as a drunk driver would be horrified at the carnage of a car accident they caused. They didn't mean to, but it happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not placing Marx on a pedestal anywhere close to the direct offenders of those regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) or other people who intend mass murder. But the analogy of a drunk driver bearing some responsibility is apt here.

There must be a typo in here or something. You said "vastly different societies", but I'm seeing three societies with a few extremely glaring similarities: high power distance, recent history of oppression and mistreatment, poor standard of living, no democratic tradition to speak of, and so forth.

Fair, but at their moments of communist revolution they had differences, more apt as well is the fact their ideas of moving to Marxism (agrarian vs. industrial, rural vs. urban, vanguard vs. populist, etc.) were different and we still see the same results

Also not sure why you've left out other governments that have also strived to take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need. Like....pretty much every wealthy nation to some degree. Free public education, progressive taxation, social security....that's all right out of the Communist Manifesto.

Yea because none of those things had existed in any form before Marx. But the point is that the nations that say full on, we're going for Marxism, ended up in the shitter.

[benny_boy_18]

Karl Marx is a douche.

[Mr_Quick]

Someone may not want to cause an accident when they drive drunk, but it's a logical extension of their previous actions.

Marx's bitching and writings, his proposed philosophy may not have wanted to cause the horrors of Stalinism and Mao and Pol Pot and all the other peripheral communist regimes but they did.

...

Just as a drunk driver would be horrified at the carnage of a car accident they caused. They didn't mean to, but it happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not placing Marx on a pedestal anywhere close to the direct offenders of those regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) or other people who intend mass murder. But the analogy of a drunk driver bearing some responsibility is apt here.

It is, if you can demonstrate that Marx knowingly and recklessly put forth flawed ideas with full awareness that this course of action could horribly backfire down the road, as a drunk driver knowingly and recklessly impairs his or her driving ability with full awareness that this could cause them to get into a wreck.

Fair, but at their moments of communist revolution they had differences, more apt as well is the fact their ideas of moving to Marxism (agrarian vs. industrial, rural vs. urban, vanguard vs. populist, etc.) were different and we still see the same results

It doesn't matter. People who are used to being subjugated generally won't start standing up for themselves on account of a change of government. When the populace of a country revolts, the social order that reforms afterward is usually only superficially changed. The American colonies had Britain's culture of individualism, self-reliance, and democratic rule, and the society formed after the American Revolution reflected this. Conversely, by the early twentieth century Russians had been ruled by brutal tyrants for centuries. That's what they were used to, and that's what their social order quickly reverted to after the Russian Revolution shook things up.

The way a society works can't be dictated by the people at the top; it's an agglomeration of the aggregate decisions of every single member of that society. A constitution that is not followed by government officials has no meaning. A law that is not enforced by the police or respected by the populace is mere posturing. A code of conduct that is ignored promotes nothing other than hypocrisy. A bill of rights that is unknown to the people it's meant to protect isn't protecting anyone.

If you're trying to build a quality house, the greatest design in the world won't help you if your construction crew consists of primary school children. Likewise, the noblest goals in the world won't help a country whose populace is accustomed to oppression and squalor. Frankly, the type of society that exists now in much of Western and Northern Europe would probably make Marx far happier than Soviet or Chinese society.

[Empty_Spaces-]

Karl Marx was a mass murderer. He was as bad as they get in a dictator.

You're an idiot.

Karl Marx is a douche.

I'm hoping that you're trolling, because if not, you are the single dumbest kid on this site.

[fball51]

It is, if you can demonstrate that Marx knowingly and recklessly put forth flawed ideas with full awareness that this course of action could horribly backfire down the road, as a drunk driver knowingly and recklessly impairs his or her driving ability with full awareness that this could cause them to get into a wreck.

He did it with full awareness of exactly what was going to happen to the bourgeois. When Stalin liquidates the Kulaks, that's because of notions that if you have land, property, or wealth, you're an enemy of communism. When Mao launches the Cultural Revolution and shits on (and by shits on I mean murders) intelligentsia (something Stalin did too), where do you think that came from? When Pol-Pot did it too, where's that come from? So he bears blame for what happened to them.

As for the other points, I'm saying that was recklessly stupid.

It doesn't matter. People who are used to being subjugated generally won't start standing up for themselves on account of a change of government. When the populace of a country revolts, the social order that reforms afterward is usually only superficially changed. The American colonies had Britain's culture of individualism, self-reliance, and democratic rule, and the society formed after the American Revolution reflected this. Conversely, by the early twentieth century Russians had been ruled by brutal tyrants for centuries. That's what they were used to, and that's what their social order quickly reverted to after the Russian Revolution shook things up.

China had a wonderful history of meritocracy, relatively enlightened leadership by an emperor, civil service going as far back as Confucius. And yet with the Cultural Revolution we the bureaucracy and intellectual legacy getting skull fucked.

This one of your better points, but my point is that had Marx been an advocate of say... nonviolent utopia, you're not going to what we saw in those regimes. Or at least they'd have gone to some other radical, oppressive ideology, but then we'd be discussing that particular philosophers guilt, not Marx's.

The way a society works can't be dictated by the people at the top; it's an agglomeration of the aggregate decisions of every single member of that society. A constitution that is not followed by government officials has no meaning. A law that is not enforced by the police or respected by the populace is mere posturing. A code of conduct that is ignored promotes nothing other than hypocrisy. A bill of rights that is unknown to the people ITS meant to protect isn't protecting anyone.

And yet intellectual leaders provide the framework and design of what happens within societies. To assert that individuals, philosophers, etc. can not fundamentally change how societies work is counter to history and counter to history that you yourself have pointed out.

This determinist streak you're on? I don't likes it. Not one bit.

If you're trying to build a quality house, the greatest design in the world won't help you if your construction crew consists of primary school children.

I'd rather have an army of donkeys led by a lion than an army of lions led by a donkey. Guess which one Marx is?

Likewise, the noblest goals in the world won't help a country whose populace is accustomed to oppression and squalor. Frankly, the type of society that exists now in much of Western and Northern Europe would probably make Marx far happier than Soviet or Chinese society.

I think Christ, Gandhi, and MLK would dispute that assertion. But you're probably saving those guys and that argument for the other thread, not this one. After all, you've got Marx to defend here.

[Mr_Quick]

He did it with full awareness of exactly what was going to happen to the bourgeois. When Stalin liquidates the Kulaks, that's because of notions that if you have land, property, or wealth, you're an enemy of communism. When Mao launches the Cultural Revolution and shits on (and by shits on I mean murders) intelligentsia (something Stalin did too), where do you think that came from? When Pol-Pot did it too, where's that come from? So he bears blame for what happened to them.

Marx was bourgeois himself, so it seems unlikely that he thought he and everyone else in his position deserved to be exterminated. Near as I can tell he only advocated sufficient force to keep diehard enemies of communism (which he seemed to expect to be few in number once the wonderfulness of it had been demonstrated) from destroying it. Less of the murder, more of the forceful confiscation of selfishly hoarded property.

China had a wonderful history of meritocracy, relatively enlightened leadership by an emperor, civil service going as far back as Confucius. And yet with the Cultural Revolution we the bureaucracy and intellectual legacy getting skull fucked.

We seem to be skipping over a lot of more recent Chinese history, like being used shamelessly by Western powers, occupied by the Japanese, being governed mainly by warlords for centuries, Chiang Kai-Shek's questionable Nationalist government, and so forth.

I mean....during the 1894 Sino-Japanese War most of their soldiers were still using fucking crossbows. China was once one of the greatest nations in the world, sure, but by the early twentieth century it had become a shadow of its former self.

This one of your better points, but my point is that had Marx been an advocate of say... nonviolent utopia, you're not going to what we saw in those regimes. Or at least they'd have gone to some other radical, oppressive ideology, but then we'd be discussing that particular philosophers guilt, not Marx's.

Even doctrines that solidly espouse nonviolence can potentially be interpreted as supporting violence, a tendency Jesus would undoubtedly be sad to see among many of his later followers. You'd be surprised how powerful confirmation bias is when it comes to justifying hatred and antisocial behavior.

And yet intellectual leaders provide the framework and design of what happens within societies. To assert that individuals, philosophers, etc. can not fundamentally change how societies work is counter to history and counter to history that you yourself have pointed out.

Using the apostrophe was correct. It's = "it is"; the bill of rights is not possessing the people in question.

Anyway, what I contest is that a person can be held morally responsible for actions they didn't want or direct. The Nazis referenced Nietzsche's work frequently to justify their racist ideology; does that mean Nietzsche was a genocidal maniac? Slave owners in the Old South justified their actions by referencing the Bible; does that mean the founders of Christianity are to blame for slavery? People blamed the Columbine shooting on the influence of Marilyn Manson's music; does that mean he should be arrested?

It'd be damn difficult to create a cohesive, appealing philosophy without leaving a single opening for people to use as a justification for violence. Interpretation is a powerful thing, especially once the author is too dead to clarify his position. If we want to get an idea of Marx's character, figuring out how he interpreted his ideas is more important than how other people interpreted them later on.

This determinist streak you're on? I don't likes it. Not one bit.

Events have causes; they don't "just happen". Those causes are almost always more complex than they appear at first. And focusing on one potential cause at the expense of others creates a distorted picture of reality.

Not sure how the above is wrong.

I'd rather have an army of donkeys led by a lion than an army of lions led by a donkey. Guess which one Marx is?

Apart from being more of a social critic and professional whiner than a leader, you mean?

I think Christ, Gandhi, and MLK would dispute that assertion.

I doubt it. They of all people would know that high ideals mean nothing if one hasn't got the courage to follow them.

[gkjand]

Ah .. Amazing video share buddy
I liked it.

[CaliSwagDistrict]

I think Marx had the right idea with Communism, because honestly, what's wrong with sharing with the world? We are all equal human beings, and should be treated as such. Marx's ideas about how to go about this, and thus Mao and company's way of following it, are terrible, but the root idea is a good one.

[fball51]

Marx was bourgeois himself, so it seems unlikely that he thought he and everyone else in his position deserved to be exterminated. Near as I can tell he only advocated sufficient force to keep diehard enemies of communism (which he seemed to expect to be few in number once the wonderfulness of it had been demonstrated) from destroying it. Less of the murder, more of the forceful confiscation of selfishly hoarded property.

But Marx was the enlightened bourgeois! And he didn't hoard his property (having never worked a day in his life, manual or otherwise) so he was perfectly safe! But anyone that would want to hang on to his vague definitions of bourgeois property was, by his standards, an enemy.

Furthermore, its not just capitalists, Marx loathed rural peasants. They weren't members of the proletariat, they had some degree of autonomy and controlled hugely important resources that his urban workers needed. You think the peasant oppression that crops up in Communist societies happened by chance?

But he did expect resistance to be vast before they got to the wonderfulness.

We seem to be skipping over a lot of more recent Chinese history, like being used shamelessly by Western powers, occupied by the Japanese, being governed mainly by warlords for centuries, Chiang Kai-Shek's questionable Nationalist government, and so forth.

I mean....during the 1894 Sino-Japanese War most of their soldiers were still using fucking crossbows. China was once one of the greatest nations in the world, sure, but by the early twentieth century it had become a shadow of its former self.

Not disputing that at all. Those factors, I'd argue, made China more susceptible to a totalitarian revolution and said revolution being successful. They even partially explain parts of the horrors to come. But they don't explain all of it. Part of the explanation comes from the particular ideology chosen by the successful revolution. Communist and fascist regimes, for example, resemble each other in many ways (horseshoe theory and all that). But their targets for repression are vastly different, because of their underlying ideologies.

Even doctrines that solidly espouse nonviolence can potentially be interpreted as supporting violence, a tendency Jesus would undoubtedly be sad to see among many of his later followers. You'd be surprised how powerful confirmation bias is when it comes to justifying hatred and antisocial behavior.

Which means when we're talking about doctrines that are openly ok with violence...

Anyway, what I contest is that a person can be held morally responsible for actions they didn't want or direct. The Nazis referenced Nietzsche's work frequently to justify their racist ideology; does that mean Nietzsche was a genocidal maniac? Slave owners in the Old South justified their actions by referencing the Bible; does that mean the founders of Christianity are to blame for slavery? People blamed the Columbine shooting on the influence of Marilyn Manson's music; does that mean he should be arrested?

If Manson had directly called for school shootings, genuinely desired said shootings to come about, and had a reasonable expectation that such events would occur, then yes.

Marx directly called for violent revolution against the capitalist system. Marx genuinely desired for the enemies of collectivization and an eventual communist society to be met with violence. The issue of expectation is illustrated in him talking about his revolution being, from his perspective, historically inevitable.

It'd be damn difficult to create a cohesive, appealing philosophy without leaving a single opening for people to use as a justification for violence. Interpretation is a powerful thing, especially once the author is too dead to clarify his position. If we want to get an idea of Marx's character, figuring out how he interpreted his ideas is more important than how other people interpreted them later on.

My point isn't that he didn't just leave an opening, he flung the door open himself and told everyone to climb through it.

Events have causes; they don't "just happen". Those causes are almost always more complex than they appear at first. And focusing on one potential cause at the expense of others creates a distorted picture of reality.

Not sure how the above is wrong.

It's not entirely wrong but it discounts, too much, the impact that individuals have on history.

Apart from being more of a social critic and professional whiner than a leader, you mean?

But that aside, that point was meant to illustrate the idea of individuals and their impacts.

I doubt it. They of all people would know that high ideals mean nothing if one hasn't got the courage to follow them.

And that courage can flow from individuals and change entire societies. What, the Levant wasn't oppressed under Roman rule when Christ arrived, the African-American community wasn't oppressed when MLK started his work apartheid South Africa wasn't oppressed when Mandela showed up?

We are all equal human beings, [...] the root idea is a good one.

No.

[brando84back]

I wonder if anybody has really taken an in depth study on Marxism. I know that I have due to my college offering a Marxism philosophy class and taking it. I have been skimming over what people have posted here and I'm looking forward to responding to some stuff from this thread.
First off, if we are only speaking strictly of the Communist Manifesto by Marx AND ENGELS, the manifesto was created for a really small league back in the day who needed an outline of what their beliefs were about in that time period. Also I like how people only think that Karl Marx is the soul writer of the Communist Manifesto when this is not true at all. In fact, Engels had a massive effect on the Communist Manifesto because he is the one who laid the foundation work of this manifesto to happen and then Marx expanded on the foundations of this great piece of literature. One must always remember that without a strong and firm foundation a building can and will fall to the ground.

Also, people keep referring to the past history of when communism was making head ways into countries such as the Soviet Union and China. People refer to these types of governments as "Marxist failures" when they are not! To make a long story short Marx and Engles used this idea of "Historical Development" for their idea of Pure Communism. Basically they saw people becoming more unified into their government(example monarchy to feudalism to capitalism), however at the time of Marx and Engles the pinochle that could only be seen is only Capitalism, but they envision a peak that is even more higher than Capitalism and this is Pure Communism. What Soviet Union and China were in was something called Brute Communism not Pure Communism. Marx and Engles recognized that it would take time to transition political systems because some, if not all people are afraid of rapid change in their life styles. What happened in history though is that Governmental Powers in the Soviet Union and China got to hot-headed and took most, if not all power away from it's citizens and utilized it for their own gains and purposes, which is wrong in Marx and Engles view.

Also, people have this conception in Communism that wealth is going to be spread around equally among of every person in that political society this is a misconception as well. Marx even conceded in one of his other texts ( I think this is the German Ideology) that even in a Pure Communism state that there are going to be economic disparities among individuals in a society, but it is our duty to try and close the gap of economic disparity as closely as we can due to wealth corrupting individuals. So, yes Marx is a realist in his views when it comes to economical and political systems .

So, All in all you can't really have evidence of his Pure Communism society actually existing in the world because the Pure Communist society has never really come into existence. As humans we have not overcome Brute Communism so we do not know what Pure Communism would be like in our own world. We only know Pure Communism as it is in Marx and Engles ideological world. This would be like saying what God would look like even though there isn't a really validated proof of what he looks like. Until you have validations you cannot really judge all that much on Marx and Engles Pure Communism society.

[fball51]

I wonder if anybody has really taken an in depth study on Marxism. I know that I have due to my college offering a Marxism philosophy class and taking it. I have been skimming over what people have posted here and I'm looking forward to responding to some stuff from this thread.
First off, if we are only speaking strictly of the Communist Manifesto by Marx AND ENGELS, the manifesto was created for a really small league back in the day who needed an outline of what their beliefs were about in that time period. Also I like how people only think that Karl Marx is the soul writer of the Communist Manifesto when this is not true at all. In fact, Engels had a massive effect on the Communist Manifesto because he is the one who laid the foundation work of this manifesto to happen and then Marx expanded on the foundations of this great piece of literature. One must always remember that without a strong and firm foundation a building can and will fall to the ground.

Also, people keep referring to the past history of when communism was making head ways into countries such as the Soviet Union and China. People refer to these types of governments as "Marxist failures" when they are not! To make a long story short Marx and Engles used this idea of "Historical Development" for their idea of Pure Communism. Basically they saw people becoming more unified into their government(example monarchy to feudalism to capitalism), however at the time of Marx and Engles the pinochle that could only be seen is only Capitalism, but they envision a peak that is even more higher than Capitalism and this is Pure Communism. What Soviet Union and China were in was something called Brute Communism not Pure Communism. Marx and Engles recognized that it would take time to transition political systems because some, if not all people are afraid of rapid change in their life styles. What happened in history though is that Governmental Powers in the Soviet Union and China got to hot-headed and took most, if not all power away from it's citizens and utilized it for their own gains and purposes, which is wrong in Marx and Engles view.

Also, people have this conception in Communism that wealth is going to be spread around equally among of every person in that political society this is a misconception as well. Marx even conceded in one of his other texts ( I think this is the German Ideology) that even in a Pure Communism state that there are going to be economic disparities among individuals in a society, but it is our duty to try and close the gap of economic disparity as closely as we can due to wealth corrupting individuals. So, yes Marx is a realist in his views when it comes to economical and political systems .

So, All in all you can't really have evidence of his Pure Communism society actually existing in the world because the Pure Communist society has never really come into existence. As humans we have not overcome Brute Communism so we do not know what Pure Communism would be like in our own world. We only know Pure Communism as it is in Marx and Engles ideological world. This would be like saying what God would look like even though there isn't a really validated proof of what he looks like. Until you have validations you cannot really judge all that much on Marx and Engles Pure Communism society.

This has always struck me as the most delightful, if horrifying, defense of Marx and Engels post-people-actually-trying-their-ideas. Does it occur to you that the reason "Pure Communism" has never (and, it's worth pointing out will never) been/be reached on a large scale is because "Brute Communism" (as you term it) is inevitable for those trying to get to "Pure Communism"?

I doubt that it has. Because if it had, I further doubt that you'd be here, posting the above.

[Evlmstr]

My econ prof next year is a Marxist...this is gonna be interesting

[Arseni]

Just a man who couldn't help the fact he was retarded.

I could not agree with this more.

Karl Marx's theory of communism is just cute. No offense.

Helping the proletarian masses by eliminating the bourgeoise is nice on paper, but it eventually collapses by rotting from the inside out.

Karl Marx was worried that as financial power rose with the bourgeoise, so did political power (essentially f*cking the proletarians out of any say in the government). But what he failed to mention is that the government (the people who evenly distributed the good collected by the state) would become their leaders, and they would be powerless under them.

Anyway constant manufacturing of goods leads to poorer quality, and when you run out of buyers for your goods, inflation occurs and so does economic recession.

And finally;

If I'm able to build a business up from the ground, and get lucky and strike large profit, why would I want the state telling me to give all the money I bled and sweat for back to them? That's not right.


Although I dislike communism, socialism is a different story.

The social programs we run in the United States are socialist programs. Public education, service to the roads, city attractions, welfare. Our tax paying dollars all go into that and maintains basic functions of society. We need that in every form if government, though

[Arseni]

Karl Marx is a genius..

Karl Marx was pathologically mentally ill... You do know that right?