You know I think Karl Marx was a cool guy but that's the sort of talk that makes him look bad. You are her attributing to him things for which you have no way of proving and which, for anyone who has studied history, is nothing but lies of the ignorant. The movements that paved the path of democracy and popular uprising (in the name of human and civic rights) started long before Marx ever got into business and went parallell with, and not as a cause of, the actions of Marx. Marx adjusted some of the directions of the currents, but didn't create the forces that ran it, and he was by far NOT the one that defined the direction. He was a big man in a sense, but sometimes big people are more big in names than they are in character, and it might be said that he gave air to a fire that was destined to engulf to world anyways, sooner or later.chaz wyman wrote:I think the thing about Marx is that he was responding to some of the worst abuses of humanity; slavery, exploitation and poverty. He had a sincere wish to invent a new economic system that would empower the disempowered, and to break the power of the aristocratic elites.JasonPalmer wrote:karl marx is anti-fragile
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ant ... z2GtlhWGWx
he benefits from disorder and chaos !
Much of his work was done, not directly but by a steady growth in left wing politics, which held the constant threat of revolution. This forced the hand of the elites to ceed power and democratic rights to an increasingly wide populace.
is karl marx on his way back ?
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
Everything I said above is absolutely true, and nothing you say in response diminishes it one iota.The Voice of Time wrote:You know I think Karl Marx was a cool guy but that's the sort of talk that makes him look bad. You are her attributing to him things for which you have no way of proving and which, for anyone who has studied history, is nothing but lies of the ignorant. The movements that paved the path of democracy and popular uprising (in the name of human and civic rights) started long before Marx ever got into business and went parallell with, and not as a cause of, the actions of Marx. Marx adjusted some of the directions of the currents, but didn't create the forces that ran it, and he was by far NOT the one that defined the direction. He was a big man in a sense, but sometimes big people are more big in names than they are in character, and it might be said that he gave air to a fire that was destined to engulf to world anyways, sooner or later.chaz wyman wrote:I think the thing about Marx is that he was responding to some of the worst abuses of humanity; slavery, exploitation and poverty. He had a sincere wish to invent a new economic system that would empower the disempowered, and to break the power of the aristocratic elites.JasonPalmer wrote:karl marx is anti-fragile
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ant ... z2GtlhWGWx
he benefits from disorder and chaos !
Much of his work was done, not directly but by a steady growth in left wing politics, which held the constant threat of revolution. This forced the hand of the elites to ceed power and democratic rights to an increasingly wide populace.
I suggest you read more carefully before you spew you vitriol all over the page.
I expect better from you.
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
it's a huge exaggeration and falsehood even. Marx isn't the only socialist who has lived, nor the only one to think about the human and the civilian in a social context. Just look at the French revolution and the people who drove it, and at that time Marx wasn't even born!
More people know about Karl Marx than there are people who have ever read him. More people love him or like him than there have ever been reading him. How is that so? Some people picked him out, singled him out, and used him in propaganda for their own cases. They know his name, not his person and the intimacy of his writings.
More people know about Karl Marx than there are people who have ever read him. More people love him or like him than there have ever been reading him. How is that so? Some people picked him out, singled him out, and used him in propaganda for their own cases. They know his name, not his person and the intimacy of his writings.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
I think the thing about Marx is that he was responding to some of the worst abuses of humanity; slavery, exploitation and poverty.The Voice of Time wrote:it's a huge exaggeration and falsehood even. s.
FACT
He had a sincere wish to invent a new economic system that would empower the disempowered, and to break the power of the aristocratic elites.
FACT.
Much of his work was done, not directly but by a steady growth in left wing politics, which held the constant threat of revolution. This forced the hand of the elites to ceed power and democratic rights to an increasingly wide populace.
FACT.
No one was responding to the fair words of John Stewart Mill, for example. It was only with the threat of revolution that the establishment had to capitulate on a range of issues.
And to my comments you respond with this "You are her attributing to him things for which you have no way of proving and which, for anyone who has studied history, is nothing but lies of the ignorant.
You forget I am a student of History?
Like I said, I expect better of you. You are sounding more like Bob.
Last edited by chaz wyman on Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
The result of the French revolution was the dictatorship of Napoleon. Have you ever visited his tomb?
The only positive result was a reminded to the elites of what a revolution could mean. Marx renewed that threat for the 19thC.
The sad thing about the level of debate on this Forum is that I think we probably agree on nearly every point here.
But given the bellicose and aggressive nature of the typical exchanges here you felt that rather than qualify a few points, you had to go on the attack.
You attack was completely unjustified, as you said nothing that contradicted what I said, and yet it was coached in the words of polemic.
Ridiculous.
The only positive result was a reminded to the elites of what a revolution could mean. Marx renewed that threat for the 19thC.
The sad thing about the level of debate on this Forum is that I think we probably agree on nearly every point here.
But given the bellicose and aggressive nature of the typical exchanges here you felt that rather than qualify a few points, you had to go on the attack.
You attack was completely unjustified, as you said nothing that contradicted what I said, and yet it was coached in the words of polemic.
Ridiculous.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
A few excerpt where Marx is concerned to examine the reasons of poverty
All the doctors there agree that the increase of the deathrate through tuberculosis, scrofula, etc., increases in intensity with the deterioration of the physical condition of the population, and all ascribe this deterioration to poverty.
Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work...
The 18th century, however, did not yet recognise as fully as the 19th, the identity between national wealth and the poverty of the people. Hence the most vigorous polemic, in the economic literature of that time, on the “enclosure of commons.” From the mass of materials that lie before me, I give a few extracts that will throw a strong light on the circumstances of the time...
The same interest which compels the sycophant of capital, the political economist, in the mother-country, to proclaim the theoretical identity of the capitalist mode of production with its contrary, that same interest compels him in the colonies to make a clean breast of it, and to proclaim aloud the antagonism of the two modes of production. To this end he proves how the development of the social productive power of labour, co-operation, division of labour, use of machinery on a large scale, 8c., are impossible without the expropriation of the labourers, and the corresponding transformation of their means of production into capital. In the interest of the so-called national wealth, he seeks for artificial means to ensure the poverty of the people. ..
Thus the powerful men drew all wealth to themselves, and all the land swarmed with slaves. The Italians, on the other hand, were always decreasing in number, destroyed as they were by poverty, taxes, and military service. Even when times of peace came, they were doomed to complete inactivity, because the rich were in possession of the soil, and used slaves instead of free men in the tilling of it.”
All the doctors there agree that the increase of the deathrate through tuberculosis, scrofula, etc., increases in intensity with the deterioration of the physical condition of the population, and all ascribe this deterioration to poverty.
Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work...
The 18th century, however, did not yet recognise as fully as the 19th, the identity between national wealth and the poverty of the people. Hence the most vigorous polemic, in the economic literature of that time, on the “enclosure of commons.” From the mass of materials that lie before me, I give a few extracts that will throw a strong light on the circumstances of the time...
The same interest which compels the sycophant of capital, the political economist, in the mother-country, to proclaim the theoretical identity of the capitalist mode of production with its contrary, that same interest compels him in the colonies to make a clean breast of it, and to proclaim aloud the antagonism of the two modes of production. To this end he proves how the development of the social productive power of labour, co-operation, division of labour, use of machinery on a large scale, 8c., are impossible without the expropriation of the labourers, and the corresponding transformation of their means of production into capital. In the interest of the so-called national wealth, he seeks for artificial means to ensure the poverty of the people. ..
Thus the powerful men drew all wealth to themselves, and all the land swarmed with slaves. The Italians, on the other hand, were always decreasing in number, destroyed as they were by poverty, taxes, and military service. Even when times of peace came, they were doomed to complete inactivity, because the rich were in possession of the soil, and used slaves instead of free men in the tilling of it.”
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
One or two Reflections on Slavery.
The representatives of the English Crown in foreign countries there declare in so many words that in Germany, in France, to be brief, in all the civilised states of the European continent, a radical change in the existing relations between capital and labor is as evident and inevitable as in England. At the same time, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Mr. Wade, vice-president of the United States, declared in public meetings that, after the abolition of slavery, a radical change of the relations of capital and of property in land is next upon the order of the day. These are signs of the times, not to be hidden by purple mantles or black cassocks. They do not signify that to-morrow a miracle will happen. They show that, within the ruling-classes themselves, a foreboding is dawning, that the present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change, and is constantly changing.,.
Editors preface to Kapital.
"Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a life-long study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a “pro-slavery rebellion,” to this peaceful and legal revolution."
But as soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower forms of slave-labour, corvée-labour, 8c., are drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalistic mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming their principal interest, the civilized horrors of over-work are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, 8c. Hence the negro labour in the Southern States of the American Union preserved something of a patriarchal character, so long as production was chiefly directed to immediate local consumption.
I must beg leave to differ in sentiment from those great politicians, who contend for the perpetual slavery of the working people of this kingdom; they forget the vulgar adage, all work and no play. Have not the English boasted of the ingenuity and dexterity of her working artists and manufacturers which have heretofore given credit and reputation to British wares in general? What has this been owing to? To nothing more probably than the relaxation of the working people in their own way. Were they obliged to toil the year round, the whole six days in the week, in a repetition of the same work, might it not blunt their ingenuity, and render them stupid instead of alert and dexterous; and might not our workmen lose their reputation instead of maintaining it by such eternal slavery?…And what sort of workmanship could we expect from such hard-driven animals?
The representatives of the English Crown in foreign countries there declare in so many words that in Germany, in France, to be brief, in all the civilised states of the European continent, a radical change in the existing relations between capital and labor is as evident and inevitable as in England. At the same time, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Mr. Wade, vice-president of the United States, declared in public meetings that, after the abolition of slavery, a radical change of the relations of capital and of property in land is next upon the order of the day. These are signs of the times, not to be hidden by purple mantles or black cassocks. They do not signify that to-morrow a miracle will happen. They show that, within the ruling-classes themselves, a foreboding is dawning, that the present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change, and is constantly changing.,.
Editors preface to Kapital.
"Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a life-long study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a “pro-slavery rebellion,” to this peaceful and legal revolution."
But as soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower forms of slave-labour, corvée-labour, 8c., are drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalistic mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming their principal interest, the civilized horrors of over-work are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, 8c. Hence the negro labour in the Southern States of the American Union preserved something of a patriarchal character, so long as production was chiefly directed to immediate local consumption.
I must beg leave to differ in sentiment from those great politicians, who contend for the perpetual slavery of the working people of this kingdom; they forget the vulgar adage, all work and no play. Have not the English boasted of the ingenuity and dexterity of her working artists and manufacturers which have heretofore given credit and reputation to British wares in general? What has this been owing to? To nothing more probably than the relaxation of the working people in their own way. Were they obliged to toil the year round, the whole six days in the week, in a repetition of the same work, might it not blunt their ingenuity, and render them stupid instead of alert and dexterous; and might not our workmen lose their reputation instead of maintaining it by such eternal slavery?…And what sort of workmanship could we expect from such hard-driven animals?
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
ah you know I meant the last paragraph of what you said (I hope).
"Much of his work was done, not directly but by a steady growth in left wing politics, which held the constant threat of revolution. This forced the hand of the elites to ceed power and democratic rights to an increasingly wide populace."
On a second glance I may indeed have misread this. But my intended attack was against giving Marx more credit historically than he deserves, and my point, further, that people used him more for convenience and to give fuel and legitimacy to their own thoughts, than he actually provided anything.
Socialist movements had existed a long time, and the such-called "steady growth in left wing politics" shouldn't be pointed out as his work, but that he, along with others, merely helped throw small pieces of wood into a fire that would burn in the end anyways, one way or the other. Without being entirely certain, I'll say I think that in large part the historical "left wing" was a lot less Marxist than it became during the 20th century when his label became increasingly more popular than his persona and works. Meaning: just because you call yourself a Marxist, that doesn't necessarily make you one, in the same way that a lot of people call themselves adherents of some sort of religion, but doesn't really practice it a lot, or even sometimes not at all.
People are more eager with words and beliefs than with core and essence. For instance, if a union leader shouted "This is the will of Marx!" because people had some form of respect for the name without there really being any proof that Marx ever had such a will or adorned the type of case out of generality... and I ask: is it really then, Marxist or an influence of Marx, or is it just a throw of words and the random abuse of an idol? I mean, using a idol's name isn't specific to the person. It might as well had been a popular idol of our time... like Chuck Norris.
"Much of his work was done, not directly but by a steady growth in left wing politics, which held the constant threat of revolution. This forced the hand of the elites to ceed power and democratic rights to an increasingly wide populace."
On a second glance I may indeed have misread this. But my intended attack was against giving Marx more credit historically than he deserves, and my point, further, that people used him more for convenience and to give fuel and legitimacy to their own thoughts, than he actually provided anything.
Socialist movements had existed a long time, and the such-called "steady growth in left wing politics" shouldn't be pointed out as his work, but that he, along with others, merely helped throw small pieces of wood into a fire that would burn in the end anyways, one way or the other. Without being entirely certain, I'll say I think that in large part the historical "left wing" was a lot less Marxist than it became during the 20th century when his label became increasingly more popular than his persona and works. Meaning: just because you call yourself a Marxist, that doesn't necessarily make you one, in the same way that a lot of people call themselves adherents of some sort of religion, but doesn't really practice it a lot, or even sometimes not at all.
People are more eager with words and beliefs than with core and essence. For instance, if a union leader shouted "This is the will of Marx!" because people had some form of respect for the name without there really being any proof that Marx ever had such a will or adorned the type of case out of generality... and I ask: is it really then, Marxist or an influence of Marx, or is it just a throw of words and the random abuse of an idol? I mean, using a idol's name isn't specific to the person. It might as well had been a popular idol of our time... like Chuck Norris.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
You might like to consult these books on the prospect of revolution.
Threats of Revolution in Britain, 1789-1848 by M I Thomis and P Holt (Macmillan, 1977)
Revolutionary Britain: Reflections on the Threat of Revolution in Britain, 1789-1848 by E Royle (Manchester University Press, 2000)
1848 is a significant year. I doubt it was mentioned at your school with much import, but the the majority of European nations which faced a "Spring" of change, more potent than then happening in Arabia, right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
This threat coloured the political landscape well into the next century, and motivated a wide spread chnge in democratic systems and the rise of the left.
Threats of Revolution in Britain, 1789-1848 by M I Thomis and P Holt (Macmillan, 1977)
Revolutionary Britain: Reflections on the Threat of Revolution in Britain, 1789-1848 by E Royle (Manchester University Press, 2000)
1848 is a significant year. I doubt it was mentioned at your school with much import, but the the majority of European nations which faced a "Spring" of change, more potent than then happening in Arabia, right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
This threat coloured the political landscape well into the next century, and motivated a wide spread chnge in democratic systems and the rise of the left.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
The Voice of Time wrote:ah you know I meant the last paragraph of what you said (I hope).
"Much of his work was done, not directly but by a steady growth in left wing politics, which held the constant threat of revolution. This forced the hand of the elites to ceed power and democratic rights to an increasingly wide populace."
On a second glance I may indeed have misread this. But my intended attack was against giving Marx more credit historically than he deserves, and my point, further, that people used him more for convenience and to give fuel and legitimacy to their own thoughts, than he actually provided anything.
Socialist movements had existed a long time, and the such-called "steady growth in left wing politics" shouldn't be pointed out as his work, but that he, along with others, merely helped throw small pieces of wood into a fire that would burn in the end anyways, one way or the other. Without being entirely certain, I'll say I think that in large part the historical "left wing" was a lot less Marxist than it became during the 20th century when his label became increasingly more popular than his persona and works. Meaning: just because you call yourself a Marxist, that doesn't necessarily make you one, in the same way that a lot of people call themselves adherents of some sort of religion, but doesn't really practice it a lot, or even sometimes not at all.
People are more eager with words and beliefs than with core and essence. For instance, if a union leader shouted "This is the will of Marx!" because people had some form of respect for the name without there really being any proof that Marx ever had such a will or adorned the type of case out of generality... and I ask: is it really then, Marxist or an influence of Marx, or is it just a throw of words and the random abuse of an idol? I mean, using a idol's name isn't specific to the person. It might as well had been a popular idol of our time... like Chuck Norris.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
Do you consider this:""You are her attributing to him things for which you have no way of proving and which, for anyone who has studied history, is nothing but lies of the ignorant. "
A proportionate response??
A proportionate response??
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: is karl marx on his way back ?
If you are of a mind to, you can trace left wing politics back to Jesus Christ but given the poor level of bellicose debate I'm not particularly keen on debating it with you any further.