5 ms·

> I think it's clear that no Communist nation has ever succeeded in being the bastion of democratic, personal freedom that it was ever intended to be. Nuh-uh,

> I think it's clear that no Communist nation has ever succeeded in being the bastion of democratic, personal freedom that it was ever intended to be. Nuh-uh, no, you can't give him this sort of pass. He introduced the concept of "class struggle" and "class warfare" that took over so much of modern labor/monetary/commerce/market vocabulary, and specifically said that the transition to socialism/communism will take proletariat violence. The man has inspired as much harm and destruction as any person in history. And he's not even right - his labor theory of value is so completely flawed it's hard to know where to start debunking. He had it in mind that there was a "socially necessary abstract labor-time" of every action - which take a very limited view based on a very limited period in history. Take for instance, Louis Pasteur, who invented pasteurization. How much socially necessary abstract labor-time was that worth? Ten million units of necessary abstract labor-time? How much was creating GMail worth? How much abstract labor time is Picasso's best work worth, compared to Matisse? Publius Syrius said back in Roman times, "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." - and so far, that's the only model we've found that does a decent job of handling contributions without going to totalitarianism. When you start letting third parties dictate value to people who want to buy and sell, you throw the world off equilibrium, you get black markets and create a new class of crime. I'd implore you to please, please, please stop seeing Marx as a misguided would-be hero. Almost every bad person in history thought of themself that way. Marx's works were both incorrect from an academic standpoint, very emotionally appealing to certain kinds of people, and generally fostered violence and hostility between groups of people that do the best when they work together to create the best world together. Marx was no friend of humanity, and should be remembered as someone who had bad and violent ideas that led to millions of people oppressed and killed as part of the "proletariat revolution to overthrow the bourgeois". Marx brought this kind of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge Please, please get educated and stop whimsically giving him a nod. The man's philosophies have led to more misery than just about anyone else in history.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Thank you for formulating such a concise, clear, and true reply. I've tried many times, and never been able to express it so well. I'm going to copy this off into my notebook for future use, if you don't mind.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
siculars 17y ago
You are my hero, lionhearted. I could not agree with you more. My mother and the remnants of her family fled communist Russia in 1970. And when I say "fled" I really mean ran as fast and as far as they could. Marx preached violent struggle against those that had a different world view from his own. He should be demonized everywhere.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Several members of my wife's family were nabbed during China's rightist movement. They were tricked by Mao's urging for constructive criticism. When they offered opinions that they meant to be helpful, they were imprisoned, some for as long as twenty years. Elsewhere on HN people have been criticized for what's been called a knee-jerk reaction to socialist ideas. But the history of socialism makes that reaction every bit as legitimate as the reaction to touching a hot stove.
  - notauser 17y ago
    Communism is not socialism is not totalitarianism. Sweden is a socialist state, and a family is a commune. Just because ideas have failed spectacularly in some places and on some scales doesn't mean they don't work well elsewhere.
    - pyre 17y ago
      The point that people are trying to argue here is that Marx himself felt that there was always bloody struggle to implement social change. There were several 'phases' of political change that he defines. I can't remember them all (last time I read this stuff was Philosophy 101, Feudalism was probably one of them), but currently we are on "Democracy/Capitalism". The next stage would be "Socialism" and then "Communism." He viewed transition between stages as only coming about through bloody revolution. Side Note: While people like to say "Socialism == Communism", Marx viewed them as separate and distinct 'stages' of political/economic development.
      - Locke1689 17y ago
ajross 17y ago
You're right, of course. And yet Marx himself was not, himself, a despot or murderer. He was probably a pretty nice guy. Your description is therefore similarly incomplete. He can be both things. History is complicated, and not well served by summary arguments.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- pavel_lishin 17y ago
  Yeah. All he did was advocate violence, he didn't actually commit any. All around pal.
  - ajross 17y ago
    Thomas Jefferson did almost exactly the same thing. As did Nelson Mandela. There's a pretty big moral space between advocating the overthrow of a government and the behavior of a Stalin or Pol Pot. Marx belongs to the former category, not the latter. But because of events that happened decades after his death, he's remembered as something he wasn't. His crime was being wrong, not evil.
    - w00pla 17y ago
      > As did Nelson Mandela. Yes, and he was imprisoned for it. But what made Mandela great is that he changed and became a reconciliation figure. The young MK starter and ANCYL member did not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. But the Mandela in 1991 did.
- access_denied 17y ago
  Because he had no power to be a despot - that's all.
stcredzero 17y ago
> I think it's clear that no Communist nation has ever succeeded in being the bastion of democratic, personal freedom that it was ever intended to be. Totalitarian states have all kinds of justifications for being. Most often, it was nationalism and/or religion. Non religious ideologies like communism are a phenomenon of modern times. But note that the ideologies are largely incidental. It's just a psychological jamming mechanism to fool people into letting the totalitarian structure get into place.
DannoHung 17y ago
Wow, I'm not even trying to argue that he had a good philosophy, just that his ideas ended up being massive failures from what he originally intended. People cannot be judged solely by the consequences of their actions, in any case; context is also important. We don't consider Robert J Oppenheimer or Albert Einstein mass murderers even though their work very directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of civilians. We do consider Osama bin Laden a mass murder though. Maybe you ought to be a little less vindictive in your judgment of historical figures.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
yread 17y ago
Well your argument isn't exactly strong either. What is "socially necessary abstract labor-time"? You didn't say why did you start debunking his confused theories from this point. Wikipedia says: The simplest definition of socially necessary labour time is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity. but none of the examples you gave actually are comodities. Somebody would have to pay for them - obviously that's possible but lets see how: Pasteurization is an invention - the patent system is at least as flawed as Marx's theories Creating GMail - software patents QED Picasso - work of art, copyrights, again a very hot topic even now Besides is it such a central point anyway? Obviously his theories led to people dying. Then again without the threat of communism we would be probably still forced to work without unions, without social and health security and a million of other beneficial things. How can you judge Marx's contribution to history only negatively as a "no friend of humanity" is beyond me. You cannot see the world around you just in black and white!
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Marx's work predates the marginal revolution, so he can't be personally faulted for not understanding concepts like marginally decreasing utility. But at least as I understand his work, much rest on his association of labor with value. And if you want to focus only on commodities, well, this is where the effect of marginal utility is most pronounced. And since marginal utility pretty much destroys the relationship between labor and value, it should be sufficient to discredit Marx's economics. (not that this is the only argument) without the threat of communism we would be probably still forced to work without unions... I can't imagine how you built such an idea. Particularly since unions in particular are fundamentally communist.
jhancock 17y ago
Marx was a tool for change in China mostly only in name. And that was limited more than Western minds have been taught. Chinese were and are good at reading between the lines of propaganda. I agree Marx was not correct in his economic theories and he certainly crossed the line in advocating violence as opposed to simply predicting it most likely. He's certainly no hero. However, anyone committing violence or supporting the status quo which directly or indirectly suppresses is the actor that deserves most blame. Blaming a person that lived on another continent and I'm guessing did not speak Chinese (maybe I'm wrong?) is really a stretch.
vorador 17y ago
> ...generally fostered violence and hostility between groups of people that do the best when they work together to create the best world together. You seem to forget that the nineteenth century was extremely harsh (sorry, I lack a better word) for the working class. There were no regulations on anything - for instance, before a regulation law was passed (around 1860 iirc), flour , could contain things like sweat, cobwebs, and other tasty things. It is also a well known fact that the industrial revolution had an effect on the workers - the average worker lost 20 to 30 cm of height : http://www.victorianweb.org/history/workers2.html http://www.victorianweb.org/history/workers2.html Speaking from the 21st century, it seems easy to dismiss Marx as irrelevant. He wasn't. He just shows from how far we come from. Besides, saying Marx brought the khmers rouges is like saying Nietzsche brought the nazis. (sorry for the faults, by the way, english is not my mother tongue)
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > You seem to forget that the nineteenth century was extremely harsh (sorry, I lack a better word) for the working class. Life had been harsh for almost all of history for the vast majority of people. During the nineteeth century, the general poverty that had been spread throughout the land congregated into cities for a chance at a better life there. Life was harsh, but not because of manmade oppression so much as the fact that life had always been harsh. With industrialization, quality of life improved dramatically. > It is also a well known fact that the industrial revolution had an effect on the workers - the average worker lost 20 to 30 cm of height From your link: "Their stature low--the average height of four hundred men, measured at different times, and different places, being five feet six inches." That was taller than almost all of Continental Europe at that time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_h... Height in England currently averages 5'10 for men; over that time, the whole world has gotten taller than England. The industrialized nations heights rose faster than non-Industrial, poverty and malnutrition was lower. To this day, Industrialized places are much more pleasant to live than non-Industrial. For instance, South Koreans born post-Korean War are currently 5 inches taller than North Koreans. They're a lot healthier and happier too. > Speaking from the 21st century, it seems easy to dismiss Marx as irrelevant. He wasn't. Just the opposite. Not irrelevant. Lots of bloodshed happened from his ideas. Everywhere that implemented them had their scientific, economic, and artistic progress completely stunted, along with bloodshed and social control. I'd take this lightly, but it can't be taken lightly. > He just shows from how far we come from. Hopefully, yes. His ideas belong on the same scrap heap that fascism does: A way to rally a crowd over emotionally charged language that doesn't add up in real life. > Besides, saying Marx brought the khmers rouges is like saying Nietzsche brought the nazis. Did you read that Khmer Rouge link? They tried to do a Marxian revolution exactly. They were dogmatic about it, it's scary how bought into they were to orthodox, agricultural, labor-based Marxism, anti-capitalism, anti-bourgeois. They really, truly, deeply bought into Marxism. "...the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labor projects. In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[2]), it was one of the most lethal regimes of the 20th century. The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments." Check the Khmer Rouge link out thoroughly if you haven't yet - it's the most literal attempt to put Orthodox, pure Marxism into action the world has ever seen.
Locke1689 17y ago
Nuh-uh, no, you can't give him this sort of pass. He introduced the concept of "class struggle" and "class warfare" that took over so much of modern labor/monetary/commerce/market vocabulary, and specifically said that the transition to socialism/communism will take proletariat violence. The man has inspired as much harm and destruction as any person in history. Nope, he advocated the initial overthrow of the government. Following needless violence against civilians was never in his playbook. And he's not even right Well... yes. That's why we're not Socialist... The man's philosophies have led to more misery than just about anyone else in history. Philosophies which inspire moral outrage are despicable. Marx himself wrote no letter which advocated the truly despicable actions you speak of. For that we should blame the ones truly responsible: Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I'd implore you to please, please, please stop seeing Marx as a misguided would-be hero. Your parent did no such thing. Marx was no friend of humanity, and should be remembered as someone who had bad and violent ideas that led to millions of people oppressed and killed as part of the "proletariat revolution to overthrow the bourgeois". Every revolutionary's ideas end up causing similar devastation. Democracy certainly has. So has civil rights. Marx brought this kind of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge Laughable. The Khmer Rouge followed Das Kapital in name only. Please, please get educated and stop whimsically giving him a nod. I would say the same but I am not as disrespectful.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Nope, he advocated the initial overthrow of the government. Following needless violence against civilians was never in his playbook. I never understood him to address the government as such. I understood him to advocate the overthrow of the "bourgeoisie". That is, a class of people, distinguished (among other things) by the fact that they were the ones financing (i.e., accepting the risks for) industry. It was not simply a case of unseating rulers, or even attacking the persons embodying the rule. It was far more broad, attacking ones citizen neighbors simply because they were landowners, for example. Every revolutionary's ideas end up causing similar devastation. Absurd. The results of "communist" revolutions of the 20th century are orders of magnitude greater than the fallout of any other revolution, before or since. We're talking about the greatest mass killings ever seen my man.
anigbrowl 17y ago
The Labor theory of value was as much a creation of Adam Smith and David Ricardo as Karl Marx. No less a personage than Lincoln extolled it in glowing terms; economics wasn't that sophisticated back then. Blaming Marx directly for the evils of totalitarianism is absurd. I am a capitalist but I recognize that this system has also been a vehicle for exploitation and repression, just like communism and mercantilism. Marx didn't kill anyone or urge the death of anyone, he just viewed the system of bourgeois (middle class) capitalism as unsustainable, just as hereditary feudalism had proved unsustainable before that. His ideas about what would and should replace it are wrong, but foolishness is not the same as mendacity. The man's philosophies have led to more misery than just about anyone else in history. A bold statement...and an unsupportable one. Shall we examine the influence of platonic thought on subsequent authority? Or the lives lost in pursuit of monotheistic ideals? How many have died under the banner of droit de seigneur? Most of us enjoy the modern luxury of evaluating Marx's errors from a position of considerable economic and political freedom, far removed from what was available to the proletariat during Marx's day. Back then, most people weren't allowed to vote; even the various reform acts brought very slow progress and women weren't considered worthy of having political opinions until long after Marx had died.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Thank you for formulating such a concise, clear, and true reply. I've tried many times, and never been able to express it so well. I'm going to copy this off into my notebook for future use, if you don't mind.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

siculars 17y ago

You are my hero, lionhearted. I could not agree with you more. My mother and the remnants of her family fled communist Russia in 1970. And when I say "fled" I really mean ran as fast and as far as they could. Marx preached violent struggle against those that had a different world view from his own. He should be demonized everywhere.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Several members of my wife's family were nabbed during China's rightist movement. They were tricked by Mao's urging for constructive criticism. When they offered opinions that they meant to be helpful, they were imprisoned, some for as long as twenty years. Elsewhere on HN people have been criticized for what's been called a knee-jerk reaction to socialist ideas. But the history of socialism makes that reaction every bit as legitimate as the reaction to touching a hot stove.
- notauser 17y ago
  Communism is not socialism is not totalitarianism. Sweden is a socialist state, and a family is a commune. Just because ideas have failed spectacularly in some places and on some scales doesn't mean they don't work well elsewhere.
  - pyre 17y ago
    The point that people are trying to argue here is that Marx himself felt that there was always bloody struggle to implement social change. There were several 'phases' of political change that he defines. I can't remember them all (last time I read this stuff was Philosophy 101, Feudalism was probably one of them), but currently we are on "Democracy/Capitalism". The next stage would be "Socialism" and then "Communism." He viewed transition between stages as only coming about through bloody revolution. Side Note: While people like to say "Socialism == Communism", Marx viewed them as separate and distinct 'stages' of political/economic development.
    - Locke1689 17y ago

ajross 17y ago

You're right, of course. And yet Marx himself was not, himself, a despot or murderer. He was probably a pretty nice guy. Your description is therefore similarly incomplete. He can be both things. History is complicated, and not well served by summary arguments.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
pavel_lishin 17y ago
Yeah. All he did was advocate violence, he didn't actually commit any. All around pal.
- ajross 17y ago
  Thomas Jefferson did almost exactly the same thing. As did Nelson Mandela. There's a pretty big moral space between advocating the overthrow of a government and the behavior of a Stalin or Pol Pot. Marx belongs to the former category, not the latter. But because of events that happened decades after his death, he's remembered as something he wasn't. His crime was being wrong, not evil.
  - w00pla 17y ago
    > As did Nelson Mandela. Yes, and he was imprisoned for it. But what made Mandela great is that he changed and became a reconciliation figure. The young MK starter and ANCYL member did not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. But the Mandela in 1991 did.
access_denied 17y ago
Because he had no power to be a despot - that's all.

stcredzero 17y ago

> I think it's clear that no Communist nation has ever succeeded in being the bastion of democratic, personal freedom that it was ever intended to be. Totalitarian states have all kinds of justifications for being. Most often, it was nationalism and/or religion. Non religious ideologies like communism are a phenomenon of modern times. But note that the ideologies are largely incidental. It's just a psychological jamming mechanism to fool people into letting the totalitarian structure get into place.

DannoHung 17y ago

Wow, I'm not even trying to argue that he had a good philosophy, just that his ideas ended up being massive failures from what he originally intended. People cannot be judged solely by the consequences of their actions, in any case; context is also important. We don't consider Robert J Oppenheimer or Albert Einstein mass murderers even though their work very directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of civilians. We do consider Osama bin Laden a mass murder though. Maybe you ought to be a little less vindictive in your judgment of historical figures.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

yread 17y ago

Well your argument isn't exactly strong either. What is "socially necessary abstract labor-time"? You didn't say why did you start debunking his confused theories from this point. Wikipedia says: The simplest definition of socially necessary labour time is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity. but none of the examples you gave actually are comodities. Somebody would have to pay for them - obviously that's possible but lets see how: Pasteurization is an invention - the patent system is at least as flawed as Marx's theories Creating GMail - software patents QED Picasso - work of art, copyrights, again a very hot topic even now Besides is it such a central point anyway? Obviously his theories led to people dying. Then again without the threat of communism we would be probably still forced to work without unions, without social and health security and a million of other beneficial things. How can you judge Marx's contribution to history only negatively as a "no friend of humanity" is beyond me. You cannot see the world around you just in black and white!

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Marx's work predates the marginal revolution, so he can't be personally faulted for not understanding concepts like marginally decreasing utility. But at least as I understand his work, much rest on his association of labor with value. And if you want to focus only on commodities, well, this is where the effect of marginal utility is most pronounced. And since marginal utility pretty much destroys the relationship between labor and value, it should be sufficient to discredit Marx's economics. (not that this is the only argument) without the threat of communism we would be probably still forced to work without unions... I can't imagine how you built such an idea. Particularly since unions in particular are fundamentally communist.

jhancock 17y ago

Marx was a tool for change in China mostly only in name. And that was limited more than Western minds have been taught. Chinese were and are good at reading between the lines of propaganda. I agree Marx was not correct in his economic theories and he certainly crossed the line in advocating violence as opposed to simply predicting it most likely. He's certainly no hero. However, anyone committing violence or supporting the status quo which directly or indirectly suppresses is the actor that deserves most blame. Blaming a person that lived on another continent and I'm guessing did not speak Chinese (maybe I'm wrong?) is really a stretch.

vorador 17y ago

> ...generally fostered violence and hostility between groups of people that do the best when they work together to create the best world together. You seem to forget that the nineteenth century was extremely harsh (sorry, I lack a better word) for the working class. There were no regulations on anything - for instance, before a regulation law was passed (around 1860 iirc), flour , could contain things like sweat, cobwebs, and other tasty things. It is also a well known fact that the industrial revolution had an effect on the workers - the average worker lost 20 to 30 cm of height : http://www.victorianweb.org/history/workers2.html http://www.victorianweb.org/history/workers2.html Speaking from the 21st century, it seems easy to dismiss Marx as irrelevant. He wasn't. He just shows from how far we come from. Besides, saying Marx brought the khmers rouges is like saying Nietzsche brought the nazis. (sorry for the faults, by the way, english is not my mother tongue)

lionhearted 17y ago
> You seem to forget that the nineteenth century was extremely harsh (sorry, I lack a better word) for the working class. Life had been harsh for almost all of history for the vast majority of people. During the nineteeth century, the general poverty that had been spread throughout the land congregated into cities for a chance at a better life there. Life was harsh, but not because of manmade oppression so much as the fact that life had always been harsh. With industrialization, quality of life improved dramatically. > It is also a well known fact that the industrial revolution had an effect on the workers - the average worker lost 20 to 30 cm of height From your link: "Their stature low--the average height of four hundred men, measured at different times, and different places, being five feet six inches." That was taller than almost all of Continental Europe at that time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_h... Height in England currently averages 5'10 for men; over that time, the whole world has gotten taller than England. The industrialized nations heights rose faster than non-Industrial, poverty and malnutrition was lower. To this day, Industrialized places are much more pleasant to live than non-Industrial. For instance, South Koreans born post-Korean War are currently 5 inches taller than North Koreans. They're a lot healthier and happier too. > Speaking from the 21st century, it seems easy to dismiss Marx as irrelevant. He wasn't. Just the opposite. Not irrelevant. Lots of bloodshed happened from his ideas. Everywhere that implemented them had their scientific, economic, and artistic progress completely stunted, along with bloodshed and social control. I'd take this lightly, but it can't be taken lightly. > He just shows from how far we come from. Hopefully, yes. His ideas belong on the same scrap heap that fascism does: A way to rally a crowd over emotionally charged language that doesn't add up in real life. > Besides, saying Marx brought the khmers rouges is like saying Nietzsche brought the nazis. Did you read that Khmer Rouge link? They tried to do a Marxian revolution exactly. They were dogmatic about it, it's scary how bought into they were to orthodox, agricultural, labor-based Marxism, anti-capitalism, anti-bourgeois. They really, truly, deeply bought into Marxism. "...the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labor projects. In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 7.1 million people, as of 1975[2]), it was one of the most lethal regimes of the 20th century. The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments." Check the Khmer Rouge link out thoroughly if you haven't yet - it's the most literal attempt to put Orthodox, pure Marxism into action the world has ever seen.

Locke1689 17y ago

Nuh-uh, no, you can't give him this sort of pass. He introduced the concept of "class struggle" and "class warfare" that took over so much of modern labor/monetary/commerce/market vocabulary, and specifically said that the transition to socialism/communism will take proletariat violence. The man has inspired as much harm and destruction as any person in history. Nope, he advocated the initial overthrow of the government. Following needless violence against civilians was never in his playbook. And he's not even right Well... yes. That's why we're not Socialist... The man's philosophies have led to more misery than just about anyone else in history. Philosophies which inspire moral outrage are despicable. Marx himself wrote no letter which advocated the truly despicable actions you speak of. For that we should blame the ones truly responsible: Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I'd implore you to please, please, please stop seeing Marx as a misguided would-be hero. Your parent did no such thing. Marx was no friend of humanity, and should be remembered as someone who had bad and violent ideas that led to millions of people oppressed and killed as part of the "proletariat revolution to overthrow the bourgeois". Every revolutionary's ideas end up causing similar devastation. Democracy certainly has. So has civil rights. Marx brought this kind of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge Laughable. The Khmer Rouge followed Das Kapital in name only. Please, please get educated and stop whimsically giving him a nod. I would say the same but I am not as disrespectful.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Nope, he advocated the initial overthrow of the government. Following needless violence against civilians was never in his playbook. I never understood him to address the government as such. I understood him to advocate the overthrow of the "bourgeoisie". That is, a class of people, distinguished (among other things) by the fact that they were the ones financing (i.e., accepting the risks for) industry. It was not simply a case of unseating rulers, or even attacking the persons embodying the rule. It was far more broad, attacking ones citizen neighbors simply because they were landowners, for example. Every revolutionary's ideas end up causing similar devastation. Absurd. The results of "communist" revolutions of the 20th century are orders of magnitude greater than the fallout of any other revolution, before or since. We're talking about the greatest mass killings ever seen my man.

anigbrowl 17y ago

The Labor theory of value was as much a creation of Adam Smith and David Ricardo as Karl Marx. No less a personage than Lincoln extolled it in glowing terms; economics wasn't that sophisticated back then. Blaming Marx directly for the evils of totalitarianism is absurd. I am a capitalist but I recognize that this system has also been a vehicle for exploitation and repression, just like communism and mercantilism. Marx didn't kill anyone or urge the death of anyone, he just viewed the system of bourgeois (middle class) capitalism as unsustainable, just as hereditary feudalism had proved unsustainable before that. His ideas about what would and should replace it are wrong, but foolishness is not the same as mendacity. The man's philosophies have led to more misery than just about anyone else in history. A bold statement...and an unsupportable one. Shall we examine the influence of platonic thought on subsequent authority? Or the lives lost in pursuit of monotheistic ideals? How many have died under the banner of droit de seigneur? Most of us enjoy the modern luxury of evaluating Marx's errors from a position of considerable economic and political freedom, far removed from what was available to the proletariat during Marx's day. Back then, most people weren't allowed to vote; even the various reform acts brought very slow progress and women weren't considered worthy of having political opinions until long after Marx had died.