3 ms·

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/monet

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.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  I understood him to advocate the overthrow of the "bourgeoisie". This is mostly correct, although the correct translation for him would be the ruling class. It was far more broad, attacking ones citizen neighbors simply because they were landowners, for example. Never. One's neighbors are one's allies in the class struggle against the ruling class. Landowners would never be the "neighbors" of a peasant in Czarist Russia. More precisely, it would be a war waged beneath the underclass (in Russia, the serfs and such) and the ruling class. I think you have your view of history tainted by modern preconceptions. Also, you have to be careful of certain translations. Das Kapital and Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei in the original German lead to certain nuances of language that can be lost in a poor translation. Moore's is probably the best, although not perfect. The results of "communist" revolutions of the 20th century are orders of magnitude greater than the fallout of any other revolution, before or since. Oh, so the October Revolution (Октябрьская революция) had many more casualties than the American Revolution? Or the French Revolution (Liberté, égalité, fraternité!)? Or the American Civil War? Well, no. The incidents to which you refer are the massacres conducted by despotic rulers in so-called Communist countries. In fact, they weren't even called "Communist". They were Stalinist. Or Maoist. You hang these acts around Marx's neck like a noose but he didn't advocate them and would never approve. Marx didn't advocate massacre or mass slaughter or starvation (of the proletariat, no less!). He advocated violent revolution. Once that was done, however, the state was under the control of the people and no more violence was necessary than that needed to keep the peace. And Pol Pot? Pol Pot wasn't even remotely Marxist. Most of the Khmer Rouge attacks were targeted at the intellectuals. The intellectuals?! These were Marx's people! The intellectuals were necessary to help build a global Communist free state. Marx certainly didn't advocate killing himself. You see, you have mistaken the acts of depravity that are the responsibility of the ones who committed them as done under the order of the "eternal Marx." In truth, Marx was nothing more than a name and a scapegoat. The people who committed these actions were stark, raving mad and committed most of them out of personal prejudice and thirst for power and control. As far as history goes, nothing out of the ordinary.
  - w00pla 17y ago
    > Landowners would never be the "neighbors" of a peasant in Czarist Russia. Why then the persecution of Kulaks? > More precisely, it would be a war waged beneath the underclass (in Russia, the serfs and such) and the ruling class. Karl Marx had a word for the “underclass” as you describe them. That is the “lumen-proletariat” (i.e. under the proletariat). What he advocated for them was as bad (if not worse) as his policies against the bourgeois.

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.

Locke1689 17y ago
I understood him to advocate the overthrow of the "bourgeoisie". This is mostly correct, although the correct translation for him would be the ruling class. It was far more broad, attacking ones citizen neighbors simply because they were landowners, for example. Never. One's neighbors are one's allies in the class struggle against the ruling class. Landowners would never be the "neighbors" of a peasant in Czarist Russia. More precisely, it would be a war waged beneath the underclass (in Russia, the serfs and such) and the ruling class. I think you have your view of history tainted by modern preconceptions. Also, you have to be careful of certain translations. Das Kapital and Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei in the original German lead to certain nuances of language that can be lost in a poor translation. Moore's is probably the best, although not perfect. The results of "communist" revolutions of the 20th century are orders of magnitude greater than the fallout of any other revolution, before or since. Oh, so the October Revolution (Октябрьская революция) had many more casualties than the American Revolution? Or the French Revolution (Liberté, égalité, fraternité!)? Or the American Civil War? Well, no. The incidents to which you refer are the massacres conducted by despotic rulers in so-called Communist countries. In fact, they weren't even called "Communist". They were Stalinist. Or Maoist. You hang these acts around Marx's neck like a noose but he didn't advocate them and would never approve. Marx didn't advocate massacre or mass slaughter or starvation (of the proletariat, no less!). He advocated violent revolution. Once that was done, however, the state was under the control of the people and no more violence was necessary than that needed to keep the peace. And Pol Pot? Pol Pot wasn't even remotely Marxist. Most of the Khmer Rouge attacks were targeted at the intellectuals. The intellectuals?! These were Marx's people! The intellectuals were necessary to help build a global Communist free state. Marx certainly didn't advocate killing himself. You see, you have mistaken the acts of depravity that are the responsibility of the ones who committed them as done under the order of the "eternal Marx." In truth, Marx was nothing more than a name and a scapegoat. The people who committed these actions were stark, raving mad and committed most of them out of personal prejudice and thirst for power and control. As far as history goes, nothing out of the ordinary.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > Landowners would never be the "neighbors" of a peasant in Czarist Russia. Why then the persecution of Kulaks? > More precisely, it would be a war waged beneath the underclass (in Russia, the serfs and such) and the ruling class. Karl Marx had a word for the “underclass” as you describe them. That is the “lumen-proletariat” (i.e. under the proletariat). What he advocated for them was as bad (if not worse) as his policies against the bourgeois.