Most people agree that we need to improve
our economic system somehow. Yet we’re also often keen to dismiss the ideas of capitalism’s
most famous and ambitious critic, Karl Marx. This isn’t very surprising. In practice, his political and economic ideas have been
used to design disastrously planned economies and nasty dictatorships. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t reject Marx too
quickly. We ought to see him as a guide whose diagnosis of Capitalism’s ills helps us
navigate towards a more promising future. Capitalism is going to have be reformed – and
Marx’s analyse are going to be part of any answer.
Marx was born in 1818 in Trier, Germany. Soon he became involved with the Communist party, a tiny group of intellectuals advocating
for the overthrow of the class system and the abolition of private property. He worked
as a journalist and had to flee Germany, eventually settling in London. Marx wrote an enormous number of books and
articles, sometimes with his friend Friedrich Engels Mostly, Marx wrote about Capitalism, the type
of economy that dominates the western world. It was, in his day, still getting going, and
Marx was one of its most intelligent and perceptive critics. These were some of the problems he identified
with it: Modern work is “alienated”
One of Marx’s greatest insights is that work can be one of the sources of our greatest
joys. But in order to be fulfilled at work, Marx
wrote that workers need ‘to see themselves in the objects they have created’. Think
of the person who built this chair: it is straightforward, strong, honest and elegant It’s an example of how, at its
best, labour offers us a chance to externalise what’s good inside us. But this is increasingly
rare in the modern world. Part of the problem is that modern work is
incredibly specialised. Specialised jobs make the modern economy highly efficient, but they
also mean that it is seldom possible for any one worker to derive a sense of the genuine
contribution they might be making to the real needs of humanity.
Marx argued that modern work leads to alienation=Entfremdung in other words, a feeling of disconnection
between what you do all day and who you feel you really are and what you think you ideally be able to
contribute to existence. Modern work is insecure
Capitalism makes the human being utterly expendable; just one factor among others in the forces
of production that can ruthlessly be let go the minute that costs rise or savings can
be made through technology. And yet, as Marx knew, deep inside of us, we don’t want to
be arbitrarily let go, we are terrified of being abandoned.
Communism isn’t just an economic theory. Understood emotionally, it expresses a deep-seated
longing that we always have a place in the world’s heart, that we will not be cast
out. Workers get paid little while capitalists
get rich This is perhaps the most obvious qualm Marx
had with Capitalism. In particular, he believed that capitalists shrunk the wages of the labourers
as much as possible in order to skim off a wide profit margin. He called this
primitive accumulation=ursprüngliche Akkumulation Whereas capitalists see profit as a reward
for ingenuity and technological talent, Marx was far more damning. Profit is simply theft,
and what you are stealing is the talent and hard work of your work force. However much one dresses up the fundamentals,
Marx insists that at its crudest, capitalism means paying a worker one price for doing
something that can be sold for another, much higher one. Profit is a fancy term for exploitation. Capitalism is very unstable Marx proposed that capitalist systems are
characterised by series of crises. Every crisis is dressed up by capitalists as being somehow
freakish and rare and soon to be the last one. Far from it, argued Marx, crises are endemic to capitalism – and they’re
caused by something very odd. The fact that we’re able to produce too much – far more
than anyone needs to consume. Capitalist crises are crises of abundance,
rather than – as in the past – crises of shortage. Our factories and systems are so efficient,
we could give everyone on this planet a car, a house, access to a decent school and hospital. That’s what so enraged Marx and made him
hopeful too. Few of us need to work, because the modern economy is so productive. But rather than seeing this need not to work
as the freedom it is, we complain about it masochistically and describe it by a pejorative
word “unemployment.” We should call it freedom. There’s so much unemployment for a good
and deeply admirable reason: because we’re so good at making things efficiently. We’re
not all needed at the coal face. But in that case, we should – thought Marx
– make leisure admirable. We should redistribute the wealth of the massive corporations that
make so much surplus money and give it to everyone. This is, in its own way, as beautiful a dream
as Jesus’s promise of heaven; but a good deal more realistic sounding. Capitalism is bad for capitalists Marx did not think capitalists were evil.
For example, he was acutely aware of the sorrows and secret agonies that lay behind bourgeois
marriage. Marx argued that marriage was actually an
extension of business, and that the bourgeois family was fraught with tension, oppression,
and resentment, with people staying together not for love but for financial reasons. Marx believed that the capitalist system forces
everyone to put economic interests at the heart of their lives, so that they can no
longer know deep, honest relationships. He called this psychological tendency commodity fetishism=Warenfetischismus because it makes us value things that have
no objective value. He wanted people to be freed from financial
constraint so that they could – at last – start to make sensible, healthy choices in their
relationships. The 20th century feminist answer to the oppression
of women has been to argue that women should be able to go out to work. Marx’s answer
was more subtle. This feminist insistence merely perpetuates human slavery. The point
isn’t that women should imitate the sufferings of their male colleagues,it’s that men and
women should have the permanent option to enjoy leisure. Why don’t we all think a bit more like marx? An important aspect of Marx’s work is that
he proposes that there is an insidious, subtle way in which the economic system colours the
sort of ideas that we ending up having. The economy generates what Marx termed an
“ideology”. A capitalist society is one where most people,
rich and poor, believe all sorts of things that are really just value judgements that
relate back to the economic system: that a person who doesn’t work is worthless, that
leisure (beyond a few weeks a year) is sinful, that more belongings will make us happier
and that worthwhile things (and people) will invariably make money. In short, one of the biggest evils of Capitalism
is not that there are corrupt people at the top—this is true in any human hierarchy—but
that capitalist ideas teach all of us to be anxious, competitive, conformist, and politically
complacent. Marx didn’t only outline what was wrong
capitalism: we also get glimpses of what Marx wanted the ideal utopian future to be like. In his Communist Manifesto he describes a world
without private property or inherited wealth, with a steeply graduated income tax, centralised
control of the banking, communication, and transport industries, and free public education.
Marx also expected that communist society would allow people to develop lots of different
sides of their natures: “in communist society…it is possible for
me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon,
rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever
becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” After Marx moved to London he was supported
by his friend and intellectual partner Friedrich Engels, a wealthy man whose father owned a
cotton plant in Manchester. Engels covered Marx’s debts and made sure his works were
published. Capitalism paid for Communism. The two men even wrote each other adoring
poetry. Marx was not a well-regarded or popular intellectual
in his day. Respectable, conventional people of Marx’s day would have laughed at the idea that his
ideas could remake the world. Yet just a few decades later they did: his writings became
the keystone for some of the most important ideological movements of the 20th century. But Marx was like a brilliant doctor in the
early days of medicine. He could recognise the nature of the disease, although he had
no idea how to go about curing it. At this point in history, we should all be
Marxists in the sense of agreeing with his diagnosis of our troubles. But we need to
go out and find the cures that will really work. As Marx himself declared, and we deeply
agree: Philosophers until now have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however,
is to change it.

100 Replies to “POLITICAL THEORY – Karl Marx”

  1. Did anybody else get Uncanny Valley-ed by this video. Like the information was useful but I was really distracted by my stomach doing summersaults any time Marx popped onscreen. Or The Scream. I actually jumped when he popped up over the top of the cubicle.

  2. Who said that if capitalism fails then we move to communism? Both systems are evil and they'll never work!! Both are created in a way that the end will concentrate immense power in the hand of a few! That's how things are now. NWO. Remember Marx was an elder of Zion.

  3. "Corporations, multi billionaires, have too much control over government and society." – If there are no subsidies, regulations and tax exemptions, meaning it is not in competence of government to implement those policies, then there is nothing to have controll over in the government. These are socialist features. The business literally colludes with state . This is not capitalism! Yet you want hybrid system of socialism/capitalism and slowly drift towards more socialist policies. How can you think this will reduce arbitrary, unjust inequalities in society??? Its probably the blindness to own moral injustice you commit by deeming power to create wealth as dehumanizing…

  4. Yeah, his ideas are beautiful… but they are not the truth… because the theory of exploitation is based on fake premises…

  5. Man is a seeking being. We strive to find our place in society. Marx was one of the few that actually manage to understand this and see how society builds and topples over itself

  6. I really like how this isn't critical of Marx. But shows it in a independent light. I only recently became more Marxist because I wanted to find out for myself what all the fuss was about. Thanks.

  7. Das Kapital is a long book….and what is the logical conclusion in it: "just take from working, rich people – and give to non-working poor people". AND: "Stop all creativity of people and enterprise – so noone gets rich in front of others…. – stop progress!"

  8. Anyone who reads and understands a little about the Austrian School of economy can see that they refuted everything Marx said about capitalism
    Search for
    Karl Menger
    Bohm Bawerk
    Ludwig Von Mises
    Friedrich Hayek
    Murray Rothbard

  9. btw, the explanations are very inaccurate to me. Exploitation could be explained properly. Also self-alienation is not only about meaningless tasks, but about not being able to enjoy the fruit of one's work.

  10. As much as I don't agree with his political/economic views, Marx gave though and tried to understand the world and how it could improve, which is much more than most people of his day and now. And, in a more radical level, is those types of people that make the wolrd advance.

  11. 9 and half minutes justifying laziness. Didn't marx know that his abundance of "leisure" would only make him even fatter?

  12. "His writing became the keystone for some of the most important ideological movements of the 20th century" Nice way of saying his ideas killed 100 million people…

  13. And we are all here sitting on a computer or mobile phone financed and built by Capitalists. On, a website financed by Capitalists. Using electricity financed by Capitalists. Makes me wonder how this backwards thinking really helps the common man. Didn't work in Russia isn't looking to pretty in Venezuela or Cuba. Hmmmm… makes me wonder why all these Communists and Liberals think the government can do a better jobs at redistributing wealth then themselves. Humans are not equal and we all desire different objectives in life. Should it be up to you or the government to decide what you do with your life? I'll leave it that…

  14. I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time. Excellent entertainment! Let’s conveniently leave out all of the negatives of communism. This will fall on def ears, but oh well. God bless who ever reads this regardless and wish you the best.

  15. So your saying that the people like the rich businessmen who worked harder than the average person should have to share his ir her business. Sounds like people are fucking lazy. Damn commies

  16. Theres a website called film your marxist professor. Imagine if you're professor loved Hitler or Castro…🤣🤣🤣 these ppl are too stupid

  17. "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general." ~ Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question", 1844.

  18. "Terrifying planned economies and vile dictatorships?"
    Are you talking about the USA? That robs and bombs half the world ..

  19. Communism sounds so warm and inviting until they use up all of the wealth of the wealthy ! Then the true colors of control over the people come out,,they didn't refer to the Russians as Slavs( meaning slaves) for nothing ! This ideology is poison for anyone who is naive enough to swallow it.

  20. It's all about spreading the wealth of the rich. But again, it is close to impossible.
    Greediness and fear of new competitors.

  21. Ok with 1 & 2. Still, I don't think they're strong enough critics to Capitalism. Not in the areas of invention and design, art productions and even in social media life.
    3 and 4 and ridiculous. Mostly because 3 is a strong force of impulse and motivation that, not riskfree, justifies why capitalism crisis (point 4) consist on abundancy (while comunism crisis meant misery and lack of production and distribution). Proof? In the last centuries, as the rich got richer, the poor got less poor. Marxist "Leissure" (aka unemployment / lack of enterprice) goes against the motivation needed to produce. Punish the ones that produce and production goes to mud.
    5. really? Well I guess it's the easiest one to disproof. You know… with all the divorce going on and whatnot.
    and on his proposal on that same point (specialy on "no more private property") I wonder if those propositions were ever instantiated… How did that work out?

    "We should all be marxists". That's when I decided on the thumb down.

    (Pardon my English. I'm from Argentina… and marxisms is not working that well here as you may or may not know).

  22. I heard that 100 million people perished in the hands of communism. So I’m supposed to work real hard while the other guy goes fishing? Great deal for the guy fishing. And I can’t own property? How do I know my lawn will get mowed if I live on someone else’s land? Communism has never worked and never will. Marxism vision is purely delusional.

  23. the top of his head is bigger than Mao Zedong's and his beard is more alive than most people today. no wonder why people dismissed him

  24. Problem is, all that centralized control just produces hypocrites and authoritarians, preaching about the rights of the workers but they themselves getting filthy rich, even more than the capitalists. Agree with all the criticisms tho, it's so evident in the world today.

  25. Very hard to know what the actual truth is as far as the "crimes" of communism…I grew up in Poland while it was under the USSR's control and honestly, i had a much less stressful life…that was just as if not more fulfilling than what I have now. But point being is in school in Poland back then we were taught COMPLETELY different things then what we teach kids in the states…and honestly my guess is that both history books are bias and the truth, as usual is somewhere in between…cheers

  26. Marx's relationship between capital and surplus value:

    "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value."But this production of surplus-value completes but the first act of the capitalist process of production…”*

    Got that? Marx has just provided us with his big discovery. Easy enough to understand. So, ready for the big surprise?

    Let's start the capitalist mode of production, according to Marx.

    What do we need? We need capital, of course. So let's get some capital, shall we? I'm looking, but I can't find any? Oops! I forgot, we need surplus value to create the capital. Okay, let's look for surplus value. It's not there because surplus value emanates from capital!

    There's nothing there! Not even a circular logic argument is present! Obviously the Marxist leadership know this, because I couldn't be the first person to stumble upon this huge discovery.

    At my blog, read the articles…

    'House of Cards: The Collapse of the 'Collapse' of the USSR'

    'Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia'

    'The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation'


    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.

    My blog…


    * https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm

  27. The critical function of profits is to inform the economy where precisely to direct the scarce factors of production of labor, capital and resources, those three categories having literally trillions of permutations. The purpose for profit is to ensure that the factors of production are not only correctly matched, but ensures that only the most productive avenues for the factors of production are realized, the greater the profit, the more urgently needed, therefore productive, is the resulting consumption good or service. We live in a world of scarcity, where millions of economic projects could be mounted, but which of those economic projects is the most productive, the most urgently needed? There's no way to tell without profit, profit being the economy's watchdog for the correct allocation of labor, capital and resources. Without profit entrepreneurs would be blind, deploying labor, capital and resources towards myriad wasteful business endeavors.

    At my blog, read the articles…

    ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’

    'House of Cards: The Collapse of the 'Collapse' of the USSR'
    'Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia'

    My blog…


  28. The purpose of marriage is for the rearing of children, where the critical socializing of the child into the worlds of both men and women is performed, including how each spouse is to behave towards the other. This alerts us to the Marxist societal sabotage operation called 'Same-Sex Marriage', where (1) the child is bereft of one of the gender socialization inputs; (2) thereby denied the duel-gender interactive socialization input; which culminates in (3) a dysfunctional adult's inability to successfully interact with the opposite sex.

  29. Alienation? There is no alienation gene in the human DNA, and entrepreneurs become wealthy because they invented productive goods and services consumers need, the need identified by the magnitude of the profit earned. Alienation is a world without God's Truth, and this brings us to the real purpose for Marx's materialist philosophy:

    The video didn't inform us that before Marx transferred his university studies to Berlin he was a lovely young man with an ardent Christian attitude. Then suddenly he turned. Why he turned we don't know, but he didn't turn towards atheism, as we've been told. Marx always remained a theist (believing there is a God), but now waged a personnel war with God, as his poetry informs us:

    "Thus Heaven I've forfeited,
    I know it full well,
    My soul, once true
    to God, Is chosen for hell."*


    "With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
    Full in the face
    of the world,
    And see the collapse
    of this pygmy giant
    Whose fall will
    not stifle my ardour.
    Then will I wander
    godlike and victorious
    Through the ruins
    of the world
    And, giving my
    words an active force,
    I will feel equal
    to the Creator."*

    Marx wrote those poems AFTER he entered university, telling us (1) Marx always remained a theist, feigning atheism; and (2) that we were lied to when told that once Marx entered university that's when he became an atheist. As for the rank and file Marxists, they're marionettes, whose strings are pulled by the Marxist leadership class who are actually Satanists; Satanists have been active within our institutions for millennia, as Jesus warned us.

    The "abolition of religion" is the purpose for Socialism, as directed by Karl Marx…

    Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right“, Karl Marx (1843)


    "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."


    "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."


    "It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world."

    * http://horst-koch.de/karl-marx/

  30. Life expectancy, infant mortality, education, clean water, nutrition, civil rights and prosperity are all improving. And have been since the fall of the USSR. Don’t let Marxism make you dissatisfied. Gratitude is the antidote to Marxist poison.

  31. Marx was right in everything he said , although we have not tried real communism the Marx way .

    We have never implemented real Communism sadly it has all been more authoritarian than communism .

  32. Let's adress the qualms:
    1- work was always alienating, you may use craftmanship as a pretty example but you're letting out all other kinds of jobs, like cleaning animal shit, plowing the fields for example. Even if you take craftmanship what the craftman builds and what he WANTS to build may not be allinged, also jobs are a mean to achieve something, not the end on itself, and even in the modern era you can do meaningful work, if that is what you find purpose in.
    2- Work IS insecure and has always been. Again if you're a peasant and you get severly injured you cannot plow the field anymore, so good luck finding another job in a society with little socioeconomic mobility and work flexibility. The idea of a job being secure is pretty much just a consolation, the only security in any given system is that no matter the situation you can always find a job, any job.
    3- The idea that workers are paid "little" is higly subjective and it fails to adress an important question ¿Is it really unfair? Also, as well, throughout history you had always low paying, end of the stick jobs and people who greatly beneffited from said jobs so blaming capitalism for it is utterly stupid. Also Marx's exploitation theory (or should i say rodberthus's) is derived from a theory called "labor value theory" wich states that the value of things comes from the labor required to obtain it, basically that prices are determined by the costs of production, theory that got utterly crushed by karl menger and his theory of imputation demonstrating that the opposite is truth, that prices are what determine costs, since value is SUBJECTIVE(aka the same bottle of water is worhtless in a modern city but priceless in the middle of the desert). That goes wothout saying that labor, and by workers, were always inherently "disposable", afterall goverments send soldiers to war, people from the slums to clean the shit of the cattle and slaves to plow the fields, it's not a consequence of capitalism rather one of human nature. There is more to say about this topic but let's end this argument by posting the important, yet unadressed, question ¿If the wage is determined in a negotiation were both parties agreed voluntarily what about it is unfair?
    4- Crisis are indemic to goverment intervention, since polititians and their cronies are human they are guided by self interest and its in their best interest to regulate and control the market to gain power and profit, those interventions and regulations end up distorting the price system thus probing people into misalocating resources, being the biggest offender the monetary policies since it distorts the value of money by distorting the most important price in the entire economy, interest rates, in order to finance their corrupt institutions and generate profit for themeselves. Why are interest rate the most important price in the economy? Because it represents the temporal preference of the individuals of said society, it is the mehcanism that we use to alocate both present and future resources, it is also important to clarify that interest rate does not depend on money, it just facilitates this process as with any other price. Also by redistributiing wealth you are destroying the incentive to produce wich leads to shortages on the long run. Yet i would concede something in this regard, the actual lack of stability of capitalism is due because, 1 it is not a system rather its the emergent order that arises within any given system, and 2 it actually is due to the greater wealth leading people, wich are always displeased for having less than other, into believing that they could leave through the labor of others, something that marx seemed to forget in his stupid analisis given that even machines have to be built, designed and maintained by humans, wich leads to envy an resentment, something that politicians and their buddies capitalize in other to gain more power by execrting more control over the economy despite the fact that there is no sustainable or scientific way to guide human action in a positive way through coersion.
    5- Again somehting that is not related to capitalism but to human nature, in this case gender dynamics. The heart of the matter in the case for "loveless marriages" is not only because of the political and economic profit, rather it is embebed in the nature of the institution in itself. Marriage IS a buisness, a legal contract, and it was never about love since love is not bound by a piece of paper. Even the peseants had the same issues regarding marriage, yet the constant dehumanization or deification the wealthier or dominant clases were subjeced to, wanted or not, only blinds people to the fact that they are human beings who faces the same hardships and bare, a lot of the time, greater responsibilities. The main reason why we create an institution such as marriage is because as societies stabilizes men are demanded to invest their resources on their women and children, but there's no way for a man to know that said child is legitimate until is to late, so to ensure said legitimacy they trade resource stability for sexual exclusivity. Also no mariage stays toghether because of love it is always due to economic reasons, being economics and finance different things since economics encompases all human action, while finance on deals with the sustainability of a given project or standard of living. Even you yourself talk about being contempt with the "good enough", and your reasoning is primarily economic, you're weightin the costs, risk and potential profit of staying or exiting the current relationship, heck your argumentation is about being more calculating and rational instead of more shallow and passional the difference being in the, oh so lyrical, wording you use.
    To end this huge comment i want to point out 2 things, first the incongruency of marx disfunctional societal model; you cannot have an income tax if there is no private property as there would be no income to tax, second, and mises does a wonderful job explaining this, without private property is impossible to make economic calculations, since everything is owned by nobody, leading to misalocation of resources thus creating scarcity for the thing that people want, third any resource centralized through coersion will lead to more tyrany, especially for banking and commmunication by destoying freedom of speech, a foundational institution of any free society, and the ability of people to save and invest vanquishing any expectation of financial independence that the proletarian could have, free public education is also always a tool for indoctrination since you have a few group of people with money and power deciding what everyone else "should know" instead of giving people the ability to learn by themself what they want to know according to their best individual interest.
    The second thing i wanted to convey here is a relfection, Marx in the end wanted to pursue anarchy and freedom yet he declares that it can only be achieved first through a war to stablish a political and economic system based on control and tyrany while having the answer in front of him all along: just fight for liberty to let people to organize spontaneously to the best of their abilities through honest trading, to let them try, fail and persever in their pursuit of happiness. After all nobody can know everything and everyone, no amount of computation can enforce human action perfectly as humans are imperfect, take responsibility over your life, if you're suffering then own that pain, explore it and try to come up with a solution. You are not alone.

  33. Your definition of primitive acumulation IS NOT Marx's definition of primitive acumulation. What you call "primitive acumulation" is, in marx's theory, called 'surplus value'. Primitive acumulation is the historical event when the workers got severed from the capital (the means of production) in benefit of the newly forming bourgeoisie class

  34. Theres nothing wrong with capitalism thats the free world, but if everyone no matter how rich or poor learned how to give, absolutely nobody would be without. Greed has to be overcome and communism simply dosent work.

  35. Marx solution to create the ultimate Utopia real paradise for everyone but nobody would want to live in it
    You ask why
    Imagine it like a game that everyone finish it no challenge is left and no more playing and is just standing there meaningless . One would want to kill himself just to get out of this utopian.
    There is a real experiment done on rats that summit all

  36. Critics of Marx never condsider his context. 19th Century industrialization wasn't pretty. Marx was right about one thing in particular – capitalism teaches people to buy shit they don't need with money they don't have.

  37. If Karl Marx live today
    He would be a now-it-all armchair economist keyboard warrior… unemployed while living in his mother's basement mooching from parents

  38. lol if Marx was right and capitalist get rich exploiting poor workers than countries with the highest concentrations of capitalists should have the lowest standards of living lmfao i just debunked communism seeing has ppl here on wellfare in the US live better than people in africa and the middle east how is that possible? I can go for days if anyone wants to get wrecked on communism lmfao i had someone tell me capitalism and free markets didnt pull 100s of millions out of poverty how many countries is communism gonna collapse before u realize a man that was lazy and wouldnt work for his family who were starving and was basically taken care of by another man engles is gonna have ideas that fit his life he didnt wanna work but felt entitled its that simple u worship a piece of shit not even a man not a real one that provides for his family and u wanna base a country on what this guy thought WOW…… if he debated Sowell hed get toasted lol

  39. Fascinating how certain radical thinkers, once obscure, now known, can become, hypothetically, generally accessible, available, yet still both obscure and known.  The name of Marx is known, and the work is known to scholars and students and activists, but the general public, in many ways, remains clueless of the actual content… Can film bring him closer? DG  Excerpt: “Marx’s originality lies in affirming that history is simultaneously dialectic and economic,” noted essayist Albert Camus in his book The Rebel (Vintage/Random House, 1956; page 198).  The Young Karl Marx, Raoul Peck’s film, begins with the young philosopher Karl Marx’s critique of the persecution of desperate peasants, who go into forests to gather dead wood, something considered theft, for which they were arrested or beaten or even killed.  Marx, a passionate but poor writer married to a well-born woman, was censored for his examination of political power.  Meanwhile, someone who would become a lasting friend and colleague, Friedrich Engels, was working in his father’s English cotton mill and studying industrial production from the perspectives of both boss and worker.  The two men, alone and together, would become part of a dynamic insurgent intellectual political culture.  The film, confident, intelligent, succinct, follows their meeting, their close friendship, discourse, and research, and their encounters with activists, editors, and writers, and their concerns with love and money, controversies and exile, and ends with their collaboration in 1847 on The Communist Manifesto, published in early 1848. http://www.compulsivereader.com/2019/09/24/friendship-and-historical-materialism-in-raoul-pecks-the-young-karl-marx/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *