Jump to content

Marx, the Capatilist


ecoli

Recommended Posts

I found this quite interesting, perhaps you will too.

 

Karl Marx, author of the communist manifesto, was a supporter of capatilism in his own way. He believed that government should be a progression, and believed capatilism should precede socialism.

 

Read more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this quite interesting' date=' perhaps you will too.

 

Karl Marx, author of the communist manifesto, was a supporter of capatilism in his own way. He believed that government should be a progression, and believed capatilism should precede socialism.

 

Read more

 

Hah. I had read something similiar to this awhile back.

 

Very interesting, especially for modern-day-Marxists.

 

I mean, their whole view of their "founder" (although he just brought the ideas of communism to the public's view) will change.

 

Thanks for posting this. Intriguing article!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting' date=' especially for modern-day-Marxists.

 

I mean, their whole view of their "founder" (although he just brought the ideas of communism to the public's view) will change.

 

[/quote']

If you have read more than three paragraphs on Marxism you would be well aware of this fact. It isn't, therefore, going to have any impact upon modern Marxists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is capital gained in socialism. the difference is that the capital gained is redistributed to some degree. one could make the claim that the united states has a significant number of socialistic values, such as social security, the sherman antitrust laws, etc. socialism is a limiting factor to the corporate m-c-m' system of economics and promotes c-m-c' economics to a degree, as well as more standard deviation of wealth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then, in unrestricted socialism, there is no capatilism. In complete, unrestricted socialism, no capatile is raised. Each person has a job to do, that contributes to a final project. Everybody needs to do there job in order to run smoothly.

 

For example, John Doe works is a farmer. He grows food that is stored in a warehouse where people are given what they need. In similiar warehouses are stored other things made by other people, that John needs. Everybody works to provide goods for everyone else. There is no monetary system needed, for everyone is interdependant on each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx saw it as a transition:

Capitalism>>Socialism>Communism

Consequently it should have been the most capitalist of states that first became socialist: Germany or the UK were prime candidates in his mind.

He would have been horrified if someone had suggested primitive, feudalistic Russia. It had not progressed to the necesssary pre-condition of capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx saw it as a transition:

Capitalism>>Socialism>Communism

Consequently it should have been the most capitalist of states that first became socialist: Germany or the UK were prime candidates in his mind.

He would have been horrified if someone had suggested primitive' date=' feudalistic Russia. It had not progressed to the necesssary pre-condition of capitalism.[/quote']

 

 

I guess that's way the venture failed miserably. People were forced to uphold comunist ideals by killing them. That doesn't sound very effective to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forced being a key word. Communism is based on the restriction of individual liberty, so it must be forced onto the citizen. This is why it is doomed to failure.

 

*except in a Utopian society. The greed of man will always get the better of him in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*except in a Utopian society. The greed of man will always get the better of him in real life.

 

Not necessarily greed, although that is prevalent. Just reaping what you sow and passing it on to your kids. This is almost instinct I would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not a reduction in rights, because it's based on the choice of the individual. The repurcussions of an individual's actions cannot, by definition, reduce the rights that he has.

 

Reduce choice, yes, but that's not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

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.