Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dinker

The More Interesting Side Of Karl Marx

Recommended Posts

Apparently the man had a nasty streak:

"…the Spaniards are completely degenerated. But in the presence of a Mexican, a degenerated Spaniard constitutes an ideal. They have all the vices, arrogance, thuggery and quixoticism of the Spaniards to the third degree, but by no means all the solid things that they possess."

http://takimag.com/article/was_karl_marx_a_dirty_filthy_rotten_bigot_jim_goad#axzz33dBhS4rO


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the man had a nasty streak:

"…the Spaniards are completely degenerated. But in the presence of a Mexican, a degenerated Spaniard constitutes an ideal. They have all the vices, arrogance, thuggery and quixoticism of the Spaniards to the third degree, but by no means all the solid things that they possess."

http://takimag.com/article/was_karl_marx_a_dirty_filthy_rotten_bigot_jim_goad#axzz33dBhS4rO

Stefan molyneux had a good vid on him. Despite railing against capitalism, he had never actually set foot in a factory, and despite trying, could never actually find any actual slaves or people actually paid nothing....apart that was, from his housekeeper who he decided to cheat on his wife with, impregnate and use as (unpaid) mistress!

Ive come to the conclusion its the central theme of leftism to this day. Basically all leftists are so morally bankrupt and evil they assume everyone else is, and so we need laws to make us all decent, whereas most people who arent leftists actually do have morals.

Two recent examples of morally bankrupt leftists...the jon stewart daily show criticizing unpaid internships...whilst having unpaid interns in the studio, and cherie bliar demanding more childcare and heartlessly sacking an employee for wanting just that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584795/Cherie-hypocrite-sacked-wanting-time-look-children-Mother-lost-job-saying-not-work-time.html

Personally I wouldnt be able to look these people in the eye if I were stewart or Bliar, but thats why the left is evil and i'm not.

Bigotry is a funny one though...has to be framed of the time. Marx was more noted for being an anti-semite, despite being part Jew himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice little summary here.

http://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/10/11-10-15-2/

He apparently had the same academic snobbery seen in the global warming alarmists today, generally thought anyone with life experiences instead of a litany of letters after their name should be silenced. Guess thats why universities and other scam-shops like him so much.

He was a man of immense selfishness and self-indulgence. He never personally knew any working class members and the one he had as his family servant he did not pay and he used her as his mistress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive come to the conclusion its the central theme of leftism to this day. Basically all leftists are so morally bankrupt and evil they assume everyone else is, and so we need laws to make us all decent, whereas most people who arent leftists actually do have morals.

I appreciate that you're aware of the distinction but that's authoritarian leftists who want to impose laws that force the rest of us to do as they say, not as they do.

Though I don't deny that, to the majority of folk, leftism and statism have become virtually synonymous.

Marx, allegedly, also didn't wash. A thought that always comes to mind whenever I read about him boffing his poor maid.

Regardless of his lack of personal hygiene and possible hypocrisy, his analysis of the structural flaws in capitalism include some reasonable observations impo. It's the 'solutions' derived from his analysis that are f**king woeful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that you're aware of the distinction but that's authoritarian leftists who want to impose laws that force the rest of us to do as they say, not as they do.

Though I don't deny that, to the majority of folk, leftism and statism have become virtually synonymous.

Marx, allegedly, also didn't wash. A thought that always comes to mind whenever I read about him boffing his poor maid.

Regardless of his lack of personal hygiene and possible hypocrisy, his analysis of the structural flaws in capitalism include some reasonable observations impo. It's the 'solutions' derived from his analysis that are f**king woeful.

Thats what walter block said he asked people introduced to him as socialists... 'are you a voluntary socialist or a coercive socialist'...he said they mostly replied with a blank stare.

the solutions are always the hard part. Its nice to spend an hour or so depressing yourself with Noam Chomsky on the youtube putting the world to rights, thankfully he doesnt seem to offer much in the way of solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Regardless of his lack of personal hygiene and possible hypocrisy, his analysis of the structural flaws in capitalism include some reasonable observations impo. It's the 'solutions' derived from his analysis that are f**king woeful.

Marx was an economist. His analysis was reasonable, given that economists are all trying to make a complex real world fit a simple model. Capitalism as it existed in Marx' day was rather more simple than it is now so he had a head start.

I don't think it is wise to take too much notice of economists.

The "solutions" are always going to be wrong, because economics is about money and the real world is about people.

If he were alive to day SNACR I don't know if he would vote UKIP, I think he would be working for the ECB ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that you're aware of the distinction but that's authoritarian leftists who want to impose laws that force the rest of us to do as they say, not as they do.

Though I don't deny that, to the majority of folk, leftism and statism have become virtually synonymous.

Marx, allegedly, also didn't wash. A thought that always comes to mind whenever I read about him boffing his poor maid.

Regardless of his lack of personal hygiene and possible hypocrisy, his analysis of the structural flaws in capitalism include some reasonable observations impo. It's the 'solutions' derived from his analysis that are f**king woeful.

Socialism by definition has to mean a large state which imposes laws to attain sufficient funds by taxation and then spend them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism by definition has to mean a large state which imposes laws to attain sufficient funds by taxation and then spend them.

My own, not particularly in-depth, understanding was that even Marx acknowledge the vices of the state but argued that a proletarian controlled state was a necessary intermediary step before the state withered away. In practice it would seem that far from being allowed or actively encouraged to wither, Marxist inspired states die unpleasantly from overweight.

There have been and are strains of leftist libertarian thinking out there which are averse to coercion. However, I'd be the first to admit that of the available permutations of right vs left, libertarian vs authoritarian thinking, left libertarianism is arguably the least well represented in mainstream political dialogue.

I think I may be partial to Georgism/ Geolibertarianism myself. I've never been entirely convinced by the right libertarian argument that, in a finite world, the act of putting a fence around a parcel of natural resources and maybe dicking around with it for a bit should entitle someone to exclusive right to that land for all eternity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism by definition has to mean a large state which imposes laws to attain sufficient funds by taxation and then spend them.

Not really. At it's purest - one might say "Marxist" - level it means common ownership of the means of production. Given that such production turns a profit no taxation whatsoever is needed. A modern day equivalent might be Saudi Arabia where the oil production generates enough revenue to cover state spending so there is no income tax.

Marx took the view that production - capitalist production - exploited workers by generating profit (unpaid wages) for the owners. By nationalising ownership the profit returned to the people - the state - common ownership.

Like all economic theory it is wrong.

If a nationalised industry makes a profit then the workers of that industry might be considered to be paying "tax" - profit (unpaid wages) - to subsidise workers in the private sector. (The converse is true if it is a basket case like British Leyland of course).

There is nothing wrong with "the state" - it is simply the commonality of the people. Pure socialism, like the "free market" is a pipe dream. Furthermore the "maeans of production" is no longer the wealth creator that Marx would have understood it to be. He died in 1883 for goodness sake. Why do people still discuss what colour socks he wore? Time to move on I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.